Evaluating the Training Load - Victor Schalz (1974)

 Strength & Health - May 1974

*This is a bit of an egghead one, but I found it interesting. Alex Bromley had a great video (linked below) breaking down the USSR "system" and I think this helps support his point of view, which was that the Russians didn't really have their stuff together on anything other than supporting their athletes as professionals. Save the drug comments, as the US had those a-plenty. As we see here, as late as the early part of the 1970's there wasn't even an agreed upon way to track training tonnage and quantifying results.

https://youtu.be/NmfNwxy6GwU?si=DAaK7w7UQt0gQd4I

Any index of training load for weightlifters is of interest to trainers and sportsmen primarily from the point of view of its effect on: The athlete’s organism, the change of its functional condition, the development of sports form, and the improvement of athletic results. If one is to scrutinize, from this point of view, the units of measurement of training load (its volume and intensity) then preference must be given to those units of measurement which bear a large store of information. 

In the early stages of the development of weightlifting, the units of measurement of training load were the number of approaches to the bar. Then N.I. Luchkin put forth the idea of taking stock of the load by kilograms. There were attempts to utilize many indices – gravimetric and intensity indices – as units of measurement of the training load. As an indicator of training load, a kilogramometer was suggested: kilograms per minute for the whole training time, and also the net amount of time spent actually performing exercises. 

At the present time, one means of calculation which has achieved wide currency is using the kilograms in each lift, and also the number of lifts with maximum weights. There are other research works where the unit of calculation was taken as the number of lifts only. A.S. Medvedev analyzed the methods of calculating training load and took stock of 18 different indices.
In the process of training, athletes lift weights of various degrees of heaviness. In both the theory and practice of weightlifting, the most acceptable and agreeable expression of the “dosage” of resistance is, in our opinion, expressed as a percentage of maximum for that particular exercise. The maximum result (maximum) is assumed to be an actual accomplishment of the sportsman or something he is believed to be able to accomplish. But, up to the present time there has been no agreement of opinion in the scientific-methodical literature concerning the designation and classification of weights of resistance. 

The modern weightlifter’s training is characterized by the use of various magnitudes of load: light, medium, and heavy. Research has shown that a combination of the various training loads permits the athlete to increase his sports achievement more effectively. The use of various levels of training gives rise to the necessity for their classification. In weightlifting it’s customary to divide the load into its parameters, specifically – volume (tonnage) and average weight of the barbell (intensity.) 

At the present time there is no unanimity of opinion regarding the criteria for rating the training load. The aim of this article is to put forth common criteria for rating the load of weightlifters in its separate parameters, to put forth common designations and classifications of the separate parameters, and to substantiate the advisability of applying specific criteria. 

The material in Table I shows how different authors designate and distinguish the weight of resistance. With the aim of unification, we propose that loads be tentatively designated and distinguished in the following manner: very light – up to 60.00%; light – from 60.01 to 70.00%; medium – 70.01 to 80.00%; heavy – from 80.01 to 90.00%; maximal – above 90.00%. 

The data in Table II gives an idea as to how various specialists designate and differentiate the volume of training load. In the authors’ opinion one can tentatively differentiate the volume of training load in percentages proceeding from the volume in various cycles, appropriate for the athlete depending on his state of preparedness. We propose that the volume of training load be designated and differentiated thusly: light – to 50%; medium – 50.01 to 70.00%; heavy – over 70.00%. 

In Table III there are examples of the division of the training volume in weekly cycles and in separate training sessions. Our proposed classifications in this example are purely tentative by virtue of the fact that it’s impossible to say precisely what volume is heavy, medium, or light. It’s always imperative  to take into account the individual data of the athlete. Depending on his state of preparedness and the condition of his organism, any given training volume or average weight of bar could be light, medium, or heavy. 

We propose that the average weight of bar (intensity) be distinguished as light, medium, heavy and be divided into percentages of the average weight of the bar in various training cycles. Table IV shows the classifications of the average weight of the bar. 

Separating the average weight of the bar I this way, we proceed from the fact that in various training cycles there are variances in the average weight of the bar: in training sessions (individual sessions) they are higher than on a weekly basis, and even more so than in monthly cycles. At the present time there is great informational value from calculating the number of lifts with maximum weight (above 90%.)

There is no doubt that one must consider the training load separately in the snatch and jerk, since the sum of the biathlon is composed of both the snatch and jerk. Calculation of the load for the whole of training does not give separate information on the snatch and jerk exercises. 

It seems to us that there has been too little experimental work in the sphere of the “dosage” of lifting movements and their calculations, and that there are an abundance of methods and general conclusions reached in sports practice which need experimental verification. 

In working on this article, the authors had as their object, not so much to provide rules or principles or recommendations, but to stimulate researchers to work on this subject, which in our opinion is extremely important.