That wasn’t a definition I’ve used. In fact I’ve tried to point out that even that low number may be unrepresentative of the actual use. I think it would be better representative to look at the number of sets or better yet training sessions that incorporate a major lift using a load of 85+%. I would say frequent use would be 1-2 times per week regardless of how many reps are used.
If you do 1 rep @ 85% twice a week, it makes up a very insignificant % of the total volume and it really is impossible to say what effect it had, if any, on really any of the qualities. Since you don’t want to use percentage of total volume or even number of reps, I don’t even really know how to qualify what is a substantial amount to any worthwhile degree.
The tail end of what you’re saying is bordering on ridiculous and I hope to God you wouldn’t lump Olympic lifts in with medball throws or standing long jumps as means of developing strength. I would argue that an Olympic lift done at 90+% will definitely meet the force requirements for strength development. The force velocity curve isn’t so steep that the slightly lesser loads (when compared to other pulls) used in near-limit load OLs (really just the clean) would put them in a different league than other lifts altogether.
Did I say they will have no effect or little effect on strength development? No, I said they are not comparable to a max force lift as is being discussed in the thread you haven’t read. We also aren’t talking about full cleans. Give me a break, you clearly misunderstood what was said.
How about using what I laid out earlier (hitting an 85+% load in a major exercise 1-2x / week during the appropriate phases of the year)? What is the drawback(s)? I can think of several benefits ranging for using higher loads from time efficiency, reduced muscular fatigue, decreased likelihood of unnecessary hypertrophy, diminished soreness, etc.
Hypertrophy is dependent on caloric intake, in spite of what people seem to have come up with on this forum and others. You aren’t going to magically get bigger if you are controlling calories. The comments are reducing muscular fatigue must be a joke because muscular fatigue (defined how?) is really only a limiting factor if you’re doing multiple sessions that are shortly separated or if you are doing obscene volumes, neither of which have been implied in any form. Judging from Nick’s and other people’s log, it hasn’t really reduced soreness, which has a huge intensity portion involved anyway, and more.
Again, hitting an >85% load would depend on the volume. You have put forth no volumes, whether as a % or as an absolute amount, so I can’t comment. I said I would have minimal volume at that range, though not necessarily 0 volume (it would depend on the situation, but I simply wouldn’t do much).
I’m really sorry. I apologize for not having the time to reread all 22 pages of this thread before posting. I’ll try to do that next time.
I don’t expect you to read all of the pages, just don’t comment or make baseless assumptions based on a limited reading.
You pretty clearly alluded to the point that lower loads might be the best method for developing max strength when you used yourself as an example that you make better gains on the higher rep protocol and suggested that it would be better for most athletes. See here: Maybe [b]YOU[/b] should read what has been said throughout the thread.
This one has to be a joke. I have suggested that ATHLETES might respond better to these methods than to using methods that include very heavy lifting. I stick by that because I think that the increased % loads can actually hamper recovery and overall recovery and development of the athlete may be retarded by such methods. Also, in understanding max strength as it relates to athletes, it isn’t necessarily the ability to do a single rep of a given lift since there is a large technical component that is irrelevant to any contractile qualities trying to be trained.