[quote author="Mike Young" date="1258021334"][quote author="Thomas White" date="1257991736"]Since when is training at 80% not heavy? Mike used Ben as an example but remember that Ben NEVER went heavier than a 6RM. It all boils down to the fact that you can reap all the general/transferable benefits at 80%, at less expense to the body and CNS while only “missing out” on becoming a more skilled lifter. I don’t see how that is hard to comprehend, it’s not an indictment on “heavy” lifting (if you have ever done sets at 75-80% of your true squat max, I think you would agree).
See my previous comments about Ben 2 posts above.
Also, 6RM is 83-85% on most tables…that’s pretty dang close (or equal) to the 85% ‘heavy’ used throughout most of this thread.
Any evidence for rate coding being completely task specific or the only benefit of heavier (85+%) lifts?[/quote]Mike, during another head banging session with Davan, Ben’s lifting came up. I asked Charlie about Ben’s loading, and he suggested that when Ben worked at a 6RM intensity, it may have been a higher percentage of 1RM for Ben than 85%, because Ben possessed a very high level strength endurance. Most charts say a 6RM is 85%, so for Ben these lifts would have been even higher intensity than 85% since his 6RM overestimates his 1RM, due to the advanced strength endurance.
The exact exchange on the CF.com board was…
Charlie, SE in this case means speed endurance or strength endurance? This is an interesting point and says something about intensity. Many readers look at someone like Ben, who I believe you stated rarely if ever went fewer than 6 reps, and use a 6RM for the upper end of their workouts. For the ‘typical’ athlete that is about 85% of 1RM. For elite sprinters/athletes like Ben with optimally developed SE, pushing to a 6RM could have actually been 90% of 1RM. Does that seem consistent with Ben’s case?
Charlie Francis said
yes, SE is Special Endurance and you are right about the probable percent. The difficulty with squats to parallel for comparison is that if the weight gets near max, it’s pretty likely the squat will be less deep and therefor will go higher but it’s not a true comparison. As an example, Milt Ottey, (World no1 HJ in 1982) was well above 700 but quite shallow as this is more appropriate for his event which is not back dominant.
While I think looking at any one athlete to draw conclusions is a little sketchy, I get tired of hearing about Ben as an example of a top sprinter, known for his strength, who never lifted at loads above 80% Its rubbish. Charlie agrees that Ben included work that equated to 90% of his 1RM. Looking at video of Ben and the effort he was putting into the lifts, and considering the exchange above, Ben would be an example of a top sprinter that did include >85% lifts in his max strength work. And the videos I’ve seen are box squats, which are more demanding that free squats (i.e., you can’t box squat as much as you can free parallel squat).[/quote]
That’s a box squat? What world are you in? He bounced off a bench that was well above parallel and apparently had a spotter helping him out to some degree.
I’d put as much weight in Charlie’s estimation of percentage as I would in you training a non-powerlifter. This is from the same guy who so grossly “mismeasured” the weights Ben was benching and he “benched” 450×2 when he had intended on doing a submax 360×2. He never did a 1 rep max in squat, so you’ll never know the percentage. Most people can’t do 85% of their true 1RM for 6, let alone 90%.