Developing Muscular Strength

Posted In: The Classics

  • Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #74135

    debandre, please keep in mind that this post, and the last several I have made, are completely focused on one question. I illustrated that question in the question post about the two twins. The question is about improving the athletes ability to improve force as measured by a force plate, nothing else. I need to get a handle on what everyone is saying about that one simple issue[quote]
    Short term you would be correct about the heavy lifters pulling heavier loads faster, but not after 8-12 months. By that time the fast lifters with more power will be one who lift lighter loads, but at faster rates. The structural changes needed in the muscle for faster movements takes longer to adapt. The short-term gains in heavy lifting are neuromuscular adaptations which come along in 2-3 weeks for beginners. The problem is you believe heavy creates the adaptations you want, but in reality the changes you want take a variety of loading parameters on the bar with the fastest bar speed possible. Sticking to heavy squats or deadlifts will get you nowhere fast after 6-12 months.

    If this is true, then why don’t Oly lifters and PL lifters lift light and fast? If it actually improves strength better than heavy, why would they ever lift heavy outside of competition.

    Strength gains without gains in mass will become almost impossible and power eventually suffers so over the course of a 4-5 year period a runner becomes slower just because of work in the weight room.

    I have to disagree. Olympic lifters and PL lifters continue to make improvements in power for many years without having to move up in weight class. Increasing mass does help, but its not the only way to increase power.[/quote]

    We are neither discussing Olympic lifters or Powerlifters as the typical athlete in this thread. The specifity of lifting to their particular competitive tasks require them to work specifically more to competition loads in the weight room. Even then powerlifters and Olympic Lifters have far greater ranges with which they work with than you give them credit for. However, powerlifters keep their power values relatively low compared to their absolute strength while Olympic lifters still have high strength and power numbers both relatively and absolutely. You take your basic powerlifter and they would have to weigh approx. 20 kilos more to generate the same power in an olympic lift. The bottom line is you can increase strength without increasing power and you can increase power without increasing strength but athletic performance relies on power output. If 2 powerlifters have the same strength, but the different max power outputs then the favored lifter would be the one with more power as he would have less fatigue in producing max values on all 3 competition lifts during a competition.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #74136

    Between tokes, UT said…[quote] If this is what you are after, why are you trying to apply some Cartesian system with light/fast lifts being bad/useless and heavy/slow lifts being best?

    UT, Cartesian philosophy places the subjective above the objective. I’m trying to be objective. If your interested in the system of logic I use, then look up both Deductive and Inductive logic, if you can see through the smoke.[/quote]

    You are neither logical or coherent as strength without paying attention to power is a recipe for athletic failure.

    Avatar
    Participant
    star61 on #74138

    You are neither logical or coherent

    Your opinion on my logic or coherency are trivial and irrelevant.

    …as strength without paying attention to power is a recipe for athletic failure.

    Your inability to consider other opinions than your own is your failure. You, davan, and UT can’t simply answer a few basic questions. The questions specifically address a claim that you made. The reason…you don’t believe the basic underpinnings that form your own theories, at least not enought to put them to the test. Debating with people like you is useless, because you’re not willing to truly debate specifics…you continually fall back into your mantra, refusing to present any literature or real world examples. Carry on.

    Avatar
    Participant
    RussZHC on #74139

    Star 61:

    The question is about improving the athletes ability to improve force as measured by a force plate, nothing else. I need to get a handle on what everyone is saying about that one simple issue

    Not to exacerbate the debate or to come across as a complete moron, I have no doubt I am the least formally educated and experience person responding to this thread, but I am trying to expand my knowledge base by being involved. This thread has already got me reading papers and articles I have not read before and with that, ideas that I may not have considered before are now at least being taking into account, even if I don’t know or there are no exactly clear answers, I can make a somewhat educated judgment.

    However in an effort to give direct answers even if it sounds really ignorant, to the above quoted question, “I don’t care.”

    It is not that the question does not have validity, far from it but I don’t care what a force plate says, athletes are not running, jumping, throwing from or across force plates. Tests in labs are nice and they are helpful but as soon as you go outside the lab setting you have changed an important variable; even if you use a force plate, for example, in a “field test” you have not nearly duplicated actuality of competition or even training as much like competition as possible.
    In one article referenced earlier, Bosco, even in his testing says in some ways he is inconclusive about using force plates, since he states in some cases related to some events it is more useful to consider using force platforms (he makes quite the distinction).
    However inexperienced I am as a coach, I am not going to put all chances or even a disproportionate amount of emphasis, on one item, I am going to try as broad a spectrum as possible with the assumption the athletes I have the good fortune to work with long term will lead me to what works best for them individually. If the whole point of training is trying to get positive adaptation I think the one thing there is no room for is tunnel vision.

    utfootball4:”Dont waste your time and energy fighting over raisins.”

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #74140

    Davan said[quote]Where did I say moving heavier and heavier loads is not important? Yet another attempt at a strawman from you, not that I am surprised.

    Are you kidding? You quoted the line in the post where you asked this question.

    Davin said. “Further, strictly increasing loads doesn’t really mean shit–“

    Here is the issue–you have presented such a focus on load that your tunnel vision is keeping you from seeing the greater picture. If load is of the highest importance, then we why don’t we just do partial deads, which hit the glutes/hams hard and have a far greater load than anything else?

    No. There is not just one issue. There are a multitude. I want to get past load, but to get past it, it must first be addressed. Why can’t you simply answer my questions concerning the two theoretical twins. Because both you and UT would probably be in total agreement on that small aspect of improving the capacity to generate force. If so, great, lets leave load behind and move to the next facet of the problem.

    The truth is, people like you and UT can’t defend your beliefs with logic, so you just get personal and try to trash the poster.[/quote]

    Nice job with the …–there were other words in that sentence that just *might* have relevance.

    Example, I can increase load by reducing the range of motion.

    Does that mean I am stronger or have a better transference to other activities?

    I could also do a variety of things to change leverages or other factors–ie I can wear a weight belt to increase intra-abdominal pressure or I can wear a squat suit to help with leverage at the bottom of the squat. Both significantly increase load and even through the same ROM–is there a better (or any) transference now to my training and have I improved as an athlete?

    I have not been able to logically defend my beliefs? How can you possibly say that when you are focused on polarizing lifting into light/fast and heavy/slow, with them being mutually exclusive in a training plan?

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #74141

    Between tokes, UT said…[quote] If this is what you are after, why are you trying to apply some Cartesian system with light/fast lifts being bad/useless and heavy/slow lifts being best?

    UT, Cartesian philosophy places the subjective above the objective. I’m trying to be objective. If your interested in the system of logic I use, then look up both Deductive and Inductive logic, if you can see through the smoke.[/quote]

    Not really.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_dualism

    UT didn’t post that, so perhaps it was too many tokes for you.

    Something can be described in lay terms as Cartesian if there is an attempt to place things as opposing. Good/bad, light/dark, etc. with interaction between elements and shades of gray in between not being considered.

    It’s relevance here is that you are separating things as:
    -Programs that exclusively use light/fast loading
    -Programs that exclusively use heavy/slow loading

    And leaving it at that without the possibility of interaction between the elements or other possible options. You also ignore context, which is what has been keeping you from providing ANYTHING to this thread.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #74142

    [quote author="dbandre" date="1226122297"]You are neither logical or coherent

    Your opinion on my logic or coherency are trivial and irrelevant.

    …as strength without paying attention to power is a recipe for athletic failure.

    Your inability to consider other opinions than your own is your failure. You, davan, and UT can’t simply answer a few basic questions. The questions specifically address a claim that you made. The reason…you don’t believe the basic underpinnings that form your own theories, at least not enought to put them to the test. Debating with people like you is useless, because you’re not willing to truly debate specifics…you continually fall back into your mantra, refusing to present any literature or real world examples. Carry on.[/quote]

    What questions haven’t we answered, Star? Please list them in a response and only list them, don’t say anything else.

    Your questions have been answered–perhaps it is that you don’t like the answers.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #74145

    [quote author="dbandre" date="1226122297"]You are neither logical or coherent

    Your opinion on my logic or coherency are trivial and irrelevant.

    …as strength without paying attention to power is a recipe for athletic failure.

    Your inability to consider other opinions than your own is your failure. You, davan, and UT can’t simply answer a few basic questions. The questions specifically address a claim that you made. The reason…you don’t believe the basic underpinnings that form your own theories, at least not enought to put them to the test. Debating with people like you is useless, because you’re not willing to truly debate specifics…you continually fall back into your mantra, refusing to present any literature or real world examples. Carry on.[/quote]

    First, the only longitudinal information on effectiveness of pure strength training in the weight room is from coaches.

    Second, most have shied away from the old Boyd Epley philosophy of strength and concentrated more and more on variety in the weight room in terms of actual physical loads lifted.

    Third and most importantly, the most successful coaches in developing athletes in the weight room have shifted their focus away from strength and more towards power output gains before strength gains. Coaches don’t have the tools research or accurately measure power output, but there visual feedback gives them a pretty good idea in terms of the speed of bar. Heck most distance coaches misuse the term strength when talking about building a base, they are actually building power endurance, some are building strength endurance, but the successful ones are building off of power.

    Fourth and finally, you have not presented a single published peer reviewed article as far as I know. I have stated emphatically however that structural changes in muscle take longer than neurological changes or endurance changes. You can use google scholar to research this topic yourself and in doing so you may run across my graduate seminar presentation on this topic for an endocrinology seminar. I was once was lost, just like you star, but now I am found.

    Avatar
    Participant
    star61 on #74146

    OK, I’ll try one more time. First, please understand that I too believe in using a variety of speeds, loads and exercises, including oly lifts. I’ve stated that several times, but none of you seem to be able to get that. As far as narrowing the discussion to just oneI believe it is impossible to quantify the effects that changing a variable (in this case the load of the lift) without holding all other things as constant as possible. This is the scientific method. Study one thing at a time. We are talking theory here, for the most part, and there is not an huge amount of empirical data to use as reference.

    Right now, what I am trying to do determine where everyone (not just the two of you) stands, on the question of lifting intensity, or load, regardless of exercise. Again, whether it is deadlift, squat, clean or snatch, can you develop the ability to generate power quicker/better/to a higher level using light/fast loads, or heavy/slower loads. Just this question alone am I trying to answer, not its impact on any athletic performance whatsoever. Just the ability to generate power during the lift itself. So, please patronize me, and just give very short, one or two word answers to the questions…please.

    Problem – A pair of identical twin boys, 18y.o., average and identical in every way decide that they want to be olympic lifters. Their training, diet, everything is identical. Their initial 1RM is identical, 225lbs.

    Twin #1 trains exclusively with 30-40% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Twin #2 trains exclusively with 80-90% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Question #1 – After ten years of this training, who has the higher 1RM?

    Question #2 – After ten years of this training, each lifter is tested using a force platform as he progresses through a series of explosive lifts, ranging from 20% of 1RM through 1RM, to determine his respective optimal load and maximum power output. Which twin do you predict would have the capacity to generate more force as measured by a force plate at their own optimal load?

    Please simply answer twin #1 or twin #2 to the questions.

    Avatar
    Participant
    RussZHC on #74147

    I am starting to really come around to this idea of “power” partially in thinking back about 6 years what a “revolution” it was in the cycling when riders started moving away from training heart rate and towards “power” (2002 was the first year the “Power Tap” became readily available, a somewhat affordable device that measured the power being developed more or less directly w read-outs as you rode).
    So in that vein, does anyone use the Ergo-Power as produced by Bosco Systems Devices?

    I think this is the current evolution of a device that Bosco mentions in some work from in the 80s and meant to solve some of the day to day hassles measuring power and “eliminates” of force plates. The website has online sales but does not list the device among the items there (vis a vis cost). I also recall there was a similar device a couple of years ago from a company in California but I never could track them down (the website was always “under construction”)
    Oh, a bit of a warning if you google “ergo power”, you will get pages and pages related to bicycles as it is a trade name from Campagnolo, a major bicycle component mfg.

    Avatar
    Participant
    RussZHC on #74148

    Star 61: Twin # 2 both questions, IMO.
    Now a question for you, could the answer to question # 2 you posed be a statistical tie? I don’t have the experience or the time to figure out the math but at some point I suspect those curves of force cross or as the graph will likely be a complicated shape, they may cross more than once.

    Avatar
    Participant
    RussZHC on #74149

    Apologies Mike if I posted an address I should not have, it was the only place I could find the device in question mentioned.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #74152

    OK, I’ll try one more time. First, please understand that I too believe in using a variety of speeds, loads and exercises, including oly lifts. I’ve stated that several times, but none of you seem to be able to get that. As far as narrowing the discussion to just oneI believe it is impossible to quantify the effects that changing a variable (in this case the load of the lift) without holding all other things as constant as possible. This is the scientific method. Study one thing at a time. We are talking theory here, for the most part, and there is not an huge amount of empirical data to use as reference.

    Right now, what I am trying to do determine where everyone (not just the two of you) stands, on the question of lifting intensity, or load, regardless of exercise. Again, whether it is deadlift, squat, clean or snatch, can you develop the ability to generate power quicker/better/to a higher level using light/fast loads, or heavy/slower loads. Just this question alone am I trying to answer, not its impact on any athletic performance whatsoever. Just the ability to generate power during the lift itself. So, please patronize me, and just give very short, one or two word answers to the questions…please.

    Problem – A pair of identical twin boys, 18y.o., average and identical in every way decide that they want to be olympic lifters. Their training, diet, everything is identical. Their initial 1RM is identical, 225lbs.

    Twin #1 trains exclusively with 30-40% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Twin #2 trains exclusively with 80-90% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Question #1 – After ten years of this training, who has the higher 1RM?

    Question #2 – After ten years of this training, each lifter is tested using a force platform as he progresses through a series of explosive lifts, ranging from 20% of 1RM through 1RM, to determine his respective optimal load and maximum power output. Which twin do you predict would have the capacity to generate more force as measured by a force plate at their own optimal load?

    Please simply answer twin #1 or twin #2 to the questions.

    Please stop wasting our time. This is the last time I will respond to your complete nonsense. I am also glad to hear that you supposedly come out of your no-olympic lifts, nothing under 90% dogma you presented numerous other times.

    Yes, #2 will be a better olympic lifter.

    Now, perhaps you can explain now the relevance that has on our discussion, where people were talking about the inclusion of a variety of modalities, intensities, bar speeds, etc., not strictly 30% or 90%, but everything in between.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #74153

    OK, I’ll try one more time. First, please understand that I too believe in using a variety of speeds, loads and exercises, including oly lifts. I’ve stated that several times, but none of you seem to be able to get that. As far as narrowing the discussion to just oneI believe it is impossible to quantify the effects that changing a variable (in this case the load of the lift) without holding all other things as constant as possible. This is the scientific method. Study one thing at a time. We are talking theory here, for the most part, and there is not an huge amount of empirical data to use as reference.

    Right now, what I am trying to do determine where everyone (not just the two of you) stands, on the question of lifting intensity, or load, regardless of exercise. Again, whether it is deadlift, squat, clean or snatch, can you develop the ability to generate power quicker/better/to a higher level using light/fast loads, or heavy/slower loads. Just this question alone am I trying to answer, not its impact on any athletic performance whatsoever. Just the ability to generate power during the lift itself. So, please patronize me, and just give very short, one or two word answers to the questions…please.

    Problem – A pair of identical twin boys, 18y.o., average and identical in every way decide that they want to be olympic lifters. Their training, diet, everything is identical. Their initial 1RM is identical, 225lbs.

    Twin #1 trains exclusively with 30-40% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Twin #2 trains exclusively with 80-90% of 1RM, with no auxilliary training. Every three months he tests his 1RM and adjusts his training load to his new 1RM.

    Question #1 – After ten years of this training, who has the higher 1RM?

    Question #2 – After ten years of this training, each lifter is tested using a force platform as he progresses through a series of explosive lifts, ranging from 20% of 1RM through 1RM, to determine his respective optimal load and maximum power output. Which twin do you predict would have the capacity to generate more force as measured by a force plate at their own optimal load?

    Please simply answer twin #1 or twin #2 to the questions.

    There is no simple answer and you know this. If twin #2 doesn’t gain mass then the twins will have similar 1RM strength most likely within 5% of each other. Twin #1 will own Twin #2 on question 2 throughout. If Twin #2 weighs more he will generate more force but less power just because of mass. If you consider mass strength then good luck.

    Avatar
    Participant
    utfootball4 on #74161

    Apologies Mike if I posted an address I should not have, it was the only place I could find the device in question mentioned.

    You must dont care that much, if you did you would have asked before posting. lol

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 221 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.