Developing Muscular Strength

Posted In: The Classics

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #9324

        When attempting to increase muscular strength, can you do Max. Strength lifts year round, or do you have to start off with high reps/low intensity before you progress to max. strength lifts?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        QUIKAZHELL on #28414

        For a track athlete doing max strength yr round would not be smart due to stress on the cns while trying to peak. But if one was tkaing the yr off from competing and wanted to just work on max strength then yes. With the proper loading/unloading one can stay in a max strength phase yr round.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28415

        So basically, the best method for a sprinter would be to start off with high reps/low intensity, then gradually move up to low reps/high intensity, correct?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        400stud on #28416

        yup…short-to-long

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28417

        Well how does this setup look. . . .

        4 x 12 @ 50%
        4 x 10 @ 60%
        4 x 10 @ 70%
        3 x 8 @ 80%
        3 x 5 @ 85%
        3 x 3 @ 90%
        4 x 2 @ 95%
        testing

        I plan on starting this in the fall. I have two ways I could go about this.

        Plan A. – I could start in the fall, progress to 95% by the end of fall, then start over in January with the lower intensity and re-work my way up in intensity, achieving max. intensity by the end of outdoor season. (two peaks – end of fall and end of outdoor)

        Plan B – I could start in the fall, SLOWLY progress in intensity, not reaching max. intensity (95% or above) until the end of outdoor (one peak – end of outdoor only).

        Which one would be more effective for a sprinter?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Derrick Brito on #28418

        id say double peak. with one conitnuos cycle, it seems like you would be on the same percentage/rep range too long.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        400stud on #28419

        I agree with Derrick.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Derrick Brito on #28420

        and if you hadnt thought of these things already, ill add them.

        the first cycle i think should be longer than the second, and there isnt a need to start back at 50% unless youre taking a big break from lifting, which i wouldnt recomend anyways. but if theyre just taking winter break off or something, then starting again at around 70% would be better imo.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28421

        I understand all of your opinions. But before I say I agree with you all, are you guys considering that I am only peaking once for running (no indoor peak)?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        dma1973 on #28422

        If you are going to do a maximum strength phase (3 to 6 reps @80-90%). You can only really handle a maximum of 6 weeks continuous cycle or 3 on:1 off:3 on cycle.

        I tend to have 2 to 3 strength cycles in the year even when I am peaking once a year.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28423

        [i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        So basically, the best method for a sprinter would be to start off with high reps/low intensity, then gradually move up to low reps/high intensity, correct?

        Not really. I don't really think that high rep protocols have much of a place in a power athletes training…..even in GPP. There are better ways around this issue. Instead of doing 4 x 12 @ 50% why not something like 8 x 6 @ 65%. The volume would be the same, the intensity would actually be high enough to yield some strength gains and the the set-rep scheme would be better for safety and speed of movement (if you chose to emphasize this).

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28424

        [i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        Well how does this setup look. . . .

        4 x 12 @ 50%
        4 x 10 @ 60%
        4 x 10 @ 70%
        3 x 8 @ 80%
        3 x 5 @ 85%
        3 x 3 @ 90%
        4 x 2 @ 95%
        testing

        I think the first 4 cycles would be a waste of time. Unless you are starting with extremely low fitness I don't think you need all that low intensity work.

        I plan on starting this in the fall. I have two ways I could go about this.

        Plan A. – I could start in the fall, progress to 95% by the end of fall, then start over in January with the lower intensity and re-work my way up in intensity, achieving max. intensity by the end of outdoor season. (two peaks – end of fall and end of outdoor)

        Plan B – I could start in the fall, SLOWLY progress in intensity, not reaching max. intensity (95% or above) until the end of outdoor (one peak – end of outdoor only).

        Which one would be more effective for a sprinter?

        I think a double peak would be better even if you're not intending on competing indoors. I'm not a big fan of the long slow increases in intensity. I think the drastic change in training that occurs after the first peak provides a nice foundation for future gains in the second peaking cycle.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28425

        [i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
        [quote][i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        Well how does this setup look. . . .

        4 x 12 @ 50%
        4 x 10 @ 60%
        4 x 10 @ 70%
        3 x 8 @ 80%
        3 x 5 @ 85%
        3 x 3 @ 90%
        4 x 2 @ 95%
        testing

        I think the first 4 cycles would be a waste of time. Unless you are starting with extremely low fitness I don't think you need all that low intensity work.

        I plan on starting this in the fall. I have two ways I could go about this.

        Plan A. – I could start in the fall, progress to 95% by the end of fall, then start over in January with the lower intensity and re-work my way up in intensity, achieving max. intensity by the end of outdoor season. (two peaks – end of fall and end of outdoor)

        Plan B – I could start in the fall, SLOWLY progress in intensity, not reaching max. intensity (95% or above) until the end of outdoor (one peak – end of outdoor only).

        Which one would be more effective for a sprinter?

        I think a double peak would be better even if you're not intending on competing indoors. I'm not a big fan of the long slow increases in intensity. I think the drastic change in training that occurs after the first peak provides a nice foundation for future gains in the second peaking cycle. [/quote]Ok, well then wouldn't the setup I proposed make even better sense to do in the off season? They'll be training over the summer as well so by the time we start lifting in the fall, they'll be have good fitness. However, wouldn't they still need that low intensity work with the weights?

        If you still think it is unnecessary, could you propose a setup for me?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        delldell on #28426

        Post the kids #'s, training age, etc. or else it's hard to say if they need to be doing AA (higher reps).

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28427

        [i]Originally posted by delldell[/i]
        Post the kids #'s, training age, etc. or else it's hard to say if they need to be doing AA (higher reps).

        Athlete 1 – second season of track (soph.); 100m: 13.42, 200m: 26.50 Bench: 130 Squat: 250

        Athlete 2 – first season of track (frosh.); 100m: 13.80, 200m: 27.50 Bench: 100 Squat: 210

        Athlete 3 – first season of track (frosh.); 100m: 13.22, 200m: 27.00 Bench: 85 Squat: 200

        All the other athletes are freshman who didn't get to lift weight this season because it was too time consuming to teach them how. So I had them do general strength exercises.

        Thoughts?

        And do you need anymore info?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Derrick Brito on #28428

        maybe mike thinks that the lower mesos are a waste of time because all they would really do is help with soft tissue and not strength. since youre trying to max strength, it would make more sense to work soft tissue with GS work. and yes i still stick with the double peak, i think you might get stale with too long of a cycle.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        delldell on #28429

        Yes they could use some higher rep stuff. 85 & 100 lb. bench…

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28430

        [i]Originally posted by delldell[/i]
        Yes they could use some higher rep stuff. 85 & 100 lb. bench…

        This is why I suggested the high rep work. These are girls who IMO would make QUANTUM LEAPS in their times with increased strength. They are very fast as it is but they are super weak!

        Thoughts anyone?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28431

        Hello? Anyone?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28432

        [i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
        I think a double peak would be better even if you're not intending on competing indoors. I'm not a big fan of the long slow increases in intensity. I think the drastic change in training that occurs after the first peak provides a nice foundation for future gains in the second peaking cycle.

        What do you think of this setup mike. . .

        1st cycle – 8 x 6 @ 65%
        2nd cycle – 6 x 6 @ 75%
        3rd cycle – 4 x 5 @ 85%
        4th cycle – 6 x 2 @ 95%
        testing after the 4th cycle

        1. Could this setup work, or do you have a better suggestion?

        2. Whatever setup I end up using, should I start in the summer, lengthen each cycle to about 6-8 weeks ending in December. Or should I begin this in the fall (September) make each cycle 3-4 weeks, ending in December?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        delldell on #28433

        At their level, I don't think they need anything over 90%. Probably even 85%.

        You wouldn't want to keep the same set-up for more than 3-4 weeks.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28434

        [i]Originally posted by delldell[/i]
        At their level, I don't think they need anything over 90%. Probably even 85%.

        You wouldn't want to keep the same set-up for more than 3-4 weeks.

        Why nothing over 85-90%?

        If I should change after 3-4 weeks, are you suggesting I should start lifting in the fall and do general strength during the summer? Or should I start in the summer, then after I reach 85-95%, start over from 65% in the fall?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28435

        I think they'd probably progress just fine with lower intensities lower than 95 and most likely lower than even 90% max.

        As for my previous recommendations, I think that the 50 and 60% intensities you had mentioned would be best for muscular endurance and wouldn't be the best way to develop muscular strength even in younger athletes. If you were to do as I prescribed and used equivalent volumes with higher loads I think the gains you'd see would be much better. Because the volume would still be high you'd reap some soft tissue benefits and the higher loads would permit more efficient training for strength. All you'd be doing would be keeping the total volume the same while manipulating the sets and reps in such a manner that would create a nice balance of strength gains and anatomical adaptation.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28436

        [i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
        I think they'd probably progress just fine with lower intensities lower than 95 and most likely lower than even 90% max.

        As for my previous recommendations, I think that the 50 and 60% intensities you had mentioned would be best for muscular endurance and wouldn't be the best way to develop muscular strength even in younger athletes. If you were to do as I prescribed and used equivalent volumes with higher loads I think the gains you'd see would be much better. Because the volume would still be high you'd reap some soft tissue benefits and the higher loads would permit more efficient training for strength. All you'd be doing would be keeping the total volume the same while manipulating the sets and reps in such a manner that would create a nice balance of strength gains and anatomical adaptation.

        Well I guess my question is what would going that high in intensity (90-95%) do to them? Would it affect them in a negative way?

        Also, what about the setup I just proposed above? What are your thoughts on that?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28437

        Another question I have along with what I already posted mike is can this work on a 3 day a week plan?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28438

        Hello?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28439

        I think the setup you proposed above looks good and I think it would be quite effective on a 3 day a week cycle. As for very high intensities, I just think that in light of their training age and lack of strength they would make very nice gains at lower intensities without having to progress to very high intensities. I don't think it would hurt them in the short term to do high intensity stuff right now (nor do I think they'd get much extra benefit) but in the long term scheme of things you'll be taking away the opportunity to progress training intensities since you'd have already done it without seeing much additional benefit due to the fact that athletes such as yours will typically respond just the same or better to lower intensity work.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28440

        Should I start lifting in the fall and do general strength during the summer? Or should I start in the summer, then after I reach 85-95%, start over from 65% in the fall?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28441

        I'd just start lifting them now with some general strength work thrown in. In my opinion GS should be done all year round.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28442

        [i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
        I'd just start lifting them now with some general strength work thrown in. In my opinion GS should be done all year round.

        Well how would I periodize the lifting (OL's, etc.), starting from summer on through the end of next outdoor season?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28443

        Hello?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28444

        [i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        Well how would I periodize the lifting (OL's, etc.), starting from summer on through the end of next outdoor season?

        There is no way this question could be answered in one post…..this could be a book by itself. There are many variables here to look at with volume and intensity being the most basic and perhaps easiest to manipulate. In GENERAL, total volume should start high and get lower as the season progresses. The opposite is true for intensity. It's also important to try and match up what you're doing on the track with what you're doing in the weight room. Sorry for the near-worthless answer but if you give a more specific question I'll try and give a better answer.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28445

        1st cycle – 8 x 6 @ 65%
        2nd cycle – 6 x 6 @ 75%
        3rd cycle – 4 x 5 @ 85%
        4th cycle – 6 x 2 @ 95%
        testing after the 4th cycle

        I plan on using this cycle from now on. How much time should I spend on each cycle? Should I use the standard 3 weeks load, one week unload plan, or should I just go off of feel – meaning move on to next cycle when current cycle has become easy? Thoughts?

        Also, if I am to start out with 65-70% with stuff like bench press and squats, what percentage do I start off with for OL's? Do I start these off at 65-70% as well, or do I consistantly keep them in the 80-90% range

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28446

        bump

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28447

        Yesterday I had my athletes do all OL's at 85%, but I wasn't sure if they should be doing that much weight so early in the summer.

        mike, what do you think?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28448

        [i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        1st cycle – 8 x 6 @ 65%
        2nd cycle – 6 x 6 @ 75%
        3rd cycle – 4 x 5 @ 85%
        4th cycle – 6 x 2 @ 95%
        testing after the 4th cycle

        I plan on using this cycle from now on. How much time should I spend on each cycle? Should I use the standard 3 weeks load, one week unload plan, or should I just go off of feel – meaning move on to next cycle when current cycle has become easy? Thoughts?

        I typically use a 3 week on 1 week off cycle format but have used other varieties such as 2-1, and 4-1. Going on feel has its pluses but makes for difficult planning.

        Also, if I am to start out with 65-70% with stuff like bench press and squats, what percentage do I start off with for OL's? Do I start these off at 65-70% as well, or do I consistantly keep them in the 80-90% range?

        I would start the OLs slightly higher (+5% from other lifts) for several reasons:
        *OLs are typically performed with less reps.
        *Because they are used to develop power and RFD, a lower % of max isn't necessarily a bad thing as peak power outputs are typically seen in the neighborhood of 60-70% of max.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Jay Turner on #28449

        1. I forgot what RFD is mike. What is it?

        2. And keeping the OL's in the 80-90% range is not good right?

        3. When running, the 3 on, 1 off program is 3 weeks with each of the 3 weeks getting progressively more difficult, then "unload" the 4th week.

        How do you do that with lifting if you already have a set schedule on reps and sets?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        gamebreaker on #28450

        If you're trying to gain strength and power, I suggest you checkout https://www.gk22.com . I'm on week 12 of the strength and the speed program. I have never felt so fast in my life.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        pete on #28451

        1. Rate of force development

      • Avatar
        Participant
        400stud on #28452

        GameBreaker – That's a nice football program. Not so nice track program.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #28453

        [i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
        1. I forgot what RFD is mike. What is it?

        Rate of force development as Pete said.

        2. And keeping the OL's in the 80-90% range is not good right?

        Don't keep them their all the time. I use a range of 70-100% depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. Note however that this is for advanced athletes and more novice athletes may not need such high intensity levels to progress. One thing you should concentrate on though is speed of movement, especially on the second pull.

        3. When running, the 3 on, 1 off program is 3 weeks with each of the 3 weeks getting progressively more difficult, then "unload" the 4th week.

        I rarely increase the intensity or volume from week 1 to week 3 of a cycle, but otherwise what you said is right (for how I usually set it up).

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        therealtmac on #69328

        When entering a new cycle, would you re-calculate your 1RM?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        utfootball4 on #69334

        When entering a new cycle, would you re-calculate your 1RM?

        It really depends but in most cases i do.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73724

        Not to sound moody but why would a coach have a runner doing Oly lifts?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73727

        Not to sound moody but why would a coach have a runner doing Oly lifts?

        is that a serious question?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        utfootball4 on #73730

        Not to sound moody but why would a coach have a runner doing Oly lifts?

        I agree.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73734

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225159254"]Not to sound moody but why would a coach have a runner doing Oly lifts?

        is that a serious question?[/quote]

        Hi Hero,

        It is a serious question, I am interested as to the reasoning behind a coaches decision to include explosive lifts like this into an athletes programme?

        Regards,

        Richard aka Ham

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73735

        Ha just realised your screen name isnt hero:) My bad, still getting to grips with things here

        Richard aka Ham

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73736

        Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73737

        Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

        Hi Nick,

        Thanks for your response.

        So far I found nothing to support this line of thinking. yes OL does imporve RFD, explosive power and CNS development – completely agree. However, it only improves them for the OLifts. I have seen nothing that shows they improve a specific sport directly more so than a heavy squat or dead. Or even specifically at all.

        Do you have any evidence that shows they do transfer to sports and not only to the Olifts?

        Thanks

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        utfootball4 on #73740

        Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

        So does jumps, throws, sprints, jump squats etc etc.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73743

        [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225219491"]Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

        Hi Nick,

        Thanks for your response.

        So far I found nothing to support this line of thinking. yes OL does imporve RFD, explosive power and CNS development – completely agree. However, it only improves them for the OLifts. I have seen nothing that shows they improve a specific sport directly more so than a heavy squat or dead. Or even specifically at all.

        Do you have any evidence that shows they do transfer to sports and not only to the Olifts?

        Thanks

        Richard[/quote]

        Richard:

        I think the bigger question is, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Don’t call for someone else’s evidence without having any in particular on your own.

        One of the most important things in training is power development. It’s transfer is not strength (work without regards to time), but power (work with regards to time or force times speed). It’s not the strongest athlete who wins, but the more powerful athlete relative to their bodyweight. You can improve power with maximal strength work, but it won’t be optimal for applications.

        Personally, I don’t believe 1RM heavy OLs are worth more than squats or DLs. Squats and Deadlifts require a great deal of initial force application. OL’s require the same type of force application, but greater coordination, and different extension parameters. The snatch in Olympic Lifting is closer to jumping, starting, and throwing than squats and deadlifts are. Between testing days of every macrocycle, the athletes who have shown the greatest improvements in power outputs and it’s maintainability have the better test scores and they show the greatest improvements in actual competition performances as well. I see better improvements in 5 hop, 5 bound, SLJ, STJ, and VJ scores that coincide with power development and not strength development. As for transferability, my kids do a lot of medball throws and almost all of their work is geared towards increasing power outputs and the ability to hold a power output for a certain period of time.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        BLogaN on #73746

        [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225219491"]Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

        Hi Nick,

        Thanks for your response.

        So far I found nothing to support this line of thinking. yes OL does imporve RFD, explosive power and CNS development – completely agree. However, it only improves them for the OLifts. I have seen nothing that shows they improve a specific sport directly more so than a heavy squat or dead. Or even specifically at all.

        Do you have any evidence that shows they do transfer to sports and not only to the Olifts?

        Thanks

        Richard[/quote]

        I think it would be difficult to directly compare Olifts to the powerlifts in track and field athletes and get meaningful data.

        But one could think about having 4 elite Olympic weightlifters measure up against 4 elite powerlifters of the same weight class in a 20-m sprint. Who do you suppose might win?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        utfootball4 on #73748

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225220058"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225219491"]Well to keep it simple…

        Explosive lifts like OL’s develop a)(as previously discussed), rate of force development (developing great force in minimal time), something that is much needed for sprinters, b) Explosive power, c) CNS development, d) reactive power.

        All needed for sprinters.

        Hi Nick,

        Thanks for your response.

        So far I found nothing to support this line of thinking. yes OL does imporve RFD, explosive power and CNS development – completely agree. However, it only improves them for the OLifts. I have seen nothing that shows they improve a specific sport directly more so than a heavy squat or dead. Or even specifically at all.

        Do you have any evidence that shows they do transfer to sports and not only to the Olifts?

        Thanks

        Richard[/quote]

        I think it would be difficult to directly compare Olifts to the powerlifts in track and field athletes and get meaningful data.

        But one could think about having 4 elite Olympic weightlifters measure up against 4 elite powerlifters of the same weight class in a 20-m sprint. Who do you suppose might win?[/quote]

        Blah Blah, who knows. Mark Henry was a very athletic powerlifter.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73750

        I am not asking in a confrontational way, if it came across that way then such is the result of writing and not actually speaking.

        I am from a background that believes (under scrutiny by myself right now) in getting as strong as possible (one of them, yawn) and then practice your sport.

        I have seen that skill transfer plays a big part in performance enhancement and that if strength move it too similar to a sports specific move then there is a high chance of negative skill transfer – making the sports skill worse and not better – due to “noise” or conflicting skill paths.

        However, the more I try and read into the research of sports specific trainig and the value of any additional training outside of the sport – the more I see that science doesnt back up anything outside of specific skill training. i.e. no additional training – be it explosive or mimicing of the sports move itself or traditional strength moves such as the squat has any transfer over to a sport. the body adapts too specifically for there to be a transfer of strength or skill.

        I am struggling to find research that shows resistance moves that mimic a sports move actually increase performance through skill/strength/power transer regardless of how “close” it is to the sports specific movement.

        Both mehtods i.e. 1) get stronger muscles then learn to use it in your sport AND 2) get strong in a movement that closely mimics the sports specific skill itself and hope the transfer is positive and not negative. Both seem to hold strong advocates on either side with venemous arguements for each of their beliefs –

        Finding the scientific research to back either one up is hard at best.

        However, there is a lot of research that shows strength work does nothing, some that says it does, some that says it should be non specific, some says it inly works if it is specific. Seems a real mess.

        Kerksick, C., Mayhew, J., Smith, A., Johnson, B., Hart, C., & Ward, T. (2007). General and specific strength development following resistance training in college men and women. ACSM Annual Meeting New Orleans, Presentation Number, 1778.
        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol141/kerksick.htm

        HIP STRENGTH TRAINING IMPROVES SPRINT AND AGILITY PERFORMANCES
        Deane, R. S., Chow, J. W., Tillman, M. D., & Fournier, K. A. (2003). Hip flexor strength training can improve sprint and shuttle run performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(5), Supplement abstract 2250.
        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol111/deane.htm

        DROP JUMP TRAINING DOES NOT IMPROVE VERTICAL JUMPING PERFORMANCE
        Young, W. B., Wilson, G. B., & Byrne, C. A. (1999). A comparison of drop jump training methods: Effects on leg extensor strength qualities and jumping performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 20, 295-303.

        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol81/young2.htm

        STRENGTH TRAINING IMPROVES SWIMMING PERFORMANCE
        Hsu, T. G., Hsu, K. M., & Hsieh, S. S. (1997). The effects of shoulder isokinetic strength training on speed and propulsive forces in front crawl swimming. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 713.
        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol51/hsu.htm

        PHYSIOLOGY OF MOTOR LEARNING
        Hellebrandt, F. A. (1972). The physiology of motor learning. In R. N. Singer (Ed.), Readings in motor learning (pp. 397-409). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger

        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol31/hellebra.htm

        SPECIFICITY OF TRAINING – TRANSFER OF TRAINING EFFECTS FOR SKILLS RARELY OCCUR
        Brent S. Rushall, in answer to questions from Dr. Larry Weisenthal (1997).
        https://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol31/speccont.htm

        for just a few that i have seen and find very conflicting.

        Regards,

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73751

        Richard:

        Don’t worry about being confrontational. I wanted to know more where you were coming from. I see your focus is on specificity. Weight training is general training unless you are a powerlifter, olympic lifter, or bodybuilder. However when you get to specific exercises, some of the weight exercises are more specific than others to based on the demands of the sporting activities. I for one believe both ends of the spectrum need to be worked, the firing sequence, the rate at which they fire and the summation of firing activity to move a limb or set of limbs through a psuedo-predetermined range of motion.

        Personally, when working neural patterns I like to do complexes such as a squat/deadlift set followed by an olympic lift set followed by a plyometric set (sprinting is plyometric). I can cut the front set off or the back set off if I need to. What I like to see is that huge summation pattern followed by a rate pattern followed by a sequence pattern. I also try not to confuse neural training from metabolic power training. They cross and bridge each other, but they don’t exactly benefit each other in a harmonious way. One is the application of force work (neural) and the other is the rate and duration at which work is being done (metabolic power). The only way these 2 bridge together in a harmonious way which is productive for the adaptation to a specific skill is to do the specific skill itself. Specificity is good, but it can also be counter-productive if it is done too much or with little variation.

        One can work simultaneously at both, towards neural and metabolic specificity to a specific skill or set of skills (task) since sprinting is a set of skills (IMHO) before every getting to the skill itself. This is not a transfer of skill, but the learning of a skill with the abilities one possesses. In the weight room I never cue back to the track, I cue neural stimulation (faster, stronger, powerful, and rate). At the muscular level summation is not done mostly in the brain but at the muscle and sequencing is done in the brain (pattern), while rate is regulated by both. When one does medball and plyometric work (not related to track), they can cue the rate (quicker, at pace, on tempo) and explosiveness (higher, father, longer). Motor learning is done at the speeds at which you perform an activity.

        Are olympic lifts important in the overall scheme of things? Not as much as a well rounded training program is with proper feedback and cueing that develops both the metabolic and neural components needed to compete, but they are certainly more specific to the activity desired than squats. Especially, when dealing with sprinting. (read vern’s latest blog)

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73752

        Thanks for the detailed reply.

        So far I am still of the mindset that things like power, RFD etc are very very specific to a skill, i.e. to run fast, practice running fast.

        The strength training aspect of it always used to be simple in my mind; get the fibres of the sports specific muscles as strong as possible (in a non mimicing and general fashion) whilst maintaining size, for power to weight ratio and you will obviously get faster. To me that was the reason men were faster runners than women – stronger muscles equals the potential for more power output. The research I have seen doesnt seem to support that, unless, you already had said strength in muscle tissues before specific skill training is undertaken.

        The biggest issue in my mind is the weighted skill training i.e. to jump high, jump with added weight and when you get stronger doing that you will be able to jump higher without the weight – makes perfect sense – motor learning experts disagree though but research doesnt seem to.

        ??

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73753

        Welcome aboard Richard,

        Don’t be afraid to be confrontational it is accepted as a necessary step in the pursuit of excellence. Love your attitude to evidence based research.

        Tricoli 2005 found that Olympic lifts improved 10m sprint performance by 3% compared to 2.5% for a plyometric program. There are two probable mechanisms by which Olympic lifts can facilitate a sprint improvement. One is that the technique requires explosive hip extension. The other is not suggested by any other researcher but I believe this is where the true benefit of Olympic lifts exist. This would be the stimulus provided from the eccentric movement near the top of a snatch. Is it any better than sprint running itself? I doubt it is much better than a combined uphill and downhill running program for an average sprinter and less so for an elite sprinter but with a bit of imagination one could make the Olympic lift much more specific to the actual movement of sprinting and therefore derive greater benefits. Certainly using a variety of loads will maximise any benefit and a well designed program will bring the best out of this training method.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73755

        Thanks for the detailed reply.

        So far I am still of the mindset that things like power, RFD etc are very very specific to a skill, i.e. to run fast, practice running fast.

        The strength training aspect of it always used to be simple in my mind; get the fibres of the sports specific muscles as strong as possible (in a non mimicing and general fashion) whilst maintaining size, for power to weight ratio and you will obviously get faster. To me that was the reason men were faster runners than women – stronger muscles equals the potential for more power output. The research I have seen doesnt seem to support that, unless, you already had said strength in muscle tissues before specific skill training is undertaken.

        The biggest issue in my mind is the weighted skill training i.e. to jump high, jump with added weight and when you get stronger doing that you will be able to jump higher without the weight – makes perfect sense – motor learning experts disagree though but research doesnt seem to.

        ??

        Richard

        The rate at which force is developed is dependent on the wiring on which already exists. That wiring can be redone for better or for worse in the weight room with relation to summation of forces. That wiring can also be redone by movements that occur in training (sequencing, aka patterns).

        Getting stronger doesn’t always mean getting faster, if you can maintain or decrease mass and not experience a decrease in strength you will become more powerful, just because you are stronger. However, it’s not specifically geared towards the activity so it means very little because the power increase is not optimal or specific.

        What research says if you use weighted jumps you will jump higher? In the short term you will, because the power requirement is higher, not the strength requirement, but in the long term it won’t because the athlete won’t be able to increase the speed of the movement effectively enough to make increases, in fact there will be little differences between weighted and non-weighted jumps. It’s like the person who is pulling a sled for acceleration training, they make huge gains early on, but they later on with long term training they look like they are pulling a sled or a hose when accelerating. I see this a lot in javelin throwers who didn’t have very good acceleration capabilities who did a lot of hose pulls and sled pulls and their runups ended up being better in the short term but after 5-6 years of doing it their transistion steps to release look like they are pulling a hose and their first few steps look like they are pulling a sled. Footballers are notorious for this as well.

        As far as continuing adaptations goes, we are always refining and learning our skills as humans. I strength and power as abilities and not skills. You referenced an article of using drop jumps is not a way of increasing vertical jumps. Any coach with common sense would understand this. The basic vertical jump measurement is a measure of initial/starting power and drop jumping is a measure of reactive/elastic power and trains specifically that. The 2 are not even compatible, much less comparable, heck the 2 footed vertical jump is of the most basic athletic movements around and is almost not even a skill, but more of an ability (ability to produce concentric muscular power). It relates more to initial measures of acceleration, not the ability to maintain them.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73757

        Welcome aboard Richard,

        Don’t be afraid to be confrontational it is accepted as a necessary step in the pursuit of excellence. Love your attitude to evidence based research.

        Tricoli 2005 found that Olympic lifts improved 10m sprint performance by 3% compared to 2.5% for a plyometric program. There are two probable mechanisms by which Olympic lifts can facilitate a sprint improvement. One is that the technique requires explosive hip extension. The other is not suggested by any other researcher but I believe this is where the true benefit of Olympic lifts exist. This would be the stimulus provided from the eccentric movement near the top of a snatch. Is it any better than sprint running itself? I doubt it is much better than a combined uphill and downhill running program for an average sprinter and less so for an elite sprinter but with a bit of imagination one could make the Olympic lift much more specific to the actual movement of sprinting and therefore derive greater benefits. Certainly using a variety of loads will maximise any benefit and a well designed program will bring the best out of this training method.

        I am not afraid of being confrontational, it just seems to serve as an emotional spark that causes discussion to go down hill fast – never fun or helpful.

        IF it is the explosive aspect of the lift that helps, then what of the research (havent got it to hand but could probably find it if needed) that is of the opinion that it is not purely the act of moving fast that excites the CNS but merely the attempt to i.e. attempting to move heavy squat as fast as possible even though due to the weight you are actually moving very slowly. Would a heavy squat is this manner serve the same purpose as a lighter but quicker hip extension as found in a snatch or power clean?

        IF it is the attempt that excites the CNS then what of motor learning and negative skill transfer – if a strength training movement is too similar to a sports movement then it causes a loss in performance rather than an increase?

        Regards,

        Richard aka Ham

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73758

        Richard[/quote]

        The rate at which force is developed is dependent on the wiring on which already exists. That wiring can be redone for better or for worse in the weight room with relation to summation of forces. That wiring can also be redone by movements that occur in training (sequencing, aka patterns).

        Getting stronger doesn’t always mean getting faster, if you can maintain or decrease mass and not experience a decrease in strength you will become more powerful, just because you are stronger. However, it’s not specifically geared towards the activity so it means very little because the power increase is not optimal or specific.

        What research says if you use weighted jumps you will jump higher? In the short term you will, because the power requirement is higher, not the strength requirement, but in the long term it won’t because the athlete won’t be able to increase the speed of the movement effectively enough to make increases, in fact there will be little differences between weighted and non-weighted jumps. It’s like the person who is pulling a sled for acceleration training, they make huge gains early on, but they later on with long term training they look like they are pulling a sled or a hose when accelerating. I see this a lot in javelin throwers who didn’t have very good acceleration capabilities who did a lot of hose pulls and sled pulls and their runups ended up being better in the short term but after 5-6 years of doing it their transistion steps to release look like they are pulling a hose and their first few steps look like they are pulling a sled. Footballers are notorious for this as well.

        As far as continuing adaptations goes, we are always refining and learning our skills as humans. I strength and power as abilities and not skills. You referenced an article of using drop jumps is not a way of increasing vertical jumps. Any coach with common sense would understand this. The basic vertical jump measurement is a measure of initial/starting power and drop jumping is a measure of reactive/elastic power and trains specifically that. The 2 are not even compatible, much less comparable, heck the 2 footed vertical jump is of the most basic athletic movements around and is almost not even a skill, but more of an ability (ability to produce concentric muscular power). It relates more to initial measures of acceleration, not the ability to maintain them.[/quote]

        If you get more powerfull then is it not an indication of more strength – and vice versa all things being equal?

        Sorry not sure I should have said research showing weighted jumping helps jumping – perhaps “convential wisdom” of so called sports trainers i hear about.

        If any coach would understand the misapplication of drop jumps in jump training I have to ask why on earth are tests like that being conducted – seems like an awful waste of time and money – are there no coaches working in the research field?

        RFD – as I understad it is entirely movement specific – increases RFD in a squat clean will not transfer over and increase RFD in sprinting or slam dunking? The only way to increase RFD in sprinting is to practice sprinting?

        Regards,

        Richard

        By the way – where is this board geared to – where are most of the posters from – US, UK, Europe?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73759

        RFD is explosive strength…

        the best way the develop this is with very high intensity cleans, snatches, power cleans/snatches, low volume, full rec OR submax load with maximal velocity quarter squats, cleans, snatches ect at 70%, low volume, full rec…depending on sports training for…

        With the max intensity method, the bar is still moving slowly because of the high loads. Becuase of this, and with the aim being on explosive application of force, cleans, snatches ect are better than squats for developing RFD…

        Due to limited arm strength in most people power, cleans, snatches etc are only benificial in developing RFD if the RFD of the legs is maximal and the bar is moved so fast that the catch is possible….

        Basically something (load or speed) has to be maximal for the RFD to be developed. Squats just dont fit the bill nearly like OL’s do for this aim.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73760

        RFD is explosive strength…

        the best way the develop this is with very high intensity cleans, snatches, power cleans/snatches, low volume, full rec OR submax load with maximal velocity quarter squats, cleans, snatches ect at 70%, low volume, full rec…depending on sports training for…

        With the max intensity method, the bar is still moving slowly because of the high loads. Becuase of this, and with the aim being on explosive application of force, cleans, snatches ect are better than squats for developing RFD…

        Due to limited arm strength in most people power, cleans, snatches etc are only benificial in developing RFD if the RFD of the legs is maximal and the bar is moved so fast that the catch is possible….

        Basically something (load or speed) has to be maximal for the RFD to be developed. Squats just dont fit the bill nearly like OL’s do for this aim.

        Hi Nick,

        Respectfully I have to call this as bad interpretation of science bleeding into sports specific training.

        The RFD accquired from cleans is not transferable to any skill other than those trained – the clean. There is is nothing in science to say OLY lifts transfers RFD over to anything other than OLY lifts.

        If any increase in performance is gained then it is more likely it is from an increase in strength – which again is not strongly supported in science, but supported to a degree none the less.

        regards,

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73761

        i disagree and so does a profound coach and exercise scientist Dr. Ritzdorf apparently…

        RFD is something within the person…their ability to produce high force and short time. If someone is able to do this, then anything which requires this outcome, will be performed well.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #71046

        Olympic lifts are good because they provide an innate measure of both load and speed. If a clean is not fast enough, it’s not getting racked. If a heavy squat, speed squat, or jump squat isn’t fast enough…eh who cares (or who knows).

      • Avatar
        Participant
        acidhell on #71077

        On the whole, yes i agree with Richard.
        SAID principle, never forget that… specific adaptation to imposed demands. Your body makes all the necessary adaptations (neurologically, metabolically, structurally blah blah) to an imposed stimuli, so as the next time it faces the same stimuli (after supercompensation is complete, but before involution begins), is better equipped to handle the stress.

        Weight training can help in all strength-power sports, because it can improve your ability to RECRUIT HTMU’s.It gets exponentially harder the more advanced u become. But keep your priorities straight. Never forget where your primary CNS stimulus comes from (in that case sprinting).

        Relative gym strength is not that important in sprinting. Otherwise there wouldn’t be tall lanky sprinters dominating the track and field. Even if we normalize for body height, something’s apparently off. I agree with what hat Mike had said in another thread, weight training is a preparatory stimulus for the sprints (especially after the beginner stage where EVERYTHING works)- sort of primes your body for the next speed session if intensity and volume parameters are controlled, and strength/performance increments in the concurrently practiced sport are sort of intra-athlete correlated. Strength, as in the ability to recruit HTMU’s/cns output does matter, otherwise AAS wouldn’t make u faster (recovery factors aside)

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #70999

        i dont think anyone said that sprinting wasnt the most important aspect of developing sprinting…

        But RFD training with OL’s and other high intensity means develop an attribute which will be shown during the sprint…

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #71000

        [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225249085"]RFD is explosive strength…

        the best way the develop this is with very high intensity cleans, snatches, power cleans/snatches, low volume, full rec OR submax load with maximal velocity quarter squats, cleans, snatches ect at 70%, low volume, full rec…depending on sports training for…

        With the max intensity method, the bar is still moving slowly because of the high loads. Becuase of this, and with the aim being on explosive application of force, cleans, snatches ect are better than squats for developing RFD…

        Due to limited arm strength in most people power, cleans, snatches etc are only benificial in developing RFD if the RFD of the legs is maximal and the bar is moved so fast that the catch is possible….

        Basically something (load or speed) has to be maximal for the RFD to be developed. Squats just dont fit the bill nearly like OL’s do for this aim.

        Hi Nick,

        Respectfully I have to call this as bad interpretation of science bleeding into sports specific training.

        The RFD accquired from cleans is not transferable to any skill other than those trained – the clean. There is is nothing in science to say OLY lifts transfers RFD over to anything other than OLY lifts.

        If any increase in performance is gained then it is more likely it is from an increase in strength – which again is not strongly supported in science, but supported to a degree none the less.

        regards,

        Richard[/quote]

        You are a little off base with this conclusion, conjecture, or otherwise riveting opinion. If you train for strength and not rate at which work is done you will be left in the dust. You don’t have to increase strength to increase power, you only have to increase the rate at which work is done. In a lift, it’s the number of lifts per unit time, in a race it’s velocity, in a jumping event or throwing event it’s momentum of the implement/takeoff at release along with the trajectory of flight. Strength can help those numbers, but power is the deciding factor.

        Let’s back up to the drop jump. If you are a coach whose well rounded in education you will know that a landing in the drop jump creates a reactive force which can aid jumping ability. You’d be able to further infer that the reactive force you create from a dropped height is controlled by elastic and eccentric capabilities of the human body, if it is too strong the contact time dissipates the energy/force return. Drop jumps train elastic and eccentric capabilities and not concentric capabilities. The 2 footed vertical jump is an SSC initiated muscular action, but it’s mostly dependent on the concentric abilities of that have been developed. In this sense, a combination of Snatch, Cleans, Deadlifts, Squats, OHB Medball throws, and 2 foot vertical jumps on a regular basis will fulfill the needs to increase the vertical jump. One can build strength by training for power, the strength increases are smaller, but their is little need for Western Style Periodization which is what you are suggesting correct?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #70780

        yes i agree D…

        The skinny guys who cant squat 225 or clean 185 but can jump 8m are not strong…but have incredible RFD…this can be developed without much increase in strength. Absolutley. I am also an example of this, this season. i am more powerful at the given strength that i am at now, than i have been at this strength level before. And this is because of all the power work we have been focussing on.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73765

        i disagree and so does a profound coach and exercise scientist Dr. Ritzdorf apparently…

        RFD is something within the person…their ability to produce high force and short time. If someone is able to do this, then anything which requires this outcome, will be performed well.

        Nick,

        For my own purposes (not for calling you out into a debate – yet) can you recommend a good reading source on Dr. Ritzdorf or is Googling him a good option?

        RFD – something within a person – sounds a little “mystical” and does not reflect what science tells me from the literature I have found. I am always open to learn something so if you can point me to somehting that will enlighten me on this then I will be most greatful to read it?

        To be good at one thing does not autmatically mean that ability or skill will pass over to something else – shooting a basketball at a 10 foot hoop doesnt mean you will be any better at learning to shoot a 12 foot hoop than someone who has never shot a 10 foot hoop before – all things being equal – both will learn it as fast and more likely from what I know the person who never shot a 10 footer before will learn the 12 footer quicker.

        Regards,

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73766

        [/quote]

        You are a little off base with this conclusion, conjecture, or otherwise riveting opinion. If you train for strength and not rate at which work is done you will be left in the dust. You don’t have to increase strength to increase power, you only have to increase the rate at which work is done. In a lift, it’s the number of lifts per unit time, in a race it’s velocity, in a jumping event or throwing event it’s momentum of the implement/takeoff at release along with the trajectory of flight. Strength can help those numbers, but power is the deciding factor.

        Let’s back up to the drop jump. If you are a coach whose well rounded in education you will know that a landing in the drop jump creates a reactive force which can aid jumping ability. You’d be able to further infer that the reactive force you create from a dropped height is controlled by elastic and eccentric capabilities of the human body, if it is too strong the contact time dissipates the energy/force return. Drop jumps train elastic and eccentric capabilities and not concentric capabilities. The 2 footed vertical jump is an SSC initiated muscular action, but it’s mostly dependent on the concentric abilities of that have been developed. In this sense, a combination of Snatch, Cleans, Deadlifts, Squats, OHB Medball throws, and 2 foot vertical jumps on a regular basis will fulfill the needs to increase the vertical jump. One can build strength by training for power, the strength increases are smaller, but their is little need for Western Style Periodization which is what you are suggesting correct?[/quote]

        My conclusions thus far are open to change – if I find compelling enough evidence to warrant a change. So far I have found lots of research saying sports specific moves make no difference and lots of opinions saying it does. Opinions are warranted and can be good causes for further research – however, thats all they are, no matter how many people hold that opinion.

        I ubderstand the training effect a drop jump has, the question that arises is;

        does it improve your vertical jump more than jumping training and strength work?

        THEN

        if it doesnt make any difference over or compared to traditional low impact/force squats etc then is the potential for future injury worth risking for something that is no more effective than a safer alternative?

        Western style periodisation – what makes you think I was headed that way? Not a great fan of periodisation past a simple back off and take a rest.

        Regards

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73770

        training in sport: applying sports science. Edited by B.Elliot. 1998.

        section – strength and power training in sport, W. Ritzdorf

        its a great reda…might be hard for you to find it though.

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73772

        To be good at one thing does not autmatically mean that ability or skill will pass over to something else – shooting a basketball at a 10 foot hoop doesnt mean you will be any better at learning to shoot a 12 foot hoop than someone who has never shot a 10 foot hoop before – all things being equal – both will learn it as fast and more likely from what I know the person who never shot a 10 footer before will learn the 12 footer quicker.

        Regards,

        Richard[/quote]

        I totally disagree with the statement you just made…but in regards of RFD, if something has very powerful legs and a high RFD then that person has a higher chance of being good at speed and power sports. I don’t think you can argue against that.

        For example, in the UK athletics national squad camps for the jumpers. One part of talent identification is a RFD test, which is performed using a fix bar in a squat position (knees bent 140 degrees) on a force plate. They evaluate the athletes RFD. Almost all the time, the athletes with the highest number, are or become the best long jumpers and are also the fastest in the group.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73774

        training in sport: applying sports science. Edited by B.Elliot. 1998.

        section – strength and power training in sport, W. Ritzdorf

        its a great reda…might be hard for you to find it though.

        Cheers Nick, I will try and locate it. Would you happen to have references cited in that book to confirm it is not just his opinion in that chapter?

        note – it would appear I have not learnt how to post with a quote in here properly yet – apologies.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73775

        To be good at one thing does not autmatically mean that ability or skill will pass over to something else – shooting a basketball at a 10 foot hoop doesnt mean you will be any better at learning to shoot a 12 foot hoop than someone who has never shot a 10 foot hoop before – all things being equal – both will learn it as fast and more likely from what I know the person who never shot a 10 footer before will learn the 12 footer quicker.

        Regards,

        Richard

        I totally disagree with the statement you just made…but in regards of RFD, if something has very powerful legs and a high RFD then that person has a higher chance of being good at speed and power sports. I don’t think you can argue against that.

        For example, in the UK athletics national squad camps for the jumpers. One part of talent identification is a RFD test, which is performed using a fix bar in a squat position (knees bent 140 degrees) on a force plate. They evaluate the athletes RFD. Almost all the time, the athletes with the highest number, are or become the best long jumpers and are also the fastest in the group.[/quote]

        You can disagree with it if you like, doesnt make it untrue though.

        If something has powerful legs then yes they are likely to good at powerful movements requiring ther legs, the point being, does that power increase from non specific work or can that power only be increased through specific event training.

        If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?

        I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.

        Regards,

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73779

        My conclusions thus far are open to change – if I find compelling enough evidence to warrant a change. So far I have found lots of research saying sports specific moves make no difference and lots of opinions saying it does. Opinions are warranted and can be good causes for further research – however, thats all they are, no matter how many people hold that opinion.

        I ubderstand the training effect a drop jump has, the question that arises is;

        does it improve your vertical jump more than jumping training and strength work?

        THEN

        if it doesnt make any difference over or compared to traditional low impact/force squats etc then is the potential for future injury worth risking for something that is no more effective than a safer alternative?

        Western style periodisation – what makes you think I was headed that way? Not a great fan of periodisation past a simple back off and take a rest.

        Regards

        Richard

        Drop Jump training will have almost no impact on Vertical Jump training. I stated this would be the case. Notice in the study below how the CMJ group improved in Squat Jump and CMJ, but not depth jump, but the depth jump group improved in all 3. The purpose of the drop jump is not to improve CMJ, but the DJ is more specific to sport related movements.

        https://www3.uta.edu/faculty/ricard/pdfs/Gehri (1998) A comparison of jumping.pdf

        Here is something you can reference though and why you should train power and not strength! No one here will deny that specificity in movement patterns and loads is not the most important aspect of training.

        https://www.edulife.com.br/dados/Artigos/Educacao Fisica/Treinamento Desportivo/Developing Explosive Muscular Power.pdf

        ps – learn to use quotes a little better please.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        RussZHC on #73780

        Help…the website above, edulife.com.br etc. etc. comes back, I think, as not being available…my linguistic skills are not good, the message the site posts is in Portuguese or Spanish

        Desculpe-nos

        Arquivo inicial index.html ou default.asp não encontrado.

        Os arquivos iniciais devem ser criados no diretório /web
        ou em um subdiretório de /web.

        Por favor, contate o responsável pelo site.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73785

        Help…the website above, edulife.com.br etc. etc. comes back, I think, as not being available…my linguistic skills are not good, the message the site posts is in Portuguese or Spanish

        Desculpe-nos

        Arquivo inicial index.html ou default.asp não encontrado.

        Os arquivos iniciais devem ser criados no diretório /web
        ou em um subdiretório de /web.

        Por favor, contate o responsável pelo site.

        those links are fixed.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #73787

        those links are fixed.

        first link still only works if you copy and paste it in your URL field

        what is the difference between a depth jump and a drop jump? are the terms used interchangeably in the first study?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73789

        If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?

        I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.

        Now i understand your point a bit better! And i still totally disagree. You are basically saying that alternate methods of training do not make a difference to performance and the only thing that does is by actually performing the given task/sport. That is just wrong.

        Practical experience and great coaches all over the world has taught us that variability of specific training has a great effect on performance. Also, be fast train fast, be explosive train explosive – this is simple but true. Just on the mere fact of the overload principle would have option A beating option B time and time again. There is no question.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73792

        If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?

        I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.

        Now i understand your point a bit better! And i still totally disagree. You are basically saying that alternate methods of training do not make a difference to performance and the only thing that does is by actually performing the given task/sport. That is just wrong.

        Practical experience and great coaches all over the world has taught us that variability of specific training has a great effect on performance. Also, be fast train fast, be explosive train explosive – this is simple but true. Just on the mere fact of the overload principle would have option A beating option B time and time again. There is no question.

        Long term effects of training are really only studied coaches by their own observations of their own training methods. Most of the best coaches are continually refining their training methods although those changes get smaller and smaller once they start to hit the right formulas.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73794

        If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?

        I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.

        Now i understand your point a bit better! And i still totally disagree. You are basically saying that alternate methods of training do not make a difference to performance and the only thing that does is by actually performing the given task/sport. That is just wrong.

        Practical experience and great coaches all over the world has taught us that variability of specific training has a great effect on performance. Also, be fast train fast, be explosive train explosive – this is simple but true. Just on the mere fact of the overload principle would have option A beating option B time and time again. There is no question.

        Not really saying that Nick, your misunderstanding is likely my lack of ability to put a point across. I ‘ll try again;

        Will a gifted sprinter (or any sprinter for that matter) improve there performance more from fast lifts like OL, depth jumps or what ever plyo/explosive method a coaches use MORE than they would if they lifted heavy weights with the intent to move quickly (so no atual fast movements) with the aim of getting stronger.

        I am not aware of any studies that show this – comparing different athletes in groups i.e. 1 group does explosive lifting and the other does intended fast lifitng – means nothing – the tests would have to be carried out on the same athlete (a large number can be tested). So for example athlete A performs explosive lifting and sprint training for 6 months with sprint performance taken at the beggining and end of that 6 months – the improvement if any if noted.

        Athlete A then performs pure strength training and sprint training for 6 months and sprint performance is recorded before and after the 6 months again. Improvements recorded.

        There is little evidence to suggest that there would be a difference in the improvements found between the explosive lifting focusing on power and the intended explosive lifitng focused on strength.

        which opens all sorts of questions.

        If power is best produced at circa 30% of max effort then why not get strong enough to make the body weight offer 30% rep max per leg to allow for maximum power output per stride? – just one of many qeustions to consider

        Richard aka Ham

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73795

        For your heavy weights – what kind of reps/sets/rest are you talking about?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73796

        For your heavy weights – what kind of reps/sets/rest are you talking about?

        Now theres a whole different subject – which is best for developing maximum strength depends on numerous factors.

        For discussions sake lets say 2- 5 sets of 3 reps.

        Although I am not saying that is best, it is fairly traditional and works for this example.

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73797

        right i getcha…but thing is, i understand that this is a max strength method…but do you understand that this is also a method of developing RFD…so if your saying which method of developing RFD is best, heavy or light and fast…then it depends on which sport you are in. Research from Bompa i know off hand, says for sprinters light and fast is best, and for jumpers heavy is best because of the explosive nature of the take off…

        but…the best overall, would have to be a combination of the 2.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73798

        right i getcha…but thing is, i understand that this is a max strength method…but do you understand that this is also a method of developing RFD…so if your saying which method of developing RFD is best, heavy or light and fast…then it depends on which sport you are in. Research from Bompa i know off hand, says for sprinters light and fast is best, and for jumpers heavy is best because of the explosive nature of the take off…

        but…the best overall, would have to be a combination of the 2.

        Thats partially my point Nick, if slow and heavy with the intent to move fast produces RFD increases also then why not use a movement that requires far less skill and produces less chance of training related injury?

        If OLY lifting and explosive lifitng in general are no better at increasing RFD than heavy slow lifting with the intent to move fast then why use them….unless you are an OLY lifter or just plain like doing them and dont have to worry about time off from strains etc…

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73799

        because my understanding is that doing squats or half squats with this protocol does not develop RFD and only develops max strength. Using OL’s with this protocol does develop RFD…

        The eccentric portion of a heavy squat is too slow, and the concentric phase can not be explosive enough to develop RFD…where as this isnt the case with OL’s.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73800

        because my understanding is that doing squats or half squats with this protocol does not develop RFD and only develops max strength. Using OL’s with this protocol does develop RFD…

        The eccentric portion of a heavy squat is too slow, and the concentric phase can not be explosive enough to develop RFD…where as this isnt the case with OL’s.

        NIck,

        I respect that you think that, everyone interprets things in their own way – human.

        However, lifitng heavy objects that are too heavy to move quickly (relatively speaking) with the intention to move quickly – trying hard as hell to shift it fast as hell – will elicit the same CNS response (RFD) as actual fast lifting. Besides, the only really quick portion of OL is getting under the bar and that part doesnt involve recruiting your glutes or quads maximally at all. Sure they intend to move the bar up past the knees fast but it doesnt actually move that quick, relatively speaking.

        Just things to think about

        as is;

        If power training is best done with circa 30% of your rep max – do you perform OL with 30% your rep max?

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73801

        Hey it looks like I got the quote thing under control, nice.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73805

        [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225333255"]because my understanding is that doing squats or half squats with this protocol does not develop RFD and only develops max strength. Using OL’s with this protocol does develop RFD…

        The eccentric portion of a heavy squat is too slow, and the concentric phase can not be explosive enough to develop RFD…where as this isnt the case with OL’s.

        NIck,

        I respect that you think that, everyone interprets things in their own way – human.

        However, lifitng heavy objects that are too heavy to move quickly (relatively speaking) with the intention to move quickly – trying hard as hell to shift it fast as hell – will elicit the same CNS response (RFD) as actual fast lifting. Besides, the only really quick portion of OL is getting under the bar and that part doesnt involve recruiting your glutes or quads maximally at all. Sure they intend to move the bar up past the knees fast but it doesnt actually move that quick, relatively speaking.
        [/quote]

        Doing something as fast as possible and doing something with the intention of doing something as fast are not the same things. If this were the case, then people could use weighted vest and sled pulls to make then run faster than everyone else. The mechanical loading parameters are different. For super heavy lifts summation rules supreme while in fast movements summation rules for a very brief instant (nano or pico seconds) and the movement pattern is controlled by rate.

        Just things to think about

        as is;

        If power training is best done with circa 30% of your rep max – do you perform OL with 30% your rep max?

        Richard

        Absolutely, I even have athletes do ballistic squats on occasion and I vary the numbers from 25-50%. Sometimes the OLs are at 75-85% 1RM, this is typically early on. I always want to see better power numbers, I see strength gains because I test 1 RM strength and strength increases just because training dictates it based on the amount of work done.

        I think the problem that you are going to find is many of us on this board don’t think of weight training as the be all, end all. We see it as supplementary or ancillary training used for us to help build better measurable abilities which can be used to create better performances through use of those better abilities in skill training and acquisition.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73812

        Doing something fast and attempting to do it fast do indeed have the same effect upon the RFD, some studies have shown it more effective in fact (young and bilby i believe for two).

        People could indeed use weighted vests and sleds to run faster if there were no such thing as skill transfer, weighted running will do little to enhace running and is more likely to make you run slower and less efficiently.

        “Movement pattern is controlled by rate” Not sure I understand that – could you explain?

        Power transfer between movement patterns has shown to be non existant from what I can fatham, that would seem rather obvious too, SAID.

        I certainly dont beleieve supplementary training to be the be all and end all. I do however believe that anything that is done should be the least time consuming, require the least lerainign time, the least potential for injury, break down the body as little as possbile so as not to take away from the sports effort.

        OL can work, explosive can work, it just is so far from being right for most sports when the above criteria are thought about.

        supplementary training should aim to make muscle fibres stronger, so the fibres can handle greater strain and higher levels of force at less effort and risk of injury,Also to make the nervouse system more effcient indirectly (not creating a more complex skill to drown out the sports skill)

        The sport itself should be responsible for training the nervous system.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73813

        [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225326056"]If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?

        I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.

        Now i understand your point a bit better! And i still totally disagree. You are basically saying that alternate methods of training do not make a difference to performance and the only thing that does is by actually performing the given task/sport. That is just wrong.

        Practical experience and great coaches all over the world has taught us that variability of specific training has a great effect on performance. Also, be fast train fast, be explosive train explosive – this is simple but true. Just on the mere fact of the overload principle would have option A beating option B time and time again. There is no question.

        Not really saying that Nick, your misunderstanding is likely my lack of ability to put a point across. I ‘ll try again;

        Will a gifted sprinter (or any sprinter for that matter) improve there performance more from fast lifts like OL, depth jumps or what ever plyo/explosive method a coaches use MORE than they would if they lifted heavy weights with the intent to move quickly (so no atual fast movements) with the aim of getting stronger.

        There is little evidence to suggest that there would be a difference in the improvements found between the explosive lifting focusing on power and the intended explosive lifitng focused on strength.

        which opens all sorts of questions.

        If power is best produced at circa 30% of max effort then why not get strong enough to make the body weight offer 30% rep max per leg to allow for maximum power output per stride? – just one of many qeustions to consider

        Richard aka Ham[/quote]

        Delecluse (1995) found that concurrent heavy resistance and sprint training did not improve 100m sprint performance in average sprinters (100m in 12.4s) whereas concurrent plyometric (rfd related) training and concurrent sprint training improved 100m times by 0.2s with most improvement within the first 10m.

        Blazevich (2002) who is now based at Brunel University alongside Nick Linthorne (the long jump researcher)-small world- tested highly trained sprinters that were almost elite (20m in 2.95-3.10s) with either a highish velocity/low resistance or low velocity/high resistance training program. All subjects were instructed to move as fast as possible and were also concurrently sprint and plyometric training. The high velocity group had a 4.3% improvement compared to the low velocity groups 2.9% improvement over 20m.

        Yes, those with enough fast twitch fibre and sprint oriented nervous system will respond to resistance training but the more velocity specific group improved more. However, it must be realised that the high velocity group also reverted to lower velocity and heavier weights every fourth training session whereas the low velocity group only used higher velocity/lower weights for the first warm-up set. Therefore the high velocity group got the added benefit of stimulating as many fast fibres as possible during the heavier movements to complement the more rfd specific high velocity resistance training.

        As for optimum power training at 30% 1RM, power is really only correlated to improvement at the start (according to me) and between 5-10m (according to me and Morin 2002). Therefore a reliance on optimal power training will not satisfy many other places in a 100m race.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73815

        Hi Jeremy,

        Interesting stuff – can you give me links or study title/names so I can find them and read them myself and also add to my collection?

        Thanks

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73816

        Great stuff Jeremy.

        Although i really don’t think proven research is needed for this question. Just think with a practical mind for a second and the answer was obvious.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73823

        “Movement pattern is controlled by rate” Not sure I understand that – could you explain?

        When you lift weights you have to stop the weight. To have a faster movement you have to produce a summation at first then control the rest of the movement pattern (sequence) in the rate of neural firing. Too large a summation for a specific weight and you are working starting power/starting strength and stopping power/strength. Too small a summation for a specific weight and sufficient power is not produced.

        You must understand the muscles themselves need to be worked. The SAID principle means little to me in the weight room. I am working muscles and neurons. Cross-bridge and neural (within the muscle or muscle to spinal cord) adaptations are NOT sport specific, but specific to the demands placed on the muscle. Working just maximum strength allows a muscle to hold a specific number of cross bridges and not the rate at which the cross-bridges move. What you get by working maximum strength is “jerky” athletes who don’t have the necessary neural control of the muscles or the specific power/strength profile in a certain contractile state. If you think of weightlifting as a skill then yes you would be correct, but in this instance it is not a skill, but a builder of attributes which with sport specific training the neuromuscular system of body can take advantage of. Just think of the quality cross bridges you get at the rate of movement in a varied power program in the weight room.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73824

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225374541"]
        “Movement pattern is controlled by rate” Not sure I understand that – could you explain?

        When you lift weights you have to stop the weight. To have a faster movement you have to produce a summation at first then control the rest of the movement pattern (sequence) in the rate of neural firing. Too large a summation for a specific weight and you are working starting power/starting strength and stopping power/strength. Too small a summation for a specific weight and sufficient power is not produced.

        You must understand the muscles themselves need to be worked. The SAID principle means little to me in the weight room. I am working muscles and neurons. Cross-bridge and neural (within the muscle or muscle to spinal cord) adaptations are NOT sport specific, but specific to the demands placed on the muscle. Working just maximum strength allows a muscle to hold a specific number of cross bridges and not the rate at which the cross-bridges move. What you get by working maximum strength is “jerky” athletes who don’t have the necessary neural control of the muscles or the specific power/strength profile in a certain contractile state. If you think of weightlifting as a skill then yes you would be correct, but in this instance it is not a skill, but a builder of attributes which with sport specific training the neuromuscular system of body can take advantage of. Just think of the quality cross bridges you get at the rate of movement in a varied power program in the weight room.[/quote]

        “The SAID principle means little to me in the weight room”

        Thats a shame, the principle applies everywhere, all the time, like it or not.

        The fact you pay it little regard is strange. Any movement you make is a skill, the strength capacity of muscle fibres is a general ability, as soon as you move, you are using a skill.

        the faster you move, the less crossbridges are formed – full cross bridging can only happen in isometric contractions. The faster you move the less bridges there are.

        Lifting weights is a means to an end – tension across a tissue. The fact that you have to move in traditional weight training only takes away from the potential tension the tissue and all their components can be exposed to.

        The movement patterns created by dynamic lifitng add additional skills that are of no benefit to sports skills. the only benefit of lifting weights, fast or slow, is the tension that runs through the tissues as a result of the load.

        Get fibres strong with as little motor interference as possible and then practice your sprots skill for RFD and all other aspects needed for your sport.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73834

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225374541"]
        “Movement pattern is controlled by rate” Not sure I understand that – could you explain?

        When you lift weights you have to stop the weight. To have a faster movement you have to produce a summation at first then control the rest of the movement pattern (sequence) in the rate of neural firing. Too large a summation for a specific weight and you are working starting power/starting strength and stopping power/strength. Too small a summation for a specific weight and sufficient power is not produced.

        You must understand the muscles themselves need to be worked. The SAID principle means little to me in the weight room. I am working muscles and neurons. Cross-bridge and neural (within the muscle or muscle to spinal cord) adaptations are NOT sport specific, but specific to the demands placed on the muscle. Working just maximum strength allows a muscle to hold a specific number of cross bridges and not the rate at which the cross-bridges move. What you get by working maximum strength is “jerky” athletes who don’t have the necessary neural control of the muscles or the specific power/strength profile in a certain contractile state. If you think of weightlifting as a skill then yes you would be correct, but in this instance it is not a skill, but a builder of attributes which with sport specific training the neuromuscular system of body can take advantage of. Just think of the quality cross bridges you get at the rate of movement in a varied power program in the weight room.

        “The SAID principle means little to me in the weight room”

        Thats a shame, the principle applies everywhere, all the time, like it or not.

        The fact you pay it little regard is strange. Any movement you make is a skill, the strength capacity of muscle fibres is a general ability, as soon as you move, you are using a skill.

        the faster you move, the less crossbridges are formed – full cross bridging can only happen in isometric contractions. The faster you move the less bridges there are.

        Lifting weights is a means to an end – tension across a tissue. The fact that you have to move in traditional weight training only takes away from the potential tension the tissue and all their components can be exposed to.

        The movement patterns created by dynamic lifitng add additional skills that are of no benefit to sports skills. the only benefit of lifting weights, fast or slow, is the tension that runs through the tissues as a result of the load.

        Get fibres strong with as little motor interference as possible and then practice your sprots skill for RFD and all other aspects needed for your sport.

        Richard[/quote]

        Richard:

        It’s not skill I am training in the weightroom. I don’t want to get mean with you, but I feel I have no choice. The SAID principle doesn’t apply to what you are doing in the weightroom, building strength without regards to power outputs is meaningless. If strength is transferable then power is transferable and power is more important than strength as both involve force.

        The faster a limb moves doesn’t mean there are less cross-bridges formed (cross bridges are formed constantly). The faster you move the more quality cross-bridges are needed to stop the momentum of the limb. Very strong athletes who push weights very slowly never understand the speeds at which their body can perform don’t experience this cross-bridge formation at the same rate as people moving the same rate and they ultimately end up with jerky motions (note: jerk is rate of change in acceleration). In fact, I would consider this a sort of hysteresis in movement patterns.

        My last point will be that strength is limited by mass and improvements in strength are related to mass. Over the short-term a program based on strength work is fine and will work with amazing results (1 or 2 seasons). Over time because you have to have the mass of the athlete under control, the strength gains will have reached their limits. However, if you train for power you will see gains in strength although at smaller rates, but improvement rates will also be similar if not better and over a 4-5 year period you will see consistently smaller gains and ultimately outstrip the gains of a pure strength program by a likely significant margin because the athlete can handle higher power outputs and have similar strength. This gets back to the ability to handle quality cross-bridges at a faster rate. Our muscle cells and fibres are very plastic and malleable and not set in stone.

        Getting strong then work towards specificity is as about as close to “Western Style Periodization” as one can get. I don’t disagree with doing this with a new athlete who has never had strength training and I will spend about 8-12 weeks (2-3 macro cycles) working max strength, but with an athlete who has already had at least 2 or 3 years of training, I like to stay as specific as possible throughout the training year.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #73835

        pr post dbandre. nice summary

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73855

        You may not be skill training for your sport, however, ny simply moving a weight you are trainign a new skill to be able to lift that weight more effectively – if that weight movement skill is near or similar to your sport skill you will induce negative transfer.

        Cross bridge formation does reduce a higher speeds/velocity – that is basic biology; force velocity curve.

        which is why when you tire you have to slow your weights down to allow for more cross bridges to be formed – at this level of discussion that shouldnt even be a point of confusion. higher speeds, less cross bridges.

        The only style of periodisation I am close to using is, take a break once in a while -get some R and R.

        When you say – stay a specific as possible throughout the year – do you mean keeping your weight training as specific to the sport as poissible? Can you provide an example?

        Richard.

        I would just like to add at this point that this is highly enjoyable and none of it is “heated” from myself although it may at times seem that way, I assure you, its not meant that way.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73856

        Hi Jeremy,

        Interesting stuff – can you give me links or study title/names so I can find them and read them myself and also add to my collection?

        Thanks

        Richard

        No heat in this debate mate relatively speaking. Here are the references for your enjoyment.

        References:
        Delecluse et al. Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity training on sprint performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 1203-1209, 1995
        Anthony Blazevich and David Jenkins. Effect of movement speed of resistance trainng exercises on sprint and strength perforamnce in concurrently training elite junior sprinters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2002, 20, 981-990

        Enjoy the read.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #73858

        No heat in this debate mate relatively speaking. Here are the references for your enjoyment.

        References:
        Delecluse et al. Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity training on sprint performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 1203-1209, 1995
        Anthony Blazevich and David Jenkins. Effect of movement speed of resistance trainng exercises on sprint and strength perforamnce in concurrently training elite junior sprinters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2002, 20, 981-990

        Enjoy the read.

        Hey, two contradictory studies! What else is new 🙂

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73860

        Thanks Jeremy,

        So the first study shows that if you have powerful legs in the leg press, you have power legs in sprinting. Not sure how that should demonstrate power training in the leg press improves sprint performance more so than max strength training does.

        second study shows no between group differences from power specific to strength specific.

        There are a lot of studies that show no difference in training methods used. pushing the point across that the easiet to learn moves are as effective as complex explosive lifts like OL.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73861

        Thanks Jeremy,

        So the first study shows that if you have powerful legs in the leg press, you have power legs in sprinting. Not sure how that should demonstrate power training in the leg press improves sprint performance more so than max strength training does.

        second study shows no between group differences from power specific to strength specific.

        There are a lot of studies that show no difference in training methods used. pushing the point across that the easiet to learn moves are as effective as complex explosive lifts like OL.

        Richard

        Actually Delecluse (1995) used a variety of strength exercises such as leg press, squat, leg extension, leg curl, hip extension, and hip flexion all with heavy load. They found no increase in performance at any stage of a 100m sprint using a velocimeter.

        Blazevich (2002) used the squat, hip extension, hip flexion, leg extension, and leg flexion. Higher movement speeds improved 20m acceleration more than lower movement speeds.

        There is little difference between using Olympic lifts and power or strength training. Faster movement shows to be more beneficial especially when combined with heavy more maximal training periodically. Olympic lifts could facilitate hip extension in combination with knee extension. I’m sure the squat could be modified to facilitate more contribution of hip extensors.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73862

        You may not be skill training for your sport, however, ny simply moving a weight you are trainign a new skill to be able to lift that weight more effectively – if that weight movement skill is near or similar to your sport skill you will induce negative transfer.

        Cross bridge formation does reduce a higher speeds/velocity – that is basic biology; force velocity curve.

        which is why when you tire you have to slow your weights down to allow for more cross bridges to be formed – at this level of discussion that shouldnt even be a point of confusion. higher speeds, less cross bridges.

        The only style of periodisation I am close to using is, take a break once in a while -get some R and R.

        When you say – stay a specific as possible throughout the year – do you mean keeping your weight training as specific to the sport as poissible? Can you provide an example?

        Richard.

        I would just like to add at this point that this is highly enjoyable and none of it is “heated” from myself although it may at times seem that way, I assure you, its not meant that way.

        Richard:

        Since you will not take my word for contractile changes.

        Fitts RH, McDonald KS, Schluter JM. The determinants of skeletal muscle force and power: their adaptability with changes in activity pattern.
        J Biomech. 1991;24 Suppl 1:111-22.

        The peak force and power output of a muscle depends upon numerous factors to include:
        (1) muscle and fiber size and length;
        (2) architecture, such as the angle and physical properties of the fiber-tendon attachment, and the fiber to muscle length ratio;
        (3) fiber type;
        (4) number of cross-bridges in parallel;
        (5) force per cross-bridge;
        (6) peak dP/dt;
        (7) force-velocity relationship;
        (8) fiber Vmax;
        (9) force-pCa2+ relationship
        (10) the force-frequency (action potential Hz) relationship.

        From the standpoint of work capacity or the ability to move a load, the important functional property is [b]power output[/b]. Peak power is obtained at loads considerably below 50% of PO, and it is correlated with the percentage of fast-twitch fibers. Peak power can be increased by both dynamic and isometric programs of exercise-training.

        NEWTON, R. U., K. HA¨ KKINEN, A. HA¨ KKINEN, M. MCCORMICK, J. VOLEK, and W. J. KRAEMER. Mixed-methods resistance training increases power and strength of young and older men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1367-1375, 2002.

        The main finding was that older men have a similar ability to young men to increase, at least within the present training period of 10 wk, muscle power in a functional activity like the jump squat in response to a periodized resistance-training program that includes explosive exercises.

        When I say “specific as possible throughout the year” I am saying work on sprints, jumps, and throws as much as possible. The total amount of work done in the weight room is relatively small unless I must use it because of weather conditions because of limited facilities. That’s the disconnect here, you have failed to comprehend the differences between training and that the application of the “SAID” principle to whole body level in a dynamic movement is more about more motor learning than whole body attributes such as strength or power. The SAID principle applies to system, organ, and cellular adaptations as well. Therefore weight training regardless of speed of movement is inherently SLOW and will increase force output characteristics regardless of it being max strength or max power training just because of increased load. Moving a weight as fast as possible is a cue to setup the athlete to generate as much power as possible in the lift and nothing else it has nothing to do with strength. The problem is not the neural input, but the structural and functional changes within a muscle fibre/cell which have to take place during remodeling which takes about 3-6 months at a time to adapt in resistance training.

        My athletes spend 2 days a week in the weight room and usually for 30-45 minutes and do 4 exercises (the kids who compete and train in the summer do even less in the weight room). We do a lot of medball exercises, jumps, and landings and probably spend more time with these exercises than in the weight room. Is the weight room important? Absolutely. Is it the key to success? Absolutely not.

        The key word you said yourself was force-velocity curve maybe you should revisit it. I am done with you if you want to continue your “Barry Ross”-esqe mantra.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73872

        So the part about contractile changes didnt actually address the issue of cross bridging at all – it still stands that the faster you move the less cross bridges form. That is not my opinion, its the opinion of the gent who discovered and explained the actin and mysoin relationships. The article you cited has nothing to do with cross bridge formation, it merely pays it passing comment in a discussion about power production.

        I am not sure we are actually disagreeing on the speed of movement issue. The intent to move a snatch quickly even though relatively speaking it moves slowly, has the same CNS excitation as the attempt to move a squat quickly.

        And if RFD and power output is the issue – then isometrics can train both as effectively as plyometrics without all the hassle an extra skills.

        I am uncertain as to your point about the SAID principle. My point about it is; why spend time in the training learning and adapting specifically to more metabolic and learning skills that are unrelated to the sports skill than needed i.e. jumps, throws, OL etc when other far less taxing methods offer the same effect at a less severe cost to the body and the athlete.

        I am not aware of who Barry Ross is but I gather you don’t like discussing things with him, which is a shame as this has become a very useful thread and could continue to be.

        Regards,

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        RussZHC on #73882

        I found “The Window of Adaptation” analogy from the article

        https://www.edulife.com.br/dados/Artigos/Educacao Fisica/Treinamento Desportivo/Developing Explosive Muscular Power.pdf

        that dbandre suggesting very interesting as it is an understandable simile.

        In this discussion and some the articles linked from it as well as others, the “controlling” feature of the rfd, to a degree anyway, in OL seems to be having to slow the mass down to keep control of the lift, implying that if you did not have to slow the mass down to keep control the force could be greater
        Does that then mean if you did not have to exhibit control, it would improve the value of the exercise? So, for example, if you start with a hanging clean but rather than the “catch” you just did the pull and got out of the way thereby eliminating the need to slow the weight it “becomes” a more useful exercise?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73889

        So the part about contractile changes didnt actually address the issue of cross bridging at all – it still stands that the faster you move the less cross bridges form. That is not my opinion, its the opinion of the gent who discovered and explained the actin and mysoin relationships. The article you cited has nothing to do with cross bridge formation, it merely pays it passing comment in a discussion about power production.

        I am not sure we are actually disagreeing on the speed of movement issue. The intent to move a snatch quickly even though relatively speaking it moves slowly, has the same CNS excitation as the attempt to move a squat quickly.

        And if RFD and power output is the issue – then isometrics can train both as effectively as plyometrics without all the hassle an extra skills.

        I am uncertain as to your point about the SAID principle. My point about it is; why spend time in the training learning and adapting specifically to more metabolic and learning skills that are unrelated to the sports skill than needed i.e. jumps, throws, OL etc when other far less taxing methods offer the same effect at a less severe cost to the body and the athlete.

        I am not aware of who Barry Ross is but I gather you don’t like discussing things with him, which is a shame as this has become a very useful thread and could continue to be.

        Regards,

        Richard

        The gent, his name is Huxley and it’s called the sliding filament theory, but you seem to think the muscle slides freely and I assure it does not. Changes have been made in the last 30 years.

        You are the one advocating STRENGTH training which is specific to what? I am saying that’s a fallacy. If the Nebraska Cornhusker Football teams of the 80’s under Boyd Epley’s strength program weren’t enough to highlight how strength has limits when it comes to power/speed. Great when you overPOWER everyone just because of strength, but when you line up against someone more powerful they lost and lost bad. That’s a sport were starting strength still means a whole helluva lot in terms of line play.

        Plyometrics train the eccentric and isometric component to which the authors are referring. You are uncertain because you just read and don’t analyze and only apply it at the whole body level.

        There is not the same excitation, the load, the speed of the lift, and the difference between the lifts and the position of the limb at the initial movement cause different spinal force fields to initiate the movement pattern.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73897

        It is indeed called that yes, however, what you fail to realise is the realtionship between the speed of ATP disruption and the velocity at which you move. The faster you ask the contractile elements to contract and realease the less of them can and HAVE to do so. There is simply not enough time to allow for the chemical reactions to happen to allow for full cross bridging of all proteins. If they did all cross bridge successfully and you continued to move at full speed they would be damaged fairly seriously due to the forcefull ripping apart of the bridges as opposed to the chemical release that happens. Cant connect and HAVE to not connect at high speeds.

        Cross-bridge kinetics studied with staircase shortening in single fibres from frog skeletal muscle

        Authors: LINARI M.1; LOMBARDI V.1; PIAZZESI G.1

        Source: Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, Volume 18, Number 1, 1997 , pp. 91-101(11)

        Publisher: Springer

        “Shortening at high speed, preventing most of cross- bridges from undergoing the relatively fast (100 s-1) detachment/reattachment process, uncovers a rate limiting step in the cycle at the end of the 12 nm working stroke”

        is just one study showing the relationship. the faster you move the less cross bridges can and have to form.

        Are you still in dispute of velocity and reduced cross bridge formation?

        Strength training is specific to nothing and everything, the ability of a musccle fibre to tolerate a tension is the strength of a fibre, the displaying of that strength is the skill of what ever movement you wish to utilise that strength for. Strength is general, skill is specific – any time you move, is skill ffrom the CNS. How you choose to display your tensile ability is up to you or your sport, that does not mean that is the best way to increase your tensile strength abilities.

        I fail to see how the motor learning skill transfer and SAID principle does not make sports specific training clear. You get good at what you do – train OL get good at OL, any carry over that may be shown is due to the increased tensile strength of the tissues invovled – not the CNS or the skill of OL. Getting good at jumping with a barbell will make you good at,well, jumping with a barbell and not make you better at jumping without a barbell any more than jump practice with strength training will. Practice sprinting off the blocks, to get good at – you guessed it, sprinting off the blocks. They will increase tensile strength, one will induce neagtive transfer. All coaches should be aware of negative transfer and how it effects athletes.

        And they should also be aware of long term effects their current sports specific training has on athletes especially if there are other less damaging methods readily available to them. Duty of care springs to mind.

        Plyometrics – sports contain plenty of those during play, why train thme unspecifically outside of play.

        the plyometrics experienced by the CNS during a sprint can only be mimmicked by sprinting. jumping and bounding may be similar in the sense of what a muscle experiences,true, the cns sees them totally differently and that is the point here.

        You are mistaking excititation with skill, yes the skills learnt will be totally different between the lifts.The characteristics of the CNS will be the same.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73900

        Yes practising the squat will benefit jumping much more than sprinting. However, training methods do have a small effect on sprint performance.
        Plyometrics will reduce time over 10m by 0.03-0.04s approximately more than sprinting.
        Plyometrics or velocity and movement specific strength training will reduce time over 10m by 0.06-0.08s more than traditional low movement velocity strength training.

        However, it must be realised that current strength training methods (and perhaps plyometric methods) could be much more specific to sprinting. For example imagine doing a hang clean from a split squat stance or better still a split squat with one leg on a step hang clean. (Caution do not try this unless you are very conditioned and have excellent CORE STABILITY/Strength). Or even a jump squat or squat jump or unweighted squat jump in water (although the movement will still be too slow) from a split step position. Nick and Mike’s exercise idea would work well here.

        Furthermore, imagine a more progressive plyometric program to take into account the contribution that connective tissue makes to the application of force. There is limited but improved plyometric methods that have been proven but not yet disclosed. I have no doubt that within 12 months much more movement and velocity specific training methods will be unveiled with good scientific evidence to remove the guesswork.

        In terms of ATP, the last thing that anyone wants would be simultaneous activation of all myosin-actin units because you will have no ATP available for a subsequent contraction. Ideally, you want recruitment in a pattern that replicates what will occur during a sprint as best as possible. Th advantage of strength training if a very similar movement can be found is that one can overload the target muscles quite well because there is no alternating limbs to rest the neuromuscular system.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73902

        https://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

        Is a nice look at all the thoughts you are promoting here. Yes fast specific weight training can help the muscles get stronger through that specific ROM, I am not saying it cant, I am saying its stupid to use them when there are numerous known negative side effects to this thinking and other methods that offer all of the benefits and more with none of the side effects.

        Does it work, yes. Is it intelligent or right, no.

        Is your remark about ATP in connection with the cross bridge discussion?

        “Th advantage of strength training if a very similar movement can be found is that one can overload the target muscles quite well because there is no alternating limbs to rest the neuromuscular system.”

        which muscles would you be trying to overload in a sprint training programme?

        Yes recruit pattern is good for the tissues involved i.e. only the appropriate fibres will make the speciifc metabolic adaptations required, the down side comes from learning a skill to do this that is different from the skill the cns knows for sprinting in a race- possibly and likely causing negative transfer and thus redcuing the spritning potential.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73905

        This thread seems like its a perpetual battle, and no one is getting anywhere.

        Just curious Richard what is your strength training program, and what kind of improvements have your athletes had using it?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73907

        Hi John,

        It would be if it were intended to be a battle. I just enjoy discussion on this subject and any a party can bring to the discussion the better – written discussion always prove hard as context is hard to deliver in writing. People end up frustrated and it appears as personal/emotional.

        I have no one strict programme, it varies gretaly on the goals at hand. Needless to say I dont employ OL or their variants unless specifically asked and in that case I always advise of alternatives methods and my reasoning behind them.

        Strength work, I will find an exercise that suits the individuals frame and their goals and have them work their strength as best as possible with consideration for muscle mass distribution and strength in specific areas i.e. cyclists I have worked with tend not to need much upper body mass but enhancing their upper body strength whilst maintaining smaller musculature in that area always improves their performance due to the effects of irradiation.

        Deadlifitng has not failed in any case to increase jump height, performance economy etc.

        Deadlifitng, pistols and chins moved one of cyclists up an average of 6 places in one season – this was an over 50 semi pro who has been cycling for many years.

        a similar exercise selection also helped a late 40’s adventurer out trek a group of 20 year old triathletes on a north pole expedition dragging a 60 kg sled for 2 weeks.

        They ALL benefit from simple strengthening of major muscle groups and sports training be they explosvie or slow events.

        It is not because they got good at deadlifts etc directly, it is the fact that getting good at deadlifts allows them handle more weight = higher tension across a fibre = more potential during a sport for more strength, endurance, economy through reduce work effort and irradiation etc.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        acidhell on #73908

        Nice discussion!
        I have to agree with Richard, though. 😛

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #73910

        I tried the ultra simple methodology that Richard describes.

        I got stronger (in the deadlift at least), but I ran a LOT slower.

        Some people have done well with very simple programs, but I don’t think that necessarily works for everyone and it doesn’t develop the necessary strengths, optimally, for everyone. If you are just starting out, you probably don’t need a very “complex” program as anything will help, but to say that everyone will respond in the same way ignores the research (showing people responding better to certain protocols ie olympic lifts or plyometrics) and the empirical evidence people have of people responding to different means.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73911

        Well in terms of cyclists I wouldn’t advocate a great number of olympic lifts either, but what kind of workouts do you give track athletes. Im a decathlete so any event you want to give an example of would be interesting for me to read.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73912

        Davan; If your performancre of the deadlift was not to your structure then it may not of actually targeted the right muscles enough – i.e. swapping from an exercise that did stimulate them to the dead that didnt stimulate the right muscles enough may have left you somewhat weaker in certain sprinting muscles. some people get on well with the dead, others dont.

        John;

        What events are you good at and what ones are you weaker at? Are you tall, short, long arms, short arms, long torso, short torso?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #73913

        Richard, I’ve seen a variety of people have simple programs that revolved around the deadlift or squat or some other basic exercise(s). Many of them improved significantly once olympic lifts were included.

        Does that make them magical? No. Olympic lifts, like squats or deadlifts, are tools to build the strength(s) (among other qualities) needed in a sport/event. To dismiss their use entirely is a bit misguided–as much or more than the people who say olympic lifts are a must for a successful program.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73914

        Im good at sprints/jumps. Poor at throws but my new weight program i have been doing has already seemed to give me a lot of improvement on all the events and i have been doing it for 8 weeks. It has been built around cleans and a variation of squats so as of right now my philosophy disagrees with yours which is why i am curious. I am 5 11, 148lbs long arms and then i would say my torso is neither long or short

      • Avatar
        Participant
        acidhell on #73915

        Davan, more often than not, when you make an abrupt change in a training program eg. inclusion of OL’s in favour of simpler lifts like squats/deads etc, there is a period of lowered CNS stress, where the athlete gets better at OL’s by improving his intermuscular coordination (a learnt skill), and precisely because of the lower CNS stress, gains can manifest themselves elsewhere – in other H.I training elements.. It’s kinda like a mini-taper

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73916

        Hi John,

        If what you are doing is giving you improvements over what you were previously doing then stick with it. Hearing other opinions will only serve to change something that is working – if it aint broke…..

        What do you think would happen if you dropped the cleans?

        Have you been adjusting your skill in the throws at all – got any new technique adjustments from your coach, upped your skill practice/reduced it?

        Do you strengthen the upper body throwing muscles at all? details – now I am curoius

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73917

        Davan, more often than not, when you make an abrupt change in a training program eg. inclusion of OL’s in favour of simpler lifts like squats/deads etc, there is a period of lowered CNS stress, where the athlete gets better at OL’s by improving his intermuscular coordination (a learnt skill), and precisely because of the lower CNS stress, gains can manifest themselves elsewhere – in other H.I training elements.. It’s kinda like a mini-taper

        Consideration to the CNS is hugely important and severely unappreciated

        Richard

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73918

        What is the point of this now…

        Richard? Are you just unable to do clean correctly or something? Why spend so much time arguing over something that is a staple of over 90% of speed/ power programs throughout the world…

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73919

        Nick,

        There is no additional point, simply carrying on a training discussion.

        I have never said cleans dont work, I originally asked why they would be incoorporated when other less time consuming and skill interfering methods are also available, each response was not verified and when challenged was ignored.

        Just because alot of people use something doesnt make it right.

        Alot of people took a drug during preganancy (thalidomide) some decades ago as it had the desired effect of sleep help and morning sickness – when the babies came out with stumps for arms and legs they discovered the side effects werent worth the efficacy of the drug. now no one uses it for that purpose any more – it is good for some things, bad for others.

        60 years ago 90% of the athletic world thought weights would slow you down, they were wrong. Any talk to the contrary probably received defensive stands such as on display here.

        in 20 years time it is highly probable that the only athletes doing cleans and snatches will be OLifters. Once the results are in.

        Do you know that the first person to really push OL for sports outside OLifting didnt have any of his own athletes train that way? Why – he knew they didnt need to to get the benefits of lifting weights.

        I have nothing against the lifts and if there were conclusively more effective than safer easier to learn lifts then i would gladly use them – why wouldnt i?

        I just simply dispair at blind following of some passed down “wisdom” that is seldom questioned and very rarely backed by unbiased scientific data.

        Why did you start doing cleans and the fast lifts/plyo metric work? was it because you looked into it or someone told you to?

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73920

        https://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

        Is a nice look at all the thoughts you are promoting here. Yes fast specific weight training can help the muscles get stronger through that specific ROM, I am not saying it cant, I am saying its stupid to use them when there are numerous known negative side effects to this thinking and other methods that offer all of the benefits and more with none of the side effects.

        Does it work, yes. Is it intelligent or right, no.

        Is your remark about ATP in connection with the cross bridge discussion?

        “Th advantage of strength training if a very similar movement can be found is that one can overload the target muscles quite well because there is no alternating limbs to rest the neuromuscular system.”

        which muscles would you be trying to overload in a sprint training programme?

        Yes recruit pattern is good for the tissues involved i.e. only the appropriate fibres will make the speciifc metabolic adaptations required, the down side comes from learning a skill to do this that is different from the skill the cns knows for sprinting in a race- possibly and likely causing negative transfer and thus redcuing the spritning potential.

        Richard

        Without a doubt resistance training on its own will not help sprinting but any improvement in strength will benefit from sprint training as well. For example the squat can improve vertical jump by 4% but only help sprinting by 2% if velocity specific enough within the first 10m only. Is this gain worthwhile? Olympic lifts carry an increased chance of injury but are little better than fast squats and plyometrics within the first 10m. In fact, for those with poor hip extension strength/power (although not much is needed) OL may be the best choice. Granted all this is useless without concurrent sprint training. Are any of these methods better than a sprint program involving a combination of uphill and downhill sprinting? I would argue that it is unlikely. However I would also argue that there are improvements we can make to any of the above exercises instead of just accepting the status quo. My argument is based around the fact that less than 100kg of propulsive force is generated in total in a sprinting stride.

        As for training the CNS with OL or resistance training, the two are not related. One is only training muscle fibre and connective tissue. OL muscle activation must come from the motor cortex. Plyometric training will more likely enhance the CNS (and the muscle recruitment thereof)as the spinal chord is known to be adaptable. Alternating limb plyometric activities and sprint training benefits the cross extension reflex activated muscle-connective tissue for sprinting.

        Don’t worry about the argument getting personal – many great ideas have come so far from the debate. I think this is an excellent thread as most of us supplement our sprint training. I’m curious as to your training program and how much it has improved your sprinting as you are very adamant in your philosophy. (And I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you)

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73921

        Hi John,

        If what you are doing is giving you improvements over what you were previously doing then stick with it. Hearing other opinions will only serve to change something that is working – if it aint broke…..

        What do you think would happen if you dropped the cleans?

        Have you been adjusting your skill in the throws at all – got any new technique adjustments from your coach, upped your skill practice/reduced it?

        Do you strengthen the upper body throwing muscles at all? details – now I am curoius

        Richard

        Oh of course. I was not planning on changing it, but I always believe in increasing my knowledge base. Especially because I want to get into coaching once this year is over. the only changes that will be made to my current strength program will be made by the person making the workout…

        I think if i dropped the cleans I would be good, but not as good. I think if a good athlete dropped anything from their weight program they can still be good because its not the end all be all. For 3 – 4 years I worked out under our schools strength training program and they dont have/take the time to make workouts that are applicable to the events. they separate the throwers and thats it. There was one day of just hang cleans and then a lot of the lifts you talk about during the rest of the week.

        I now do lifts to strengthen my upper body, and I think it will be increased this next phase because I didn’t have the increase in max strength that he wanted. I have developed my skill in the disc, but the shot I had not and I was stand throwing what I full threw at WAC champs last year. But I will say by far cleans have been the most helpful lift for me track especially when it comes to jumps.

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #73922

        Just take a look at the worlds best athletes and you will see that this training method works. I did it because it made common sense to me that it works. As i understood training alot more, it made even more sense to me.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73924

        haha I do know that this training method works and I am not even a little bit skeptical to that, I just like learning what other peoples opinions are. Doesnt mean I have to agree with it.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #73925

        Davan, more often than not, when you make an abrupt change in a training program eg. inclusion of OL’s in favour of simpler lifts like squats/deads etc, there is a period of lowered CNS stress, where the athlete gets better at OL’s by improving his intermuscular coordination (a learnt skill), and precisely because of the lower CNS stress, gains can manifest themselves elsewhere – in other H.I training elements.. It’s kinda like a mini-taper

        I am talking about long term improvements after stagnation. I am not talking about a temporary benefit, but people who had previously not been improving and have been improving significantly since. They are most definitely proficient in the lifts.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Derrick Brito on #73926

        I have never said cleans dont work, I originally asked why they would be incoorporated when other less time consuming and skill interfering methods are also available, each response was not verified and when challenged was ignored.

        if you train for ten years, you can spend a little time learning how to clean and jerk.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #73930

        Wow. This is turning out to be a great thread. I’m sorry I’ve been M.I.A for a couple days and am only just now jumping in. I’ll give a more detailed explanation later but three immediate things come to mind:

        *Why do people think that teaching the Olympic lifts to a point of proficiency is SOOOOO hard? Hell, I have never had a problem teaching groups of 40+ athletes the OLs very good technique within 3 weeks. And in the time period leading up to that we’re doing things like clean pulls and sometimes partial movement work which tends to fit in to the training plan very well as a lead in. By 5 weeks, I can have everyone doing a 2 stage pull complete with a double knee bend. I don’t think I’m doing anything special…just teaching and correcting. In fact, I just started working with a 40 year old client who’s never done OLs before (he was a bodybuilder) and within 3 weeks he power cleaned 200 lbs with decent technique.

        *Specificity is not just movement or muscle related. Specificity can be motor recruitment related, contractile speed, coordination related, metabolic, etc. It’s very easy to get too caught up in the external appearance of something and associate that with specificity and not examine these other factors.

        *Specificity isn’t everything. In fact, I think it’s equally important to work AROUND (+/-) the point of interest because the transfer of training affect and additional variety will provide a beneficial training stimulus that cannot be had when you get overly specific.

        *There actually is quite a bit of research on the benefits of OLs for sporting performance. I don’t have the time to cite them all right now but I made a shell topic on the new wiki[/url] regarding the benefits of Olympic lifting. If you have an argument or research paper in support of doing them please contribute to the wiki entry.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73933

        *Specificity is not just movement or muscle related. Specificity can be motor recruitment related, contractile speed, coordination related, metabolic, etc. It’s very easy to get too caught up in the external appearance of something and associate that with specificity and not examine these other factors.

        *Specificity isn’t everything. In fact, I think it’s equally important to work AROUND (+/-) the point of interest because the transfer of training affect and additional variety will provide a beneficial training stimulus that cannot be had when you get overly specific.

        I think the point about working around the point of interest is very much under appreciated.

        Also I think the double knee bend is critical to maximising the benefits of OL. Not to mention correct technique or sequencing of muscle recruitment.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73934

        It is indeed called that yes, however, what you fail to realise is the realtionship between the speed of ATP disruption and the velocity at which you move. The faster you ask the contractile elements to contract and realease the less of them can and HAVE to do so. There is simply not enough time to allow for the chemical reactions to happen to allow for full cross bridging of all proteins. If they did all cross bridge successfully and you continued to move at full speed they would be damaged fairly seriously due to the forcefull ripping apart of the bridges as opposed to the chemical release that happens. Cant connect and HAVE to not connect at high speeds.

        Cross-bridge kinetics studied with staircase shortening in single fibres from frog skeletal muscle

        Authors: LINARI M.1; LOMBARDI V.1; PIAZZESI G.1

        Source: Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, Volume 18, Number 1, 1997 , pp. 91-101(11)

        Publisher: Springer

        “Shortening at high speed, preventing most of cross- bridges from undergoing the relatively fast (100 s-1) detachment/reattachment process, uncovers a rate limiting step in the cycle at the end of the 12 nm working stroke”

        is just one study showing the relationship. the faster you move the less cross bridges can and have to form.

        Are you still in dispute of velocity and reduced cross bridge formation?

        Strength training is specific to nothing and everything, the ability of a musccle fibre to tolerate a tension is the strength of a fibre, the displaying of that strength is the skill of what ever movement you wish to utilise that strength for. Strength is general, skill is specific – any time you move, is skill ffrom the CNS. How you choose to display your tensile ability is up to you or your sport, that does not mean that is the best way to increase your tensile strength abilities.

        I fail to see how the motor learning skill transfer and SAID principle does not make sports specific training clear. You get good at what you do – train OL get good at OL, any carry over that may be shown is due to the increased tensile strength of the tissues invovled – not the CNS or the skill of OL. Getting good at jumping with a barbell will make you good at,well, jumping with a barbell and not make you better at jumping without a barbell any more than jump practice with strength training will. Practice sprinting off the blocks, to get good at – you guessed it, sprinting off the blocks. They will increase tensile strength, one will induce neagtive transfer. All coaches should be aware of negative transfer and how it effects athletes.

        And they should also be aware of long term effects their current sports specific training has on athletes especially if there are other less damaging methods readily available to them. Duty of care springs to mind.

        Plyometrics – sports contain plenty of those during play, why train thme unspecifically outside of play.

        the plyometrics experienced by the CNS during a sprint can only be mimmicked by sprinting. jumping and bounding may be similar in the sense of what a muscle experiences,true, the cns sees them totally differently and that is the point here.

        You are mistaking excititation with skill, yes the skills learnt will be totally different between the lifts.The characteristics of the CNS will be the same.

        Why train plyometrics outside of the sport? It’s called variation and controlling the training load. Why not run a meet, every 2-3 times a week and rest the other days?

        No one except you is mistaking excitation as to being skill and execution of such a skill. My goal in the weight room is not the better execution of a task moving a weight as fast as possible through a ROM. It’s actually doing it that concerns me. I am not overly concerned with skill acquisition in the weight room. Weight room skills are primitive ones a child does without ever having to be a taught to do like press, pull, lift, squat, clean, snatch, or toss. Heck they even do it one-handed.

        You also misinterpreted the above article and my opinions of the subject. Muscles don’t slide freely. I also did not discuss full cross bridging, I discussed the quality of cross-bridges and the number of cross-bridges. As a muscle is shortening it must stop before damage occurs to the muscles. This is related to the shortening velocity of the muscle and the momentum of the limb it is trying to stop which is going to be related to the quality of cross-bridges and number of cross bridges as a muscle filament shortens (concentric) or lengthens (eccentric) it loses spots at which to bridge. This is just not for the prime-mover, its for all the muscles involved in the activity to include the antagonist and synergistic muscles. More importantly those antagonistic muscles are working eccentrically to decelerate the movement. They control the movement just like in the landing (ground contact) phase of a specific movement skill. Slow max strength lifts don’t do this because there is not enough momentum involved.

        Varying the of % 1RM which one works at and focusing on creating explosive movements creates an environment for the muscle to adapt to different stimuli which cannot be done in a sport specific environment. Muscular movements are controlled at the tendon (GTO’s), muscle (muscle spindles), and at the spinal level as well as the motor cortex in the brain. If the whole system recognizes it cannot move without stopping (task dominant control) it will not attempt it or break off the attempt, this self-preservation is reflex dominated. At somepoint, I want the starting point for any inhibiting reflex to change in a manner which will be positive for performance, but still protective of the athlete.

        If you don’t like the way many of us here train athletes then so be it. Creating great amounts of force is great, but if I gave someone the ability to produce such great amounts of force without giving them the ability to control such forces in a manner that is positive to desired skill performance what good have I done?

        Specificity plays a role, but it cannot come with monotony or training becomes stale and uninspired. Variation plays a role, but cannot come at the cost of specificity. The one constant is the power capacity and power endurance your athletes need to perform muscular work. If you are working at 30% of one’s power capacity they will not adapt the same as one who works in the 80-95% range the majority of the time and the 30% group will not improve performance as much unless their power capacity has been raised.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73935

        *Why do people think that teaching the Olympic lifts to a point of proficiency is SOOOOO hard? Hell, I have never had a problem teaching groups of 40+ athletes the OLs very good technique within 3 weeks. And in the time period leading up to that we’re doing things like clean pulls and sometimes partial movement work which tends to fit in to the training plan very well as a lead in. By 5 weeks, I can have everyone doing a 2 stage pull complete with a double knee bend. I don’t think I’m doing anything special…just teaching and correcting. In fact, I just started working with a 40 year old client who’s never done OLs before (he was a bodybuilder) and within 3 weeks he power cleaned 200 lbs with decent technique.

        I know I just alluded to this in my post to richard, but I wanted to repeat it. Everyone who is a parent or has watched little children develop has seen their own child perform all forms of the basic movements under stress such as in weightlifting, medball work, and other similar basic forms of physical activity. Think of the times when that child started squatting naturally to pick something up, cleaned or snatched naturally to move something quickly, deadlifted a rather big toy, or pulled themselves up, or pushed themselves up, or pressed an object like your hand away from them when trying to remove their shirt or feed them when already full, or pushed a chair around so they can climb onto the table. All these things weren’t taught to them, they learned them naturally.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73936

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225573915"]https://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

        Is a nice look at all the thoughts you are promoting here. Yes fast specific weight training can help the muscles get stronger through that specific ROM, I am not saying it cant, I am saying its stupid to use them when there are numerous known negative side effects to this thinking and other methods that offer all of the benefits and more with none of the side effects.

        Does it work, yes. Is it intelligent or right, no.

        Is your remark about ATP in connection with the cross bridge discussion?

        “Th advantage of strength training if a very similar movement can be found is that one can overload the target muscles quite well because there is no alternating limbs to rest the neuromuscular system.”

        which muscles would you be trying to overload in a sprint training programme?

        Yes recruit pattern is good for the tissues involved i.e. only the appropriate fibres will make the speciifc metabolic adaptations required, the down side comes from learning a skill to do this that is different from the skill the cns knows for sprinting in a race- possibly and likely causing negative transfer and thus redcuing the spritning potential.

        Richard

        Without a doubt resistance training on its own will not help sprinting but any improvement in strength will benefit from sprint training as well. For example the squat can improve vertical jump by 4% but only help sprinting by 2% if velocity specific enough within the first 10m only. Is this gain worthwhile? Olympic lifts carry an increased chance of injury but are little better than fast squats and plyometrics within the first 10m. In fact, for those with poor hip extension strength/power (although not much is needed) OL may be the best choice. Granted all this is useless without concurrent sprint training. Are any of these methods better than a sprint program involving a combination of uphill and downhill sprinting? I would argue that it is unlikely. However I would also argue that there are improvements we can make to any of the above exercises instead of just accepting the status quo. My argument is based around the fact that less than 100kg of propulsive force is generated in total in a sprinting stride.

        As for training the CNS with OL or resistance training, the two are not related. One is only training muscle fibre and connective tissue. OL muscle activation must come from the motor cortex. Plyometric training will more likely enhance the CNS (and the muscle recruitment thereof)as the spinal chord is known to be adaptable. Alternating limb plyometric activities and sprint training benefits the cross extension reflex activated muscle-connective tissue for sprinting.

        Don’t worry about the argument getting personal – many great ideas have come so far from the debate. I think this is an excellent thread as most of us supplement our sprint training. I’m curious as to your training program and how much it has improved your sprinting as you are very adamant in your philosophy. (And I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you)[/quote]

        Jeremy,

        You seem to come up with lots of impressive sounding % about efficacy of certain methods – are they from a one off study, repeatable studies or personal experience?

        “80% of all statistics are made up, 47% of people of know that”, Homer Simpson.

        “One only trains muslce tissue and connective tissue” so that would be the movement on the dead guy right? Each movement is controlled by the nervous system – be it fast, slow, attempted fast – you cant move without the nervouse system controlling said movements.

        You say things like OL and plyo metrics will enhance the CNS – but enhance it in what sense – getting fast at drop jumps means your CNS gets fast a drop jumps, any cross over will be due to to new level of strength gained by such activities (which also could be gained by other means).

        I sadly cannot sprint any more due to medical reasons. However, my training is varied and fun and rarely includes explosive work other than that of my activities that include explosiveness – boxing, cycling.

        I lift heavy (for me) weights as fast as possible (although very slowly in reality), I deadlift, I chin, I dip,I press overhead, I train with rings and floor moves as they are great for adjusting leverage and tension when equipment is limited, I perform 1 legged squats. I also perform a fair amount of isometrics too.

        I agree thats lots of good points have been discussed here and I hope they continue to be. Thanks for your input

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73937

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225589228"]Hi John,

        If what you are doing is giving you improvements over what you were previously doing then stick with it. Hearing other opinions will only serve to change something that is working – if it aint broke…..

        What do you think would happen if you dropped the cleans?

        Have you been adjusting your skill in the throws at all – got any new technique adjustments from your coach, upped your skill practice/reduced it?

        Do you strengthen the upper body throwing muscles at all? details – now I am curoius

        Richard

        Oh of course. I was not planning on changing it, but I always believe in increasing my knowledge base. Especially because I want to get into coaching once this year is over. the only changes that will be made to my current strength program will be made by the person making the workout…

        I think if i dropped the cleans I would be good, but not as good. I think if a good athlete dropped anything from their weight program they can still be good because its not the end all be all. For 3 – 4 years I worked out under our schools strength training program and they dont have/take the time to make workouts that are applicable to the events. they separate the throwers and thats it. There was one day of just hang cleans and then a lot of the lifts you talk about during the rest of the week.

        I now do lifts to strengthen my upper body, and I think it will be increased this next phase because I didn’t have the increase in max strength that he wanted. I have developed my skill in the disc, but the shot I had not and I was stand throwing what I full threw at WAC champs last year. But I will say by far cleans have been the most helpful lift for me track especially when it comes to jumps.[/quote]

        John,

        WHat do you think it is about the cleans that makes them effective at increasing your throws?

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73938

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225590488"]
        I have never said cleans dont work, I originally asked why they would be incoorporated when other less time consuming and skill interfering methods are also available, each response was not verified and when challenged was ignored.

        if you train for ten years, you can spend a little time learning how to clean and jerk.[/quote]

        Of course, they can be fun. Its a great felling hoisting a weight off the floor and putting it overhead.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73939

        Wow. This is turning out to be a great thread. I’m sorry I’ve been M.I.A for a couple days and am only just now jumping in. I’ll give a more detailed explanation later but three immediate things come to mind:

        *Why do people think that teaching the Olympic lifts to a point of proficiency is SOOOOO hard? Hell, I have never had a problem teaching groups of 40+ athletes the OLs very good technique within 3 weeks. And in the time period leading up to that we’re doing things like clean pulls and sometimes partial movement work which tends to fit in to the training plan very well as a lead in. By 5 weeks, I can have everyone doing a 2 stage pull complete with a double knee bend. I don’t think I’m doing anything special…just teaching and correcting. In fact, I just started working with a 40 year old client who’s never done OLs before (he was a bodybuilder) and within 3 weeks he power cleaned 200 lbs with decent technique.

        *Specificity is not just movement or muscle related. Specificity can be motor recruitment related, contractile speed, coordination related, metabolic, etc. It’s very easy to get too caught up in the external appearance of something and associate that with specificity and not examine these other factors.

        *Specificity isn’t everything. In fact, I think it’s equally important to work AROUND (+/-) the point of interest because the transfer of training affect and additional variety will provide a beneficial training stimulus that cannot be had when you get overly specific.

        *There actually is quite a bit of research on the benefits of OLs for sporting performance. I don’t have the time to cite them all right now but I made a shell topic on the new [url=https://elitetrack.com/wiki/Reasons-to-Olympic-Lift/]wiki[/url] regarding the benefits of Olympic lifting. If you have an argument or research paper in support of doing them please contribute to the wiki entry.

        Mike,

        they can be taught fairly well with a good experienced coach and attentive students, is there a need to do this though, no. Does it justify the need for a highly qulaified coach, yes. Can a deadlift be taught quicker and offer the same benefits to most, yes.

        On the specificity transferring within a certain range, does it actually occur, i am not so sure, I have read a lot more to say it doesnt than it does. Any increase in performance from any lift can be attributed to an inrease in strength gains in the tissues, not the skill of the movement accquired by the CNS.

        Agreed, there is a of evidence for OL to be used, however, there is also a lot saying slow lifts are as good, not a huge amount of data that shows fast is better than slow and vice versa – they both work when they work the same muscles. I am in favour of niether really – if one is shown superior over the other without doubt then I will use that, until then, i see no point in excessive straining and skill accquistion that comes with more complex lifitng.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73940

        [quote author="Mike Young" date="1225608411"]
        *Why do people think that teaching the Olympic lifts to a point of proficiency is SOOOOO hard? Hell, I have never had a problem teaching groups of 40+ athletes the OLs very good technique within 3 weeks. And in the time period leading up to that we’re doing things like clean pulls and sometimes partial movement work which tends to fit in to the training plan very well as a lead in. By 5 weeks, I can have everyone doing a 2 stage pull complete with a double knee bend. I don’t think I’m doing anything special…just teaching and correcting. In fact, I just started working with a 40 year old client who’s never done OLs before (he was a bodybuilder) and within 3 weeks he power cleaned 200 lbs with decent technique.

        I know I just alluded to this in my post to richard, but I wanted to repeat it. Everyone who is a parent or has watched little children develop has seen their own child perform all forms of the basic movements under stress such as in weightlifting, medball work, and other similar basic forms of physical activity. Think of the times when that child started squatting naturally to pick something up, cleaned or snatched naturally to move something quickly, deadlifted a rather big toy, or pulled themselves up, or pushed themselves up, or pressed an object like your hand away from them when trying to remove their shirt or feed them when already full, or pushed a chair around so they can climb onto the table. All these things weren’t taught to them, they learned them naturally.[/quote]

        Agreed, it by no means suggests that is the best way to train the tensile strength of tissues. thats what weights are about, anything else, such a RFD skill patterns is entirely skill specific.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73941

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225554656"]It is indeed called that yes, however, what you fail to realise is the realtionship between the speed of ATP disruption and the velocity at which you move. The faster you ask the contractile elements to contract and realease the less of them can and HAVE to do so. There is simply not enough time to allow for the chemical reactions to happen to allow for full cross bridging of all proteins. If they did all cross bridge successfully and you continued to move at full speed they would be damaged fairly seriously due to the forcefull ripping apart of the bridges as opposed to the chemical release that happens. Cant connect and HAVE to not connect at high speeds.

        Cross-bridge kinetics studied with staircase shortening in single fibres from frog skeletal muscle

        Authors: LINARI M.1; LOMBARDI V.1; PIAZZESI G.1

        Source: Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, Volume 18, Number 1, 1997 , pp. 91-101(11)

        Publisher: Springer

        “Shortening at high speed, preventing most of cross- bridges from undergoing the relatively fast (100 s-1) detachment/reattachment process, uncovers a rate limiting step in the cycle at the end of the 12 nm working stroke”

        is just one study showing the relationship. the faster you move the less cross bridges can and have to form.

        Are you still in dispute of velocity and reduced cross bridge formation?

        Strength training is specific to nothing and everything, the ability of a musccle fibre to tolerate a tension is the strength of a fibre, the displaying of that strength is the skill of what ever movement you wish to utilise that strength for. Strength is general, skill is specific – any time you move, is skill ffrom the CNS. How you choose to display your tensile ability is up to you or your sport, that does not mean that is the best way to increase your tensile strength abilities.

        I fail to see how the motor learning skill transfer and SAID principle does not make sports specific training clear. You get good at what you do – train OL get good at OL, any carry over that may be shown is due to the increased tensile strength of the tissues invovled – not the CNS or the skill of OL. Getting good at jumping with a barbell will make you good at,well, jumping with a barbell and not make you better at jumping without a barbell any more than jump practice with strength training will. Practice sprinting off the blocks, to get good at – you guessed it, sprinting off the blocks. They will increase tensile strength, one will induce neagtive transfer. All coaches should be aware of negative transfer and how it effects athletes.

        And they should also be aware of long term effects their current sports specific training has on athletes especially if there are other less damaging methods readily available to them. Duty of care springs to mind.

        Plyometrics – sports contain plenty of those during play, why train thme unspecifically outside of play.

        the plyometrics experienced by the CNS during a sprint can only be mimmicked by sprinting. jumping and bounding may be similar in the sense of what a muscle experiences,true, the cns sees them totally differently and that is the point here.

        You are mistaking excititation with skill, yes the skills learnt will be totally different between the lifts.The characteristics of the CNS will be the same.

        Why train plyometrics outside of the sport? It’s called variation and controlling the training load. Why not run a meet, every 2-3 times a week and rest the other days?

        No one except you is mistaking excitation as to being skill and execution of such a skill. My goal in the weight room is not the better execution of a task moving a weight as fast as possible through a ROM. It’s actually doing it that concerns me. I am not overly concerned with skill acquisition in the weight room. Weight room skills are primitive ones a child does without ever having to be a taught to do like press, pull, lift, squat, clean, snatch, or toss. Heck they even do it one-handed.

        You also misinterpreted the above article and my opinions of the subject. Muscles don’t slide freely. I also did not discuss full cross bridging, I discussed the quality of cross-bridges and the number of cross-bridges. As a muscle is shortening it must stop before damage occurs to the muscles. This is related to the shortening velocity of the muscle and the momentum of the limb it is trying to stop which is going to be related to the quality of cross-bridges and number of cross bridges as a muscle filament shortens (concentric) or lengthens (eccentric) it loses spots at which to bridge. This is just not for the prime-mover, its for all the muscles involved in the activity to include the antagonist and synergistic muscles. More importantly those antagonistic muscles are working eccentrically to decelerate the movement. They control the movement just like in the landing (ground contact) phase of a specific movement skill. Slow max strength lifts don’t do this because there is not enough momentum involved.

        Varying the of % 1RM which one works at and focusing on creating explosive movements creates an environment for the muscle to adapt to different stimuli which cannot be done in a sport specific environment. Muscular movements are controlled at the tendon (GTO’s), muscle (muscle spindles), and at the spinal level as well as the motor cortex in the brain. If the whole system recognizes it cannot move without stopping (task dominant control) it will not attempt it or break off the attempt, this self-preservation is reflex dominated. At somepoint, I want the starting point for any inhibiting reflex to change in a manner which will be positive for performance, but still protective of the athlete.

        If you don’t like the way many of us here train athletes then so be it. Creating great amounts of force is great, but if I gave someone the ability to produce such great amounts of force without giving them the ability to control such forces in a manner that is positive to desired skill performance what good have I done?

        Specificity plays a role, but it cannot come with monotony or training becomes stale and uninspired. Variation plays a role, but cannot come at the cost of specificity. The one constant is the power capacity and power endurance your athletes need to perform muscular work. If you are working at 30% of one’s power capacity they will not adapt the same as one who works in the 80-95% range the majority of the time and the 30% group will not improve performance as much unless their power capacity has been raised.[/quote]

        I am not aware of ever saying muscle did slide freely, I have merely pointed out that if you want to increase the velocity of movement, you have reduced the number of crossbridges that can be formed, if you reduce them, you automatically reduce the amount of strain they are experiencing and thus reduce the strengthening properties of a movement.

        I dont dislike your training methohds, i am just questioning why you use them and then pointing out other as effective and less time consuming methods that offer the same benefits; less time, same result – no brainer.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #73942

        You seem to come up with lots of impressive sounding % about efficacy of certain methods – are they from a one off study, repeatable studies or personal experience?

        “80% of all statistics are made up, 47% of people of know that”, Homer Simpson.

        “One only trains muslce tissue and connective tissue” so that would be the movement on the dead guy right? Each movement is controlled by the nervous system – be it fast, slow, attempted fast – you cant move without the nervouse system controlling said movements.

        You say things like OL and plyo metrics will enhance the CNS – but enhance it in what sense – getting fast at drop jumps means your CNS gets fast a drop jumps, any cross over will be due to to new level of strength gained by such activities (which also could be gained by other means).

        Richard

        Most the the studies have been carried out multiple times by different researchers. I have tabulated all and graded them according to training method, sample size, quality of the athlete, training history, methodology etc. to be able to evaluate the results more clearly. Researchers such as Delecluse and Blazevich I hold in very high regard. Some of the best research has not been disclosed beyond a thesis to date.

        The evidence for Olympic lifts must take into account the fact that protocols never show exclusive use of OL but rather OL in combination with squats, deadlifts, or sometimes vertical jumps. Therefore if there is a benefit to OL in the studies I use to construct my opinion, a fair amount of the benefit must be attributed to the training that complemented OL’s.

        Resistance training can be well designed to improve the sequence of muscle coordination. I suspect that most people just use primarily to overload muscle fiber. Plyometrics involve a high tendon and connective tissue load in the stretch phase which can produce an adaptation to synapse in the cell bodies within the spinal chord to facilitate the motor unit sequence in the agonist or sequence the inhibition of the antagonist. I prefer to use plyometrics as more of a higher velocity specific resistance training exercise knowing how much force I need to produce and compromising how much force can be produced in the standard plyometric move in favour of specific force production time.

        I have yet to see much in favour of drop jumps in the traditional sense. With low drop jumps, preactivation of muscle fiber prior to ground contact can be enhanced. However the best sequencing (learning) effects would come from repetitive jumping involving a reasonable horizontal component.

        Overall these training methods allow an overload of a whole number of systems that sprinting on its own cannot provide once best performance is established. The more specific these methods are to the movements and joint velocities of sprinting the better the transfer. Additionally it is plausible that the feeling/thinking of sprinting whilst executing these training methods would enhance the transfer.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73943

        Well you have pulled some data together by the sounds of it, most rare. I applaud your interest in the area (no sarcasm in that)

        It is good you see the flaw in drawing a connlusion from a study that utilised both methods in a group, that was surely not a comparative study then?

        I am sorry to say again, that skill such as coordination, balance etc are skill specific also, so improving one in one skill will not automatically improve it in another. The coordination needed in juggling will not improve the coordination needed in sword fighting.

        There is so little evidence supporting any form of transfer from skill to skill it is far reaching to claim that there is, it appears only the coaching community in the fitness world is of this line of thinking.I wonder why? would a high jumper practice shotputt to improve the high jump simply becasue both include aggressive hip actions……

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73944

        [quote author="dbandre" date="1225623587"][quote author="Mike Young" date="1225608411"]
        *Why do people think that teaching the Olympic lifts to a point of proficiency is SOOOOO hard? Hell, I have never had a problem teaching groups of 40+ athletes the OLs very good technique within 3 weeks. And in the time period leading up to that we’re doing things like clean pulls and sometimes partial movement work which tends to fit in to the training plan very well as a lead in. By 5 weeks, I can have everyone doing a 2 stage pull complete with a double knee bend. I don’t think I’m doing anything special…just teaching and correcting. In fact, I just started working with a 40 year old client who’s never done OLs before (he was a bodybuilder) and within 3 weeks he power cleaned 200 lbs with decent technique.

        I know I just alluded to this in my post to richard, but I wanted to repeat it. Everyone who is a parent or has watched little children develop has seen their own child perform all forms of the basic movements under stress such as in weightlifting, medball work, and other similar basic forms of physical activity. Think of the times when that child started squatting naturally to pick something up, cleaned or snatched naturally to move something quickly, deadlifted a rather big toy, or pulled themselves up, or pushed themselves up, or pressed an object like your hand away from them when trying to remove their shirt or feed them when already full, or pushed a chair around so they can climb onto the table. All these things weren’t taught to them, they learned them naturally.[/quote]

        Agreed, it by no means suggests that is the best way to train the tensile strength of tissues. thats what weights are about, anything else, such a RFD skill patterns is entirely skill specific.

        Richard[/quote]

        Wrong, Rate of Force development is not entirely specific to skill. It is specific to load demands and how fast they are to be executed and how well that muscle has adapted to increasing force development.

        RFD is not just neural, it’s also structural, mechanical, and biochemical. Higher quality cross-bridges and more of them (higher quality cross-bridges) make a higher RFD possible. Neural adaptations come rather quickly and some of biochemical adaptations with it. However, long term training and adaptations to muscle from a structural and mechanical standpoint take longer because the biochemical adaptations associated with those changes like muscle type conversion take years to develop to overcome lifestyle habits previously encountered. The earlier an athlete learns to develop force quickly the better off they are. This so evident in children who do gymnastics and tumbling, and those same children seem to transfer their abilities (like RFD) those same skills to other skills in their athletic development. My own belief (hypothesis) of this are the number of abilities are not set into stone until puberty and even then abilities like force production can still be improved during and after this time. Abilities between skills differ, however if you train skills with abilities that overlap and each of the abilities is enhanced then the other skill is enhanced. If a skill is unlearned then even though the abilities may exist they cannot be put to good use in the skill. If I am training a track and field athlete I train the skill cues and feedback relate to the execution of the skill, but if I am training abilities of an unrelated skill, cues and feedback don’t relate to the execution of skill, but rather what I want out of the abilities involved in the skil which relate back to the track skill.

        Sprinting is skill which contains 4 skills:

        1. Initial block clearance (skill)
        — Starting power, starting strength, reaction (abilities)
        2. Acceleration sprinting (skill)
        — power, strength within a dynamic framework (abilities)
        3. Transition from Accel to Max Race velocity (skill)
        — elastic/reactive power & strength within a dynamic framework (abilities)
        4. Maintenance of Max Race velocity (skill)
        — power endurance of elastic structures and anaerobic metabolic pathways

        By the end of a training season instead of my athletes doing training sessions working on specific skills of the 4 listed they are working on the main skill. They don’t get slower, they get faster and typically beat their previous PR’s by mid or early competitive season.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73945

        [quote author="dbandre" date="1225622880"][quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225554656"]It is indeed called that yes, however, what you fail to realise is the realtionship between the speed of ATP disruption and the velocity at which you move. The faster you ask the contractile elements to contract and realease the less of them can and HAVE to do so. There is simply not enough time to allow for the chemical reactions to happen to allow for full cross bridging of all proteins. If they did all cross bridge successfully and you continued to move at full speed they would be damaged fairly seriously due to the forcefull ripping apart of the bridges as opposed to the chemical release that happens. Cant connect and HAVE to not connect at high speeds.

        Cross-bridge kinetics studied with staircase shortening in single fibres from frog skeletal muscle

        Authors: LINARI M.1; LOMBARDI V.1; PIAZZESI G.1

        Source: Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, Volume 18, Number 1, 1997 , pp. 91-101(11)

        Publisher: Springer

        “Shortening at high speed, preventing most of cross- bridges from undergoing the relatively fast (100 s-1) detachment/reattachment process, uncovers a rate limiting step in the cycle at the end of the 12 nm working stroke”

        is just one study showing the relationship. the faster you move the less cross bridges can and have to form.

        Are you still in dispute of velocity and reduced cross bridge formation?

        Strength training is specific to nothing and everything, the ability of a musccle fibre to tolerate a tension is the strength of a fibre, the displaying of that strength is the skill of what ever movement you wish to utilise that strength for. Strength is general, skill is specific – any time you move, is skill ffrom the CNS. How you choose to display your tensile ability is up to you or your sport, that does not mean that is the best way to increase your tensile strength abilities.

        I fail to see how the motor learning skill transfer and SAID principle does not make sports specific training clear. You get good at what you do – train OL get good at OL, any carry over that may be shown is due to the increased tensile strength of the tissues invovled – not the CNS or the skill of OL. Getting good at jumping with a barbell will make you good at,well, jumping with a barbell and not make you better at jumping without a barbell any more than jump practice with strength training will. Practice sprinting off the blocks, to get good at – you guessed it, sprinting off the blocks. They will increase tensile strength, one will induce neagtive transfer. All coaches should be aware of negative transfer and how it effects athletes.

        And they should also be aware of long term effects their current sports specific training has on athletes especially if there are other less damaging methods readily available to them. Duty of care springs to mind.

        Plyometrics – sports contain plenty of those during play, why train thme unspecifically outside of play.

        the plyometrics experienced by the CNS during a sprint can only be mimmicked by sprinting. jumping and bounding may be similar in the sense of what a muscle experiences,true, the cns sees them totally differently and that is the point here.

        You are mistaking excititation with skill, yes the skills learnt will be totally different between the lifts.The characteristics of the CNS will be the same.

        Why train plyometrics outside of the sport? It’s called variation and controlling the training load. Why not run a meet, every 2-3 times a week and rest the other days?

        No one except you is mistaking excitation as to being skill and execution of such a skill. My goal in the weight room is not the better execution of a task moving a weight as fast as possible through a ROM. It’s actually doing it that concerns me. I am not overly concerned with skill acquisition in the weight room. Weight room skills are primitive ones a child does without ever having to be a taught to do like press, pull, lift, squat, clean, snatch, or toss. Heck they even do it one-handed.

        You also misinterpreted the above article and my opinions of the subject. Muscles don’t slide freely. I also did not discuss full cross bridging, I discussed the quality of cross-bridges and the number of cross-bridges. As a muscle is shortening it must stop before damage occurs to the muscles. This is related to the shortening velocity of the muscle and the momentum of the limb it is trying to stop which is going to be related to the quality of cross-bridges and number of cross bridges as a muscle filament shortens (concentric) or lengthens (eccentric) it loses spots at which to bridge. This is just not for the prime-mover, its for all the muscles involved in the activity to include the antagonist and synergistic muscles. More importantly those antagonistic muscles are working eccentrically to decelerate the movement. They control the movement just like in the landing (ground contact) phase of a specific movement skill. Slow max strength lifts don’t do this because there is not enough momentum involved.

        Varying the of % 1RM which one works at and focusing on creating explosive movements creates an environment for the muscle to adapt to different stimuli which cannot be done in a sport specific environment. Muscular movements are controlled at the tendon (GTO’s), muscle (muscle spindles), and at the spinal level as well as the motor cortex in the brain. If the whole system recognizes it cannot move without stopping (task dominant control) it will not attempt it or break off the attempt, this self-preservation is reflex dominated. At somepoint, I want the starting point for any inhibiting reflex to change in a manner which will be positive for performance, but still protective of the athlete.

        If you don’t like the way many of us here train athletes then so be it. Creating great amounts of force is great, but if I gave someone the ability to produce such great amounts of force without giving them the ability to control such forces in a manner that is positive to desired skill performance what good have I done?

        Specificity plays a role, but it cannot come with monotony or training becomes stale and uninspired. Variation plays a role, but cannot come at the cost of specificity. The one constant is the power capacity and power endurance your athletes need to perform muscular work. If you are working at 30% of one’s power capacity they will not adapt the same as one who works in the 80-95% range the majority of the time and the 30% group will not improve performance as much unless their power capacity has been raised.[/quote]

        I am not aware of ever saying muscle did slide freely, I have merely pointed out that if you want to increase the velocity of movement, you have reduced the number of crossbridges that can be formed, if you reduce them, you automatically reduce the amount of strain they are experiencing and thus reduce the strengthening properties of a movement.

        I dont dislike your training methohds, i am just questioning why you use them and then pointing out other as effective and less time consuming methods that offer the same benefits; less time, same result – no brainer.

        Richard[/quote]

        Less time consuming and same results??? It’s not about time conservation and the results will not be the same. It’s about the patience to build better athletes over a 4 year period who still have development potential when going into college. I spend less time in the weight room than most of my counterparts here, but if I had 16-20 hours a week to work with each athlete I would spend a little more time in the weight room, but it would be to add an additional lifting session when possible in a microcycle.

        What other is more effective? Just doing heavy lifts? Tried it and it didn’t work as much as you believe and certainly not more than I am doing now.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73946

        In your opinion what makes an OL develop RFD better than an attempted fast squat?

        If what you are doing now works well for you then thats great news for your athletes.

        Perhaps you are a better Ol and plyo coach than you are strength coach – could be an explanation as to why what you are doing now works better.

        I like the layout of the skill and ability list you posted above, a good list indeed. One worth saving for sure.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73947

        I forgot to address other moethods that have been shown to increase RFD as effectivley;

        Isometrics for one

        and

        The intended effort of moving quickly – as you will find in OL and heavy squatting – there is no really huge difference in the two.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73948

        would a high jumper practice shotputt to improve the high jump simply becasue both include aggressive hip actions……

        No a high jumper wouldnt, but a high jumper and a shot putter would both do Multi Throws with a shot put to build power.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73949

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225652793"]would a high jumper practice shotputt to improve the high jump simply becasue both include aggressive hip actions……

        No a high jumper wouldnt, but a high jumper and a shot putter would both do Multi Throws with a shot put to build power.[/quote]

        This is a great learning experience.

        It would appear that many see the equal effects fast and slow lifts have but many use throws and explosive training outside the sport to allow for variety in training and mental variety to prevent staleness and boredome, is this correct?

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #73950

        Rich I would say its more than just preventing staleness and boredom. My own personal belief, which I cannot scientifically back up at all, is that athletes do specificity to a fault these days. The body is connected from head to toe and variety is key to being just an overall good athlete. I am a decathlete but you will catch me playing flag football, basketball, golf, tennis, and actually two days of pretty competitive badminton. None of those are completely specific to what I do on the track, but does it make me better athlete and in turn a better decathlete, hell yes it does.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73951

        Rich I would say its more than just preventing staleness and boredom. My own personal belief, which I cannot scientifically back up at all, is that athletes do specificity to a fault these days. The body is connected from head to toe and variety is key to being just an overall good athlete. I am a decathlete but you will catch me playing flag football, basketball, golf, tennis, and actually two days of pretty competitive badminton. None of those are completely specific to what I do on the track, but does it make me better athlete and in turn a better decathlete, hell yes it does.

        Hi John,

        I have absolutely no doubt what so ever that variety makes for a better athlete and person in general. vareity is in fact, the spice of life.

        100% in agreement with you there.

        I just question the reasons why certain things are utilised, even if they work, the reasons people believe they wrok maybe incorrect.

        I love variety, love badminton too, fighting, lifting, volleyball, eating, socialising, reading, all these things make us better for the variety they offer. To get deep, they make our life a tapestry with much experience to draw on, a lack of variety leaves a blank canvas with little to offer.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73952

        In my opinion, gymnasts are great at so many sports because of the variety of movement they experience is astounding. Oh to be a gymnast

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73953

        In my opinion, gymnasts are great at so many sports because of the variety of movement they experience is astounding. Oh to be a gymnast

        So much for your specificity argument. I mentioned gymnastics and tumbling in my 2nd to last post.

        As for other things, I highly doubt I am a “good” OL coach or plyo coach, maybe I and everyone else on this board are better at tying those things into a training program than you are. We have all had success with “new” athletes getting them faster through strength, but we are concerned about the long-term as well as the short-term progression and potential of our athletes and most of us have seen pure strength work reach a limit faster. The weight room gives me a controlled environment which to base fitness-fatigue factors as well. Strength and strength endurance are the easiest qualities to train, but they don’t relate as well to performance improvements as power and power-endurance.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73955

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225680816"]Which as a side note, in my opinion, is why gymnasts are great at so many sports – the variety of movement they experience is astounding. Oh to be a gymnast

        So much for your specificity argument. I mentioned gymnastics and tumbling in my 2nd to last post.

        As for other things, I highly doubt I am a “good” OL coach or plyo coach, maybe I and everyone else on this board are better at tying those things into a training program than you are. We have all had success with “new” athletes getting them faster through strength, but we are concerned about the long-term as well as the short-term progression and potential of our athletes and most of us have seen pure strength work reach a limit faster. The weight room gives me a controlled environment which to base fitness-fatigue factors as well. Strength and strength endurance are the easiest qualities to train, but they don’t relate as well to performance improvements as power and power-endurance.[/quote]

        As I said above, it is not that I dont agree they work, it is that I dont agree on the reasons they are used or the reasons people think they may work.

        Also that there are alternative methods available that take less time and have the same effect as the ones people think they do.

        As has previously been said, this thread has now become a great knowledge filled discussion without degrading into personal attacks (which seems to happen on a lot of other boards)and for that i am grateful.

        it is rare to be able to talk with people about subjects so thoroughly.

        Richard

        Do you think if basic (handstands, flips etc) gymnastic moves were learnt they would benefit athletes that dont compete in gymnastics – do you incorporate any of them and if so which ones?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73959

        Interesting indeed.

        What sort of facility do you work in – you seem to have access to alot of athletes of varying specialities?

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73960

        Interesting indeed.

        What sort of facility do you work in – you seem to have access to alot of athletes of varying specialities?

        Richard

        As far as prior facilities go, the HS I worked for previously had a small weight room with 2 stations were we could do olympic lifts or deadlifts and 3 squat racks. It had mats that we could do jumps on and I used the wrestling room to do jumps and hops on mats during the winter season. Obviously weather was always an issue in the spring and winter in Illinois, but we made do with what we had to work with. We also had long straight hallways to sprint in during the winter and we had 2 softball fields with home plates back to back were we could do tempo relays on grass around them (420m).

        I also coached in the summer with multi-events for a track club and we only had the track and the medicine balls I could bring to practice.

        Both settings worked well, the summer setting was more about learning and introduction to the events, but the summer would have work better with more training time.

        Please take I moved less than 3 months ago so all this changes in the near future for better or worse.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73961

        Well Sir, thats an impressive resume.

        I envy anyone that has the personality and ability to handle, let alone coach large groups of people. I am one on one kind of person with reaches to smaller groups of 4-5. A big group setting is not something I am overly confident with.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #73966

        Well Sir, thats an impressive resume.

        I envy anyone that has the personality and ability to handle, let alone coach large groups of people. I am one on one kind of person with reaches to smaller groups of 4-5. A big group setting is not something I am overly confident with.

        I don’t think it’s impressive. Solid maybe, but nothing noteworthy.

        It’s not a large group during the summer, my kids in the summer are ones I seek out the interest in multi-events and it’s a challenge because no one wants to do the distance race even when I tell them we are not going to train for that event specifically. As far as large groups go, that can be a hassle, but it is also gives more leeway into experimentation of training methods on different individuals as I have had to do with a middle school XC team I was head coach of. Both groups allow me to learn more as a coach, but the smaller the group the better the results across the board in the short-term and the larger groups allows me to experiment more with training protocols and cues.

        I never had more than 10 kids at a time in my sprint/jumps group at the high school, but all progressed well over the long haul, the girls who were freshmen running mid to high 14s for 100m ran 13.3 or better as seniors for a school the size of 600.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #73973

        Mike,
        they can be taught fairly well with a good experienced coach and attentive students, is there a need to do this though, no. Does it justify the need for a highly qulaified coach, yes. Can a deadlift be taught quicker and offer the same benefits to most, yes.

        I have found it takes just about as much effort to coach people to deadlift correctly than it does to clean. If you don’t pay attention in a clean, say goodbye to your wrists. If you don’t pay attention in a deadlift, say goodbye to your lumbar spine and/or thoracolumbar fascia. Seeing newer people who barely care about technique details try to deadlift without direct personal instruction scares the hell out of me.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73976

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225641006"]
        Mike,
        they can be taught fairly well with a good experienced coach and attentive students, is there a need to do this though, no. Does it justify the need for a highly qulaified coach, yes. Can a deadlift be taught quicker and offer the same benefits to most, yes.

        I have found it takes just about as much effort to coach people to deadlift correctly than it does to clean. If you don’t pay attention in a clean, say goodbye to your wrists. If you don’t pay attention in a deadlift, say goodbye to your lumbar spine and/or thoracolumbar fascia. Seeing newer people who barely care about technique details try to deadlift without direct personal instruction scares the hell out of me.[/quote]

        Wow you are impressive.

        The first pull in a clean is basically a deadlift, how do you get them the learn to high pull, rack and pull under the bar and then front quat out of it as quick as you learn the first pull? That is truly impressive.

        Richard aka Ham

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73977

        [quote author="Richard aka Ham" date="1225686080"]Well Sir, thats an impressive resume.

        I envy anyone that has the personality and ability to handle, let alone coach large groups of people. I am one on one kind of person with reaches to smaller groups of 4-5. A big group setting is not something I am overly confident with.

        I don’t think it’s impressive. Solid maybe, but nothing noteworthy.

        It’s not a large group during the summer, my kids in the summer are ones I seek out the interest in multi-events and it’s a challenge because no one wants to do the distance race even when I tell them we are not going to train for that event specifically. As far as large groups go, that can be a hassle, but it is also gives more leeway into experimentation of training methods on different individuals as I have had to do with a middle school XC team I was head coach of. Both groups allow me to learn more as a coach, but the smaller the group the better the results across the board in the short-term and the larger groups allows me to experiment more with training protocols and cues.

        I never had more than 10 kids at a time in my sprint/jumps group at the high school, but all progressed well over the long haul, the girls who were freshmen running mid to high 14s for 100m ran 13.3 or better as seniors for a school the size of 600.[/quote]

        Dont undermine your own abilites, successfully passing knowledge to one person is a feat, let a lone group.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #73978

        Wow you are impressive.

        The first pull in a clean is basically a deadlift, how do you get them the learn to high pull, rack and pull under the bar and then front quat out of it as quick as you learn the first pull? That is truly impressive.

        Richard aka Ham

        Sure it takes years to develop an optimal competitive olympic lift but it doesn’t take long to develop a good, safe technique. I teach using a top-down progression and only use the power variants. It’s just that I have seen more horrifying(dangerous) deadlifts than horrifying olympic lifts from incoming athletes that have been “taught how to do them”.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73979

        Ha for sure there are so many horrifying deadlifts out there as there are OL too.

        A deadlift of any from can be taught in a matter of minutes at a basic safe level; flat feet, strong back etc

        I am not so sure a clean, perhaps a power clean, could be taugght in the same time scale.

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #73981

        A deadlift can be taught–to the point a normal athlete will not butcher it on their own–in minutes? I seriously doubt that. Most people have a hard time grasping “butt down” (if they tend to be really high) and a flat back THROUGHOUT the lift, rather than letting it break when it gets heavy (everyone can look great with an empty bar on deads).

        The first pull of a clean, while similar to a deadlift, also have probably about 1/2 the load or so. People’s technique tends to go to crap when they deadlift heavy, which is what you are promoting, and that takes more than a few minutes to teach/coach for sure.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        HamsFitness on #73982

        It sure can, if they cant hold position with heavier weights it simply suggests a weak muscle somewhere, weight progress slowly.

        Basic,safe technique for the dead can be taught quickly, as with anything, getting strong at it takes time

        Richard

      • Avatar
        Member
        richard-703 on #73984

        This may sound funny, but I think it takes at least 4 to 5 years of regular deadlifting to master it. The perfect groove really clicked for me after about 6 years or so. I realize that you guys are only going for safe execution.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        RussZHC on #74070

        “Plausible that feeling/thinking of sprinting while…”

        was from J.R. on page 10 of this thread, further there is other discussion within the series of posts about transferability/transference of strength training. So, for example, how much if any of doing a specific OL transferred to the sprinting activity.

        My question is a mix of that and psychology. If you assume that there is transfer of strength/skills, whatever, does the number of reps doing the action make a difference?
        So, as example, hurdlers are 3 strides between flights, so would it be better for their training to do other drills/skills/lifts in “3” as well? And if possible alternating legs while doing that drill/skill/lift? And so for triple jumpers, would it then make transfer more likely if they were to do “3” as well but start on one side/leg, then other side, then same side again as compared to the hurdle example?
        If you were doing pistols, would doing 3x each set help the previously mentioned event athletes or would in the case of the hurdler doing pistols on alternating legs totaling 3x be better and then for the triple jumper doing a pistol on one leg and then 2x on the other leg be better?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74072

        I think injuries in the weight room are greatly exagerated for anyone other than beginners. It’s definitely safer than performing the sport being trained for, be it football, basketball or track. Studies have shown this to be true. My biggest problem with the clean is that even if the form is technically sound, the weight being used is not nearly maximal.
        Assuming some general preperation before max effort weight training, such as solid core preparation, the deadlift takes much less time to teach than an olympic style clean. For a descent athlete, proper form can be taught in just a handful of training sessions. Max effort lifts, or at leat max triples, can begin fairly quickly. For an Olympic style clean using near maximal weight (pull from the floor doesn’t go much higher than the belly button), it takes much longer.

        Oly pulls have two short comings in my opinon. First, the vast majority of athletes, unless trained and supervised by a coach very well versed in olympic lifting, make the first pull much higher than elite olympic lifters. If you can pull the weight well past your belly button, it is obviously nowhere near a maximal effort lift. Second, because of the beating that the shoulders and wrists take, most oly lifts I see are a performed at a lower percentage of 1RM, which is already lower because of the improper technique normally displayed. I have heard, but can’t confirm, that oly pulls are rare for NFL athletes because of the potential for shoulder/wrist problems.

        Personally, I prefer a complex of ME squats and plyo jumps or ME squats and med ball. I think this allows for greater loads and more explosive movements than either deads or oly pulls by themselves. Deads are also much harder on the athlete than squats. Even powerlifters don’t deadlift every week. Many PLs only do heavy deads once a month. Some only do them during contest prep.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #74076

        My question is a mix of that and psychology. If you assume that there is transfer of strength/skills, whatever, does the number of reps doing the action make a difference?
        So, as example, hurdlers are 3 strides between flights, so would it be better for their training to do other drills/skills/lifts in “3” as well? And if possible alternating legs while doing that drill/skill/lift? And so for triple jumpers, would it then make transfer more likely if they were to do “3” as well but start on one side/leg, then other side, then same side again as compared to the hurdle example?
        If you were doing pistols, would doing 3x each set help the previously mentioned event athletes or would in the case of the hurdler doing pistols on alternating legs totaling 3x be better and then for the triple jumper doing a pistol on one leg and then 2x on the other leg be better?

        I’m not sure if I have an exact answer for this one but this is just another level of ‘specificity.’ On a related note, I’ll pass on that Boo liked to turn weightlifting activities in to discreet acyclic tasks to mimic the categorization of a jumper (cyclic activity followed by a discreet / closed task). An example might be 3 x clean and then 1 jerk.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #74077

        I think injuries in the weight room are greatly exagerated for anyone other than beginners. It’s definitely safer than performing the sport being trained for, be it football, basketball or track. Studies have shown this to be true.

        I definitely agree. I’ve never had anyone hurt from doing OLs. I’ve had some lumbar issues with a couple different types of squats or pulls. On a related note to some of the earlier posts on the deadlift, I’d say that I’ve probably seen more injuries with that exercise than any other. It really lends itself to pushing beyond safe limit loads as it’s relatively easy to complete a lift with terrible technique.

        My biggest problem with the clean is that even if the form is technically sound, the weight being used is not nearly maximal.

        HUH? You lost me on this one. If you load the lift maximally, how could the load not be maximal?

        Assuming some general preperation before max effort weight training, such as solid core preparation, the deadlift takes much less time to teach than an olympic style clean. For a descent athlete, proper form can be taught in just a handful of training sessions. Max effort lifts, or at leat max triples, can begin fairly quickly. For an Olympic style clean using near maximal weight (pull from the floor doesn’t go much higher than the belly button), it takes much longer.

        I think this goes back to some earlier points- how long are you training for and what’s the issue with a slightly longer learning curve if the gains are considerably greater (or different). If it takes 3 weeks as opposed to 3 sessions isn’t that still worth it if you’ll be able to use the lift for years to come? Also, I read earlier that someone suggested that OLs provide the same benefit as deadlifts. This is simply not true. They are very much different. Even if you’re doing deadlifts for speed. So even if we err on the ultra-conservative side and say that OLs add 2-3% benefit over just doing deadlifts, isn’t that worth it when winners in our sport are decided by much less than that.

        Oly pulls have two short comings in my opinon. First, the vast majority of athletes, unless trained and supervised by a coach very well versed in olympic lifting, make the first pull much higher than elite olympic lifters. If you can pull the weight well past your belly button, it is obviously nowhere near a maximal effort lift.

        You’re stuck in power lift thinking with this one and using a one factor model for ‘maximal.’ You can’t compare loads used in one exercise and say that because you can’t lift the same load in another exercise (even if it looks similar) that it’s not of maximal load. Are front squats sub maximal because you can’t lift as much as in a back squat? Remember, maximal can be maximal speed, maximal load, maximal force output, maximal power output, etc. Note that OLs easily beat out heavy deadlifts on all of those except load (remember load does not equal force or power[/url]). This thinking is really WAAAAAAY off base in my opinion. In fact, the peak force, RFD, and power output of all the OLs is several magnitudes greater than what we see in the power lifts.

        Second, because of the beating that the shoulders and wrists take, most oly lifts I see are a performed at a lower percentage of 1RM, which is already lower because of the improper technique normally displayed. I have heard, but can’t confirm, that oly pulls are rare for NFL athletes because of the potential for shoulder/wrist problems.

        I actually think it’s true that many collegiate and NFL strength coaches don’t use OLs because of fears of shoulder injuries but they are either terrible coaches, conceding to the whims of uninformed sport coaches, or are uninformed themselves. There’s no link between OL and shoulder injuries. I have occasionally seen some wrist injuries but it was always in cases where the athlete wasn’t racking the bar correctly.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #74081

        Great stuff mike, I can remember about 4 years back when you gave me a spanking on maximal and load.

        On the injury side, I think it’s easier to injure yourself moving heavy loads at a slow pace as such is the case with the deadlift and squat. I’ve seen too many people take the full effect of isometric/eccentric unloading while dropping a squat or deadlift from a static position from doing this lifts too heavily. In the squat it’s hard to get out of the way, but in the deadlift, they could reduce the exaggerated isometric/eccentric load on the muscles by starting to lower weight before dropping it. In the OL’s if you aren’t going fast enough (the bar doesn’t have enough momentum) it’s almost impossible to complete the lift and the athlete ends up dropping the weight naturally. That’s just my opinion from observation although I do love the deadlift.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #74083

        On the injury side, I think it’s easier to injure yourself moving heavy loads at a slow pace as such is the case with the deadlift and squat. I’ve seen too many people take the full effect of isometric/eccentric unloading while dropping a squat or deadlift from a static position from doing this lifts too heavily. In the squat it’s hard to get out of the way, but in the deadlift, they could reduce the exaggerated isometric/eccentric load on the muscles by starting to lower weight before dropping it. In the OL’s if you aren’t going fast enough (the bar doesn’t have enough momentum) it’s almost impossible to complete the lift and the athlete ends up dropping the weight naturally. That’s just my opinion from observation although I do love the deadlift.

        Totally agreed on this one. I push around heavy loads this way too but am much more cautious than I am with similar %s in the OLs. For example, for my highly experienced athletes I’ll use supra-maximal loads for partial or or eccentric only lifts and having done them myself and gotten feedback from athletes I know that these are far more likely to cause an injury than OLs. Same thing with deadlifts. I cringe when I see some of the pictures from some of the Hall of Fame pics from BFS or Barry Ross’s site in the deadlift. I’m expecting to see a thoracic vertebrae explode out of their body.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #74084

        I remembered this article[/url] and thought it might be relevant.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74087

        HUH? You lost me on this one. If you load the lift maximally, how could the load not be maximal?

        Its not maximal in terms of intensity…percentage of 1RM. As I mentioned, Olympic caliber athletes pull a load that they can barely get to belly button height. This is where the explosive element of the lift occurs. The vast majority of lifters I observe in gyms use a weight that they can move well above that height, even if it is a “1RM”. They can’t use the weight that would actually be considered their one 1RM in the explosive pull from the floor, because they don’t have the proper technique to get under the weight that deep. Instead, I see them using a lighter weight, allowing them to pull to higher level, which then allows them to get under it and squat it up. Since, IMHO, the beneficial element of the lift is the explosive pull, and that phase is not actually what is limiting their 1RM (their inability to get under the bar that deeply is) I don’t consider it a maximum intensity lift. Max percieved effort, yes. Max intensity, no.

        If it takes 3 weeks as opposed to 3 sessions isn’t that still worth it if you’ll be able to use the lift for years to come?

        I would agree with you on this, however as you will note in my earlier post, if and only if a qualified coach, such as yourself, is doing the training. Three weeks, or even three years, of inadequate instruction will never amount to anything more than inadequate training. I think there are not that many coaches at any level who can properly teach the Olympic lifts in a way to extract the benefits that elite Olympic lifters receive from these movements.

        So even if we err on the ultra-conservative side and say that OLs add 2-3% benefit over just doing deadlifts, isn’t that worth it when winners in our sport are decided by much less than that.

        I would agree with this, but I personally haven’t really been convinced that the case exists for this argument. I would love to see a comprehensive study comparing Oly lifts to a complex of squat and ply jumps.

        You’re stuck in power lift thinking with this one and using a one factor model for ‘maximal.’ You can’t compare loads used in one exercise and say that because you can’t lift the same in another exercise that it’s not of maximal load. Are front squats sub maximal because you can’t lift as much as in a back squat?

        If your goal is a maximum intensity squat affecting the posterior chain and CNS, then yes, the technique of a front squat limits the impact on the posterior chain and CNS, just as an overhead squat would. Most lifters can’t do 50% of their back squat when doing an overhead squat. Does anyone think that ME overhead squats, even if done at 1RM, work the posterior chain, and impact the CNS, as much as back squats? No way. Neither do front squats. Not only the style or technique of the lift, but the form in the specific lift, can limit the intensity applied to the muscles, and CNS, being stressed in the lift. Its not the perceived effort that one should focus on, but the intensity as we have defined it here in the past. This is the same logic applied to sprinting. High perceived effort does not necessarily equal high intensity.

        Remember, maximal can be maximal speed, maximal load, maximal force output, maximal power output, etc. Note that OLs easily beat out heavy deadlifts on all of those except load (remember load does not equal [url=https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-3090/]force or power[/url]). This thinking is really WAAAAAAY off base in my opinion. In fact, the force, RFD, and power output of all the OLs is several magnitudes greater than what we see in the power lifts.

        I would respectfully disagree. You don’t get stronger by moving lighter weights faster. You get stronger by lifting heavier and heavier weights. My definition of maximum intensity is % of 1RM. As far as force output, yes the oly pull is greater than the squat, but this doesn’t really mean anything. A 40yd dash has much higher power output than an oly lift, but will it make you stronger than lifting weights? No. Higher power ouput during a lift does not necessarily equate to a greater positive impact on the lifter. There have been studies that quantified this.

        Mike, you know I certainly respect your opinion, and of course I wish we had well designed studies that compared oly lifts to a complex of squats and jumps or squats and med ball, but until then, we can only theorize.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #74089

        Star:

        You certainly can get stronger lifting lighter weights at faster speeds. You may not get as strong as you can get by lifting heavy loads at a slower speeds in the short term, but if the individual kept the same Fat Free Body Mass they would over time approach the strength gained by slow and heavy lifting with lighter and faster lifting. However it would be harder to gain the same increase in power in the slow and heavy even after utilizing a mixed routine after 2 years to catch the power output of the light and fast lifter. Slow and Heavy lifts are needed, but focus of work should power outputs and in the case of lifting that’s the speed of the lift.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74090

        Star–you are still stuck in the powerlifting mindset.

        “A 40yd dash has much higher power output than an oly lift, but will it make you stronger than lifting weights? No. Higher power ouput during a lift does not necessarily equate to a greater positive impact on the lifter. There have been studies that quantified this.”

        If the goal is to get stronger as it relates to the weightroom in the sense of maximal, 1rm, strength, then you are correct. That isn’t the goal though. The goal is to run faster, jump higher, throw further. Lifting is secondary to those goals, at best and maximal strength is below that even.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74099

        Star:

        You certainly can get stronger lifting lighter weights at faster speeds. You may not get as strong as you can get by lifting heavy loads at a slower speeds in the short term, but if the individual kept the same Fat Free Body Mass they would over time approach the strength gained by slow and heavy lifting with lighter and faster lifting.

        With all due respect, this is absolutely false. Lighter, faster lifting works for beginners, anything does, but for anyone with a year or more experience, lighter/faster builds neither mass nor strength as well as heavier lifting. Since strength is limited, your ability to generate power and force is limited. If you could build strength with lighter/faster just as easy as heavy lifting, even PLs would use it because recovery is much quicker and it is much easier on the body. But it is much less effective for advanced atheletes to build strength, no matter what style of lifting you are doing. Please understand that I’m not making a blanket comparison of Oly lifting to PL lifting. In elite oly lifting, maximal weights are moved and a high % of 1RM is utilized in training. My beef is that because of improper form (mainly pulling the weight too high before cleaning it) most athletes (football, track etc.) are not using a high % of 1RM. And, purposely using a low weight (30% of 1RM), while generating a high power output during the lift itself, is not more effective at building strength to higher and higher levels. Even pure Oly lifters (I’m talking elite Olympic lifters i.e., the Olympics) use much heavier weights, 80-90% of 1RM, to build strength.

        However it would be harder to gain the same increase in power in the slow and heavy even after utilizing a mixed routine after 2 years to catch the power output of the light and fast lifter. Slow and Heavy lifts are needed, but focus of work should power outputs and in the case of lifting that’s the speed of the lift.

        If it is harder to gain increases in power with heavy weights, then why do you need them? You are making the assumption that because a particular activity, be it a lift, a sprint, whatever, expresses a higher force/power when performed, that it will translate to greater, more rapid improvements in the ability of an athlete to express force/power in general. While this may seem to make sense, it is actually a very big assumption that has not been shown to be true, at least in the studies I have seen.

        My bottom line is this…if two athletes are trained together using the same lift (either oly or a PL lift), and the light/fast lifter uses 30% of 1RM exclusively, never lifting heavy, and the heavy lifter uses 80-95% of 1RM exclusively, never lifting light, I have no doubt that after several years, even if no gains in mass are seen, the lifter pulling/pushing the heavy weight exclusively will be capable of generating more power in a test (assuming both lifters use the same weight and lift during the test) than the one training light and fast exclusively. Why? Because the heavy lifter will be able to pull a much heavier load almost as fast as the light lifter will be able to pull his light load, because the light lifter’s gains in strength will not be anything close to what the heavy lifter has acheived. I don’t think any lifter, oly, PL or even bodybuilder, would argue against this statement.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        RussZHC on #74100

        Star61:

        “Max percieved effort, yes. Max intensity, no.”

        and later

        “High perceived effort does not necessarily equal high intensity.”

        Material referenced earlier in this topic talks about this and from what I can gather the jury is still out on those statements. Just saying, “not necessarily” implies that the possibility exists.
        I find the mind in relation to what work the body can perform more and more fascinating, to me this is not sport psychology in the oft used sense but something different. A fair portion of this thread has discussed/debated “maximal” but there appears to be that little bit of “wiggle” room relating to RPE (rate of perceived exertion, I am particularly thinking of the Borg scale since it is tied to something easily counted, HR) that could make many things possible.
        If I can train an athlete to do a lift “properly”, say one of the OL, as that is where much of this discussion has been, or for that matter RDL, and let them convince themselves that what they are lifting is “maximal” does the actual weight in fact, really matter? And, if this process works, have you then not eliminated many of the dangers associated to what are much likely much heavier weights? In terms of load related to power, speed of action etc. if the suggestion is 30%, to me that leaves a lot of room between that and 1RM or even higher.

        The proviso that davan states:

        If the goal is to get stronger as it relates to the weightroom in the sense of maximal, 1rm, strength, then you are correct. That isn’t the goal though. The goal is to run faster, jump higher, throw further. Lifting is secondary to those goals, at best and maximal strength is below that even.

        is very important to me.

        When I first started coaching I knew “sport psych” existed but thought then that it accounted for maybe 15% of the final product but I soon began to think that number was very low and the more I coach the more that percentage increases.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74101

        Star–you are still stuck in the powerlifting mindset.

        “A 40yd dash has much higher power output than an oly lift, but will it make you stronger than lifting weights? No. Higher power ouput during a lift does not necessarily equate to a greater positive impact on the lifter. There have been studies that quantified this.”

        If the goal is to get stronger as it relates to the weightroom in the sense of maximal, 1rm, strength, then you are correct. That isn’t the goal though. The goal is to run faster, jump higher, throw further. Lifting is secondary to those goals, at best and maximal strength is below that even.

        I agree, but if when you are in the weight room, even if you primary goal is to run faster or jump higher, you have to decide what traits you are trying to improve. One of the traits, for most athletes, is strength. Having determined that, what is the best method for improving strength. That is the debate, and the original point put forth by the OP.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        RussZHC on #74105

        Testing. I understand why and don’t disagree with testing per se but at some point the debate should become are you trying to get better test scores or are you trying to improve the “end”? The end being the run, jump, throw; any particular test and the run, jump, throw result are not necessarily one and the same.

        I don’t mean to hijack this thread but I think it relates to the general topic. If one is training a runner in the 200m (as a random choice) one of the things you will likely be training is the ability for that athlete to recover. So now you have them recovering well, in whatever terms you use to describe it, and their competition times improve. Now this cycle repeats itself a number of times and then you notice the runner is continuing to improve their abilities at recovery but their competition times have flat lined. Does one continue to try and improve their ability to recover?

        My point being exactly the same as davan’s, I am not trying to get someone who is “best” at taking tests, or recovering quickly to do another repeat (within reason) as a coach I am trying to help an athlete perform their best when it “counts” to them in the sport or event they have decided upon.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74106

        OK, not trying to be argumentative, but I’m just trying to understand where everyone is coming from. Please respond to this simple question, limiting your discussion to just the question I propose, and not how it might impact performance in other sports.

        Problem…A pair of identical twin boys, 18y.o., average 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?

        Question #3 – Who is faster?

        My answers?

        Q1. Twin #2 has a much higher 1RM.

        Q2. Even though Twin #1 may have been generating more force on his lifts during the first year of training (faster/lighter lifts), Twin #2 would, over the years, make much better progress, and while his training lifts, being heavy and slow, might not be as forceful as twin #1, his capacity to generate force at his optimal load would increase at a greater rate. Now, with a much higher 1RM than twin #1, and therefore a much higher optimal load, twin #2 is capable of generating a greater force, at optimal load, than twin #1. Furthermore, twin #2’s optimal load will be much higher than twin #1. Lastly, I would predict that twin #2 would be even be capable of producing more force at twin #1’s optimal load, because he could move twin #1’s optimal load faster than twin #1.

        Q3. I don’t know by how much, but my assumption would be that, all other things being identical, the stronger athlete would have much better acceleration, and probably a higher max v, and would win if they raced.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74107

        Star I don’t deny probably one of the primary goals of weight room work is to get stronger (I would actually put injury prevent ahead of that, but that’s another matter), but I am still looking at in what context.

        Focusing solely on maximal strength development through static lifts has value, but it is not the only thing in the weight room. All strength qualities are derived from maximal strength, but not equally. The stronger olympic lifters are not necessarily the best olympic lifters regardless of technique. There is importance in being able to quickly create immense amounts of force and power. An issue with only using static, maximal lifts is that learning to simply grind and push (or pull) harder and longer can increase your maximum strength (in that you will test better), but you may not have any transference–perhaps even negative transference–to real world athletic skills like running, jumping, or throwing.

        I think people can get carried away with specificity in the weight room and olympic lifts are certainly now the be all, end all, but they are a great tool. If people are unable to learn them in a reasonable time frame, don’t use them. If they can, then use them.

        There are also aspects of strength training that simply doing static lifts does not address. One basic example of that with me thoracic mobility and stability. Doing a snatch with reasonable loads places a unique mobility and stability situation that can help with certain issues that many athletes have (ie computer posture). This is just one specific example, but the point is that tools like these can prove to be very helpful as they provide training effects not otherwise realized in a program that strictly uses static lifts and only maximal strength development.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74108

        Material referenced earlier in this topic talks about this and from what I can gather the jury is still out on those statements. Just saying, “not necessarily” implies that the possibility exists.

        This was my point exactly.

        If I can train an athlete to do a lift “properly”, say one of the OL, as that is where much of this discussion has been, or for that matter RDL, and let them convince themselves that what they are lifting is “maximal” does the actual weight in fact, really matter?

        Absolutely. Confidence and positive mindset are one thing, delusion is another.

        And, if this process works, have you then not eliminated many of the dangers associated to what are much likely much heavier weights? In terms of load related to power, speed of action etc. if the suggestion is 30%, to me that leaves a lot of room between that and 1RM or even higher

        The dangers of weight training are greatly exagerated and much less than competing in the sport being trained for. This has been conclusively proven in studies. The question is, does training at 30% of 1RM prove as effective, or more effective, than training at 80-90% of 1RM.

        The proviso that davan states: If the goal is to get stronger as it relates to the weightroom in the sense of maximal, 1rm, strength, then you are correct. That isn’t the goal though. The goal is to run faster, jump higher, throw further. Lifting is secondary to those goals, at best and maximal strength is below that even… is very important to me.

        I agree. But since its not intuitive which style or technique works best, we have to make some decisions. We know that our goal in the weightroom is actually to improve our ability to generate force on the track. But which technique, regardless of how much force is generated during the initial stages of training, will better progress the athlete, over time, to an ability to produce more force on the track in the future.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74109

        Star I don’t deny probably one of the primary goals of weight room work is to get stronger (I would actually put injury prevent ahead of that, but that’s another matter), but I am still looking at in what context.

        Focusing solely on maximal strength development through static lifts has value, but it is not the only thing in the weight room. All strength qualities are derived from maximal strength, but not equally. The stronger olympic lifters are not necessarily the best olympic lifters regardless of technique. There is importance in being able to quickly create immense amounts of force and power. An issue with only using static, maximal lifts is that learning to simply grind and push (or pull) harder and longer can increase your maximum strength (in that you will test better), but you may not have any transference–perhaps even negative transference–to real world athletic skills like running, jumping, or throwing.

        I totally agree, which why I believe in some form of complex training that includes CF style sprint training, plyos, and weights. The question here is limited to which kind of weight, in addition to the sprinting and plyos.

        I think people can get carried away with specificity in the weight room and olympic lifts are certainly now the be all, end all, but they are a great tool. If people are unable to learn them in a reasonable time frame, don’t use them. If they can, then use them.

        There are also aspects of strength training that simply doing static lifts does not address. One basic example of that with me thoracic mobility and stability. Doing a snatch with reasonable loads places a unique mobility and stability situation that can help with certain issues that many athletes have (ie computer posture). This is just one specific example, but the point is that tools like these can prove to be very helpful as they provide training effects not otherwise realized in a program that strictly uses static lifts and only maximal strength development.

        Davan, my questions above don’t relate to PL lifts or even improving limit strength. My questions relate to force output. You can pick any lift…squat, snatch, clean, deadlift, military, whatever. My question above relates only to the assertion made earlier that training light and fast improves strength, and the ability to generate force, better than training heavy. Which technique, when used over time, will result in great improvements not only in limit strength, but in the ability to generate explosive force, as measure by a force platform? Please answer those questions I posted above…I respect your opinion and would like to know what your responses would be to those specific questions. P.S. I edited in a third question.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74110

        You are strawmanning these “light and fast” arguments. During GPP, I weighed about 170-175 (have dropped some since) did a workout that had a number of doubles in the powerclean at 255-265lbs (did 3×2 at each, if I recall). I can guarantee you that is much more than 30% of my 1rm in a deadlift or squat and significantly more than 50% even.

        Since you have read a good amount of CF material and agree with his perspective, perhaps you can expand on why he uses olympic lifts with athletes who are able to do them?

        He says he uses them because it allows him to reduce the number of overall lifts during the taper since they tax a greater % of motor units. This could be considered one advantage that could not be realized in a program mostly or only using static lifts. Do you disagree with his view on that issue?

        In regards to this question: “But which technique, regardless of how much force is generated during the initial stages of training, will better progress the athlete, over time, to an ability to produce more force on the track in the future.”

        I think it is clear that my position (and the position of others) is that a program that effectively utilizes tools across a broad spectrum will do that. Many times, that will include olympic lifts as they are an extremely useful tool for so many reasons (as have been discussed ad nauseam). If you, as a coach, cannot teach the lifts effectively or the athlete is incapable of learning how to do the lifts (or perform the lifts) for whatever reason, then don’t use them. That does not preclude any usefulness of the lifts or guarantee that other options will be as effective in every situation as olympic lifts.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74111

        You are strawmanning these “light and fast” arguments. During GPP, I weighed about 170-175 (have dropped some since) did a workout that had a number of doubles in the powerclean at 255-265lbs (did 3×2 at each, if I recall). I can guarantee you that is much more than 30% of my 1rm in a deadlift or squat and significantly more than 50% even.

        I’m not sure what you mean by this.

        Since you have read a good amount of CF material and agree with his perspective, perhaps you can expand on why he uses olympic lifts with athletes who are able to do them?

        You answer your own question below.

        He says he uses them because it allows him to reduce the number of overall lifts during the taper since they tax a greater % of motor units. This could be considered one advantage that could not be realized in a program mostly or only using static lifts. Do you disagree with his view on that issue?

        Yes, that is why, but you know full well that he also has his athletes back squat heavy. He has written about many times.

        In regards to this question: “But which technique, regardless of how much force is generated during the initial stages of training, will better progress the athlete, over time, to an ability to produce more force on the track in the future.”

        I think it is clear that my position (and the position of others) is that a program that effectively utilizes tools across a broad spectrum will do that. Many times, that will include olympic lifts as they are an extremely useful tool for so many reasons (as have been discussed ad nauseam).

        I have already stated that I believe in using a wide range of tools. Your are confusing several issues…are olys better than squats…is light and fast better than heavy and slow. That is why I narrowed the focus to one issue in my question post…the speed and weight of the lift and how it might impact strength and the ability to generate force. You say I’m strawmanning, but I think you are avoiding giving short, straight answers to my questions because I think you know your answers will be the same as mine.

        Davan, let’s progress the debate forward in a logical, pragmatic fashion. Let everyone first make clear their position on the light and fast vs the heavy and slow question, and then we can progress to the next question, whatever it is. Please respond to the specific questions I posted…I truly want to hear your opinion.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74112

        We aren’t arguing to use olympic lifts at the exclusion of squats/deadlifts/etc.!

        You are strawmanning the issue as you are misrepresenting what is being said and what the discussion is even about. Please do not act as-if doing olympic lifts means using light weights, even relative to those loads that could be used in the squat or deadlift–let’s remember that CF says he never even goes beyond a 6RM load (usually significantly less) in the squat, which would be about 85%, maybe even less. If someone is doing heavy cleans, that are not THAT far away from these loads, which you place high importance on. There is a spectrum of intensities/loads/bar speeds/etc. that can be effectively utilized and you are simply looking at one end and deducting how it will affect the other, rather than how it will transfer to the movements you are after (ie sprinting/jumping/throwing).

        I have answered your questions. If you are unable to see the answers, perhaps you should re-read them. The issue isn’t about which is better–heavy/slow versus light/fast (whatever that is supposed to mean since there is a broad spectrum within lifts)–but it is about what combination of modalities is going to produce the effects we want.

        Doing heavy/slow lifts as you have promoted in this thread and elsewhere as the primary modality in training is questionable as people often find they have better results when including different modalities besides strictly maximal lifting in their strength training regiments.

        The light/fast versus heavy/slow argument you want to continue to create is just freaking dumb. First, nobody getting results in track is regularly, throughout the year, doing squats over 90% of their 1RM. Heck, most programs, outside of MAYBE a 1rm test, rarely go over 85% on lifts like the squat. People use a wide spectrum of intensities, which affects a number of things. In the olympic lifts, people quite often go to high percentages of their 1rm regularly because of the much easier recovery abilities and benefits, making the difference in loads (which is what you have defined as the prime issue) minimal. Further, strictly increasing loads doesn’t really mean shit–why not just do a partial ROM deadlift? You will be activating the glute/hamstring complex quite significantly with much higher weight than you could ever squat under any circumstance.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74113

        And if you want to answer the stupid question of which is better, squats or olympic lifts, then the answer would simply be it depends. It depends on the athlete, the situation, the coach, the facilities, etc. People have run extremely fast doing no squatting and/or doing no olympic lifting, so neither is necessary for success by all. There can be successful strength programs that don’t even incorporate squats/deadlifts or olympic lifts! Let’s see how many Jamaicans are doing significant amounts of squats, heavy deadlifts, or olympic lifts? Your concern with maximal strength and vendetta against the use of olympic lifts in any fashion is becoming laughable.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74114

        We aren’t arguing to use olympic lifts at the exclusion of squats/deadlifts/etc.!

        As in most threads, there are several issues being discussed. I was trying to limit the discussion to one specific aspect of the discussion. It was asserted that lighter/faster was better than heavy/slower. That question has not been answered, in my opinion, because the responses, including yours, don’t limit themselves to just that one point.

        You are strawmanning the issue as you are misrepresenting what is being said and what the discussion is even about.

        I’m not misrepresenting, I’m trying to get a straight answer to some questions, one at a time. Why are you getting hostile?

        Please do not act as-if doing olympic lifts means using light weights, even relative to those loads that could be used in the squat or deadlift–let’s remember that CF says he never even goes beyond a 6RM load (usually significantly less) in the squat, which would be about 85%, maybe even less.

        As I’ve said several times, I’m not asking about oly lifts, nor am I comparing oly loads to PL loads. That’s why I separated the questions out, so we would be comparing apples to apples. Pick any lift you want, and discuss light and fast vs heavy and slow, then we can discuss which lift actually would be the better to use. And the 85% CF discusses is heavy (85% of 1RM) not like the 30% where maximum force would be generated.

        I have answered your questions. If you are unable to see the answers, perhaps you should re-read them.

        No you haven’t. Not even close. Quote my question thread and give simple, short answers.

        The issue isn’t about which is better–heavy/slow versus light/fast (whatever that is supposed to mean since there is a broad spectrum within lifts)–but it is about what combination of modalities is going to produce the effects we want.

        My specific question WAS about light/fast (30% of 1RM) vs heavy/slower (80-90% of 1RM) and which would produce better long term gains in strength and the ability of the athlete to produce force as measure by a force platform.

        Doing heavy/slow lifts as you have promoted in this thread and elsewhere as the primary modality in training is questionable as people often find they have better results when including different modalities besides strictly maximal lifting in their strength training regiments. The light/fast versus heavy/slow argument you want to continue to create is just freaking dumb. First, nobody getting results in track is regularly, throughout the year, doing squats over 90% of their 1RM.

        Now you are misrepresenting. I’m not promoting anything of the kind. I have stated several times that I believe in a wide variety of weight training, plyos, and track work. I never said anyone should strictly lift over 90% all the time. That’s a blatent misprepresentation. I have never said you should not do olys, I said just the opposite. We do them. In order to intelligently review and refine your training program, you MUST break down each element, considering how that particular element improves some quality or skill you desire, how that element interacts with other elements and training overall, and how you entire program, which consists of several elements, promotes your final goal, whether it is to jump higher, throw farther, or fun faster.

        Heck, most programs, outside of MAYBE a 1rm test, rarely go over 85% on lifts like the squat. People use a wide spectrum of intensities, which affects a number of things. In the olympic lifts, people quite often go to high percentages of their 1rm regularly because of the much easier recovery abilities and benefits, making the difference in loads (which is what you have defined as the prime issue) minimal.

        And as Mike, CF and others have stated, most programs are crap.

        Further, strictly increasing loads doesn’t really mean shit–why not just do a partial ROM deadlift? You will be activating the glute/hamstring complex quite significantly with much higher weight than you could ever squat under any circumstance.

        That is a totally ridiculous statement. Moving heavier and heavier loads is not important? Think before you type, Davan. I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion and elicit thoughtful opinions, not have a pissing contest. Grow up.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #74117

        [quote author="dbandre" date="1226060042"]Star:

        You certainly can get stronger lifting lighter weights at faster speeds. You may not get as strong as you can get by lifting heavy loads at a slower speeds in the short term, but if the individual kept the same Fat Free Body Mass they would over time approach the strength gained by slow and heavy lifting with lighter and faster lifting.

        With all due respect, this is absolutely false. Lighter, faster lifting works for beginners, anything does, but for anyone with a year or more experience, lighter/faster builds neither mass nor strength as well as heavier lifting. Since strength is limited, your ability to generate power and force is limited. If you could build strength with lighter/faster just as easy as heavy lifting, even PLs would use it because recovery is much quicker and it is much easier on the body. But it is much less effective for advanced atheletes to build strength, no matter what style of lifting you are doing. Please understand that I’m not making a blanket comparison of Oly lifting to PL lifting. In elite oly lifting, maximal weights are moved and a high % of 1RM is utilized in training. My beef is that because of improper form (mainly pulling the weight too high before cleaning it) most athletes (football, track etc.) are not using a high % of 1RM. And, purposely using a low weight (30% of 1RM), while generating a high power output during the lift itself, is not more effective at building strength to higher and higher levels. Even pure Oly lifters (I’m talking elite Olympic lifters i.e., the Olympics) use much heavier weights, 80-90% of 1RM, to build strength.

        However it would be harder to gain the same increase in power in the slow and heavy even after utilizing a mixed routine after 2 years to catch the power output of the light and fast lifter. Slow and Heavy lifts are needed, but focus of work should power outputs and in the case of lifting that’s the speed of the lift.

        If it is harder to gain increases in power with heavy weights, then why do you need them? You are making the assumption that because a particular activity, be it a lift, a sprint, whatever, expresses a higher force/power when performed, that it will translate to greater, more rapid improvements in the ability of an athlete to express force/power in general. While this may seem to make sense, it is actually a very big assumption that has not been shown to be true, at least in the studies I have seen.

        My bottom line is this…if two athletes are trained together using the same lift (either oly or a PL lift), and the light/fast lifter uses 30% of 1RM exclusively, never lifting heavy, and the heavy lifter uses 80-95% of 1RM exclusively, never lifting light, I have no doubt that after several years, even if no gains in mass are seen, the lifter pulling/pushing the heavy weight exclusively will be capable of generating more power in a test (assuming both lifters use the same weight and lift during the test) than the one training light and fast exclusively. Why? Because the heavy lifter will be able to pull a much heavier load almost as fast as the light lifter will be able to pull his light load, because the light lifter’s gains in strength will not be anything close to what the heavy lifter has acheived. I don’t think any lifter, oly, PL or even bodybuilder, would argue against this statement.[/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. 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. Any athlete who trains with me and is new to weight room gets a heavy does of heavier and heavier lifting through 2 macrocycles, then its almost always ballastic, explosive, or partial lifts that are complexed with other lifts. The athletes still have an occasional macro of 2-3 microcycles of heavy lifting. Variety and specificity are the keys, I want more power so I focus on developing power and power needs to be displayed over a variety of spectrums (how fast, how long, how many, and how much).

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #74120

        [quote]Further, strictly increasing loads doesn’t really mean shit–why not just do a partial ROM deadlift? You will be activating the glute/hamstring complex quite significantly with much higher weight than you could ever squat under any circumstance.

        That is a totally ridiculous statement. Moving heavier and heavier loads is not important? Think before you type, Davan. I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion and elicit thoughtful opinions, not have a pissing contest. Grow up.[/quote]
        Random note here. I had a 31″ standing vertical PR in HS before I really started lifting(1998). It hit a 31″ vertical last year with a 450lbs squat max and a 31.5″ vertical last night with a 365lb squat max. The same can be said for my SLJ (~9’5″ at the same 3 snapshots in time). If searching for heavier and heavier loads is so important, why have 85 to 200lb squat max swings had no effect on these jump tests? Why has my 55 gone from ~7.10 to 6.63 during this time? It seems that pushing heavier and heavier loads can help you….push heavier and heavier loads.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74125

        [quote author="davan" date="1226104269"]We aren’t arguing to use olympic lifts at the exclusion of squats/deadlifts/etc.!

        As in most threads, there are several issues being discussed. I was trying to limit the discussion to one specific aspect of the discussion. It was asserted that lighter/faster was better than heavy/slower. That question has not been answered, in my opinion, because the responses, including yours, don’t limit themselves to just that one point.

        You are strawmanning the issue as you are misrepresenting what is being said and what the discussion is even about.

        I’m not misrepresenting, I’m trying to get a straight answer to some questions, one at a time. Why are you getting hostile?

        Please do not act as-if doing olympic lifts means using light weights, even relative to those loads that could be used in the squat or deadlift–let’s remember that CF says he never even goes beyond a 6RM load (usually significantly less) in the squat, which would be about 85%, maybe even less.

        As I’ve said several times, I’m not asking about oly lifts, nor am I comparing oly loads to PL loads. That’s why I separated the questions out, so we would be comparing apples to apples. Pick any lift you want, and discuss light and fast vs heavy and slow, then we can discuss which lift actually would be the better to use. And the 85% CF discusses is heavy (85% of 1RM) not like the 30% where maximum force would be generated.
        [/quote] You are looking at only ends of the spectrum when people work throughout the range. Is 85% more useful, most of the time, than 30% (given identical lift)? Probably. If that is the answer you are looking for, you are asking the wrong questions. Lifts also vary–you probably won’t get as significant variation in the bar speeds of a clean at 90% and a clean at 70% versus a deadlift @ 90% versus at 70%, which further complicates the issue.

        [quote]I have answered your questions. If you are unable to see the answers, perhaps you should re-read them.

        No you haven’t. Not even close. Quote my question thread and give simple, short answers.

        The issue isn’t about which is better–heavy/slow versus light/fast (whatever that is supposed to mean since there is a broad spectrum within lifts)–but it is about what combination of modalities is going to produce the effects we want.

        My specific question WAS about light/fast (30% of 1RM) vs heavy/slower (80-90% of 1RM) and which would produce better long term gains in strength and the ability of the athlete to produce force as measure by a force platform.[/quote] If that is your question, then you are again missing the point the vast majority of posters are making.

        [quote]Doing heavy/slow lifts as you have promoted in this thread and elsewhere as the primary modality in training is questionable as people often find they have better results when including different modalities besides strictly maximal lifting in their strength training regiments. The light/fast versus heavy/slow argument you want to continue to create is just freaking dumb. First, nobody getting results in track is regularly, throughout the year, doing squats over 90% of their 1RM.

        Now you are misrepresenting. I’m not promoting anything of the kind. I have stated several times that I believe in a wide variety of weight training, plyos, and track work. I never said anyone should strictly lift over 90% all the time. That’s a blatent misprepresentation. I have never said you should not do olys, I said just the opposite. We do them. In order to intelligently review and refine your training program, you MUST break down each element, considering how that particular element improves some quality or skill you desire, how that element interacts with other elements and training overall, and how you entire program, which consists of several elements, promotes your final goal, whether it is to jump higher, throw farther, or fun faster.[/quote] I was referring to statements you’ve made outside of this thread. If I need to dig up the numerous shots you’ve taken at non-ME training and olympic lifts, I’ll do it at some point this weekend.

        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?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74126

        [quote]Heck, most programs, outside of MAYBE a 1rm test, rarely go over 85% on lifts like the squat. People use a wide spectrum of intensities, which affects a number of things. In the olympic lifts, people quite often go to high percentages of their 1rm regularly because of the much easier recovery abilities and benefits, making the difference in loads (which is what you have defined as the prime issue) minimal.

        And as Mike, CF and others have stated, most programs are crap.
        [/quote] Apparently CF’s program is crap then because he has explicitly stated he NEVER goes above 6RM on squats and generally significantly below that. Whoops.

        [quote]Further, strictly increasing loads doesn’t really mean shit–why not just do a partial ROM deadlift? You will be activating the glute/hamstring complex quite significantly with much higher weight than you could ever squat under any circumstance.

        That is a totally ridiculous statement. Moving heavier and heavier loads is not important? Think before you type, Davan. I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion and elicit thoughtful opinions, not have a pissing contest. Grow up.[/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.

        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?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        utfootball4 on #74127

        You guys are late, I been saying for the last past 3yrs that star is your typical powerlifter. Dont waste your time and energy fighting over raisins.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74129

        Davan said

        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.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74131

        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

        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.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        star61 on #74132

        Between tokes, UT said…

        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.

      • 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

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #74165

        So in that vein, does anyone use the Ergo-Power as produced by Bosco Systems Devices?

        I have a Tendo Unit (same thing, more expensive) that is gathering dust in my closet. In the past, I used it alot but have not used it in the past few years at all. One local trainer asked to borrow it for training his NFL prospect guy (who went on to make it) and I gave it as glowing of a review as I would give of Nicole Richie’s nutrition plan. He did not end up using the device. The device is interesting and entertaining but I found it correlated to basically nothing on the track. Might be decent to use for speed box squats (60%) or picking apart olympic lifts(debatable) but I find that it’s far from a necessity (kinda like the omegawave).

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #74167

        I think I’ve come to realize that the useful training tools seem to be:

        -video camera
        -half cut tennis balls
        -straps (for lifting)
        -equiblock
        -mp3 player

        And, except for the mp3 player, you can get all of that for under $300.

        Is there much else besides this, outside of obvious equipment (spikes/blocks/etc.)?

      • Carl Valle
        Participant
        Carl Valle on #74168

        [quote author="star61" date="1226037087"]I think injuries in the weight room are greatly exagerated for anyone other than beginners. It’s definitely safer than performing the sport being trained for, be it football, basketball or track. Studies have shown this to be true.

        I definitely agree. I’ve never had anyone hurt from doing OLs. I’ve had some lumbar issues with a couple different types of squats or pulls. On a related note to some of the earlier posts on the deadlift, I’d say that I’ve probably seen more injuries with that exercise than any other. It really lends itself to pushing beyond safe limit loads as it’s relatively easy to complete a lift with terrible technique.

        My biggest problem with the clean is that even if the form is technically sound, the weight being used is not nearly maximal.

        HUH? You lost me on this one. If you load the lift maximally, how could the load not be maximal?

        Assuming some general preperation before max effort weight training, such as solid core preparation, the deadlift takes much less time to teach than an olympic style clean. For a descent athlete, proper form can be taught in just a handful of training sessions. Max effort lifts, or at leat max triples, can begin fairly quickly. For an Olympic style clean using near maximal weight (pull from the floor doesn’t go much higher than the belly button), it takes much longer.

        I think this goes back to some earlier points- how long are you training for and what’s the issue with a slightly longer learning curve if the gains are considerably greater (or different). If it takes 3 weeks as opposed to 3 sessions isn’t that still worth it if you’ll be able to use the lift for years to come? Also, I read earlier that someone suggested that OLs provide the same benefit as deadlifts. This is simply not true. They are very much different. Even if you’re doing deadlifts for speed. So even if we err on the ultra-conservative side and say that OLs add 2-3% benefit over just doing deadlifts, isn’t that worth it when winners in our sport are decided by much less than that.

        Oly pulls have two short comings in my opinon. First, the vast majority of athletes, unless trained and supervised by a coach very well versed in olympic lifting, make the first pull much higher than elite olympic lifters. If you can pull the weight well past your belly button, it is obviously nowhere near a maximal effort lift.

        You’re stuck in power lift thinking with this one and using a one factor model for ‘maximal.’ You can’t compare loads used in one exercise and say that because you can’t lift the same load in another exercise (even if it looks similar) that it’s not of maximal load. Are front squats sub maximal because you can’t lift as much as in a back squat? Remember, maximal can be maximal speed, maximal load, maximal force output, maximal power output, etc. Note that OLs easily beat out heavy deadlifts on all of those except load (remember load does not equal force or power[/url]). This thinking is really WAAAAAAY off base in my opinion. In fact, the peak force, RFD, and power output of all the OLs is several magnitudes greater than what we see in the power lifts.

        Second, because of the beating that the shoulders and wrists take, most oly lifts I see are a performed at a lower percentage of 1RM, which is already lower because of the improper technique normally displayed. I have heard, but can’t confirm, that oly pulls are rare for NFL athletes because of the potential for shoulder/wrist problems.

        I actually think it’s true that many collegiate and NFL strength coaches don’t use OLs because of fears of shoulder injuries but they are either terrible coaches, conceding to the whims of uninformed sport coaches, or are uninformed themselves. There’s no link between OL and shoulder injuries. I have occasionally seen some wrist injuries but it was always in cases where the athlete wasn’t racking the bar correctly.[/quote]

        Can anyone share what we have for research regarding RFD….Comparing the power lifts to olympic lifts (charts, graphs, scores?)

      • Avatar
        Participant
        mortac8 on #74169

        I think I’ve come to realize that the useful training tools seem to be:

        -video camera
        -half cut tennis balls
        -straps (for lifting)
        -equiblock
        -mp3 player

        And, except for the mp3 player, you can get all of that for under $300.

        Is there much else besides this, outside of obvious equipment (spikes/blocks/etc.)?

        If I was marooned on an island; I would say all you need is an mp3 player and a bottle of caffeine.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #75310

        Can anyone share what we have for research regarding RFD….Comparing the power lifts to olympic lifts (charts, graphs, scores?)

        All my research is packed up at the moment but there actually are several studies making comparisons. In the meantime, if anyone uncovers anything in this regards please add it to the wiki topic[/url]. I’d like for that to be an oasis for the frequently asked but always clouded in mystery hot topics on this and other sites like it.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #75312

        [quote author="Carl Valle" date="1226260852"]
        Can anyone share what we have for research regarding RFD….Comparing the power lifts to olympic lifts (charts, graphs, scores?)

        All my research is packed up at the moment but there actually are several studies making comparisons. In the meantime, if anyone uncovers anything in this regards please add it to the wiki topic[/url]. I’d like for that to be an oasis for the frequently asked but always clouded in mystery hot topics on this and other sites like it.[/quote]

        I have tons of research papers floating around the house at the moment. Do want copied information from research that is referenced or do you want summarized research which is referenced?

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #75315

        Any of the above. In fact, you can actually upload pdf articles directly to the wiki entry. I really think it can be a great resource if the bigger minds on here jump in.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Carl Valle
        Participant
        Carl Valle on #75341

        Post what you got Dbandre…..

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Daniel Andrews on #75351

        Post what you got Dbandre…..

        Carl:

        Some of it electronic and most of it is paper.

        I gave Mike access to my electronic repository to take what he wants for elitetrack and I will be sending you a username and password as well.

      • Mike Young
        Keymaster
        Mike Young on #75605

        Thanks to Dan. The latest two additions to the article directory (now up to 225 articles!) were from Dan’s repository.

        ELITETRACK Founder

      • Avatar
        Participant
        JeremyRichmond on #75963

        Can anyone share what we have for research regarding RFD….Comparing the power lifts to olympic lifts (charts, graphs, scores?)

        Forwarded an article to Mike that may provide some insight. However, its more of a comparison to vertical jumps and squat jumps.

        In case you want to source it yourself:
        Kawamori N. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2005, 19(3), 698-708
        information includes RFD, force production times, optimal power or velocity in the Hang Power Clean

Viewing 220 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.