[quote]I know star is going to come on here and talk about how powerlifters “only” get stronger doing sets of 1-3 reps, but I don’t know of any groups that used that type of training as a whole that really had any success. Even CF’s group never went above a 6RM.
And I knew when I posted above you would have a comeback which misquotes what I’ve said. Read again Davan, I said, and always say, that even powerlifters spend most of their time in the 70% load range for most of their reps. I would imagine Oly lifters do the same. In fact both powerlifters and Oly lifters probably spend as much time in the low load (85%) range. Where I disagree with not so much you, but dbandre, is that I do believe there is a need to wander into the high load (>85% 1RM) if you want to ‘maximize’ your max strength. Yes all powerlifters do that, and I bet not one weightlifter or thrower that showed up at the Olympics did so having never lifted higher than 70% in training. I’m sure they all did a significant amount of high load (>90% 1RM) reps. Did they do all, or even most of their reps at >85-90% 1RM? No. I don’t recall anyone, including myself, ever suggesting that they did or should. It would be silly. But I find it just as hard to believe that anyone would think that never training above 70% is a BETTER way to improve max strength. If it were, Oly lifters, powerlifters, throwers, etc. would never train with anything heavier than a 12RM, which is about a 70% load for most athletes. And CF had his athletes train with 6RM loads (85% 1RM) and for back squats, sometimes even higher loads. Not exclusively, and not all the time, but they did occasionally do heavy triples.
You made a few attempts at arguments here that are not prevalent or even in discussion. First, you say that powerlifters and other strength athletes do most of their reps at very low percentages, yet you have also said NUMEROUS times in the past that their training is based upon lifting 90+% of the 1RM and have in fact said that is the only way they can improve. Now, if you are including warm-up reps at irrelevant weights, you are just impeding and masking the issue at hand.
You are also mistaking what people are thinking or trying to pull a strawman out. I don’t think a single person has said that ‘never working above 70%’ is best for max strength development. What people have said is that they question how important max strength training is and if you can develop an optimal amount of max strength with other methods, like working more on power than max strength. I don’t even know where you are pulling this 70% figure out of your ass from, because you have in the past argued against using olympic lifts, which will have a max power output significantly above 70%.
Oh yeah, CF specifically said in multiple materials and in his forum that he NEVER went above 6RM on squats. Bench, yes, but not squats. Gotta wonder how deep those squats were as well, but that is another point.
[quote]With that said, the improvements in max strength have not been as much as when using strictly max strength training.
I don’t understand this statement at all, unless your definition of max strength training means doing nothing but max effort (>90%) lifts. Even in a pure max strength phase for a powerlifter or Oly lifter, there are a lot of reps performed in the 70% and lower load ranges.[/quote] Sure, they do warm-ups and other work for technique. Some might even do “DE” work, but this is not what YOU have attributed their developments to on numerous occasions.
I am not against lifting for explosive power at all. As I always say, we do it, and all athletes would benefit from it. The two points I always try to make, even though it irritates Davan to no end, is that 1) I do believe that every athlete (except perhaps the most elite) would benefit from improving their absolute strength which is best done by occasionally including loads as high as 90-95% of 1RM for heavy doubles or triples, and 2) the younger the athlete (either age or training age) the more important absolute strength training, relative to explosive power training. As the athlete matures and begins to approach his genetic potential for limit strength, explosive power training becomes more and more important until it dominates the training.
Great. That is a valid point of view, but keep in mind plenty of people of gotten incredibly strong never lifting 90% or above and many have been quite successful without using such methods. Some that have, have had poor results.
I found this on the CF forum, a quote from CF himself about Ben’s training…
[quote]A few thoughts:
No 16: From my experience, Sprinters often have a higher than average rep capacity at 80%, perhaps due to their highly developed special endurance capacities (the capacity to recruit either the highest possible number of fibres at once, or maximized exposure of fibres in relays at sub-maximal loads.
As a pyramid example:
Ben- Bench Press 2x 450
We never tested for max squat but, certainly, Ben couldn’t squat 750!
Ben was obviously the elite sprinter of the time, and he was doing two sets of six at 600lbs. Thats probably at least an 85% load for him (if his max WAS 750, it would still be an 80% load), and his bench press was done at even higher loading, unless you think Ben’s 1RM bench was 550 or more.[/quote][/quote]
Sorry, but CF has changed the number he promotes for Ben SOOOO many times it is insane. I questioned him on there once before where he said Ben did 405×1, then 450×2, then 4x5x405 on bench. In each case, he stated that it was Ben’s max, but the timelines given just don’t add up. Numerous people also say the squats were of questionable depth and he said they didn’t go as low as “powerlifters” who are only going to parallel anyway, so again, question mark there.
And anyway, he still said he never went above a 6RM on squats, for anybody, ever. When he did triples, it was at a 6RM or lower weight.