[quote author="dbandre" date="1233646461"]
Power is a rate, so if you are going to work on power related endurance activities of any duration you are going to the rate to be controlled and the weight lifted should be a reflection of the rate and 1 RM capabilities in such a lift.
Power is a rate but we’re talking about power endurance. If there’s little dropoff where’s the endurance stimulus? The focus would be overwhelmingly on power development rather than power endurance.
[Note: I frequently use things like 30 x 1 w/ shorter rests and rarely do the higher rep work but I think that your definitions are a little to strict…especially without an industry standard for the term. Look at how broad the health and performance gods (ACSM, USATF, NSCA, etc) define endurance…I just think you’re definition is a little too tight.]
I think you misunderstood what I meant by body weight exercises as they offer different mechanical advantages than lifting weights such as pushups, pullups, situps, squats, etc… So less than body weight activities like incline presses of 15 or so reps are still more weight than using body weight when you factor in all other mechanical information.
This is not true. An incline press with 95 lbs for a 180 lb athlete is less load than a decline pushup replicating the same angles at the shoulder joint.
Even silly tests like the combine bench press test don’t measure power, but strength endurance so as fast as you can is silly even that type of work.
Agreed but that’s a little different….that’s typically 20-30 rep sets.[/quote]
Mike:
Well the “Gods” have fallen in disfavor with I. Anyways, whether its a little tight or not I actually came across the idea about 12 years ago. I let it go when I thought some of the “Gods” actually onto something. Then I regained confidence in the idea about 5 years ago when Chris Carmichael was talking/writing about Lance Armstrong’s training and Lance’s cycling cadence and how they trained it. Everything was about Power, cadence (rate), how long he could keep that power / cadence. Maybe it’s too tight for the fitness industry, but for sporting applications its an excellent idea. Overload would come from doing more work in less time, hopefully by only changing variable of work. The big problem is how do you do this in training, specifically in the weight room. That’s part of my WiiMote experiments. Maybe its time for a human performance definition of power-endurance which fits the term which is how long someone can perform at a specific rate of work. Off and on, I have revisited this term without any true clarity until about year ago.
I am sorry to disagree, but what i said is true. Even decline pushups offer greater mechanical advantage for moving a load. The shoulder angles are the same, but the moment arms are different and so is system of balance. If it were not true then I could lift a person on back over 100 lbs doing a single pushup since this would put me at 315 for a flat bench but I did 3 of them with a 165lb person on my back yesterday at a super bowl party and there is no way I can bench 380×3 much less 315×3. If I could I would drop the 25-30lbs of excessive fat since fatherhood started and no training for almost 2 years to speak of and become a professional powerlifter.
I just don’t like the term “as fast as you can” being used outside of a testing protocol. Therefore my tie into the combine related bench press test. I wonder how many scouts and coaches time the amount of time an athlete is performing the test and comparing this data over the years to other players at the same positions.