Content uploaded by Fernando Naclerio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fernando Naclerio on Aug 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
February 2001 Strength and Conditioning Journal 7
■Letter to the Editor
In his letter, Peter F. LaChance
(“ACSM’s Safety and Prescriptive
Guidelines,” Strength and Condi-
tioning Journal, 22[2]:12–13. 2000)
proposed a new classification of
intensity in resistance-training ex-
ercise that is different from the
traditional concept proposed by
the ACSM, which relates the in-
tensity with the magnitude of load
and the percentage that repre-
sents in respect to a maximum
load that a person can mobilize in
a unique effort (1, 4–6). He states
that beside this important factor,
it is also necessary to consider the
number of repetitions done per set
and the cadence of the movement.
I think that this classification
can be improved if we classify the
intensity by 2 principal factors:
1. The magnitude of the load in
a percentage of the maxi-
mum load.
2. The speed of movement that
mobilizes the load over a spe-
cific range of movement.
We can then relate these 2 fac-
tors to the cadence of the repeti-
tion so that load, speed, and ca-
dence determine the real intensity
of effort. It is also important to
consider the number of repetitions
executed per set in respect to the
maximum number that a person
can do to failure within 1 set. The
last is an important factor, which
combined with the other factors
determines how the athlete feels
the effort and creates the training
impulse that the body receives in
each effort or series of efforts.
In Figure 1, I propose another
point of view in order to classify
the intensity in resistance-training
exercises. In this example, differ-
ent intensity zones are determined
by the magnitude of a load in a
percentage with respect to a theo-
retical maximum, the speed of
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
© National Strength & Conditioning Association
Volume 23, Number 1, pages 7–9
T. Jeff Chandler
Column Editor
Figure 1. Determination of intensity in resistance training and type of strength to train at each level of power.
8 Strength and Conditioning Journal February 2001
movement, and the number of
repetitions carried out; the power
(work done in a given time) in re-
spect to a maximum with a given
load becomes the critical factor to
consider during intensity classifi-
cation (2, 3, 8).
In this example, a load of 75%
of 1RM, the athlete did only 4 rep-
etitions, but with the maximum
possible speed and cadence of
movement.
If we consider the traditional
classification of intensity that re-
lates the intensity directly to the
percentage of load (1, 4, 5), this
work would be classified as a mod-
erate load. With LaChance’s con-
cept (7) as medium intensity, but
as long as the velocity of the exe-
cution is maximum, then the
power is very high and the intensi-
ty would be maximum or almost
maximum.
Fernando Naclerio Ayllón,
CSCS
■References
1. Baechle, T.R. Essentials of
Strength Training and Condi-
tioning. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1994.
2. Bosco, C. La fuerza muscular
aspectos metodológicos. Edit
INDE. 2000.
3. Bosco, C. Nuove metodologie
per la valutazione e la pro-
grammazione dell´allena-
mento. Rvista di Cultura
Sportiva. 22:13–22. 1991.
4. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Krae-
mer. Designing Resistance
Training Programs (2nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics, 1997.
5. Hatfield, F. Power: A Scientif-
ic Approach. Chicago: Con-
temporary, 1989.
6. Kraemer, W., S. Fleck, and
J.E. Williams. Strength and
power training: Physiological
mechanism of adaptation.
Exerc. Sports Sci. Rev.
24:363–397. 1996.
7. LaChance, P. Theory and
Practice of Strength Develop-
ment. United States Depart-
ment of Physical Education,
1994. pp. 451.
8. Tihany, I. Sviluppo e pre-
parazione della forza. Rivista
di cultura Sportiva. 17:12–17.
1989.
■Letter to the Editor
I read with interest “Strength and
Conditioning for Fencing” by Mark
Rippetoe (Strength and Condition-
ing Journal, 22[2]:42–47). I con-
gratulate him on his ability to pro-
vide general information regarding
the sport of fencing and the keys
to a successful sports-specific
weight-training program. I would
like to point out an area that is
lacking from the article: muscle
strength imbalances.
Rippetoe pointed out that
fencing is very unique in that the
motions required are very ipsilat-
eral in nature. The majority of
weight bearing and eccentric load-
ing is on the lead (forward) leg,
and explosive attacks are done
only with the lead (weapon) arm.
In more experienced and elite-level
fencers, these factors create the
potential for strength imbalances
in the quadricep, shoulder, and
forearm musculature. Studies
have been done by Sapega (4),
Nyström (3), and myself (1) that
confirm this. In addition, there is
evidence that statistically signifi-
cant strength imbalances increase
the potential for injury (2). This
being said, I believe it is necessary
for any fencing coach and strength
coach to address this issue and in-
struct his or her athletes to per-
form exercises that counteract
this. Lunges, one-legged squats,
and skipping/hopping exercises
for the back leg and single-arm
pulley or dumbbell exercises for
the back arm are examples of ex-
ercises that address this issue.
Kevin M. Casey, MA,
ATC,CSCS
Salt Lake City, Utah
■References
1. Casey, K.M. Strength Imbal-
ances and the Progression of
Strength Imbalances in Colle-
giate Fencers [thesis]. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina, 1994.
2. Knapik, J.J., C.L. Bauman,
and B.H. Jones. Preseason
strength and flexibility imbal-
ances associated with athlet-
ic injuries in female collegiate
athletes. Am. J. Sports Med.
19(1):76–81. 1991.
3. Nyström, J. Physiological and
morphological characteris-
tics of world class fencers.
Int. J. Sports Med. 11(12):
1459–1462. 1990.
4. Sapega, A., J. Minkoff, M.
Valsamis, and J. Nicholas.
Musculoskeletal perfor-
mance testing and profiling
of elite competitive fencers.
Clin. Med. 3:231–244. 1984.
Response from Mark Rippetoe:
The observation is certainly valid,
but I believe that the program sug-
gested in the article addresses the
imbalances inherent in an ipsilat-
eral sport such as fencing. Al-
though it is true that the lunge and
the position of the weapon arm
and back leg produce strength
asymmetries in fencers, the perfor-
mance of these movements requires
a small percentage of absolute
strength, even in a non-resistance-
trained athlete. As the program de-
tailed in the article is implemented
and strength increases in the spec-
ified exercises, the symmetrical na-
ture of the squat, presses, and
pulling movements strengthen all
the muscles in a balanced way,
quickly making irrelevant any
strength asymmetries acquired
during fencing.
A similar observation could be
made regarding the performance
and training of the snatch and the
clean and jerk. In years past, and
indeed today in many masters
competitions, the split snatch and
the split clean were commonly
performed; the split jerk is still the
usual technique. These are asym-
metrical movements, and signifi-
cant strength imbalances would
have been produced if training ex-
cluded other exercises. This was
seldom observed because of the
tendency of weightlifters to train
the squat, presses, and pulling
movements with heavier weights
than those used in the competitive
lifts. Great strength in the heavy
symmetrical exercises renders ir-
relevant the asymmetrical nature
of lighter ipsilateral activity.
Mark Rippetoe
Wichita Falls, TX
February 2001 Strength and Conditioning Journal 9
Jose Antonio
Tom Baechle
Marcus Bamman
Kris Berg
Mike Bergeron
Helen Binkley
Kenneth Cameron
Dave Carfagno
Anthony Caterisano
Matt Comeau
Bruce Craig
Tom Cross
Dwight Daub
Hank Drought
Jeff Fahrenbruch
Avery Faigenbaum
Ioannis Fatouros
Martin Fees
Maria Ferreira
Andy Fry
Mary Fry
John Graham
Ann Grandjean
B. Sue Graves
Marla Graves
Mike Greenwood
Gregory Haff
Patrick Hagerman
Everett Harman
Mary Harrington
Allen Hedrick
Scott Hilbert
Jay Hoffman
Tammy Iglehart
Page Johnson
John Kiger
Stephen Kinzey
Doulas Kleiner
Duane Knudson
John Kordich
Perry Koziris
Jim Kramer
Pete LaChance
Linda Lawyer
Curtis Lords
Page Love
John McCarthy
Patrick McHenry
Gary McIlvain
Alan Mikesky
Harvey Newton
Robert Newton
Kyle Pierce
Steve Plisk
Nick Ratamess
Michael Reed
Kristin Reimers
Raoul Reiser
Ben Reuter
Mark Rossi
Chuck Ruot
Robin Schmidt
Wally Schoessow
Nestor Sherman
Mike Stone
Jeff Stout
Chris Street
Alan Tyson
Tim Uhl
Jin Wang
Dan Wathan
2000 List of Reviewers for Volume 22
Advertisers’Index
FSI Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hammer Strength back cover
Met-Rx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
M-F Athletic . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Safe USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Samson Equipment . . . . . . . 1
UESAKA . . . inside back cover
Vertimax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
York Barbell inside front cover