Zatsiorsky, Scaling, and Power
Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:59PM by Jon Gilson
You could struggle like a rocket trying to take off on regular unleaded, or you could actually get stronger.
You’re the kid who saw one phenom go from high school straight to the Major Leagues, and figured “What the hell? If that skinny punk can do it, so can I.” Attention, achievement, some sliver of recognition, nothing less will do.
You’re Rx’d. You made the Major League jump. Except, you really, really shouldn’t have, and now you’re striking out. Slow your roll, tee ball slugger.
It’s okay. I did the same thing, and if I don’t admit it, the pot would definitely be calling the kettle another piece of kitchen equipment. Learn from my stupidity.
The whole point of our sport is power output: do more work faster. Intrinsic in this little missive is “faster”, but every guy secretly wants to be bigger and stronger, and figures that what we actually meant was “heavier”.
This is not what we meant.
It comes down to simple physics: power is the product of speed and strength. Too much of either (without the other) will result in extremely blunted power.
Imagine speed and strength on the see-saw together, and strength is the fat kid. The really fat kid. In fact, he outweighs speed by a factor of ten. The see-saw stays stuck, and no one has fun at recess. Escaping my metaphor, if the load is too large and speed is too small, power is zip, much like multiplying by zero always gets you zero.
Now, imagine speed and strength are balanced, each kid weighing about the same. This parity allows them to act in concert with each other, and the see-saw really flies. We get power.
“Heavier” isn’t the answer. Balance is the answer.
On page six in The Science and Practice of Strength Training, author Vladimir Zatsiorsky posits that maximal power output occurs at approximately 30% of maximal velocity and 50% of maximal load. I’m in love with page six, and simultaneously dumbfounded by its mathematical exactitude.
Applied to CrossFit and our never ending pursuit of power, this unforgettable page states that we’re looking for a load that you can move with 30% speed, one that tends to occur somewhere around your 50% of one-rep maximum.
Of course, CrossFit won’t ask you to move the bar once, but perhaps ten or twenty or fifty times. To maximize your power across this broad spectrum of work, you’ll want to load to less than 50% 1RM, and continue to try to move the hell out of the bar.
Holy shit. A formula for scaling.
For too long, we’ve focused on strength bias this and power animal super athlete that, when this entire program is predicated on power. Stop thinking of scaling as something to keep Grandma in the game. We scale to the physical and psychological tolerance of the athlete for one reason: it enables the individual to produce as much power as possible.
Following Zatsiorsky’s formula, if you can’t thruster at least 190 pounds, you shouldn’t be doing “Fran” with 95. If you can’t clean and jerk 270, don’t do “Grace” with 135. You’re blunting your power output. Scale that weight down; it will make you more powerful.
I did not just tell you to abandon heavy weights. In fact, I want you to lift heavy. A lot. Just not in the middle of your WOD.
If you increase your 1RM, through any number of methods, your 50% 1RM will go up as well, and you’ll climb into the Rx’d echelon via this prescription. You thruster 150, you do “Fran” at 75 pounds or less. You thruster 200, welcome to the Big Leagues.
In other words, don’t strength bias your WODs—strength bias your strength, and scale your WODs to your current strength level.
Proof? Take a look at the strongest men in the world, not by fiat, but by actual numbers lifted, the gargantuan boys of Westside Barbell. Their program regularly calls for moving 50% 1RM as fast as possible. In fact, it was a conversation with Louie Simmons, the founder of the Westside Method and its Dynamic Effort Days, that persuaded me to pick up a copy of The Science and Practice of Strength Training in the first place.
I’m sure he’d be disappointed I never made it past page six, but I bet he’d love it if you stopped trying to do Fran with 65% of your 1RM.
The successful implementation of scaling demands a simple recognition: there are an infinite number of weights that can be loaded on a barbell, and every one must be removed from ego and firmly affixed to power. When this mental shift occurs, we’ll get more powerful athletes, guaranteed.
Stacey attacks the box jump at CrossFit Fenway. Picture courtesy of Ethan Bickford.
Reader Comments (26)
First, love your writing style, as always.
Second, it's worth a shot at the very least, right? I mean, when it comes to scaling, the "crapshoot method" is neither precise nor reliable, and since half (or more) of Coach Glassman's videos are filled with the scientific foundation of CrossFit, scaling according to one's whim sure seems silly.
Thanks, Adam. I appreciate your thoughts. Solid.
Best,
Jon
For someone who has a B.S. in Human Performance, you'd think I'd heard of this book! After I go beat my professor about the head and shoulders I'm going to go find it. Thanks! Citius, Altius, Fortius!
Jon -
In keeping with the above, can you discuss what your recommendation would be for the athlete who falls on the other side of the strength equation; i.e. an athlete who has a 330 pound thruster and a 375 pound clean and jerk? It seems that by extension you would be recommending that this athlete perform Fran at 115 lbs and Grace at ~185 lbs, which is simultaneously daunting and enticing.
Thanks,
~W
Will,
Exactly! The idea contained in the article works both ways. If you want to optimize power you will usually have to scale down, but some of you big boys are going to have to scale up.
Best,
Jon
There are poorly-drawn conclusions from this article.
Vladimir Zatsiorsky's formula applies to instantaneous bouts of power, such as pulling a single deadlift. However, the author generalizes this to apply to CrossFit's definition of power, which is average power output. The two are not equivalent. You don't pull each individual rep in a metcon at maximum possible power, you pull each rep at a brisk and sustainable pace. If you were to pull each rep at maximum possible power, your energy would get sapped after a couple reps.
The article completely disregards things that affect performance in a metcon, namely aerobic capacity, anaerobic rest to recovery ratio, and localized muscular endurance. Metcons are more about endurance than they are about instantaneous power output, anyway. Performance in a metcon can't be reduced to some formula that applies to an individual rep.
The Westside Barbell analogy too is flawed because it compares an activity that is endurance-based (metcons) to one that is power-based (powerlifting). While powerlifting is a strength sport, they do power training so that they can become more explosive in their lifts, so it makes sense that they would use the instantaneous power formula developed by Zatsiorsky. But ask any endurance athlete whether their training runs or swims or rides are 50% as fast as their maximum speed - the answer is no.
Shane,
Thanks for your comments. We're well aware that Zatsiorsky applies this to single efforts. You'll note that single repetitions, by nature, allow a greater percentage of 1RM to be used than multiple repetitions. Therefore, it stands to reason that multiple repetitions, as performed in CrossFit workouts, will demand a load of less than 50% 1RM to maximize power output.
We have the luxury of ignoring metabolic capacity and local muscular stamina, because they aren't relevant to the point of the article: scaling up and down should be done to maximize power, and Zatsiorsky has given us a starting point for doing this: 50% or less of 1RM.
Also note that CrossFit workouts are not "endurance based". While they require local muscular stamina, our most famous couplets and triplets, referenced here, usually last 10 minutes or less (or should, at < 50% 1RM). Your extrapolation to endurance athletes is non-sensical: endurance athletes will reach maximum power output at maximum velocity, because they are unable to change their load, a.k.a their bodyweight. We never advocated moving at 50% speed, but scaling load to 50%.
Given that we're talking about vertical displacement of load, the Westside Barbell analogy fits perfectly. Like squatting, benching, and deadlifting, the relevent stimulus is a load moved upward against gravity.
Ultimately, we can argue about it all we like. The deciding factor will be power output across broad time and modal domains. We're putting a figure on scaling, something that heretofore has not been done, and I'll bet dimes to dollars that absolute power output (average or instantaneous) will be maximized around 40-50% 1RM.
Best,
Jon
This topic was also covered in a great article "Getting Scaling Right: A Systematic Method for
CrossFit Programming" by Pierre Auge in the Performance Menu, Issue 53 (June 2009). I think the methods addressed in both places are awesome and would help people place first things first.
I would tend to agree with Jon's conclusion as well because in theory a workout such as grace is 30 consecutive singular explosive efforts and this is exactly what Zatsiorsky would endorse. It is true that as you moved away into a couplet of a modification of the exercise such as a thruster that you are veering slightly off of the intended path but not by much. And it certainly does lend itself to be a very useful starting point for coaching across a broad spectrum in terms of where people will produce maximal power. This isn't to say that perceived exertions at those power outputs won't vary widely based on the factors Shane listed but from a performance standpoint I agree with Jon. Atleast that's my opinion as someone who took two of Zatsiorsky's classes at Penn State where this was our text book. I remember the man loved to measure and compare training protocols this way!
this is particular hard with new members, correct?
We may be maximizing power output at 40-50% of our 1RM, but what does that effect have physiologically? Does Zatsiorsky have studies that show that maximal power output has more favorable adaptations than a lower power output with a heavier weight (greater stress on the muscles)? When you say "“Heavier” isn’t the answer. Balance is the answer." how did you come to this conclusion?
Bryan,
Thanks for writing. I'd love to hear more about your classes with Zatsiorsky. Did you use other resources that you could point us to?
Best,
Jon
John,
CrossFit is pursued under the posit that greater power output equals greater intensity equals greater fitness across a broad range of activities.
(F*d)/t = average power = intensity = results
The physiological effect of maximizing power output is simple: the athlete develops the ability to do more work faster. This is being proven in the field, not in the lab. The pursuit of doing more work in less time, a.k.a maximizing power, is producing beasts.
Keep in mind, we're not worried about aesthetics or size. Our sole determining factor of success is ability to accomplish work.
"Heavier" isn't the answer is drawn from the very simple idea that if you can't lift it with a speed close to Zatsiorky's predicted ranges (30% maximal velocity), you can't maximize power. If you put too much weight on the bar, speed suffers unacceptably.
I'd encourage you to play with the basic equations for power, vis a vis Newtonian physics. You'll find that time, the principle component of speed and velocity (along with displacement) is an incredibly important factor in any power calculation.
Best,
Jon
Emmit,
Scaling shouldn't be difficult with new members. I'd encourage you to set the tone from the beginning: here we scale, because the point is power output, not your ego.
If your new clients cannot let go of the "real men do this weight" mentality, education is the answer. Explain power, it's maximization, and it's relevancy to their training.
Failing that, stop listing "rx'd" when writing workouts on the board, and don't lionize it as a badge of honor. Scale down AND up, depending on the athlete.
Best,
Jon
Nice post, sir. Ages ago, I had heard about the Russian philosophy of strength training that used the strength/velocity curve...nice to finally have a name and source for that. America seems to have a strong skew towards the strength side of power, neglecting that increasing velocity has an equal effect on power output. (Power=(F*d)/t; F=mass x acceleration), An interesting thought: does this mean that crossfitters, rather than comparing WOD times or 1RM weights, should, in actuality be comparing power outputs? certainly minutes and seconds are easier to wrap our brains around, but, are Nm/s a better grading rubrik? Comparing "scores" in that light may do much to encorage scaling, then again, it may have no effect whatsoever, save confusing slightly oxygen starved brains.
Keith,
Comparing newton/meters would be a poor way to rate CrossFitters against each other.
Although maximizing power output in training will aid you in developing the ability to accomplish work at a high level, the real world does not care about power output. It only cares if you get the job done (or not). Can you lift that barbell 55 times?
We train for power, but we compete for results.
Best,
Jon
Hi Jon - love the post! You often hear people in gyms talking about how much weight they can hold, but you definitely bought it into perspective when you said “Heavier” isn’t the answer. Balance is the answer." When you talked about Zatsiorsky’s formula, that took the post to a whole new level; going to give it a whirl! Thanks!
Another PHENOMENAL article, Gilson! I posted it on our site. Check out the comments @
http://www.shorelinecrossfit.com/2010/06/dont-be-the-fat-kid-on-the-seesaw/#comments
People REALLY appreciated it. Thanks for helping my clients (and me!!) out.
Lauren,
That's fantastic! I'm glad it helped. You guys rock!
Best,
Jon
What about supposed "heavy metcons"? Should those be scaled to something closer to 70% of 1RM, or is the entire idea bogus? Should ALL metcons/timed workouts be at 50%?