Weightlifting Forums

Hello All,
Recent information(2018) suggests the following intensities for men's cat:

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?al ... 202587105
For women categories, I suppose it would be similar?

Link doesn't work for me.

Guima73 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 2:28 pm Hello All,
Recent information(2018) suggests the following intensities for men's cat:

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?al ... 202587105
For women categories, I suppose it would be similar?

The link doesn't work, maybe you've used a personal link rather than a public one.

Also, I will be moving this to the Technical subforum.

I think that average annual intensity is a fairly formless number, because it doesn't describe how those intensities were recorded, what intensities were/weren't recorded, what exercises were performed (and the intensity on different target tissues, as opposed to %classic lift).

I think a significant player in this is also individual women's menstrual cycles and symptoms, which can have a range of effects from untrainable to slight boost to performance (rare).

I suspect that regardless of how it's recorded, average annual intensity would be generally higher for women. Women broadly lift lighter weights over lesser ranges of motion, so usually are able to perform a greater intensity at given sets/reps, or more sets/reps at given intensity. Additionally, the increments in warmup weights can be higher for women given their lighter maximal weights.

https://imgur.com/a/nItPXf7

Let me know if it still doesnt work. I would tend to agree with the ability of women to train at higher % and volumes,at least is what i've seen with the few women i have trained but i was looking if there was something similar to that table.

Regards

To be honest, I don't think it's useful information.

I did not participate in the Weightlifting House event but I assume the citation is Oleshko's 2018 textbook Theory and methodology of coaching activity in weightlifting" citing his 2011 study, which was an observational study of the national Ukranian team's programming.

Sport science, and especially weightlifting sport science, has a attentional bias towards quantitative analysis of surface level data. There is a lack of thought that goes towards scientific epistemology and tying together data and theory. As a result, efforts and interpretation of data do not produce meaningful advancements in knowledge IMO.

Things like bar trajectory analysis, average training intensities, tonnage and so on are easily quantifiable and easy to study. But they do not provide any understanding as to WHY things happen. People are complex and chaotic systems, whose individual response to volume, intensity and frequency differ significantly.

The mathematics to effectively model the effects of training on the athlete's systems and tissues would be incredibly complicated, far beyond the scope of anything in current sport science. This applies even moreso when talking about the response to training, rather than just the training itself.

There are many different methodologies that have worked well enough historically for drug-free lifters, as long as it is self contained and respects physiological, psychological and motor learning principles of training.

Methods that have focused on consistently working at a range of intensities between 75-85% for top sets with 2-3 repetitions have worked
Methods that have focused on working up to heavy singles of classic lifts and squats (~85-95%) have worked.
Side note - that style of training was practiced by lifters outside of Bulgaria long before Abadjiev rose to notoriety.


The focus should be on completing an individual needs analysis, and exercise prescription should be based on developing movements or tissues within practical considerations such as capacity/tolerance, failure points in competitive lifts, work/life schedule, historical response and so on. These are all highly subjective markers, but in my opinion it offers significantly greater value to inform the direction of training rather than trying to hit numbers.

We need a 'like' button, I could not have said that any better strapping.

This is phenomenology at best, and that is great for creating further conjecture we can try to falsify, but lets view it for the general nature it is. The classification of lifters just on gender grounds is very very simplistic - its not that hard for any coach to make individual adjustments.