1

Accelerative Training
MILO 6(1): 112-120, 1998.

Steven Plisk

It’s generally understood that a certain threshold of training intensity is needed to effect positive
adaptation, but many athletes and coaches still believe that resistance must be sufficient that the
weight can’t — or shouldn’t — be moved very fast. I intend to challenge this proposition, and to
make a case for the fact that acceleration is the name of the game even when executing basic
structural movements (e.g. the squat and deadlift). It’s really just a simple matter of understanding
the fundamental nature of force, and of putting this concept into practice regardless of task or
workload.

F=m·a Revisited
At first glance, “force is the product of mass and acceleration” appears to imply that there is no force
without motion (or vice-versa), but that’s not necessarily the case. For example, since gravity is
expressed as an acceleration constant [~9.8 m/sec2], a vertical force of ~980 kg·m/sec2 (or
Newtons) would be required to hold a 100 kg barbell in place statically.

Despite the apparent simplicity of F=m·a, the inability or unwillingness to grasp its functional
significance is an underlying cause of the nonsense taking place in many weightrooms. This concept
is neither contrived nor trivial, and shouldn’t be tucked away in a physics textbook until needed to
support some abstract opinion. In fact, it’s a foundational principle upon which all motion is based
(with strength training being no exception). When you consider that any movement is essentially an
act of defying gravity — which itself is an accelerative force — the central issue becomes: What is
being moved, and how fast?

Athletes apply (or defy) gravitational acceleration through a wider range of forces than non-
athletes, and their success or failure in executing a particular task is almost always determined by
the ability to achieve a critical velocity or power output. Simply stated, the object must be moved
through an optimal acceleration path within a certain time period. Powerlifting is an example of an
iron game that’s close to the low-speed end of the spectrum, whereas Olympic-style weightlifting is
relatively nearer to the high-speed end. Track & Field throwing events are additional examples of
high-velocity power sports. Regardless of whether or not one pursues either of these competitively
or performs such movements in training, the salient point is the same for each: Maximal force
(relative to one’s strength capabilities) is only generated if the object or implement is maximally
accelerated. Aside from the obvious fact that heavy weights cannot be lifted as rapidly as light ones
— and that some movements are inherently ballistic, where the weight or body is launched, while
others are not — this has two other fundamental implications:
 In terms of injury prevention, strength development or athletic ability, rate of force
production is as important — and trainable — as magnitude. Movement execution time
dictates the amount of force, and in turn power output (the rate at which work is done), that
can be generated at a particular workload. Many lifters mistakenly believe that rate of force
development is only relevant during ballistic movements, but not in basic weight training
exercises where the bar isn’t released. As we’ll see, however, brief application of peak force
may not be such unfamiliar territory in the weightroom after all.
 In terms of training effect, it has been shown that the intent to move a weight explosively
can be more important than actual velocity achieved in doing so. Full volitional effort —
i.e. a deliberate attempt to maximally accelerate the resistance, even if it’s too heavy to move
rapidly — yields the greatest neuromuscular activation and subsequent adaptive response.

Accelerative Training
 2

Lest you think that I claim to have pioneered the idea, compensatory acceleration (a term
coined by Dr. Fred Hatfield) has been a way of life in the training of European athletes for
decades without being named as such, but with obvious success. Consider the resources
addressing this method of training for power and rate of force development (Aján & Baroga,
pp. 161-176; Hartmann & Tünnemann, pp. 138-223; Schmidtbleicher [in Komi], pp. 381-
395).

Admittedly it’s not difficult to find “experts” who will endorse any empirical training concept or
method, which is precisely why fundamental principles must be used to measure their worth. But
any way you slice it, submaximal levels of force production and neuromuscular activation — which,
by definition, are what occurs when a given resistance is not accelerated to the limits of one’s ability
— simply don’t make sense as a viable or productive means of training. This brings me to my next
point.

Activation Modulates Adaptation

Rapid movements aren’t the only way to activate — and train — fast-twitch muscle fibers. Likewise,
the notion of distinct fiber types is obsolete, since motor units (individual motoneurons and the
fibers they innervate) actually exist in a spectrum; and are progressively recruited as power output
increases. Given the virtually infinite number of force-velocity combinations possible in any
movement, it’s not surprising that the neuromuscular system activates motor units (as well as
muscles) in functional task groups.

It’s important to understand that force production isn’t just a matter of recruiting motor units,
but also of coordinating and synchronizing them. Once again, the operative concept is task
specificity. Without going overboard, I would like to make a few interrelated points: The higher
centers of the neuromuscular system that govern this process are as plastic as the muscle fibers
themselves. This is all fine and good — if utterly esoteric — until one also appreciates that
adaptation is a function of activation; and that maximal effort at a given resistance is the means
toward achieving it.

Furthermore, adaptive tissue remodeling is as much a response to motoneural signals as it is a

simple cellular repair process (case in point: graft the nerve of a type I [slow-twitch] motor unit onto
a type II [fast-twitch] muscle fiber, or vice-versa, and that fiber’s properties proceed to reverse
themselves). Indeed, to quote Siff & Verkhoshansky (p. 4), “the fundamental principle of strength
training, then, is that all strength increase is initiated by neuromuscular stimulation.” However, be
forewarned if you endeavor to read this book — it’s extremely comprehensive and detailed, and
you’ll have to swim hard!

Practically speaking, we have so many options in terms of workloads and repetitions that the
possibilities seem almost endless. Intensities ranging as widely as 50-100%, with reps from as high
as 20 to as low as 1, have been successfully implemented and advocated. Yet despite all these
choices, we’re still selling ourselves short if we:
 Approach strength training exclusively in terms of weight and reps, while ignoring the
accelerative quality of force;
 Assume that full activation automatically occurs whenever the bar is moving; or
 Wait for the last rep of a set to trigger the desired training effect.

These are particularly costly mistakes for those who abbreviate work volume to the point where
they can’t afford anything less than extreme emphasis on training quality. The solution is to
maximize force output and neuromuscular activity on each repetition by accelerating through the

Accelerative Training
 3

sticking point at full power, regardless of resistance or rep count. Before proceeding to the practical
aspects of this concept, however, we need to re-examine how the sticking point figures into it.

The Sticking Point Revisited

It’s interesting to consider how this subject ties in with the issue of rate vs. duration of force
production. For purposes of discussion, let’s assume that the ascent phase of the squat or deadlift
takes about 1-2 seconds to execute (fatigue and/or 1RM attempts notwithstanding). The sticking
point is that region in the range of motion where leverage and resistance interact to create the
greatest difficulty in moving or controlling the bar. In this case, it’s ~30° above the parallel position.
As is the case with most multi-joint exercises, it occupies a small portion of the movement; but may
in fact occupy a relatively larger part (perhaps as much as 1/3 – 1/2) of the time required to
complete it, especially as resistance increases and/or exhaustion sets in. In any case, maximal effort
is not required over the full distance and time through which the bar is moved.

Figure 1. The classic F-V curve: the solid line indicates peak force that can be developed at
various muscle action velocities (note concentric < isometric < eccentric Fmax). Power is
indicated by the dotted line, where concentric Pmax tends to occur at ~30-50% of both Fmax
and Vmax. Source: Åstrand P.O. & Rodahl K. Textbook of Work Physiology (3rd Edition).
New York NY: McGraw-Hill, 1986.

This last fact has fueled an ongoing “control vs. momentum” debate. Without getting
sidetracked, I simply want to mention that the anti-acceleration school of thought — where velocity
supposedly defeats the purpose of lifting weights — is neglecting a key fact: Gravity continues acting
on the bar as it picks up vertical speed, and the athlete must continue applying force in order to keep
it moving or accelerate it further. While it’s true that force output capability decreases as muscle
shortening velocity increases (Figure 1), the notion that momentum takes over and does the work

Accelerative Training
 4

at high speed is nonsensical. In fact, power production usually peaks somewhere in the 30-50%
range of maximum velocity and/or force, depending on the movement. This doesn’t mean that we
should abandon heavy weights. It does mean that the range of productive training intensities
extends well beyond the slow squeeze zone.

Furthermore, this concept doesn’t just apply to competitive athletes. The recreational lifter is
also well advised to implement it, especially as he/she reaches advanced strength levels and requires
more potent and variable stimuli. Perhaps an analogy from automotive engineering is appropriate
here: The design of a sport utility vehicle stands to benefit more from the lessons learned in off-road
racing than a race vehicle stands to gain from those learned while driving around town.

Figure 2. The F-T curve: force as a function of time in a total-body extension movement.
Execution time may vary from 0.1 sec (e.g. the jumping movement illustrated here) to +1
sec (e.g. a squat/deadlift). Peak force varies accordingly: the shorter the execution time
allowance, the lower the force that can be produced relative to one’s absolute strength in
that movement (represented by the dotted line); hence the need to develop force rapidly.
Accelerative training improves rate of force development, resulting in a steeper curve and
greater impulse production (represented by the area underneath the solid line) and power
output (i.e. work per unit time). Source: Hatfield F.C. & Kreis E.J. Sports Conditioning: The
Complete Guide. Santa Barbara CA: International Sports Sciences Association, 1989.

The relevant idea here is that the peak force generated in the sticking point region (despite its
brevity) can be considered the primary reason for doing these movements in the first place.
Arguably the lesser forces applied elsewhere in the range of motion (despite their duration) are
secondary. Once again, the implication is straightforward: As a general rule, the rate and magnitude
of force development at certain point(s) in a movement are fundamentally more important than the
total distance or duration through which it’s applied. Collectively, this flies in the face of the so-
called “time under tension” theory as well as the purposefully slow training methods and techniques
that have arisen from it. However, it has obvious significance in training for activities where
explosive forces often must be generated within 0.1 – 0.2 sec, during which the athlete certainly
doesn’t move through a full range of motion (although the wind-up or follow-through of such

Accelerative Training
 5

movements may in fact take him/her into extreme ranges; Figure 2). Note that development of
absolute maximum force requires up to 0.6 – 0.8 sec.

A final comment regarding the strength training community’s division into slow vs. fast schools
of thought is in order. Without getting into the bipartisan politics of this situation, those in the
former school seek to match the strength curve of a muscle in order to load it continuously
throughout its range of motion; whereas the latter seek to develop various functional qualities of
strength. Some coaches and athletes have gravitated toward variable-resistance machinery in
pursuit of the first objective, often with the aim of isolating or targeting individual muscles; but this
tends not to be the case among free-weight proponents. They have — perhaps unwittingly in some
cases — sacrificed the notion of full-range resistance in favor of force transmission and summation
through the kinetic chain, usually from the ground up. For those frequently accused of viewing the
world through the 2" hole in an olympic plate, a growing body of evidence suggests that this trade-
off is justifiable; and that variable-resistance technology has been marginally effective at matching
human strength curves.

Simplicity vs. Sophistication?

We all search for simplicity every day, and the weightroom is the last place where we need to make
things unnecessarily complicated. Like it or not, however, force isn’t a one-dimensional entity. To
treat it as such in one’s training regimen is to potentially compromise the results. Fundamental laws
of motion won’t cease and desist no matter how diligently they’re ignored. By the same token, they
shouldn’t be viewed as adversaries. To borrow the wisdom of Hyrum Smith (founding President &
CEO of Franklin Quest): Natural laws exist whether or not we recognize and understand them; they
have consistent, predictable consequences; and they exert their effects independent of our
awareness, consent or wishes.

The good news is that principles can’t be bottled and sold, which is why the terms for every
meaningful expression of strength — namely force, impulse or power — will never be accompanied
by ©, ® or ™ (hopefully). Physical laws may not be as attractive as catchy bylines and advertising
gimmicks, but we must still get to the bottom line and stay there in order to achieve the best results.
In any case, the question remains: “Why concern myself with F=m·a if acceleration (and
neuromuscular activation) occurs to some extent every time I move the bar?” This is analogous to
the mindset of “why worry about what’s happening under the hood of my car as long as it runs?”
The answer, of course, is that a working knowledge of its operating principles is indispensable in
putting the machine to optimal use.

Practical Applications
First, a few caveats are in order. Have a state medical board-certified physician conduct a complete
medical history and physical examination before undertaking intense training. You must have a
fully functional and injury-free musculoskeletal system in order to safely and effectively implement
these guidelines. Seek out qualified coaching when performing this type of training as well as for
guidance on exercise execution. Also, warm up and stretch properly for each workout, using warm-
up sets as an opportunity to focus on technique and range of motion. Prime your neuromuscular
system before going for it at full power.

Returning to our squat/deadlift example, the training technique to be inferred here is as follows
(note that this can be adapted to other compound movements as well):
1. Sit at a controlled speed into an optimal position; don’t free fall into the descent.
2. Accelerate out of the hole and through the sticking point as powerfully as possible with good
form.

Accelerative Training
 6

3. Throttle down at the top of each rep so the bar doesn’t jump off your shoulders or out of your
grip.

Beyond simply proposing a nontraditional way to perform basic exercises, this idea also
challenges another piece of conventional dogma: namely, that it’s always necessary to perform RMs
or reps to failure. At the risk of setting myself up for character assassination, this simply isn’t the
case. In fact, training effects are best achieved through skillful manipulation of different methods,
not exclusive use of one of them. While this opens up a whole realm of possibilities, it requires a
leap of faith for those who associate weight training productivity with struggling to move the bar; or
with the easily demonstrable burn and pump. Too many people assume that these are the stimulus
for adaptation, when in fact they’re merely signs and symptoms of certain types of work.

Should you find yourself among a minority of those in the gym who understand and apply this
concept, take a lesson from the competitive sport scene: Everyone is a fitness expert (just ask them
and they’ll tell you), but plenty of gifted and impressive-looking athletes achieve some degree of
success despite their methods (not because of them). The bottom line is that the F=m·a paradigm
will challenge you to think — as well as feel — your way through training.

Even after accepting that an accelerative strength training strategy can be effective and safe, two
concerns come to mind while entertaining the idea of impelling a barbell with noticeable speed and
momentum. One is the problem of decelerating it at the end of the range of motion, and the other is
a possible breakdown in technique. In closing, I’ll offer these recommendations:
 As the athlete backs off from maximal acceleration toward the top of the ascent, gravity
will decelerate the bar’s vertical velocity. Furthermore, we’re talking about lifting at least
moderately heavy weights that aren’t easy to move rapidly even when deliberately
attempting to do so. In any case, if the bar is still moving upward by virtue of its own
momentum upon reaching full extension, consider one of two options:
∙ The athlete is accelerating the weight beyond the sticking point, and should adjust
his/her effort during the latter 1/3 – 1/2 of each rep in order to avoid jamming it at the
top.
∙ The chosen resistance is so light that the athlete would do better to perform a ballistic
movement with equipment designed to be launched explosively (e.g. Olympic barbells
and bumper plates, medicine balls, discus/hammer/shot etc).

This method shouldn’t be confused with so-called “speed reps” where the athlete attempts to
accelerate a light weight through the entire range of motion without releasing it. Such
movements have been shown to be futile because more effort is spent decelerating the bar
for self-protection than accelerating it for beneficial force or power generation. It’s true that
eccentric muscle actions are intrinsic to athletic movements where the muscles are stretch-
loaded and recoiled via the stretch-shortening cycle phenomenon; and that negative work
can play a useful role when prudently applied in training. However, such lengthening muscle
actions are best applied as preparatory countermovements (while in a partially flexed
position) rather than terminal braking motions (at full extension).
 Technique need not be sacrificed for impulse or power, whereas form often does break
down to some extent during very heavy lifts. If we were incapable of achieving a reasonable
degree of technical precision whenever we accelerated above first or second gear, it would be
impossible to execute simple acts of running, jumping, throwing or other functional tasks.
Conversely, this shouldn’t be misinterpreted to suggest that barbells and dumbbells are to be
yanked on and hurled recklessly around the weightroom. The point is simply that anyone
with enough common sense and motor skill to properly perform basic exercises should be
able to maintain control when doing them as proposed here. If anything, this will actually

Accelerative Training
 7

help you stay in the groove through those zero-velocity sticking points where the bar tends
to drift off course.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Frederick C. Hatfield (International Sports Sciences Association, Clearwater FL); Raoul F. Reiser
II (Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins CO); Dietmar Schmidtbleicher
(Institut für Sportwissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Germany); and Mel C.
Siff (School of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa).

References

1. Aján T. & Baroga L. Weightlifting: Fitness for All Sports. Budapest: International Weightlifting
Federation/Medicina Publishing House, 1988; pp. 161-176.

2. Baker D. Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speed-strength development. Strength & Conditioning
Coach 3(2): 8-16, 1995.

3. Behm D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 9(4): 264-274, 1995.

4. Gambetta V. More power to you. Training & Conditioning 7(5): 13-17, 1997.

5. Garhammer J. Muscle fiber types and weight training. Track Technique 72: 2297-2299, June 1978.

6. Garhammer J. Muscle fibre types and the specificity concept related to athletic weight training. Athletica 5: 14-
15, December 1978.

7. Garhammer J. Free weight equipment for the development of athletic strength and power. NSCA Journal 3(6):
24-26, 33, 1981/82.

8. Garhammer J. Weight lifting and training. In: Biomechanics of Sport (C.L. Vaughan, editor). Boca Raton:
CRC Press, 1989; pp. 169-211.

9. Garhammer J. A review of power output studies of olympic and powerlifting: methodology, performance
prediction, and evaluation tests. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 7(2): 76-89, 1993.

10. Hakkinen K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength during short term and prolonged training.
NSCA Journal 7(2): 32-37, 1985.

11. Hakkinen K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength and power training: a review. Journal
of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness 29(1): 9-26, 1989.

12. Hartmann J. & Tünnemann H. Fitness & Strength Training. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1989.

13. Hatfield F.C. Getting the most from your training reps. NSCA Journal 4(5): 28-29, 1982.

14. Hatfield F.C. Power: A Scientific Approach. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1989.

15. Komi P.V. Neuromuscular performance: factors influencing force and speed production. Scandinavian Journal
of Sports Science 1(1): 2-15, 1979.

16. Komi P.V. Training of muscle strength and power: interaction of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical
factors. International Journal of Sports Medicine 7(Suppl): 10-15, 1986.

17. Komi P.V. & Hakkinen K. Strength and power. In: The Olympic Book of Sports Medicine (A. Dirix, H.G.
Knuttgen & K. Tittel, editors). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp. 181-193.

18. Lyttle A. Maximizing power development: a summary of training methods. Strength & Conditioning Coach 2(3):
16-19, 1994.

19. Newton R.U & Kraemer W.J. Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a mixed methods training

Accelerative Training
 8

strategy. Strength & Conditioning 16(5): 20-31, 1994.

20. Poliquin C. Theory and methodology of strength training (part 3): at which speed should repetitions be
performed? Sports Coach 13(2): 35-38, 1990.

21. Sale D.G. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength & Power in Sport (P.V. Komi, editor). Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1992; pp. 249-265.

22. Schmidtbleicher D. Strength training (parts 1-2): classification of methods. SPORT (Physical Training/Strength
W-4): 1-12, August 1985; 1-10, September 1985.

23. Schmidtbleicher D. Applying the theory of strength development. Track & Field Quarterly Review 87(3): 34-44,
1987.

24. Schmidtbleicher D. Training for power events. In: Strength & Power in Sport (P.V. Komi, editor). Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1992; pp. 381-395.

25. Siff M.C. & Verkhoshansky Y.V. Supertraining (2nd Edition). Pittsburgh: Sports Support Syndicate, 1996.

26. Stone M. & Garhammer J. Some thoughts on strength and power. NSCA Journal 3(5): 24-25, 47, 1981.

27. Stone M.H. Considerations in gaining a strength-power training effect (machines vs. free weights). NSCA
Journal 4(1): 22-24, 54, 1982.

28. Stone M. & O'Bryant H. Weight Training: A Scientific Approach. Minneapolis: Bellweather Press/Burgess
International Group, 1987.

29. Stone M.H. Literature review: explosive exercises and training. NSCA Journal 15(3): 7-15, 1993.

30. Tidow G. Aspects of strength training in athletics. New Studies in Athletics 5(1): 93-110, 1990.

31. Verkhoshansky Y.V. Fundamentals of Special Strength-Training in Sport. Livonia: Sportivny Press,
1986 (translated by A. Charniga Jr.); Moscow: Fizkultura i Spovt, 1977.

32. Young, W. Neural activation and performance in power events. Modern Athlete & Coach 30(1): 29-31, 1992.

33. Young, W.B. Training for speed/strength: heavy vs. light loads. NSCA Journal 15(5): 34-42, 1993.

34. Young W. Strength qualities: what they are and what they mean to the coach. Strength & Conditioning Coach
3(4): 13-16, 1995.

35. Zatsiorsky V.M. Intensity of strength training facts and theory: Russian and Eastern European approach. NSCA
Journal 14(5): 46-57, 1992.

36. Zatsiorsky V.M. Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1995.

Accelerative Training