I thought we flushed the internet hype and nonsense and it seems that deadlifting for speed is lingering around and infecting messageboards like a “bear flu”. After finding out that one guru blew up an had an athlete deadlift 510 pounds with a snatch grip for combine prep and he was unable to attend the tryout I must stop the madness. I have seen world class performances (read faster than any fo
Bear Droppings (Is Max Strength Important?)
-
-
Participant -
Participant
“Bolt, Gay, or Powell are not the fastest because they are the strongest so those chasing numbers are always wondering why they are not fast”.
The Art & Science of Coaching with Usain Bolt and Glen Mills
Watch video 2 and you hear Bolt talk about going to the gym and getting STRONGER which helped his performances dramitically after 2007.
Its not as simple as just getting stronger to run faster its how you are applying that strength towards the ground as RESEARCH has suggested. Deadlift, powerclean, squat, plyometrics do whatever you can to be the strongest you can be and then apply it to sprinting, simple.
-
Participant
I guarantee you there are at least 5 people on this forum who are stronger in the weightroom than Bolt or Powell at lighter bodyweights. They would probably toss around their maxes like it was a warm-up. They will also lose by a second or more to them in the 100m despite the fact that they train for sprinting.
It is a little more complicated than just “get as strong as you can.” There are numerous 11.0 guys that don’t do that much/that intense of lifting that have better maxes and they still get shit on by those guys.
-
Participant
I guarantee you there are at least 5 people on this forum who are stronger in the weightroom than Bolt or Powell at lighter bodyweights. They would probably toss around their maxes like it was a warm-up. They will also lose by a second or more to them in the 100m despite the fact that they train for sprinting.
It is a little more complicated than just “get as strong as you can.” There are numerous 11.0 guys that don’t do that much/that intense of lifting that have better maxes and they still get shit on by those guys.
TALENT
-
Participant
“Bolt, Gay, or Powell are not the fastest because they are the strongest so those chasing numbers are always wondering why they are not fast”.
The Art & Science of Coaching with Usain Bolt and Glen Mills
Watch video 2 and you hear Bolt talk about going to the gym and getting STRONGER which helped his performances dramitically after 2007.
Its not as simple as just getting stronger to run faster its how you are applying that strength towards the ground as RESEARCH has suggested. Deadlift, powerclean, squat, plyometrics do whatever you can to be the strongest you can be and then apply it to sprinting, simple.
Post workout yams are the key!
-
KeymasterA recent related thread about deadlifting on Bearpowered (that actually refers to this forum) was brought to my attention.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Comparing one athlete’s strength level to another is meaningless unless all things are equal, which they never are as has been pointed out in this thread. An analogy would be to say that all things being equal, a taller basketball player is usually better than a short one. But things are not equal. There are many, many, men over 6’7″, many in the NBA, that don’t compare to the likes of Michael, Sir Charles, etc. etc. But does anyone deny that being tall improves your chances in basketball? If not, explain why the average basketball player (about 6’7″) is about 10″ taller than the average male (about 5’9″). Conversally, look at a player like Shaq. If he was a six footer instead of a seven footer, he would have never even played in college.
While not a direct analogy, something similar can be demonstrated for strength/power as it relates to acceleration/speed. You can’t compare strength BETWEEN individuals, but in general if you compare a single individuals acceleration/speed to his strength levels over time, they generally correlate fairly well…at least they move in the same direction. It’s not linear, because not all strength is converted to power/functional strength, but getting stronger definitely helps.
Having said that, I agree that using improper form simply to set a PR or a new RM is a stupid thing for a track athlete to do.
-
Keymaster
While not a direct analogy, something similar can be demonstrated for strength/power as it relates to acceleration/speed. You can’t compare strength BETWEEN individuals, but in general if you compare a single individuals acceleration/speed to his strength levels over time, they generally correlate fairly well…at least they move in the same direction. It’s not linear, because not all strength is converted to power/functional strength, but getting stronger definitely helps.
Nice post. This quoted part is pretty much exactly how I view things as well.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
And all things never happen to be equal, so we are back to the starting point.
For sure you are right, just I said “if”. Improving a horsepower with a right exercises, without interfering with track sessions, without much increase in b/w is more or less an advantage. Not all are talented to run so fast, but it doesn’t mean that an athlete shouldn’t close the gap between actual and potential max strength. I’m not talking about bench press. What do you think the main reason is why women sprinters are slower than men? More flexible, better mechanics? Usually men are by 50% stronger than women and it’s an advantage for them and automatically better rate coding, neural efficiency. Why do you think such a Pit Bull type sprinter like Ben Johnson was able to beat such a fluent type sprinter like Carl Lewis?(forget drugs for now). If Ben had simmilar strength levels as Carl so no way he would have beaten him ever.
-
Participant
A recent related [url=https://bearpowered.prophpbb.com/topic274.html] thread about deadlifting[/url] on Bearpowered (that actually refers to this forum) was brought to my attention.
mikowned.
-
Participant
I guarantee you there are at least 5 people on this forum who are stronger in the weightroom than Bolt or Powell at lighter bodyweights. They would probably toss around their maxes like it was a warm-up. They will also lose by a second or more to them in the 100m despite the fact that they train for sprinting.
It is a little more complicated than just “get as strong as you can.” There are numerous 11.0 guys that don’t do that much/that intense of lifting that have better maxes and they still get shit on by those guys.
Yes, it is probably true there would be guys stronger yet slower than the elites. What seperates elites from the slower guys? Contact time and the amount of force they are applying through each contact(genetics):P
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1251969630"]
While not a direct analogy, something similar can be demonstrated for strength/power as it relates to acceleration/speed. You can’t compare strength BETWEEN individuals, but in general if you compare a single individuals acceleration/speed to his strength levels over time, they generally correlate fairly well…at least they move in the same direction. It’s not linear, because not all strength is converted to power/functional strength, but getting stronger definitely helps.Nice post. This quoted part is pretty much exactly how I view things as well.[/quote]
What is this about a roundtable discussion?
-
Participant
In a world where great coaches do it for next to nothing and the big money goes to those who sell, take your pick on what the angle of a guru will take. A man trying trying to sell something will take a stance on the side of the book no matter what the contrary evidence. A coach will base his rational with science and interviews, articles and papers by other great coaches.
While perhaps a little outdated, books like Dyson’s Mechanics of Athletics (1987) is a great starter for those wanting to understand the science of sprinting and hurdling. Yet, the basic principles in the book still hold true today and if you listen to Tom Tellez speak, the book and his words are synonomous at times. And if we look at the Tellez track family tree, its branches cover some of the greatest coaches in this country. BUT feel free to listen to whomever you want, it is a free country.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1251932516"]And all things never happen to be equal, so we are back to the starting point.
For sure you are right, just I said “if”. Improving a horsepower with a right exercises, without interfering with track sessions, without much increase in b/w is more or less an advantage. Not all are talented to run so fast, but it doesn’t mean that an athlete shouldn’t close the gap between actual and potential max strength. I’m not talking about bench press. What do you think the main reason is why women sprinters are slower than men? More flexible, better mechanics? Usually men are by 50% stronger than women and it’s an advantage for them and automatically better rate coding, neural efficiency. Why do you think such a Pit Bull type sprinter like Ben Johnson was able to beat such a fluent type sprinter like Carl Lewis?(forget drugs for now). If Ben had simmilar strength levels as Carl so no way he would have beaten him ever.[/quote]
The whole “pit bull” bullshit that is propagated by Kelly Baggett is just that, bullshit. Ben Johnson ran 10.2x at age 19 with minimal lifting (sprinting + medball + general strengthening exercises).
I was using bench press because it is one of the most simple lifts to do without the issues of depth/stance/femur length/etc. to debate.
There are female sprinters that are as strong in the weightroom as male sprinters who incinerate them on the track. It just doesn’t work as you wish to imagine. Your dream world is just that.
-
Participant
Really? I would have never guessed that! That wasn’t my point at all, of course… (sarcasm)
Didn’t mean to pee in your wheaties bro.
calm down a little I was not trying to discredit, make light of or twist your point.
Just stating the obvious.
-
Participant
[quote author="Linas" date="1251972632"][quote author="davan" date="1251932516"]And all things never happen to be equal, so we are back to the starting point.
For sure you are right, just I said “if”. Improving a horsepower with a right exercises, without interfering with track sessions, without much increase in b/w is more or less an advantage. Not all are talented to run so fast, but it doesn’t mean that an athlete shouldn’t close the gap between actual and potential max strength. I’m not talking about bench press. What do you think the main reason is why women sprinters are slower than men? More flexible, better mechanics? Usually men are by 50% stronger than women and it’s an advantage for them and automatically better rate coding, neural efficiency. Why do you think such a Pit Bull type sprinter like Ben Johnson was able to beat such a fluent type sprinter like Carl Lewis?(forget drugs for now). If Ben had simmilar strength levels as Carl so no way he would have beaten him ever.[/quote]
The whole “pit bull” bullshit that is propagated by Kelly Baggett is just that, bullshit. Ben Johnson ran 10.2x at age 19 with minimal lifting (sprinting + medball + general strengthening exercises).
I was using bench press because it is one of the most simple lifts to do without the issues of depth/stance/femur length/etc. to debate.
There are female sprinters that are as strong in the weightroom as male sprinters who incinerate them on the track. It just doesn’t work as you wish to imagine. Your dream world is just that.[/quote]
lol wut
Bench has just as many things going for it as squatting. Arch, leg drive, grip width, etc.
-
Participant
With the exception of people’s butts leaving the bench, these adjustments are not common for non-powerlifters and especially people not wearing suits (and don’t make the kinds of impact on numbers). Grip width and archs are hardly going to cause the increases (in non-shirted non-powerlifters) that changing squat depth only 3-4″ will (let alone more). You simply cannot go that much wider without extensive training for it (which may include using a shirt to help stabilize the shoulder girdle) and anything but minor arches are going to take significant coaching to get and again, not utilized by non-powerlifters or people training specifically for bench. On the other hand, plenty of people do have huge variations in squat depths with everything from 1/8 squats to superwide parallel squats to narrow ATG squats all being simply called “squats” without any context. You aren’t going to get those kinds of variations in bench if the person keeps their butt on the bench and they don’t have a spotter pulling the bar up.
-
Participant
[quote author="Linas" date="1251972632"][quote author="davan" date="1251932516"]And all things never happen to be equal, so we are back to the starting point.
For sure you are right, just I said “if”. Improving a horsepower with a right exercises, without interfering with track sessions, without much increase in b/w is more or less an advantage. Not all are talented to run so fast, but it doesn’t mean that an athlete shouldn’t close the gap between actual and potential max strength. I’m not talking about bench press. What do you think the main reason is why women sprinters are slower than men? More flexible, better mechanics? Usually men are by 50% stronger than women and it’s an advantage for them and automatically better rate coding, neural efficiency. Why do you think such a Pit Bull type sprinter like Ben Johnson was able to beat such a fluent type sprinter like Carl Lewis?(forget drugs for now). If Ben had simmilar strength levels as Carl so no way he would have beaten him ever.[/quote]
The whole “pit bull” bullshit that is propagated by Kelly Baggett is just that, bullshit. Ben Johnson ran 10.2x at age 19 with minimal lifting (sprinting + medball + general strengthening exercises).
I was using bench press because it is one of the most simple lifts to do without the issues of depth/stance/femur length/etc. to debate.
There are female sprinters that are as strong in the weightroom as male sprinters who incinerate them on the track. It just doesn’t work as you wish to imagine. Your dream world is just that.[/quote]
Really? So heavy lifting for lower body has zero impact on faster sprinting? As we see Ben did great improvement since the age of 19. Do you know what kind his minimal lifting cosisted? What do you call minimal? For me training using heavy loads volume is low so I can call it minimal as well. So maybe you Davan recomend to do medball work over heavy lifting for a higher level sprinters? How much faster an athlete can run when increasing numbers in bench press? Your arguments are so weak that not Kelly but you are talking total bullshit. Keep going
-
Participant
Really? So heavy lifting for lower body has zero impact on faster sprinting? As we see Ben did great improvement since the age of 19. Do you know what kind his minimal lifting cosisted? What do you call minimal? For me training using heavy loads volume is low so I can call it minimal as well. So maybe you Davan recomend to do medball work over heavy lifting for a higher level sprinters? How much faster an athlete can run when increasing numbers in bench press? Your arguments are so weak that not Kelly but you are talking total bullshit. Keep going
Strawman arguments are always fun. I never said it had zero impact (it could have negative or positive impact depending on how it is incorporated since nothing is ever equal) or that I recommend medicine ball work over heavy lifting. Read over what I did say and use your head.
-
Participant
With the exception of people’s butts leaving the bench, these adjustments are not common for non-powerlifters and especially people not wearing suits (and don’t make the kinds of impact on numbers). Grip width and archs are hardly going to cause the increases (in non-shirted non-powerlifters) that changing squat depth only 3-4″ will (let alone more). You simply cannot go that much wider without extensive training for it (which may include using a shirt to help stabilize the shoulder girdle) and anything but minor arches are going to take significant coaching to get and again, not utilized by non-powerlifters or people training specifically for bench. On the other hand, plenty of people do have huge variations in squat depths with everything from 1/8 squats to superwide parallel squats to narrow ATG squats all being simply called “squats” without any context. You aren’t going to get those kinds of variations in bench if the person keeps their butt on the bench and they don’t have a spotter pulling the bar up.
Meh, I see people partial benching all the time. However, most people on this board probably do bench with a relative dgree of consistency, and squats may or may not be the same.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1251949587"]Really? I would have never guessed that! That wasn’t my point at all, of course… (sarcasm)
Didn’t mean to pee in your wheaties bro.[/quote]
You have no idea how hard I laughed at this.
-
Participant
[quote author="Linas" date="1252056609"]
Really? So heavy lifting for lower body has zero impact on faster sprinting? As we see Ben did great improvement since the age of 19. Do you know what kind his minimal lifting cosisted? What do you call minimal? For me training using heavy loads volume is low so I can call it minimal as well. So maybe you Davan recomend to do medball work over heavy lifting for a higher level sprinters? How much faster an athlete can run when increasing numbers in bench press? Your arguments are so weak that not Kelly but you are talking total bullshit. Keep goingStrawman arguments are always fun. I never said it had zero impact (it could have negative or positive impact depending on how it is incorporated since nothing is ever equal) or that I recommend medicine ball work over heavy lifting. Read over what I did say and use your head.[/quote]
I didn’t say that somebody is equal…I said if, a word if is if, so next time use your head as well. No argument what has negative or positive impact, all physical activities can have negative and positive impact. Too much fast sprinting can have negative impact as well, not just heavy lifting. Calling some arguments bullshit without any proof shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Participant
It is bullshit because at age 19, when both were at a relatively young training age and Ben Johnson had not yet been doing weights to any significant degree nor were his strength levels high, they had about the same PR (hell Ben’s may have been faster, I forget the exact time Carl ran at age 19, but IIRC it was 10.3x). You asked how could Ben beat Carl if it weren’t for heavy weights…. well there are numerous other ways to get fast and he was clearly fast before any “heavy” weights (I put that in quotes since that majority of the lifting they did people here would not consider heavy) and it was a lot more than simply lifting that made him fast and improved his abilities.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252038363"]With the exception of people’s butts leaving the bench, these adjustments are not common for non-powerlifters and especially people not wearing suits (and don’t make the kinds of impact on numbers). Grip width and archs are hardly going to cause the increases (in non-shirted non-powerlifters) that changing squat depth only 3-4″ will (let alone more). You simply cannot go that much wider without extensive training for it (which may include using a shirt to help stabilize the shoulder girdle) and anything but minor arches are going to take significant coaching to get and again, not utilized by non-powerlifters or people training specifically for bench. On the other hand, plenty of people do have huge variations in squat depths with everything from 1/8 squats to superwide parallel squats to narrow ATG squats all being simply called “squats” without any context. You aren’t going to get those kinds of variations in bench if the person keeps their butt on the bench and they don’t have a spotter pulling the bar up.
Meh, I see people partial benching all the time. However, most people on this board probably do bench with a relative dgree of consistency, and squats may or may not be the same.[/quote]
Give me a break–I’ve been to a lot of gyms (esp. a number of commercial and college gyms) and seen a wide variety of levels and I have seen few people who are not absolute beginners do partial benches. Squats that are above parallel are standard (not to forget above ATG)–perhaps I should say above 1/4 squat.
-
ParticipantI have to agree with Davan here…
The more research i’m doing lately on special strength requirments (my masters project) only confirms is as well.
Yes, max strength is valuable. Yes, beginner sprinters can improve speed solely becuase their max strength improves…But it soon has diminishing returns on speed and jumping. Everyones point of diminishing returns is also different. That depends on their natural ability to develop force at high rates.
It doesn’t matter if someone’s maximum strength is through the roof if they can only use 1/100th of it during the 0.12 ish contact times of a sprint race or take off.
The real importance then becomes and should always been rate of force development and reactive strength work.
-
Participant
It is bullshit because at age 19, when both were at a relatively young training age and Ben Johnson had not yet been doing weights to any significant degree nor were his strength levels high, they had about the same PR (hell Ben’s may have been faster, I forget the exact time Carl ran at age 19, but IIRC it was 10.3x). You asked how could Ben beat Carl if it weren’t for heavy weights…. well there are numerous other ways to get fast and he was clearly fast before any “heavy” weights (I put that in quotes since that majority of the lifting they did people here would not consider heavy) and it was a lot more than simply lifting that made him fast and improved his abilities.
I simply believe that Ben’s great max strength levels was an advantage over Carl. I believe that Carl was more talented than Ben. His max strength especially helped through the first part of the race and after Carl simply couldn’t catch him. I’m not talking just about heavy lifting, but levels of max strength, I don’t know how Ben increased his max strength levels, through heavy lifting, through 6RM lifting, through doping or whatever, but simply it was an advantage for him.
Powell started sprint training with 10.5, before mainly played soccer and moved as you see to 9.72. I think there are just two sub 10sec. sprinters who didn’t use weight training at all. Carl with PB of 9.86 and Kim Colins 9.97. In Berlin final Carl nowdays with his PB of 9.86 would have been in 4th place. Bolt, Gay, Powell all use weight training and I believe part of their program consists of heavy lifting. For these guys medball work and weight training with 70% max won’t help much. -
Participant
lemaitre has little emphasis on weights…his clean is 50kg…i have heard speedfreak can clean 135-140kg and squat about 200kg
This is true. Im at the point now where I dont think I need to get stronger, but need to apply the force better (as Nik mentioned).
-
Participant
The problem with most of this discussion is the context. Many of the posters in this thread have not come close to their potential limit strength and may even be undersized. For those, working on maximum strength should be a priority, even if it includes adding a little mass. In my personal, and hopefully humble, opinion, mass/strength work is more beneficial than pure power work. I know that some will disagree, but that’s just my opinion.
At some point the athelte begins closing in on their potential for limit strength, or perhaps some optimal level of strength below what might be their ultimate ceiling, and additional strength work produces very limited results. Power work, including medicine ball, Olympic lifts and explosive lifts are what works best for these type of athletes.
Its about context…are we talking about an undersized, not very strong, 11.0 sprinter, or are we talking about a very fit, strong 10.2 sprinter trying to take it to 10.0. One size does not fit all.
-
Participant
Mass/ strength work is most definitely not more benificial or more important than power development. It is not max strength that plays the important role for the majority of a 100m sprint and obviously a 200m sprint…So why is this ability MOST important?
You can pretty much go to any gym and many track programs across the country and find athletes who are very strong for their body weight. It is easier to develop very common to see this…
You can’t however find many people relatively speaking who have the ability to generate force at very high speeds…The abilities are seperate and the latter one is very hard to develop and needs much more time and focus than max strength does…
-
Participant
Mass/ strength work is most definitely not more benificial or more important than power development. It is not max strength that plays the important role for the majority of a 100m sprint and obviously a 200m sprint…So why is this ability MOST important?
You can pretty much go to any gym and many track programs across the country and find athletes who are very strong for their body weight. It is easier to develop very common to see this…
You can’t however find many people relatively speaking who have the ability to generate force at very high speeds…The abilities are seperate and the latter one is very hard to develop and needs much more time and focus than max strength does…
So the million $ question – in your opinion, what is best means of developing power/ability to generate force at speed??
-
Participant
I think most important depends on the individualthat needs to be trained. All to often I think we are asking the wrong questions. We keep comparing numbers that are not always track related like how much more than your body weight are we squating or cleaning, slj/vertical jump marks, the list goes on. To develop power you need the combination of strength and speed, at least by definition. The best way to generate force at speed is to train strength, speed, and the combination of both; then most importantly develop great technique and practice the event you are trying to generate this force for. Sometimes we get so involved in the numbers and make things more complicated than they have to be. There is no magical way outside of lucky genetics.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1252121884"]Mass/ strength work is most definitely not more benificial or more important than power development. It is not max strength that plays the important role for the majority of a 100m sprint and obviously a 200m sprint…So why is this ability MOST important?
You can pretty much go to any gym and many track programs across the country and find athletes who are very strong for their body weight. It is easier to develop very common to see this…
You can’t however find many people relatively speaking who have the ability to generate force at very high speeds…The abilities are seperate and the latter one is very hard to develop and needs much more time and focus than max strength does…
So the million $ question – in your opinion, what is best means of developing power/ability to generate force at speed??[/quote]
Well throughout research lighter faster movements (plyos, light loaded resistance etc etc) seems to beat max strength development virtually all of the time when developing athletic performance (speed & power). So, after a good base of MxS (not full on reaching max potential, just a good base) i believe much more speed and power can be developed from focusing primarily on the rate force developing training and not MxS.
-
Participant
Well throughout research lighter faster movements (plyos, light loaded resistance etc etc) seems to beat max strength development virtually all of the time when developing athletic performance (speed & power). So, after a good base of MxS (not full on reaching max potential, just a good base) i believe much more speed and power can be developed from focusing primarily on the rate force developing training and not MxS.
As to your earlier question, I said max strength is more beneficial for weaker, underweight sprinters. Power development is pretty much a waste if a kid can’t squat bodyweight, and there are alot that can’t.
As to your second statement, don’t confuse studies that show maximum power during a single lift with studies that explore long-term term training modalities. There are very few if any, long-term studies that compare two groups of young, weak, underdeveloped athletes exposed to either max strength/mass only or power only. If you have any, please post them.
As to what works for stronger athletes, I don’t disagree.
-
Participant
I think you both have valid points. An athlete needs general strength for many reasons, for example to hold themselves in a good body position in the starting blocks. Also, you cant be powerful without a good level of strength, as power is strength x speed. So, for a beginner, developing max strength is probably quite important.
However, after a certain point, adding to maximum strength wont add any more to performance. This is where power development becomes more important, as a large difference between two athletes os say 10.0 and 11.0 standard will be contact time, i.e. the better athlete will probably have a shorter contact time. This is because this athlete can produce as much, or more force, as the slower athlete, in the same time.
This is just my understanding of the situation.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1252136124"]
Well throughout research lighter faster movements (plyos, light loaded resistance etc etc) seems to beat max strength development virtually all of the time when developing athletic performance (speed & power). So, after a good base of MxS (not full on reaching max potential, just a good base) i believe much more speed and power can be developed from focusing primarily on the rate force developing training and not MxS.As to your earlier question, I said max strength is more beneficial for weaker, underweight sprinters. Power development is pretty much a waste if a kid can’t squat bodyweight, and there are alot that can’t.
As to your second statement, don’t confuse studies that show maximum power during a single lift with studies that explore long-term term training modalities. There are very few if any, long-term studies that compare two groups of young, weak, underdeveloped athletes exposed to either max strength/mass only or power only. If you have any, please post them.
As to what works for stronger athletes, I don’t disagree.[/quote]
Of course weaker athletes need to get stronger. No doubt. And i’d never confuse those articles becuase i actually can’t stand those articles that your talking about. I am talking about training studies all the time, not descriptive studies…
Talking about young weak athletes is a bit pointless to me. Those athlete can walk up stairs, get stronger and improve performance. Anything will work for them.
In regards to long term proof for weaker younger athletes etc, i’ll look but am not sure. But i will say there are many athlete like Ben in the thread “born for one thing”, who hae been exposed to WAY more power type work than max strength work and is jumping over 16 meters now in the triple. I assure you his clean, squat, bench etc is weaker than elite women. All the power work he has done since he was 12 has put him seriously ahead of the game and for him, now comes the easy part. Add a little strength and 17m shouldn’t be too far away.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252092280"]It is bullshit because at age 19, when both were at a relatively young training age and Ben Johnson had not yet been doing weights to any significant degree nor were his strength levels high, they had about the same PR (hell Ben’s may have been faster, I forget the exact time Carl ran at age 19, but IIRC it was 10.3x). You asked how could Ben beat Carl if it weren’t for heavy weights…. well there are numerous other ways to get fast and he was clearly fast before any “heavy” weights (I put that in quotes since that majority of the lifting they did people here would not consider heavy) and it was a lot more than simply lifting that made him fast and improved his abilities.
I simply believe that Ben’s great max strength levels was an advantage over Carl. I believe that Carl was more talented than Ben. His max strength especially helped through the first part of the race and after Carl simply couldn’t catch him. I’m not talking just about heavy lifting, but levels of max strength, I don’t know how Ben increased his max strength levels, through heavy lifting, through 6RM lifting, through doping or whatever, but simply it was an advantage for him.
Powell started sprint training with 10.5, before mainly played soccer and moved as you see to 9.72. I think there are just two sub 10sec. sprinters who didn’t use weight training at all. Carl with PB of 9.86 and Kim Colins 9.97. In Berlin final Carl nowdays with his PB of 9.86 would have been in 4th place. Bolt, Gay, Powell all use weight training and I believe part of their program consists of heavy lifting. For these guys medball work and weight training with 70% max won’t help much.[/quote]Based on interviews, Usain spends 3-5 days per week lifting depending on time of the year, or less than that during main competition time.
Tyson has put on a good amount of muscle over the past few seasons, look at him in a video of 4 years ago and compare to now….
Stephen Francis’ interview showed that they do quite the bit of lifting during their training.
I also believe Asafa started sprinting at 10.9 and not 10.5. -
Participant
…As to what works for stronger athletes, I don’t disagree.
I know that you and I are basically in agreement in theory, but as far as this discussion, the reality of this forum is that many threads are started by ‘lesser qualified’ athletes, and all the threads are read by such athletes, and so we owe it to the forum in general not to talk in generalities. Statements others have made along the lines of “strength training isn’t important for speed development” need to be put in a context so that younger, less ‘qualified’ athletes don’t misunderstand. Strength is of paramount importance to ALL track athletes, its just that for more advanced athletes, having reached an adequate level of strength, there may no longer be a need to focus on strength in their training…power development, RFD etc. is the focus.
In regards to long term proof for weaker younger athletes etc, i’ll look but am not sure. …
These would be the type of articles that I would like to find, something with empirical data that compares longterm traing modalities with large groups of individuals. The closest thing I’ve ever found is the Eastern Bloc commentaries by the big name researchers (Russian, Bulgarian etc.)Unfortunately they rarely publish their data, only the inferences and opinions they themselves came away with. But by and large, these researchers continue to impress upon the reader the need for maximum limit strength.
-
Participant
The discussion begins and ends with genetics. The difference bewteen an 11.0 sprinter and a 10.0 sprinter is…genetics. The athlete who was “born for one thing” is just another way of saying “genetic predisposition.” There are some very smart coaches on this site and if knowing the science or mastering technique was the key, we’d all be churning out 10.0 guys or 28 foot guys.
Don’t know if it’s true because I’ve never seen it, but I’ve heard of work by Schmidtbleicher that showed 70-85% type work was more beneficial at improving power than 30-60% work. Anybody come across this?
-
Participant
The fact is, and Ritzdorf, Moura and a host of other coaches and top researchers have all said, reactive strength/ power/ RFD/ speed strength etc is much harder to develop in athletes AND is much more of a determining factor in performance than max strength and should therefore always be priority in a training program for sprinters and jumpers…and i 100% agree with it.
I have never said Max Strength wasn’t important. Of course it is. But i do not believe it is most important at all. Even more younger less developed athletes, a sprinter/jumper must always focus MOSTLY on speed strength and power development. Max strength also needs work of course.
-
Participant
Lifting is all a matter of stimulus. Sprinting is the obvious king stimuli. We need to look at progression when addressing strength work. Lifting 10×10 squats might progress a 11.9 sprinter, lifting 5×5 squat might progress a 10.9 sprinter, lifting 8×2 cleans might progress a 10.4 sprinter. Its all a matter of level and can get very confusing at times.
What works for one group might not for another. Just look at the research and the researchers are typically using max a 10.2 sprinter for their studies and they’re using a spectrum of talent (10.8-10.2). Where is the sub10 research? Doesn’t exist really. Its up to these coaches to determine whats best because their athletes are always one step ahead of the research.
Charlie advocates a general to specific then back to general since sprinting becomes so intense of an activity, doing anything that resembles it at that stage only takes away from the actual sprinting work. This seems to make sense to me.
-
Participant
But i do not believe it is most important at all. Even more younger less developed athletes, a sprinter/jumper must always focus MOSTLY on speed strength and power development. Max strength also needs work of course.
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I think it is a waste of time for a young, underdeveloped, skinny athlete with a 1RM 135lb. clean (everybody starts out here at some point in there life) to work power at 30%, which is basically cleaning the bar. Even at 60%, about 80lbs, strength progress will be slow and improvements in RFD will hit a ceiling in fairly short order. I would rather see this athlete focus on mass and strength, possibly alternated with blocks of strength/power, until they get their strength to an acceptable level. They don’t have to powerlift, but training lifts in the 85% of 1RM need to be worked to move limit strength forward more effeciently.
I hate even to bring it up again, but I have used a thought experiment to illustrate this point. Consider two young, skinny, underdeveloped, identical twins who are genetically identical and all other things are equal (for those that can’t theorize, its a thought experiment, get over it). Twin A trains at his 30%1RM exclusively and twin B trains at his 85%1RM exclusively. Over time, I have absolutley no doubt that twin B will add much needed mass and strength compared to twin A and after one or two years, will not only be bigger and stronger than twin A, but his maximum power output and RFD will be much higher than twin A. Therefore, I think that strength, and possibly hypertrophy, ARE sometimes the areas that need to be focused on in the weight room, especially for younger, less developed athletes.
A point will be reached where the focus of power moves to the forefront and strength takes a back seat, even to the point of being in a permanent maintenance mode. I don’t know exactly where that is, but I know that its not with some skinny kid doing cleans with an empty Olympic bar.
Some researchers have indicated that squatting 1.5x or even 2x bodyweight may be the crossover point, I don’t know. And I have no idea what an acceptable bodyweight ratio for a clean would be. But I feel strongly that the efficient thing to do would be to get strength and mass to an appropriate level ASAP, then shift the emphsis to power and RFD.
And to clarify, I’m not talking about powerlifting vs Oly lifting, I’m talking about the focus of the training and the loads being used, whatever the modality.
-
Participant
Lifting is all a matter of stimulus. Sprinting is the obvious king stimuli. We need to look at progression when addressing strength work. Lifting 10×10 squats might progress a 11.9 sprinter, lifting 5×5 squat might progress a 10.9 sprinter, lifting 8×2 cleans might progress a 10.4 sprinter. Its all a matter of level and can get very confusing at times.
What works for one group might not for another. Just look at the research and the researchers are typically using max a 10.2 sprinter for their studies and they’re using a spectrum of talent (10.8-10.2). Where is the sub10 research? Doesn’t exist really. Its up to these coaches to determine whats best because their athletes are always one step ahead of the research.
Charlie advocates a general to specific then back to general since sprinting becomes so intense of an activity, doing anything that resembles it at that stage only takes away from the actual sprinting work. This seems to make sense to me.
The whole “is all a matter of stimulus” thing can and is deceiving because everything doesn’t work for every person. Cleans, squats, lunges, deadlifts etc. are not the same as machine circuits, but I guarantee you when there is eventually a sprinter who runs 9.7 and does exclusively machine circuits, Charlie and whoever else will be the first to say that it is “all general.”
Writing off things as just being general takes away from specific applications of various regimes/schemes/etc. and encourages many to not work on lifting with good technique because, after all, it is just “about stimulus.”
-
Participant
But your saying that power development is only developed using 30% or 60% of using weights…
I would suggest that,
Twin B trains at 85% max for 2 years…
And
Twin A trains without weights and only using jumping exericses and ballisitic throwing (med balls etc)
And Twin A would perform better on the track that Twin B.
-
Participant
Max Strength and Force Rate are seperate qualities…
force rate should always be an emphasis for a sprinter and jumper, always…you will NEVER have enough ability to generate great force in short time…
You can however, have a huge deficit between max strength and how much force you can actually apply in short time. This doesn’t help performance at all.
-
Participant
[quote author="Linas" date="1252098526"][quote author="davan" date="1252092280"]It is bullshit because at age 19, when both were at a relatively young training age and Ben Johnson had not yet been doing weights to any significant degree nor were his strength levels high, they had about the same PR (hell Ben’s may have been faster, I forget the exact time Carl ran at age 19, but IIRC it was 10.3x). You asked how could Ben beat Carl if it weren’t for heavy weights…. well there are numerous other ways to get fast and he was clearly fast before any “heavy” weights (I put that in quotes since that majority of the lifting they did people here would not consider heavy) and it was a lot more than simply lifting that made him fast and improved his abilities.
I simply believe that Ben’s great max strength levels was an advantage over Carl. I believe that Carl was more talented than Ben. His max strength especially helped through the first part of the race and after Carl simply couldn’t catch him. I’m not talking just about heavy lifting, but levels of max strength, I don’t know how Ben increased his max strength levels, through heavy lifting, through 6RM lifting, through doping or whatever, but simply it was an advantage for him.
Powell started sprint training with 10.5, before mainly played soccer and moved as you see to 9.72. I think there are just two sub 10sec. sprinters who didn’t use weight training at all. Carl with PB of 9.86 and Kim Colins 9.97. In Berlin final Carl nowdays with his PB of 9.86 would have been in 4th place. Bolt, Gay, Powell all use weight training and I believe part of their program consists of heavy lifting. For these guys medball work and weight training with 70% max won’t help much.[/quote]Based on interviews, Usain spends 3-5 days per week lifting depending on time of the year, or less than that during main competition time.
Tyson has put on a good amount of muscle over the past few seasons, look at him in a video of 4 years ago and compare to now….
Stephen Francis’ interview showed that they do quite the bit of lifting during their training.
I also believe Asafa started sprinting at 10.9 and not 10.5.[/quote]None of that means they are doing heavy lifting. Asafa barely benches more than his bodyweeight. Do you really think a guy with a freak nervous system and a good amount of muscle and STILL unable to bench that much more than bodyweight is lifting very heavy or taking it very seriously at all for that matter? I have talked to people within the MVP camp, some people on this board know who I am speaking of, and it wasn’t uncommon to see the women lifting similar weights to the guys… none of which were particularly heavy.
And the whole bit about Usain lifting… come on. Give me a while guess at what you think he is squatting in the weightroom? You think Mills is coaching 6’5″ guys to do backsquats with good depth and technique at 405 or more (less than double bodyweight for Usain)? Gimme a break.
Asafa ran much slower than 10.9 when he started. He went to MVP well after he was a beginner though. He didn’t go to them until after high school when he was already developing quite nicely as a late bloomer.
-
Participant
But your saying that power development is only developed using 30% or 60% of using weights…
I would suggest that,
Twin B trains at 85% max for 2 years…
And
Twin A trains without weights and only using jumping exericses and ballisitic throwing (med balls etc)
And Twin A would perform better on the track that Twin B.
Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Remember, these are not elites are sub-elites, these two began as young, weak, underdeveloped kids. If these are the skinny weak twins I was talking about, Twin A, using med balls an plyos, will still be fairly skinny (very limited hypertrophy with med balls and jumps) and I think Twin B will smoke Twin A out of the blocks and will probably have a higher MaxV.
I think the preponderance of scientific research suggests that some level of strength needs to be attained before performing ANY high intensity plyos. It may not necessarily be the strength/bodyweight ratios as high as 1.5x or 2x in the squat, but there needs to be some foundation before even beginning explosive training, and IMHO, strength training will not take a back seat to explosive training until the strength levels have in fact approached some arbitrary level (athlete specific of course) of strenth to bodyweight.
I can’t imagine that you could even look at these two, one who after two years of such training might outweigh his skinny brother by 20lbs. of pure muscle and whose clean might actually be 50% greater than his skinny punk brother’s, and think that the skinny, non-athletic looking kid with poor muscular development is better equipped to run 100m than his stronger, more powerful, more muscular brother.
-
Participant
It actually isn’t advisable to kids to start max strength training until 16-18…prior to that they SHOULD be developing general strength and POWER (bompa). Obviously we aren’t getting kids to rebound from 90cm boxes before having a strong base of strength…but many other methods are advisable to any speed athletes.
-
Participant
The weak quick athlete is the guy that you want. He can improve by leaps and bounds simply through weight training. Nobody wants the strong sluggish athlete. The weak quick athlete can do workouts from Flex magazine or Bear’s book and improve (see Gay, Bolt, et al) while the strong sluggish athlete will need customized secrets from DB Hammer’s underground facility.
-
Participant
The phrase young, weak and underdeveloped keeps coming up within the same phrase as max strength. If an individual is that far behind, the weight room is the last place where to make gains. General strength should take precedence above everything else before the introduction of max strength. Introducing max strength to a kid like that is a recipe for disaster . . . so it is a poor example.
The myth of strength before plyo’s needs to be squashed as well. Sprinting is plyometric in nature, yet a kid will sprint when he is a 6. Plyo’s are more of a problem when used with improper form and abused. High school girls triple jump all the time without ever having touched a weight in their life. Girls long jump in middle school without having lifted. More issues come from poor posture, improper protocol, . . . rather than plyo’s.
We spend 85-90% of our season developing power and about 10-15% on MxS yet strength levels are more than adequate. Actually, the more I move away from MxS, the better my athletes have done on a whole.
-
Participant
The myth of strength before plyo’s needs to be squashed as well. Sprinting is plyometric in nature, yet a kid will sprint when he is a 6. Plyo’s are more of a problem when used with improper form and abused. High school girls triple jump all the time without ever having touched a weight in their life. Girls long jump in middle school without having lifted. More issues come from poor posture, improper protocol, . . . rather than plyo’s.
Haha yea. Carl Lewis couldn’t squat 2.5x bodyweight so he wasn’t strong enough to do plyos…or jump 29’+ 🙂
-
Participant
The whole “is all a matter of stimulus” thing can and is deceiving because everything doesn’t work for every person.
“What works for one group might not for another….. Its all a matter of level and can get very confusing at times.”
Coudln’t of said it better myself.
Cleans, squats, lunges, deadlifts etc. are not the same as machine circuits, but I guarantee you when there is eventually a sprinter who runs 9.7 and does exclusively machine circuits, Charlie and whoever else will be the first to say that it is “all general.”
I don’t think I conveyed my message clearly. I wasn’t trying to say that it is all general and that a stimulus is a stimulus, and thats certainly not what Charlie advocates. What I was trying to say was that all of these methods have their place at different points in the development of an athlete and vary in importance according to their level and experience and genetics,ect… Its difficult to pin point what works when but some coaches have figured out how to progress an athlete through various stages of accomplishment.
Weight training is the easiest type of training to see direct results and I think sometimes people over-emphasize their means.
Relating this back to the topic at hand, I think that it limits potential when you limit you’re strength training regimens to a single exercise.
-
Participant
The phrase young, weak and underdeveloped keeps coming up within the same phrase as max strength. If an individual is that far behind, the weight room is the last place where to make gains. General strength should take precedence above everything else before the introduction of max strength. Introducing max strength to a kid like that is a recipe for disaster . . . so it is a poor example.
The myth of strength before plyo’s needs to be squashed as well. Sprinting is plyometric in nature, yet a kid will sprint when he is a 6. Plyo’s are more of a problem when used with improper form and abused. High school girls triple jump all the time without ever having touched a weight in their life. Girls long jump in middle school without having lifted. More issues come from poor posture, improper protocol, . . . rather than plyo’s.
We spend 85-90% of our season developing power and about 10-15% on MxS yet strength levels are more than adequate. Actually, the more I move away from MxS, the better my athletes have done on a whole.
Exactly!
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252200527"]The whole “is all a matter of stimulus” thing can and is deceiving because everything doesn’t work for every person.
“What works for one group might not for another….. Its all a matter of level and can get very confusing at times.”
Coudln’t of said it better myself.
Cleans, squats, lunges, deadlifts etc. are not the same as machine circuits, but I guarantee you when there is eventually a sprinter who runs 9.7 and does exclusively machine circuits, Charlie and whoever else will be the first to say that it is “all general.”
I don’t think I conveyed my message clearly. I wasn’t trying to say that it is all general and that a stimulus is a stimulus, and thats certainly not what Charlie advocates. What I was trying to say was that all of these methods have their place at different points in the development of an athlete and vary in importance according to their level and experience and genetics,ect… Its difficult to pin point what works when but some coaches have figured out how to progress an athlete through various stages of accomplishment.
Weight training is the easiest type of training to see direct results and I think sometimes people over-emphasize their means.
Relating this back to the topic at hand, I think that it limits potential when you limit you’re strength training regimens to a single exercise.[/quote]
Charlie actually does frequently say that it is “just a stimulus” (of course, he only says it when something doesn’t fit his exact mold).
I agree with what you’re saying on the whole. I do not necessarily agree with the point that some coaches have figured it out. Most successful coaches have figured out how to best advance certain types of athletes, hence why certain types of athletes tend to develop well in the same programs (Baylor 400m for example where their best guys tended to be incredibly fast guys who were converted/developed into 400m runners versus more endurance based athletes).
-
Participant
The phrase young, weak and underdeveloped keeps coming up within the same phrase as max strength. If an individual is that far behind, the weight room is the last place where to make gains. General strength should take precedence above everything else before the introduction of max strength. Introducing max strength to a kid like that is a recipe for disaster . . . so it is a poor example.
The myth of strength before plyo’s needs to be squashed as well. Sprinting is plyometric in nature, yet a kid will sprint when he is a 6. Plyo’s are more of a problem when used with improper form and abused. High school girls triple jump all the time without ever having touched a weight in their life. Girls long jump in middle school without having lifted. More issues come from poor posture, improper protocol, . . . rather than plyo’s.
We spend 85-90% of our season developing power and about 10-15% on MxS yet strength levels are more than adequate. Actually, the more I move away from MxS, the better my athletes have done on a whole.
What exercises/loads are you using?
-
Participant
That is a loaded question.
Exercises: Oly’s, squats, lunges, step ups, jump squats, glute medius exercises, calf raises, ecc calf raises, overhead squats, front squats, pull ups, rows
Loads: Dependent on the time of year and level of proficiency of the athlete.
Is there a more specific scenario?
-
Participant
I see how all that debate converted into different age groups, levels of development, individuality and a value of a max strength for those different athletes. I think no one will argue that 12-15 year old kid will get great value of general strength exercises, movement efficiency exercises, not high intensity jump training. I don’t see point doing heavy lifting for that age group, they will advance greately and with all other assortment of exercises. Even that quality alone like a max strength will move to a higher level without heavy lifting. However, at a later stages of training (not talking about high school athletes, these will advance almost from everything with appropriate training volumes) when results won’t increase so fast, when doing movement efficiency exercises won’t make much more efficient athlete, when doing dozens of power cleans a weight lifted doesn’t increase anymore, so during that stage I see a great value of increasing a horsepower for these athletes and mainly through heavy lifting and low volume sessions.
Max strength weight training doesn’t do miracles, but I believe at certine stages closing the gap between actual and potential strength brings positive results. Of course max strength levels would be more important for high and triple jumpers than sprinters, but all can advance through increasing horsepower and recruiting the largest MU’s through heavy lifting.Who is the most likely to power clean heavier weight, a sprinter/jumper who squats 200 pounds or 400 pounds?
Wich weights uses more motor neurons 60% max or 90% max?
Which weights better to use for max strength maintainance, doing weight lifting with no more than 70% max and more sets/reps or heavier but lower number of sets/reps?
Let’s presume there are two identical twins (jumpers or sprinters) both started training since same age, doing same or very simmilar training sessions for at least 5 years. After all these years of a simmilar training they both achieved simmilar results, their max strength levels are at the same level, let’s say of a bit more than 1.5xbodyweight in a squat. However, they actually never did weight lifting through those years and one of those twins simlpy adds weight training to his training routine (maybe with adding weight training he reduces other work to avoid overtraining)and another twin don’t. After about 2 years a twin who didn’t add weight lifting stayed at the same level with his max strength of a bit more than 1.5xb/w in a squat, however another twin didn’t increased his b/w but increased his engine and could squat of almost 2.5xbodyweight. So who is more likely to be a better sprinter/jumper? I’m with a twin who has a bigger engine and through those 2 years of adding lifting sessions did simmilar track sessions like another twin.
-
Participant
Exercises: Oly’s, squats, lunges, step ups, jump squats, glute medius exercises, calf raises, ecc calf raises, overhead squats, front squats, pull ups, rows.
Hi Chad,
I wanted to ask do your all athletes do calf raises?
What is the porpose of doing calf raises, to strenghten calf muscles, to decrease possibility of achile tendinitis?
I used to do calf raises as well, but I noticed that it’s more or less waist of time, I believe every sprinter/jumper has to have efficient feet, but don’t see it helps for adding this exercise, except maybe for beginners whose strenght of a calf muscle is really very weak.
-
Participant
Calf raises are for range of motion, not necessarily strength.
Eccentric calf raises are to be able to handle the forces of sprinting/jumping in the ankle joint.
-
Participant
That is a loaded question.
Exercises: Oly’s, squats, lunges, step ups, jump squats, glute medius exercises, calf raises, ecc calf raises, overhead squats, front squats, pull ups, rows
Loads: Dependent on the time of year and level of proficiency of the athlete.
Is there a more specific scenario?
Loaded question, about training loads, I get it…that’s a good one. Just wondering what the bulk of Oly training loads were…30%, 60%? Any training around 85% or above? Also, I see squats. Are these jump squats? What load ranges? Ever get into the >85% range? Just asking, because many coaches/athletes talk about training predominantly for power while eschewing strength work, but when you actually look at the breakdown, they may be doing up to 10% of their lifts in the >85% range.
I’m a big max strength emphasis guy, and we typically average 10-20% of total reps in the 85% or greater range throughout a microcycle. I have had discussions with those that seem to be diametrically opposed to my philosophy, right up until I learn that they may do as much as 10% or even higher total reps in the 85% or greater load range. It then becomes apparent that the issue is not training philosophy, but semantics, as the actual training is quite similar, just a different view on what the emphasis trully is.
-
Participant
Without giving an entire yearly cycle to answer this question . . .
Oly’s. Mostly in the 80% (+-5%) range for the entire year for cleans and snatches. Sometimes we hit some heavy singles, but mainly keep to 2’s and 3’s.
Squats. Work up the percentages as the rep schemes fall. Max strength block is in december. Squats taper off about 4-6 weeks before a major championship. Sometimes sooner. Recycle after indoor and hit another block.
Jump squats begin winter break as a complexes, then continue through the remainder of season. The calculation is based off the athletes squat max + their body weight. Typically it is somewhere in the range of 10lbs to 30lbs.
-
Participant
Without giving an entire yearly cycle to answer this question . . .
Oly’s. Mostly in the 80% (+-5%) range for the entire year for cleans and snatches. Sometimes we hit some heavy singles, but mainly keep to 2’s and 3’s.
Squats. Work up the percentages as the rep schemes fall. Max strength block is in december. Squats taper off about 4-6 weeks before a major championship. Sometimes sooner. Recycle after indoor and hit another block.
Jump squats begin winter break as a complexes, then continue through the remainder of season. The calculation is based off the athletes squat max + their body weight. Typically it is somewhere in the range of 10lbs to 30lbs.
That’s what I thought. Assuming your squat loads are at least as heavy as your oly loads, then I would bet your rep schemes look much more like mine than to those arguing for power rather than strength training. I consider Oly’s with doubles and triples at 80-85% strength, even though by their explosive nature they also work power. If you pull with loads up to 85%, then I’m sure your squat loads include a fair share of 80-85% loads as well, which I also consider strength.
-
Participant
I thought you previously argued, Star, that Olympic lifts couldn’t be strength work since you can deadlift much, much more and you are not close to limit loads? I think it was even in a thread just like this about training for strength versus for power.
I personally am still waiting to hear about a major sprinting/jumping/hurdling program that routinely utilizes squats/deadlifts >85% on a regular basis with success. Even when people say they are going >85%, you then see the load and have to question whether or not they are really doing 85%… or going deep. I think Mort has more than a video of two of athletes from an elite jumps coach doing “deep” squats that were well above parallel and I think everyone has seen the videos of Xavier Carter, Asafa, and others lifting.
-
Participant
I thought you previously argued, Star, that Olympic lifts couldn’t be strength work since you can deadlift much, much more and you are not close to limit loads? I think it was even in a thread just like this about training for strength versus for power.
I have never said that. Show me where I said that. If I said anything like that I should have clarified with context. The Bulgarians trained almost exclusively with Oly lifts in the >85% range and I would argue that that training scheme, while brutal, is the extreme example of pure strength training. What I HAVE said, and still believe, is that most non-weightlifters I have seen doing Olys in the gym, and my experience is primarily limited to high school and college athletes who have lifted in the gyms I have worked out in, DON’T do what I consider strength training with Olys because their 1RM is not limited by a lack of strength, but by a lack of technique. Primarily, I see them pulling the bar to their chest before dropping under. When they drop under the bar the are rarely as deep as a parallel squat, usually much higher. I think the issue of being able to receive the clean in a fairly deep front squat plagues many, many young athletes. Some athletes compensate by going really wide in the front squat, but most I have seen simply limit the load to one they can pull high enough to get under cleanly. If lousy technique prevents you from pulling a load that your muscles and CNS are actually capable of pulling, then you’re not pulling a true 1RM in the sense that you are taxing your CNS/muscles with a maximum effort load. Such an athlete’s ‘technique limited’ 1RM may only be 90% of his actual theoretical 1RM. Then, when he backs off to 80% of that, (or 70% if you’re his coach) he’s really performing reps at about 70% (60% for your guy) of what he should be capable of. And yes, if I see a kid squatting 500lbs. and deadlifting something close to the same, yet he cleans fwell under 200lbs. for most of his reps, I don’t consider that strength work. Power, sure. Max stength, no. For that reason, for many athletes and coaches that don’t possess the knowledge or skill to properly teach proper oly lift technique, they might be better served doing squats or deads for max strength, and leave the Olys, along with jump squats and plyos, for their power training.
As far as Chad’s post, I don’t question his ability to teach his athletes oly lifts. I assume that he does, and if he says he kids are doing 75% – 85%% of 1RM I take his word on that and would classify those lifts, certainly the ones above 80%, as both strength and power.
I personally am still waiting to hear about a major sprinting/jumping/hurdling program that routinely utilizes squats/deadlifts >85% on a regular basis with success. Even when people say they are going >85%, you then see the load and have to question whether or not they are really doing 85%… or going deep. I think Mort has more than a video of two of athletes from an elite jumps coach doing “deep” squats that were well above parallel and I think everyone has seen the videos of Xavier Carter, Asafa, and others lifting.
Show me one time where I questioned someone who said they were squatting at 85%, suggesting that they were really squatting at a lesser load. Show me one time where I questioned whether or not they were squatting deep enough. I have NEVER argued for deep squats much below parallel. That was you, suggesting ATG squats were vastly superior than parallel squats. What I have said is that ATG squats MIGHT be less effective for SOME athletes because of the large differential between their ATG squat and parallel squat. For the same reasons I might question using Oly lifts for strenth, stated above, the ATG squat might of many lifters might also be limited by something other than pure strength. If you parallel squat 500lbs. but can only ATG 315, considering the rebound many ATG squatters get out of the hole, I would suggest that most of the stroke on such a squat is definitely less than max effort. I’m NOT saying I’m against ATG squats, either. As I’ve said many times, directly to you, we squat heavy, we squat deeper than parallel, we squat parallel, we squat shallower than parallel, we jump squat at weights equal to and less than 30%1RM, we include Oly lifts, almost exclusively at around 60-80%% of 1RM, we do a variety of plyos, etc. We include almost all variations of squat, several of deadlift. Squats and deadlift variations are used for max strength, hypertrophy, and/or power, all depending on the load/rep ranges. And we include Olys when working on power. I don’t have the experience to teach a trully technical clean, so we limit the loads and focus on maximal bar speed at loads up to form break. If technique starts to suffer, we back down. We do no strength work with Olys due to the limitations I suggested above…my limitations to teach the proper technique. And as I’ve said, the vat majority of videos and persoanl observations I’ve witnessed tell me I’m probably more the rule, than the exception. Clear enough?
The real issues you and I seem to have seem to actually center around YOUR refusal to acknowledge that including a limited number of heavier reps >85% (even as few as 10% of total reps) would be a good idea during strength phases.
And speaking of the loads you would recommend, I’m still waiting for you to make even an attempt at a positive contribution. Post the training plan, with loads, YOU would suggest for the poster who earlier indicated that he was 5’8″ and 150lbs. You told him not to be afraid of gaining a little mass. Post the training YOU would suggest for someone who needs to gain some strength and perhaps a little mass. Or just post a general strength phase, with loads and reps, so we can all discuss your suggestions. If you’re not willing to lay out a plan and let others take a look at then you really have no business running your mouth at those who do.
I like you a lot better when you don’t respond to my posts…go bother Nick some more, he’s much more comfortable telling you where to get off. You can have the last word…sparring with you bores me.
-
Participant
including a limited number of heavier reps >85% (even as few as 10% of total reps) would be a good idea during strength phases.
Just for the record, i totally agree with this…
-
Participant
I have never said that. Show me where I said that. If I said anything like that I should have clarified with context. The Bulgarians trained almost exclusively with Oly lifts in the >85% range and I would argue that that training scheme, while brutal, is the extreme example of pure strength training. What I HAVE said, and still believe, is that most non-weightlifters I have seen doing Olys in the gym, and my experience is primarily limited to high school and college athletes who have lifted in the gyms I have worked out in, DON’T do what I consider strength training with Olys because their 1RM is not limited by a lack of strength, but by a lack of technique. Primarily, I see them pulling the bar to their chest before dropping under. When they drop under the bar the are rarely as deep as a parallel squat, usually much higher. I think the issue of being able to receive the clean in a fairly deep front squat plagues many, many young athletes. Some athletes compensate by going really wide in the front squat, but most I have seen simply limit the load to one they can pull high enough to get under cleanly. If lousy technique prevents you from pulling a load that your muscles and CNS are actually capable of pulling, then you’re not pulling a true 1RM in the sense that you are taxing your CNS/muscles with a maximum effort load. Such an athlete’s ‘technique limited’ 1RM may only be 90% of his actual theoretical 1RM. Then,when he backs off to 80% of that,(or 70% if you’re his coach)he’s really performing reps at about 70% (60% for your guy) of what he should be capable of. And yes, if I see a kid squatting 500lbs. and deadlifting something close to the same, yet he cleans fwell under 200lbs. for most of his reps, I don’t consider that strength work. Power, sure. Max stength, no. For that reason, for many athletes and coaches that don’t possess the knowledge or skill to properly teach proper oly lift technique, they might be better served doing squats or deads for max strength, and leave the Olys, along with jump squats and plyos, for their power training.
Sorry, but how do you think people do powercleans if not by pulling the bar up well past the waist? That is what is being talked about for the most part and I am yet to see any successful coach using significant numbers of full cleans @ limit loads for sprinters/hurdlers/jumpers or even throwers. I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Chad doesnn’t have his athletes do full cleans/snatches @ limit loads.
Also, I would love to see what coach worth a grain of salt can’t get a guy who squats 500 and deadlifts 500 to powerclean over 200lbs easily. That is just a nonsense strawman attempt here. If an athlete like that even exists, blame can be put almost entirely on the coach and I would still doubt the athlete could only PC that much if they are trying. I’ve seen people with lower squat maxes powerclean >200lbs their first time attempting the lift after 5-10 minutes of coaching. It isn’t that hard.
As far as Chad’s post, I don’t question his ability to teach his athletes oly lifts. I assume that he does, and if he says he kids are doing 75% – 85%% of 1RM I take his word on that and would classify those lifts, certainly the ones above 80%, as both strength and power.
You have classified the Olympic lifts as strength only in the belief that they are “full cleans/snatches” and reaching comparable loads to heavy front squats. Chad can respond, but I would find this hard to believe. In the above comments, you actually criticize the use of power variations as not developing strength. That is all well and good, I just want to make sure we are on the same page since you distinctly said before that olympic lifts (“as you have seen done”) do not develop strength yet you said here they do in fact develop strength and that throws me off.
[quote]I personally am still waiting to hear about a major sprinting/jumping/hurdling program that routinely utilizes squats/deadlifts >85% on a regular basis with success. Even when people say they are going >85%, you then see the load and have to question whether or not they are really doing 85%… or going deep. I think Mort has more than a video of two of athletes from an elite jumps coach doing “deep” squats that were well above parallel and I think everyone has seen the videos of Xavier Carter, Asafa, and others lifting.
Show me one time where I questioned someone who said they were squatting at 85%, suggesting that they were really squatting at a lesser load. Show me one time where I questioned whether or not they were squatting deep enough. I have NEVER argued for deep squats much below parallel. That was you, suggesting ATG squats were vastly superior than parallel squats. What I have said is that ATG squats MIGHT be less effective for SOME athletes because of the large differential between their ATG squat and parallel squat. For the same reasons I might question using Oly lifts for strenth, stated above, the ATG squat might of many lifters might also be limited by something other than pure strength. If you parallel squat 500lbs. but can only ATG 315, considering the rebound many ATG squatters get out of the hole, I would suggest that most of the stroke on such a squat is definitely less than max effort. I’m NOT saying I’m against ATG squats, either. As I’ve said many times, directly to you, we squat heavy, we squat deeper than parallel, we squat parallel, we squat shallower than parallel, we jump squat at weights equal to and less than 30%1RM, we include Oly lifts, almost exclusively at around 60-80%% of 1RM, we do a variety of plyos, etc. We include almost all variations of squat, several of deadlift. Squats and deadlift variations are used for max strength, hypertrophy, and/or power, all depending on the load/rep ranges. And we include Olys when working on power. I don’t have the experience to teach a trully technical clean, so we limit the loads and focus on maximal bar speed at loads up to form break. If technique starts to suffer, we back down. We do no strength work with Olys due to the limitations I suggested above…my limitations to teach the proper technique. And as I’ve said, the vat majority of videos and persoanl observations I’ve witnessed tell me I’m probably more the rule, than the exception. Clear enough?[/quote] That comment wasn’t even directed at you, but to the entire thread. Take a breath and relax.
The comment was regarding the fact that many programs that say they do maximum strength work are in fact doing work many would not consider max strength nor are they achieving the depth many here would consider necessary/optimal. It wasn’t an attack towards you or your views, however odd/illogical many of your views and comments are.
The real issues you and I seem to have seem to actually center around YOUR refusal to acknowledge that including a limited number of heavier reps >85% (even as few as 10% of total reps) would be a good idea during strength phases.
And speaking of the loads you would recommend, I’m still waiting for you to make even an attempt at a positive contribution. Post the training plan, with loads, YOU would suggest for the poster who earlier indicated that he was 5’8″ and 150lbs. You told him not to be afraid of gaining a little mass. Post the training YOU would suggest for someone who needs to gain some strength and perhaps a little mass. Or just post a general strength phase, with loads and reps, so we can all discuss your suggestions. If you’re not willing to lay out a plan and let others take a look at then you really have no business running your mouth at those who do.It bores you so much you just wrote a novel. I posted my views elsewhere numerous times–I am more convinced now than ever that it would often not be optimal for a track athlete to do work @ 90% or more in lower body max strength lifts (ie squats, dls, etc.).
-
Participant
No full cleans or snatches. As Davan has stated, I am unaware of any programs that aim to go that deep or need to. To be honest, if they are pulling correctly, and can drop under the bar and catch it in a quarter squat, then I am more than satisfied. For the most part, the emphasis is always on pulling technique and bar speed.
I frequently talk with the exercise phys. departments and we constantly throw around the term optimal strength. Sprinting isn’t a strength activity. Sprinters happen to be strong, but it is their ability to produce force rapidly that makes them special, especially after 30m when GCT’s are very small. Hence why many footballers can run amazing 40’s which is about 10ft past 30m, but rarely are they good beyond that. As a track coach, I can’t ignore the 30m+ segment, since that will constitute a much higher percentage of every race. In the world of football, when two plays might go over that distance, they can live in that world if they so choose to.
We squat deep because of the role of the hips in sprinting. Dyson (1986) describes that the hips must have “unusual flexibility” in order to achieve the position of MaxV sprinting. I would take an athlete that can squat deep over one who hips are tight and can squat considerably more.
Star, if you want to share training, I would be more than happy to. I have my beliefs which grow and change every year. I will say this, the more I study, learn, and talk to other coaches, MxS has its place in track, but it is limited and certainly not the emphasis for the majority of the year.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1252389176"] including a limited number of heavier reps >85% (even as few as 10% of total reps) would be a good idea during strength phases.
Just for the record, i totally agree with this…[/quote]So there is no confusion, this was qutoed from something I said, not Daven.
[EDIT: corrected]
-
Participant
Yeah sorry, i’m bad with moving the quote marks around etc…
There is a time of the year when Max Strength should be MORE of a focus, but the way i program always has elastic stregth and power as the overall focus in training.
-
Participant
I think the problem here is in conceptualization of strength qualities- the map is not the territory! What we have to remember is that there’s no distinct percentage where a lift suddenly shifts from “explosive/speed/general” strength to “max” strength. It’s just that the general norm is to treat >85 % as if it were within a max strength area. The problem is not the percentage, but rather the conceptual simplification we tend to use in differentiating these things. It also depends on what exercise one uses. Cleans and snatches generally tend to stay higher on the percentage scale than squats, not to mention single leg movements which are pretty difficult to assess percentage-wise.
-
Participant
Sorry, but how do you think people do power cleans if not by pulling the bar up well past the waist? That is what is being talked about for the most part and I am yet to see any successful coach using significant numbers of full cleans @ limit loads for sprinters/hurdlers/jumpers or even throwers. I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Chad doesnn’t have his athletes do full cleans/snatches @ limit loads.
When I see Olympic weightlifters performing heavy reps, they pull the weight up only slightly above the waist, not to chest level. That may in fact be how most coaches teach the clean, and this is the basis and context of my statement in that regard. If this is how an athlete cleans, I would suggest it may not be the exercise best for their development of MAX STRENGTH. These coaches, and even Chad, are predominantly interested in working power, and I have no disagreement about anyone using cleans, even if they are pulling high, for power development. But I personally believe that if you are using an 80% load of a 1RM that is based on a 1RM where the bar was pulled almost up to the chest, then this load does not actually represent the weight which is limited by your strength, but by technique. If you are using a load that is 80% of such a submaximal load, then you are predominantly working power, and this type of technique at this load may not the most efficient if your goal is max strength development.
Also, I would love to see what coach worth a grain of salt can’t get a guy who squats 500 and deadlifts 500 to power clean over 200lbs easily. That is just a nonsense strawman attempt here. If an athlete like that even exists, blame can be put almost entirely on the coach and I would still doubt the athlete could only PC that much if they are trying. I’ve seen people with lower squat maxes power clean >200lbs their first time attempting the lift after 5-10 minutes of coaching. It isn’t that hard.
While it doesn’t seem to be that hard, look at the preponderance of videos we see posted here. Even sub-elite athletes catch hell about their clean technique. Nick is a good athlete with a very good coach, and he caught a firestorm for posting a video of his 1RM attempt. Think about those athletes less qualified than Nick that don’t have access to a coach like Mike. Where are all these great power cleaners, I don’t see them in the gym and I don’t see them posting any videos here. In fact, as I’ve stated, I rarely observe athletes whose clean/deadlift or clean/squat ratios are as high as a weightlifter with great technique. So why use the exercise that is more limited by technique IF your goal is max strength development? Again, for the hundredth time, I’m not talking about eliminating cleans, nothing of the sort. I’m talking about suggesting to many younger, less experienced athletes, those that do not have access to a coach that can adequately teach the oly lifts, that they might better be served doing squats or deadlift variations during their max strength phase, especially if they feel they are limited by max strength, which many say they are. Stop trying to generalize my statements across all training situations, and suggesting that I’m saying 1) the clean can’t be used for strength if technique is good and load is appropriate, or 2) that athletes should only clean with heavy loads, that’s not what I’ve been saying.
You have classified the Olympic lifts as strength only in the belief that they are “full cleans/snatches” and reaching comparable loads to heavy front squats. Chad can respond, but I would find this hard to believe. In the above comments, you actually criticize the use of power variations as not developing strength. That is all well and good, I just want to make sure we are on the same page since you distinctly said before that olympic lifts (“as you have seen done”) do not develop strength yet you said here they do in fact develop strength and that throws me off.
Are you just a flat out liar, or are you blind? Did I not say in the very thread you just responded to that probably the best example of a program that focuses on pure max strength were the Bulgarians, who almost exclusively used the Olympic lifts? I have never said Oly’s were only for power. What I have said is that if you cannot perform an Olympic lift with fairly reasonable technique and your 1RM is severely limited by this fact, Oly’s are probably not the best exercise to develop max strength. Also, I did not, and am not, saying that these same athletes can’t use Oly’s effectively for power development, but IF their goal is max strength, Oly’s may not be the best choice for them, because of their technique problems.
The comment was regarding the fact that many programs that say they do maximum strength work are in fact doing work many would not consider max strength nor are they achieving the depth many here would consider necessary/optimal. It wasn’t an attack towards you or your views, however odd/illogical many of your views and comments are.
The fact that some people say they are working max strength does not mean they are doing so in the most efficient manner. If you like doing things at a sub-optimal level, knock yourself out. I come to these forums to try and learn the BEST and most OPTIMAL methods. If I have an athlete I believe has an immediate need to build strength, I’m not going to have him doing cleans if his technique is so bad that it prevents him from actually taxing his CNS maximally.
I posted my views elsewhere numerous times-I am more convinced now than ever that it would often not be optimal for a track athlete to do work @ 90% or more in lower body max strength lifts (ie squats, dls, etc.).
Don’t say you’ve posted your views, post a lower body max strength training program. And now you’re up to 90%. When we first began our bantering back and forth, you were at 70%. Quit pussyfooting around and just post a max strength workout with loads and reps so we all know exactly where you stand.
-
Participant
You really misunderstood pretty much everything I said and when I asked a simple question you lost your mind. I really don’t know what else to say, but I’ll go over the general points so maybe something stick:
I asked you to clarify your point on Olympic lifts helping with strength since you said they do not in the past. You then went on to use Bulgarian Olympic lifters as an example and then further said that people are employing bad technique because they are:
1. Catching above parallel
2. Not POWERcleaning as much relative to their squats/deadlifts as Olympic lifters doThe problem with this is assuming that a powerclean or powersnatch is the same as a competition or full clean or full snatch. They are inherently different lifts. In fact, Olympic lifters will often use both in their training. Powercleans and powersnatches are named the way they are because they refer to catching the lifts in a “power” position–generally 1/4 squat and higher. You either misunderstood this or didn’t know this because you are trying to compare the ratios of full cleans:squats of Olympic lifters to the squats (generally parallel and above) and powercleans (1/4 squat and above) of athletes. I think anyone should be able to see the obvious problems with that. When you consider the powerclean maximums and parallel squat maximums of Olympic lifters, the ratios are actually not far off at all. The whole deal of a 200lb powerclean and 500lb squat is complete nonsense as it isn’t really possible in someone that is healthy without a pathology of some kind. Someone with a 500lb squat would probably do a powersnatch with 200lbs with minimal training.
My comments on the maximal strength of other programs wasn’t to say that what they are doing is optimal, but to clear up the context. You have continuous mentioned people doing “maximal strength” work because they say they are when in fact they do not meet the definitions YOU have put forward as maximum strength work. This wasn’t an attack on anybody (not even you), but an attempt to clarify things. You again misunderstood what I said and went on a crazy diatribe about looking at what is optimal for maximum strength (when the goal is always maximal PERFORMANCE in the trained events).
And I am not pussy footing and I don’t even understand how someone could think that. I don’t post 40+ week training cycles for people I don’t know, in training histories unknown, with unknown goals, unknown predispositions, etc. That is just stupid.
-
Participant
If the strength coach is worth his salt he’ll train his athlete through the entire strength continuum during the preparatory phase then emphasize a particular type of strength with a specific period of time, or block. the type of strength necessary for track athletes, in my opinion, appears to be starting strength, an Olympic lift from the ground, power, emphasizing speed-strength with max reps in a given time period, power-endurance, taking that speed-strength for a specific distance. deadlifts are good for the preparatory phases of training, but it is a low velocity-high intense movement. That means it’s contraction speed is not conducive to being the only type of exercise or that deadlifting should be used exclusively for the track athlete.
-
Participant
If the strength coach is worth his salt he’ll train his athlete through the entire strength continuum during the preparatory phase then emphasize a particular type of strength with a specific period of time, or block. the type of strength necessary for track athletes, in my opinion, appears to be starting strength, an Olympic lift from the ground, power, emphasizing speed-strength with max reps in a given time period, power-endurance, taking that speed-strength for a specific distance. deadlifts are good for the preparatory phases of training, but it is a low velocity-high intense movement. That means it’s contraction speed is not conducive to being the only type of exercise or that deadlifting should be used exclusively for the track athlete.
I agree with everything you say here. However my point, which some people seem to misunderstand, is that if a coach specifically wants to improve an athlete’s limit strength, then heavier loads are the best way to go. Whether its Olympic lifts, squats, or deadlifts, the optimal method for improving strength without gaining unnecessary mass is to lift in the heavier load ranges, at least 85%, to optimally work strength. What other posters are insinuating, without actually coming out and saying it, is that you can optimally build strength using loads well below maximal, as in the 70% range. I don’t believe using lighter loads is the optimal method for building strength.
-
Participant
And I am not pussy footing and I don’t even understand how someone could think that. I don’t post 40+ week training cycles for people I don’t know, in training histories unknown, with unknown goals, unknown predispositions, etc. That is just stupid.
Post YOUR max strength training, including loads, reps and exercises.
-
Participant
I think the point that many are trying to make is that max strength doesn’t mean crap to the majority of the events.
Typically, the weight room will look something like this: General Strength -> Power -> Max Strength -> Power/Elastic. Max strength is built just prior to the competitive season and then the switch moves more to a RFD focus. Spending too much time in max strength is a detriment and will hurt performance/elastic qualities in the long run.
-
Participant
Good post, Chad.
In general, whenever I hear about this max strength nonsense, I just think of the Jamaicans and other current top guys. I’d love to hear just a yes or no on who here thinks Mills or Stephen Francis are having Bolt or Powell squat 405 (2x bodyweight or even just under for each of them) to a good depth and with good technique. Everyone here knows that answer, but everyone wants to ignore it.
Part of the problem with these discussion on the internet especially stem from the strength claims of Ben Johnson that seem to have permeated everyone’s mind who has never competed in track and field and even some who have and causes them to believe you need outrageous strength levels to run fast or that it would even be optimal to spend time getting to those levels. No doubt he was a very strong athlete, but when people hear 4x5x405 on BP and 2x6x600lbs on the squat, I think they are often quite mislead about what is necessary and possible.
Consider perhaps that a guy that weighed over 100lbs more than Ben Johnson set the WR in the shotput with these much ‘weaker’ lifts (in comparison): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5mXhgicAi0
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252450318"]And I am not pussy footing and I don’t even understand how someone could think that. I don’t post 40+ week training cycles for people I don’t know, in training histories unknown, with unknown goals, unknown predispositions, etc. That is just stupid.
Post YOUR max strength training, including loads, reps and exercises.[/quote]
Dumb questions get dumb answers, so here are a couple sample workouts from my journal (one lower body, one upper body, weights only):April 3, 2009
BW in morning: 173
15×3 Powercleans on the minute (15×3 in 15 minutes total) @ 225lbs
2×8+8 Barbell Reverse Lunges @ 225lbs
3×8 RDL @ lightweight, going for stretch (245lbs)
100 reps of 5 different abdominal exercises (1×20 each)September 3, 2009
BW in morning: 177
3×8 Bench Press w/ Controlled Eccentric @ 245lbs
4×6 Horizontal Rows with brief pause
2×8+8 Alternating DB Press @ 70lb dbs
3×6 Neutral Grip Chin-ups (touch shoulders/clavicles to hands) @ BW+45lbs
300 reps of various ab work -
Participant
I think the point that many are trying to make is that max strength doesn’t mean crap to the majority of the events.
Typically, the weight room will look something like this: General Strength -> Power -> Max Strength -> Power/Elastic. Max strength is built just prior to the competitive season and then the switch moves more to a RFD focus. Spending too much time in max strength is a detriment and will hurt performance/elastic qualities in the long run.
Same thing i said back when! Doesn’t listen.
-
Participant
I think the point that many are trying to make is that max strength doesn’t mean crap to the majority of the events.
Typically, the weight room will look something like this: General Strength -> Power -> Max Strength -> Power/Elastic. Max strength is built just prior to the competitive season and then the switch moves more to a RFD focus. Spending too much time in max strength is a detriment and will hurt performance/elastic qualities in the long run.
cHAD, I think Davens misrepresnetations of what I have said or what I believe has led to a misunderstanding. I’m not saying that max strength should be the primary focus for all athletes. I understand power and RFD are most important for sprinters. What I’ve said and what I believe is that IF you have an athlete with a need for max strength development, training with lighter loads is not the most effecient way to do it.
-
Participant
I understand your argument.
If an athlete has a deficiency in max strength, I would still take them through the same progression I listed above as I would someone who is proficient in MxS. As Davan stated, the ultimate goal is performance. That has to be considered above all else. The most efficient way to develop an athlete is make them better at their event.
If we were training power lifters, this would be a different discussion. But the athletes we are referring to are all track athletes. So whether it is more efficient to develop their MxS with heavier loads is not what I am debating, it is the emphasis.
-
Participant
Right, but your not going have him lift 20 straight weeks of max strength emphasis, that will hurt his athletic performance more than help it…
Max strength is much easier to development than elastic type power. Therefore, even when he reaches 300lbs he still has to do work to maintain it. So, it’s much more efficient for him to emphasise power all of the time, with max strength development being in the program from time to time throughout his training. Power training alone will enhance his abilities to handle heavy loads and with small amounts of max strength work throughout he will see great gains.
All of this time, his strength deficit (max strength over how much force he can produce in say 0.15 seconds will be kept to a minimum and his performance will befifit greatly.
-
Participant
There may be something here. 90% of the internet and research world is focused on acceleration and vertical jump (aka long contacts) vs top-end sprinting and competitive jumping (short contacts). We train strength for long periods of time…now people have accepted training acceleration for long periods of time…but the work directed at reactivity in under .17sec or so is still trained sparingly.
What happens if you hit “overspeed” plyos in some quantity for extended periods of time?
Everyone says it’s easier to make someone stronger than enhance their firing speed or reactivity….maybe that’s because we spend 90% of our time trying to get stronger… what if you took a contact mat and a suspension jump device and played around with variances in Assistances instead of REsistances for about 8 months?
Please do not reply about how 5minute iso-lunge holds are actually incredibly fast muscle contractions 🙂
-
Participant
Great points, i totally agree!…
I think we will find that Moura’s group in Brazil are possibly the most powerful and elastic and their RFD is very high COMPARED to their max strength levels!
They spend ALL year on plyometric, speed, RFD, elasticity type development and not very much time is spent lifting heavy weights…
There certainly is something there.
-
Participant
I’ll just post some thoughts I have had when reading this thread. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t power = work / time and work = force * distance? Now force is mass * acceleration right? To increase power, 1) you can increase work (which is really force since distance will remain constant) separately, 2) you can decrease time to perform work separately, 3) you can increase work (force) and then decrease time to perform that work, or 4) you can decrease time to perform work and then increase work (force). Did I miss any case?
Now I’m going to take a leap for illustration purposes. I’m going to relate squat strength and the time it takes to lift a weight with sprinting and ground contact time. Feel free to skip the rest of the post if you don’t believe this is a useful or valid relation.
Given a “weak” athlete, say, one that can squat 150lbs and it takes him 1 second to do that.
Scenarios (they match with the numbers above):
1) You try to increase his work (force) only and after some weeks he can now squat 225 lbs but it still takes him 1 second to perform the lift. You have increased his power by about 33% over given.
2) You try to decrease the time it takes him to perform the work (force) only but do not increase his work (force) and after a some weeks now he can squat 150lbs in 0.5 seconds. You have increased power by 2 times over given.
3) You do 1) first, then 2) so that he can squat 225 lbs in 0.5 seconds and the power output is 33% greater than that of 2).
4) You do 2) first, then 1) so that he can squat 225 lbs but since you spent weeks not working on power it takes him 1 second again so his power is 33% greater than given.To me it looks like a combination of MxS (increasing force) and power-style lifting (decreasing time to do work) is ideal, but it looks like it may be better to start by increasing MxS (force), which will increase power a little bit, and then move on to decreasing the time it takes for the lift which could increase power a lot. I would think that you can take this athlete from 150 lbs to 300 lbs in around 20 weeks of MxS training. So, 20 weeks and this weak athlete would be reasonably strong. The rest of the weeks/years could be focused on decreasing the time it takes him to squat a given amount (by not focusing on max strength increases) and increasing power even more.
This isn’t how it happens in the real world. Nearly any lifting is going to create significant improvements in maximum strength for novice and even many intermediate athletes (strength-wise), regardless of whether or not it is “maximum strength” (ie very heavy) lifting or whether it is lifting for “power” (define however you wish) or whether it is even just high rep bodyweight exercises.
As Nick said, development of maximum strength to an adequate level is really fast and easy and is also even easier to maintain. It is much harder to develop elastic and power qualities, which are also much more specific to the sports/events in question. Even going beyond that, extremely heavy lifting tends to have tremendous interference with elastic qualities (ie top speed sprinting, hopping, etc.) and will almost definitely cause a period of regression before there is even a chance to “realize” these gains (if it is even possible since we are talking about having tenths and hundredths of a second to apply the forces needed).
-
Participant
Right, but your not going have him lift 20 straight weeks of max strength emphasis, that will hurt his athletic performance more than help it…
Nick, who’s suggesting 20 weeks of anything? I’ve been simply advocating that it should be included, especially for weaker athletes. You’ve given the same advice below.
Max strength is much easier to development than elastic type power. Therefore, even when he reaches 300lbs he still has to do work to maintain it. So, it’s much more efficient for him to emphasise power all of the time, with max strength development being in the program from time to time throughout his training. Power training alone will enhance his abilities to handle heavy loads and with small amounts of max strength work throughout he will see great gains.
This is questionable, and forms the basis of my argument to include at least limited stength training. If training loads never exceed 75-80%, you are not developing strength in the most effecient manner. Secondly, power does not equate to increased max strength. Remember the female shot putters who could generate more power in a bench throw than the male shot putters who could bench press 2-3 times more than the females?
I believe it would be more effecient to include strength work on a fairly regular basis, along with the power, to move both forward. The ability to develop power is limited, at least in part, by stength levels, so why not use a more effecient strength training plan from time to time to move strength forward more effeciently. I am not saying drop power, but why not include some reps in 85% range, which will develop strength much more effeciently than reps in the 70%, while still working power?
All of this time, his strength deficit (max strength over how much force he can produce in say 0.15 seconds will be kept to a minimum and his performance will befifit greatly.
There is no benefit in keeping your strength deficit low. An athlete with a high strength deficit can outperform an athlete with a low strength deficit if his ability to generate force is greater. Such an athlete may simply have a high deficit because his max strength is greater, and this is not a limiting factor in performance. An athlete might have an incredibly low strength deficit simply because his max strength is low. This athlete with the lower deficit may not be able to generate anywhere near the force that the high deficit athlete can, and his performance will reflect this fact, not the fact that his deficit is lower. This is exactly the athlete that needs additional strength training. High deficit athletes can focus on power, but low deficit athletes would benefit by including strength training, or overall progress will not be developed in the most effecient manner.
Your posts have suprised me Nick, since Mike’s athletes usually include a fair bit of work in the 85% range. That load range definitely works strength, even if it is primarily intended to develop power (via a clean or snatch).
-
Participant
85% of a powerclean or powersnatch is not even close to the loads of a front squat/deadlift/full clean/full snatch, just to clarify, Star. I don’t remember seeing Nick doing full cleans in his log, which would fit your definition of strength training (from video, you can see he is doing powercleans).
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1252544690"]Right, but your not going have him lift 20 straight weeks of max strength emphasis, that will hurt his athletic performance more than help it…
Nick, who’s suggesting 20 weeks of anything? I’ve been simply advocating that it should be included, especially for weaker athletes. You’ve given the same advice below.
Max strength is much easier to development than elastic type power. Therefore, even when he reaches 300lbs he still has to do work to maintain it. So, it’s much more efficient for him to emphasise power all of the time, with max strength development being in the program from time to time throughout his training. Power training alone will enhance his abilities to handle heavy loads and with small amounts of max strength work throughout he will see great gains.
This is questionable, and forms the basis of my argument to include at least limited stength training. If training loads never exceed 75-80%, you are not developing strength in the most effecient manner. Secondly, power does not equate to increased max strength. Remember the female shot putters who could generate more power in a bench throw than the male shot putters who could bench press 2-3 times more than the females?
I believe it would be more effecient to include strength work on a fairly regular basis, along with the power, to move both forward. The ability to develop power is limited, at least in part, by stength levels, so why not use a more effecient strength training plan from time to time to move strength forward more effeciently. I am not saying drop power, but why not include some reps in 85% range, which will develop strength much more effeciently than reps in the 70%, while still working power?
All of this time, his strength deficit (max strength over how much force he can produce in say 0.15 seconds will be kept to a minimum and his performance will befifit greatly.
There is no benefit in keeping your strength deficit low. An athlete with a high strength deficit can outperform an athlete with a low strength deficit if his ability to generate force is greater. Such an athlete may simply have a high deficit because his max strength is greater, and this is not a limiting factor in performance. An athlete might have an incredibly low strength deficit simply because his max strength is low. This athlete with the lower deficit may not be able to generate anywhere near the force that the high deficit athlete can, and his performance will reflect this fact, not the fact that his deficit is lower. This is exactly the athlete that needs additional strength training. High deficit athletes can focus on power, but low deficit athletes would benefit by including strength training, or overall progress will not be developed in the most effecient manner.
Your posts have suprised me Nick, since Mike’s athletes usually include a fair bit of work in the 85% range. That load range definitely works strength, even if it is primarily intended to develop power (via a clean or snatch).[/quote]
It wasn’t YOU who said anything about 20 weeks of max strength. Relax.
You wrote, “There is no benefit in keeping your strength deficit low. An athlete with a high strength deficit can outperform an athlete with a low strength deficit if his ability to generate force is greater”…
W, J Kraemer writes, There are two ways to increase force output in exposive motions. To INCREASE explosive strength (max force in minimal time) or to DECREASE explosive strength deficit.
Max strength IS a factor in power, of course it is but should never be a priority in a training program for sprinters or jumpers…
And regarding my training with Mike. If you read it properly, you’ll see that we develop some kind of power 3-4 times per week every week of the training year using many many different methods. You will also see, that last season we did an entire cycle without lifting above 85% and my max strength STILL IMPROVED during testing week. If that alone doesn’t tell you max strenth is easier to develop than explosive power then what will?
The ONE exercise you will see me do virtually all year at high loads is the Power Clean. And i’ll say that is partly psychologica because i love the exericse and believe my take off power is high when i do heavy cleans. Nothing else remains that heavy. Movement speed however, is always a priority for me!
-
Participant
Please, could someone give me a proof that including additional sessions of Olympic lifts meanwhile great amount of explosive work is done on the track would give extra benefits for a sprinter? Could someone explain what these lifts do give what doesn’t give for example weighted jump squats, various plyos on the track? More powerfull back, shoulder muscles? Or mainly they are used with the aim to be more powerfull out of blocks and that’s it?
-
Participant
Please, could someone give me a proof that including additional sessions of Olympic lifts meanwhile great amount of explosive work is done on the track would give extra benefits for a sprinter? Could someone explain what these lifts do give what doesn’t give for example weighted jump squats, various plyos on the track? More powerfull back, shoulder muscles? Or mainly they are used with the aim to be more powerfull out of blocks and that’s it?
The hip extension that you get from an Olympic lift can benefit the first few steps (0-5)of sprinting. Double leg bounding is probably a little more specific to the the latter part of the first few steps (4-8) especially if executed up an incline. The shorfall of bounding is the overload progression. Of course there is some carry over from each exercise into the different aspects of sprinting. The benefits can be slightly individual as well. For example if you have a weak synchronisation of rectus femoris, glutes, and hamstrings the OL will benefit you more than someone that has those traits inherent.
Point 2: A chain is only good as its weakest link. The hip extension from OL (or bounding) can strengthen a particular muscle / muscle sequence and when one sprints, the slightly different requirements of sprinting will demand that the muscles not enhanced by OL’s transform and adapt.
-
Participant
Please, could someone give me a proof that including additional sessions of Olympic lifts meanwhile great amount of explosive work is done on the track would give extra benefits for a sprinter? Could someone explain what these lifts do give what doesn’t give for example weighted jump squats, various plyos on the track? More powerfull back, shoulder muscles? Or mainly they are used with the aim to be more powerfull out of blocks and that’s it?
In addition to Jeremy’s points, Olympic lifts take substantial load off of the feet, lower legs, achilles, and more which already take plenty of pounding from the warm-ups, drills, sprints, tempo, etc. They may even be used in addition to plyos depending on how volumes and other things are set-up.
Weighted jump squats…. most of the ones I have seen have looked absolutely atrocious (worst than any Youtube Hall of Shame for Olympic lifts) and in the worst cases involve the bar bouncing up and down on the spine. Maybe if somebody did these vest loaded it would work a bit better?
If you’re looking for “proof”, you’re going to have a hard time finding it. There are numerous programs that use them successfully and have had worse results when excluding them and there are others that have the exact opposite experience. Too many variables.
-
Participant
That’s why I’m not very good expert to see when that particular athlete needs these lifts. Plus, some have hard time to learn to do them with a proper technique. I understand that many do them and I used to do them, just as I see they don’t do miracles as many other exercises don’t, but of course maybe there is a time when it’s worth implementing them into someone’s training routine.
-
Participant
I don’t really understand the “hard time to learn” argument. I have seen few people (actually I haven’t seen any if they were healthy and giving an honest effort) who cannot reach an adequate level of technique in the powerclean (from hang especially) within a few sessions when working with an educated and experienced coach (which I would hope they are doing if they have a coach implementing the lift). People have no problem with horrible deadlifts, squats, bench presses, hurdle hops, throws, etc. but once you do a powerclean with technique that doesn’t resemble that of an Olympian in a workout it is the worst thing that ever happened in a weight room.
It definitely varies though and no exercise is a miracle.
-
Participant
The hip extension that you get from an Olympic lift can benefit the first few steps (0-5)of sprinting. Double leg bounding is probably a little more specific to the the latter part of the first few steps (4-8) especially if executed up an incline. The shorfall of bounding is the overload progression. Of course there is some carry over from each exercise into the different aspects of sprinting. The benefits can be slightly individual as well. For example if you have a weak synchronisation of rectus femoris, glutes, and hamstrings the OL will benefit you more than someone that has those traits inherent.
Does anyone actually do double leg bounding? In most of the prestigious Russian literature that everyone loves, bounding means alternate leg bounding, not double leg bounding.
-
Participant
You are wrong Davan. Bolt does machine weights. LOL
In the Weight Room With Usain Bolt
Avg. Rating:
Print This Page Send to a Friend
9/1/2009 | Views: 290
By Josh Staph
See the issue: September 2009
In the world of sprinting, there are no debates. The notion of “arguably the fastest guy” does not exist, because things are settled in the most conclusive fashion possible.Competitors are handed a set of starting blocks and assigned a compressed rubber kingdom 100 meters long and 48 inches wide. Side by side, they dig their spikes into the blocks, await the starting gun and explode out to determine where they rank in history.
The resulting times do all the talking.
When Usain Bolt dug his gold Pumas into the blocks at the Beijing Olympics, and flew to world-record-demolishing times of 9.69 and 19.30 seconds in the 100 meters and 200 meters, respectively, his results made one indisputable statement: I am the fastest dude to ever walk the planet. His recent re-upping of the 100m world record with a 9.58 at the 2009 World Championships followed that statement up with a swift: You will never catch me.
Garnering additional attention was Usain’s revolutionary physique. The 6’5″ pride of Jamaica looked nothing like the prototypical, much shorter, more muscular sprinters of the past. And while his almost-illogical height-and-speed combination is now redefining track and field, it has always been a part of Usain’s athleticism. “I recognized that my speed was special awhile back,” he says. “When I was 10 and playing cricket, my cricket coach saw me running and told me I should focus on track and field. That’s when I got into serious running. Then, when I turned 18, I started my professional running.”
Not surprisingly, once Usain exploded onto the international sprinting scene, he immediately began flirting with world records. But it was his epic 2008 Olympic performance that firmly established him as the fastest man in history, making his name a household word throughout the world, and especially in his homeland. “It was a wonderful experience,” he recalls. “The people showed me a lot of love when I came back. I’m like a superstar in this country, so it’s great [chuckles].”
By no means has Usain’s new superstar status gone to his head. He keeps his goals and path ahead clearly defined. “This is my job, and I take it seriously,” he says. “I really enjoy what I do, and I know the hard work pays off. On the track, it’s all about staying number one.”
Usain’s On-Track Advice
The Form That Keeps Usain Number One:
Warm-Up: Strideouts
We do strideouts, not laps, to start. We usually do 10 to 15 strideouts to get warm. Then we move onto some dynamic drills, stretching, then a few more drills. We finish with more strideouts.
Starting Blocks: Focus
Instead of up, I try to focus on driving forward, keeping a straight back, driving from the hips, getting full extension and putting some arms into it. Make sure you don’t focus on the guy next to you, because that can really throw you off. Another guy can be very quick out of the blocks, which can make you lose focus. You have to stay focused on what you are going to do and run your race at all times.
Drive Phase: Hold and Transition
Make sure you hold your drive phase for 30 to 35 meters. Then you have to get the transition right so you don’t come up too quickly. Come up gradually from the drive phase instead of popping up. That transition is so important, because it helps you get from your drive phase to full speed much easier. If you pop up and try to start running too soon, you really have to work to get to top speed. That transition takes about 15 meters, from 35 meters to about 50 meters.
Just like with the start, stay focused and don’t think about the guy next to you. He may have gotten a fast start and might be out in front of you, but you can’t panic and pop out of your drive phase. If you do, you’ll lose your whole race plan-and the race is pretty much over.
Running Fast: Relax and Execute
If you do your training, it should all be okay come race time. So, I get into the blocks, take a deep breath and just remind myself to get a good start, hold the drive phase, relax and execute. Your muscles get tight when you tense up; they start getting heavy and you begin losing speed. The more relaxed you are, the smoother and faster you’ll run. Just focus on turnover and using your strides.
Usain’s Strength Training
As a precaution, Usain didn’t begin lifting weights until he was 18 or 19 years old; but now he regularly incorporates a reasonable dose into his training. “I didn’t want to harm myself by beginning too young, and I always made sure to learn how to do the exercises correctly first,” he recalls. “Even today, I’m not a real heavy lifter; I just go heavy enough to develop the muscles. I don’t go after it like some other guys, mostly the shorter runners [laughs]. I’m not really that kind of sprinter.”
Although Usain keeps things lighter than most, his lifting has noticeably carried over onto the rubber. “It really has helped me with strength endurance,” he says. “And it’s good to have that strength, because you can run fast for longer periods.”
Machine Squat
• Assume athletic position under pad with feet just wider than shoulder width and toes pointed out slightly
• Keeping weight on heels and knees behind toes, slowly lower into squat until tops of thighs are parallel to ground
• Drive up into start position; repeat for specified repsSets/Reps: 1×10, 1×8
Coaching Points: Keep chest and head up, core tight and back flat // Do not let knees extend past toes
Bolt: This is for power in my quads and back. You have to make sure you are doing it right.
Seated Chest Press• Sit at Seated Chest Press machine and grip handles at chest level
• Without changing upper body position, drive handles away from chest until arms are fully extended
• Allow handles to return to chest with control; repeat for specified repsSets/Reps: 1×10, 1×8
Coaching Points: Keep low back against pad and core tight
Bolt: This is good for all athletes, even though you might not think it’s important for a sprinter. You should do core work and chest work to get everything strong. You need all of your body to be strong and work well; it’s very important.
Leg Extensions• Sit at Leg Extension machine and lock shins behind pad
• Fully extend legs and hold contraction at top of movement
• Lower weight with control until legs are bent 90 degrees
• Repeat for specified repsSets/Reps: 1×10, 1×8
Coaching Points: Get full range of motion-from 90 degrees to straight legs // Do not use momentum to move weight
Bolt: This is also for your quads and helps with the strength endurance needed to run faster longer.The fastest man in the world slows down to hydrate: “I mix Gatorade with water and drink it consistently throughout the day. I’ve been doing this since I was young. When I’m feeling especially tired during training, I drink it straight to get a burst of energy. And after training, it really helps me recover from a hard workout.”
-
Participant
lol am I wrong or am I right? I never thought the guy really did real, heavy free lifting (hence the jokes about the 400lb squats). I love the workouts though, hilarious.
I was giving you shit..
-
Participant
This is just wonderful! Seriously though, did anybody really expect much more? After watching Asafa lift like an incoming freshman with Wal-Mart screw on weights, I didn’t exactly expect a program out of Supertraining for Bolt. Glen Mills isn’t a big weight guy from what I’ve read, some of his best guys ever didn’t even lift. Reminds me of when I was on my honeymoon in St. Kitts getting a pedicure with my wife (don’t hate!), I brought up Kim Collins and the pedicurist started laughing and said “I know they say sprinters are supposed to be big and on the juice but not Kim, maybe orange juice!”
As far as Usain’s program, HIT revolution!?
-
Participant
I would like to hear from The Thinker..
-
Participant
W, J Kraemer writes, There are two ways to increase force output in exposive motions. To INCREASE explosive strength (max force in minimal time) or to DECREASE explosive strength deficit.
Max strength IS a factor in power, of course it is but should never be a priority in a training program for sprinters or jumpers…
You misquoted Kraemer, then jumped to a faulty conclusion. What Kraemer (and Zatsiorsky) says is…”In principle, there are two ways to increase the force output in explosive motions–to increase Fmm or decrease ESD.”
As for the first method, increasing Fmm is the maximum maximorum external force that can be generated and is not time dependent-in other words, maximum strength. Therefore Kraemer and Zatsiorsky confirm that getting stronger improves an athlete’s potential to generate maximum force. As to second method, decreasing the time to generate Fm, which we commonly refer to as explosive strength.
Kraemer and Zatsiorsky further state that option one, improving Fmm, works well in young, less qualified athletes. This is exactly what I’ve been saying. They also go on to state that in more qualified athletes, increasing Fmm has little benefit, and improving the ability to generate explosive force should be the focus, also something that I have been saying.
The key question, which I have also alluded to, is how to identify a lesser qualified athlete from more qualified athletes. The first, and most obvious, method would be to compare performances. But does this really answer the question about whether or not strength training could be of value? As I mentioned in my last post, regardless of whether an athlete is highly qualified or not, based on performance, if ESD is very low, it is improbable that improvments can be made by improvements in explosive strength alone, due to the simple mathmatical relationship between Fmm and Fm, which defines ESD. Fmm is the limiting factor, and as Fm approaches Fmm, my guess would be that continued improvements would be difficult without also improving Fmm.
So my final position remains the same…1) for the majority of athletes who are not considered ‘highly qualified’, strength training could prove to be a valuable asset, especially if ESD is already relatively low as compared to the athletes qualifications, and 2) using the most effecient means, during the appropriate training phases, to improve Fmm makes the best sense.
-
Participant
Haha..
Figured you went somewhere to do some research finally…
And dude, he never ever said make it a priority in training did he? No he didn’t. Keep reading the book and then tell me what the most important aspects of training are for a speed/ power athlete…
We all know…that for less strong athletes gaining strength will help performance…this is ovbious…But you can do very little work with weak athlete to make them strong. It isn’t hard to do and doesn’t need to take up a lot of training time…BUT, you can’t ignore the most important training aspects during that time…MxS shouldn’t be a priority is effort/ time/ thought…anything…
-
Participant
Star will never lose his hard-on for very heavy lifting (which he has personally defined as >90% and >85% at a minimum). He believes that it is the most efficient way, period. Context irrelevant, it is the most efficient way. Anybody that has trained for a while as someone trying to get fast should have a pretty good idea about how well that kind of stuff will work out over the medium or long term: horribly.
With all of this in mind, the guy who is the WR holder, most dominant ever, and likely the greatest of all time does HIT via machine squats and leg extensions. What does that tell you about the relevance of max strength work as a whole without large changes and variations for every athlete?
-
Participant
Get stronger by all means. Just make sure you are not pooling too much resources on one element that is not as effective as the primary running demands. Are we getting faster? Share yearly progressions and let’s see.
-
Participant
Haha..
Figured you went somewhere to do some research finally…
And dude, he never ever said make it a priority in training did he? No he didn’t. Keep reading the book and then tell me what the most important aspects of training are for a speed/ power athlete…
We all know…that for less strong athletes gaining strength will help performance…this is ovbious…But you can do very little work with weak athlete to make them strong. It isn’t hard to do and doesn’t need to take up a lot of training time…BUT, you can’t ignore the most important training aspects during that time…MxS shouldn’t be a priority is effort/ time/ thought…anything…
So you’ve found the key! Sounds like 27-28 feet is right around the corner!
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1252714020"]Haha..
Figured you went somewhere to do some research finally…
And dude, he never ever said make it a priority in training did he? No he didn’t. Keep reading the book and then tell me what the most important aspects of training are for a speed/ power athlete…
We all know…that for less strong athletes gaining strength will help performance…this is ovbious…But you can do very little work with weak athlete to make them strong. It isn’t hard to do and doesn’t need to take up a lot of training time…BUT, you can’t ignore the most important training aspects during that time…MxS shouldn’t be a priority is effort/ time/ thought…anything…
So you’ve found the key! Sounds like 27-28 feet is right around the corner![/quote]
Funny Mr. Glove…
A bit more complicated than that isn’t it.
-
Participant
Funny, lots of guys here talking about how easy it is to get strong, but not seeing any significant numbers from anyone posting, so it must not be too easy. For those not born with incredible genetic gifts, I don’t think it is the best approach to pattern your training after those that do. If being weaker works for you, by all means, keep it up.
-
Participant
85% of a powerclean or powersnatch is not even close to the loads of a front squat/deadlift/full clean/full snatch, just to clarify, Star. I don’t remember seeing Nick doing full cleans in his log, which would fit your definition of strength training (from video, you can see he is doing powercleans).
If you’re using cleans as your primary tool for power, then it would be appropriate to not only lift in the various load ranges to develop power, but in the load ranges to develop strength specific to the lift and advance Fmm specific to the lift, which increases the potential to develop additional explosive strength via the lift. In simple arithmatic, didn’t expect you to understand it.
-
Participant
Funny, lots of guys here talking about how easy it is to get strong, but not seeing any significant numbers from anyone posting, so it must not be too easy. For those not born with incredible genetic gifts, I don’t think it is the best approach to pattern your training after those that do. If being weaker works for you, by all means, keep it up.
Many of us on here talking about this who are still athletes are very strong actually. Craig is super strong. I’ve cleans 1.7 times b/w and squated 2.2 times body weight and according to Boo for a jumper thats right at the top of the elite list. So, is it certainly A LOT easier to get strong than it is to get explosive or very reactive.
-
Participant
Funny, lots of guys here talking about how easy it is to get strong, but not seeing any significant numbers from anyone posting, so it must not be too easy. For those not born with incredible genetic gifts, I don’t think it is the best approach to pattern your training after those that do. If being weaker works for you, by all means, keep it up.
Post video so we have context of what your “athletes” are doing. People repping >2x bodyweight on squats below parallel, not ultra-wide or in a monolift, powercleaning >1.7x bw for reps, deadlifting 2.5x bodyweight for reps (no belt), and more are “not bad” considering the context (athletes spending little of their time training for heavy lifting and spending lots of energy doing other things and obviously having other goals). Of course, they don’t match-up to a bunch of unathletic powerlifters, I’m sure.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252550672"]85% of a powerclean or powersnatch is not even close to the loads of a front squat/deadlift/full clean/full snatch, just to clarify, Star. I don’t remember seeing Nick doing full cleans in his log, which would fit your definition of strength training (from video, you can see he is doing powercleans).
If you’re using cleans as your primary tool for power, then it would be appropriate to not only lift in the various load ranges to develop power, but in the load ranges to develop strength specific to the lift and advance Fmm specific to the lift, which increases the potential to develop additional explosive strength via the lift. In simple arithmatic, didn’t expect you to understand it.[/quote]
That is assuming the primary objective is of course to simply increase the lift itself rather than use it as a means towards another goal, which is what people are doing. Logic FTW. There is also the assumption that you need to do high % cleans to improve your strength in this area, which is likely not true for novice to intermediate athletes, which is going to be pretty much everyone who isn’t a national level Olympic lifter. BTW what did you specialize in when getting your math and physics degrees? Same place you learned about cleans and powercleans?
-
Participant
Are we still going on with this max strength debate? I hate to break it to you but you’d be hard pressed to find many elite athletes (let alone sprinters) who are doing true max effort work in the gym. It just doesn’t happen! Too much risk for a reward that can be reaped just as easily with lighter loads. True circa max lifting only serves to improve your ability to lift heavy weights, the rate coding is very task specific! I figured this out a long time ago when I performed much better doing bodybuilding, Poliquin-esque work than I ever did with Westside.
Some people like to imagine that Charlie was doing Westside or Metal Militia training with Ben, sorry didn’t happen. 2×6 is 80-85% and you’ll notice that Ben was doing some work in the 10 rep range as well, even in ’88! Dan mentioned at a seminar that he liked 5×5 for absolute strength, yet again moderate loads and reps.
Most people on here would be well served to do some moderate to higher rep work (8RM-12RM range) with progressive overload to build up a legitimate sprinter’s somatype. Take for example the picture Carl used for this post, does anyone here really believe that Usain could lift that and would it really matter if he could? Additionally this type of work is less competitive for CNS resources which in turn allows you to place more energy into what really matters, sprinting!
While it may not be easy to get to a 600 lbs. squat or a massive bench for many, it is certainly not hard to reach an optimal level of maximum strength for world class sprinting (without ever having to go heavier than 80% of max).
-
Participant
Haha..
Figured you went somewhere to do some research finally…
Yeah, took me about 30 seconds to find the passage you misquoted, and misunderstood.
And dude, he never ever said make it a priority in training did he? No he didn’t. Keep reading the book and then tell me what the most important aspects of training are for a speed/ power athlete…
We all know…that for less strong athletes gaining strength will help performance…this is ovbious…But you can do very little work with weak athlete to make them strong. It isn’t hard to do and doesn’t need to take up a lot of training time…BUT, you can’t ignore the most important training aspects during that time…MxS shouldn’t be a priority is effort/ time/ thought…anything…
Dude, reread the thread. This debate centered on my suggestion that less qualified athletes should not ignore strength, as opposed to the cavalier attitude some have about how easy it is to develop strength and its importance in the development of power. I also said, many times, that for more advanced athletes, power became more and more imporant until it became the dominant training means. YOUR reference completely agrees with that stance, as do the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject. If someone is already strong, then sure, strength isn’t a priority. But the vast majority of posters who post stats on this board don’t possess high levels of strength by any definition. Some do, but most do not.
So many people use Usain or Carl to justify their position on weight training, yet it is obvious that these same people weren’t born with the same genetic gifts. Thing is, the people born with those gifts don’t post on this board looking for information. Those that do post, or simply read, are here because they WERE NOT born with those gifts and are looking for the best training methods to compensate for their genetic defeciencies in the most effecient manner possible. After all, for many there is only a narrow window of time to explore their potential before they have to get on with life, jobs, family. They deserve answers too. And not just smart assed comments from pricks in the peanut gallery. Suggesting that such an athlete can ignore strength training, or just simply skip past it and begin power training with light loads and hope that strength comes quickly, all on its own, is extremely bad, and irresponisble, advice.
-
Participant
Star,
How about posting the results from less gifted athletes using max strength methods to improve their 100m/200m/400m/110mh times or their LJ/HJ/TJ or something of that nature?
I have seen far more people–and the internet is great evidence as well since every HS kid does WSFSB these days–load up all the max strength in the world and they are still slow as molasses because of not spending enough time on things that matter for their event/sport. They are still inelastic, out of shape, and severely lacking power.
-
Participant
I just echo what Davan is saying over and over again…
I also have seen SOOOOO MANY more young athletes who are strong but slow than powerful/ elastic with moderate strength and slow.
Your argument centres around terms like, most important…more emphasis etc etc which is incorrect. Max strength work should never be an emphasis for ANY track athlete EVER…It is extremely taxing with much less benifits than sprinting, jumping, explosive fast lifts, jump work, plos etc etc…
Young and weaker athletes will become more than strong enough for elite sprinting and jumping WITHOUT true max strength work and certainly without a lot of it…focus on special strength abilities please! get over this fixation with lifting max/slow weights…
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1252886106"]Funny, lots of guys here talking about how easy it is to get strong, but not seeing any significant numbers from anyone posting, so it must not be too easy. For those not born with incredible genetic gifts, I don’t think it is the best approach to pattern your training after those that do. If being weaker works for you, by all means, keep it up.
Many of us on here talking about this who are still athletes are very strong actually. Craig is super strong. I’ve cleans 1.7 times b/w and squated 2.2 times body weight and according to Boo for a jumper thats right at the top of the elite list. So, is it certainly A LOT easier to get strong than it is to get explosive or very reactive.[/quote]
Good point about it being much easier to get stronger. To me, world class is defined by what an athlete does from 50-100m.
I’ve often joked with people that everything begins with good parent selection. LOL!
-
Participant
While I believe that rep range will build max strength to a high degree, I wouldn’t classify it as “max strength” work.
To clarify, I don’t think anyone here is against building maximal strength. The disconnect is over the method used to do so and most of the disagreement is over the supposed use of powerlifting to do so.
-
Participant
While I believe that rep range will build max strength to a high degree, I wouldn’t classify it as “max strength” work.
To clarify, I don’t think anyone here is against building maximal strength. The disconnect is over the method used to do so and most of the disagreement is over the supposed use of powerlifting to do so.
Actually, no. Davan loves to keep pushing the discussion to powerlifting, but I’m not talking about powerlifting at all. You can completely eliminate powerlifting movements, including squats, and my arguments remain the same. Its about the importance of developing Fmm, max strength, in younger or less qualified athletes who are not genetically gifted and running 10.low as a teenager. Abundant research indicates developing Fmm is important, especially in developing athlets. Hidden behind all the sarcasm is Davan’s history of statements that include Max Strength is basically irrelevant, it will take care of itself, there is no need for lifting above 80% EVER as optimal max strength will be developed while training for explosive strength with limited loads, i.e. 70%, promoting NEVER lifting above 80% during any phase, etc. etc.
The debate can be limited to just cleans and/or snatches, and my arguments remain the same. For less qualified athletes that lack strength, a limited number of reps with loads at 85% or greater (in the range of 10% of reps during a strength training phase) would more effeciently build strength than continued low load training throughout all training phases. Remember, strength training can be done during GPP or offseason, so all the arguments about competing resources etc. are nonsense. The peanut gallery here suggests avoiding the slower, high force end of the power-time curve at all costs, while most research indicates that working ALL, or at least many, points on the curve is a better approach.
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about eite track athletes, here, but less qualified, developing or younger athletes, nor am I suggesting that power development should not be a priority for everyone except perhaps a rank beginner, I’m simply saying that at times during a developing athletes career, there may be a need to develop additional max strength, and using heavier loads (85% or above) on a limited basis (10% of all reps during that phase), regardless of the means, is a more effecient way of building max strength than using higher rep, load sets.
-
Participant
I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
My experience is that loads of 85%+ are unnecessary to build maximum strength for anybody but weightlifters and powerlifters. The point is not to avoid max strength , it’s simply that you can increase max strength with lower loads and less stress to the body. Using loads of 70-80% is much more synergistic with speed training than “max strength” protocols.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
I also dispute the assertion that the developmental athlete is primarily inferior to the genetically gifted teenage 10.low in max strength. The problem is a lack of power/elastic qualities and probably inadequate muscular development for high level sprinting.
-
Participant
Thomas is correct, again everything he said has been said on this thread already…
-
Member
I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
My experience is that loads of 85%+ are unnecessary to build maximum strength for anybody but weightlifters and powerlifters. The point is not to avoid max strength , it’s simply that you can increase max strength with lower loads and less stress to the body. Using loads of 70-80% is much more synergistic with speed training than “max strength” protocols.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
I also dispute the assertion that the developmental athlete is primarily inferior to the genetically gifted teenage 10.low in max strength. The problem is a lack of power/elastic qualities and probably inadequate muscular development for high level sprinting.
So are you guys saying that most sprinters, rgardless of natural sprinting talent or strength, should do a max testing to find their max #s, then lift at 80% of this. And when the training block is complete, you repeat the testing phase and do 80% of that? I like that idea if that is what you are implying. Should this be used for just squatting/ cleans/ deadlifts, or for everything including benching, curling, and rows?
So you guys are saying that this may not increase max strength as fast as 90% to 100% lifting, but is more beneficial for sprinters, especially in the long run?
-
Participant
Jake:
You don’t necessarily need to do a 1RM to have a pretty good approximate of what 80% is, not to mention you can often go by feel or just select a rep range and the loads lifted will naturally fit into the range pretty well without huge variation. For example, if someone chooses to do 5×5 with a weight that they can handle for all 5 sets (though it may be very difficult), it is highly unlikely you will be able to lift above 85%, probably a bit under that. It is also very unlikely you would be well below 80%.
It also depends on how you define max strength. I think many people believe that using lower loads (ie below the arbitrary 85% that Star uses to define max strength training) can significantly improve your max. What using heavier loads (generally defined as 90% and more) will do it make you better at handling single reps at high weight. You may quickly add weight to your 1RM, but only because you are inexperienced at doing a heavy 1RM. Your 5RM or 10RM or even more importantly the weight you would use for a given workout like 5×5 or 3×10 may not be significantly different, if at all.
Here’s an example. If you took two twins that had trained the equivalent amount of time and everything and had 1RM of 225 on a given lift, if you get one to do 225×10 and the other to do 315×1, the maxes would probably have no difference at all. It wouldn’t take more than a couple workouts at most for the 225×10 athletes to do 315×1 and the same might be able to be said for the 315×1 guy doing 225×10.
-
Member
Hmmm. I think I get the concept Davan. I always thought it was common sense that we do sets of 8 to 10 instead of max one rep. for most workouts. But do I use the most I can do 10 or 8 times? For instance, I max squat about 275 lbs deep squat. Does that mean I should do the 8x of 225 235 255, or EVEN lower than that? In short, are we doing 80% of what we do 8x, or 80% of what we do on max out? Beuse I already do the latter when I actually decide to workout.
-
Participant
Dude, it isn’t that complicated. First off, doing say 10 reps with 80% of your 10RM is going to be a joke. The percentages are also going to be extremely low. People are talking about 80% of an estimated/measured 1RM. What you are referring to is often called a buffer or a percentage of a rep max other than 1RM.
Also, the vast majority of people don’t bother using calculators and the like to calculate the weight to use for most workouts. Some do, but most don’t as it isn’t really necessary, especially if you are training for something other than lifting and may have highly varied levels of energy when lifting.
-
Participant
I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
My experience is that loads of 85%+ are unnecessary to build maximum strength for anybody but weightlifters and powerlifters. The point is not to avoid max strength , it’s simply that you can increase max strength with lower loads and less stress to the body. Using loads of 70-80% is much more synergistic with speed training than “max strength” protocols.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
I also dispute the assertion that the developmental athlete is primarily inferior to the genetically gifted teenage 10.low in max strength. The problem is a lack of power/elastic qualities and probably inadequate muscular development for high level sprinting.
Exactly! Plenty of very gifted people elastically (ie someone who can run 10low as a teenager without much training) are not strong in the area of maximum force. If it was, we wouldn’t see and hear of so many sprinters and jumpers lifting the weights that many girls can do. I would bet there are more sub 10 sprinters who can’t squat 405 to parallel than ones who can. There are also plenty of strong high school kids who can’t break 12 on a warm day with a Texas wind behind their back.
-
Participant
Dude, it isn’t that complicated. First off, doing say 10 reps with 80% of your 10RM is going to be a joke. The percentages are also going to be extremely low. People are talking about 80% of an estimated/measured 1RM. What you are referring to is often called a buffer or a percentage of a rep max other than 1RM.
Also, the vast majority of people don’t bother using calculators and the like to calculate the weight to use for most workouts. Some do, but most don’t as it isn’t really necessary, especially if you are training for something other than lifting and may have highly varied levels of energy when lifting.
How is 10 reps with 80% of your 10RM a joke? For example if an athlete 1rm is 425 I would put his 10rm at about 315 he would use 250 for 4×10. 250 for 4×10 for the first week or so for a track athlete isn’t easy.
-
Participant
[quote author="Thomas White" date="1252975166"]I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
My experience is that loads of 85%+ are unnecessary to build maximum strength for anybody but weightlifters and powerlifters. The point is not to avoid max strength , it’s simply that you can increase max strength with lower loads and less stress to the body. Using loads of 70-80% is much more synergistic with speed training than “max strength” protocols.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
I also dispute the assertion that the developmental athlete is primarily inferior to the genetically gifted teenage 10.low in max strength. The problem is a lack of power/elastic qualities and probably inadequate muscular development for high level sprinting.
Exactly! Plenty of very gifted people elastically (ie someone who can run 10low as a teenager without much training) are not strong in the area of maximum force. If it was, we wouldn’t see and hear of so many sprinters and jumpers lifting the weights that many girls can do. I would bet there are more sub 10 sprinters who can’t squat 405 to parallel than ones who can. There are also plenty of strong high school kids who can’t break 12 on a warm day with a Texas wind behind their back.[/quote]
Yeah i would say a VERY high percentage of good sprinters (10.5 and below) that are under the age of 20 aren’t strong in the weight at all!
And i would say the very high percentage of male sprinters who are very strong in the weight are not 10.5 or below sprinters…
-
Participant
How is 10 reps with 80% of your 10RM a joke? For example if an athlete 1rm is 425 I would put his 10rm at about 315 he would use 250 for 4×10. 250 for 4×10 for the first week or so for a track athlete isn’t easy.
If it is this theoretical athlete’s first week, the athlete probably isn’t at their PR 1RM level. 80% of the 10RM at any given moment is going to be easy. Of course, if their 10RM is lower, than the % will be higher and it will be harder. Pretty simple.
-
Participant
[quote author="utfootball4" date="1252996371"]
How is 10 reps with 80% of your 10RM a joke? For example if an athlete 1rm is 425 I would put his 10rm at about 315 he would use 250 for 4×10. 250 for 4×10 for the first week or so for a track athlete isn’t easy.If it is this theoretical athlete’s first week, the athlete probably isn’t at their PR 1RM level. 80% of the 10RM at any given moment is going to be easy. Of course, if their 10RM is lower, than the % will be higher and it will be harder. Pretty simple.[/quote]
It’s not that simple my friend.
-
Keymaster
Found this article. Highlighted area relevant to discussion since Bolt’s strength program was brought up:
[b]Bolt will go even faster in two years, says coach[/b]
KINGSTON, Jamaica-
Despite setting world records in the 100m and 200m in back-to-back seasons, Glen Mills, the coach of Usain Bolt, believes the Jamaican has not reached his peak potential and will go even faster in the next couple years.
“I’m still not satisfied that he has reached perfection in those areas so we’re still going to be working on the reaction time and the drive phase,” Mills was quoted as telling the Jamaica Observer.
Mills, who has been coaching the lanky sprinter since 2004, was also pleased with the improvement he has made during their time together, thus far.
“I’m willing to take a pat on the shoulder because when I started last year with the 100m thinking and looking at his height and his co-ordination… I thought we had a mountain to climb,” he said.
“But we have spent hours studying what he does on tapes and films and looking at what I would want him to execute and what I think are the best body angles and so on, and so far we’re making the right decisions.
“I still think that we can do a lot more in that area, but [color=red][b]what we need to do is to get him stronger[/b][/color],” added Mills.
Trying out the event to work on the speed area for his 200m last season, Bolt raced to 9.76seconds to opened the eyes of the public at the Jamaican Invitational in last May.
He then went on to break the world record when he blasted to 9.72secs at the end of the same month to announced to the world that he is indeed ready to contest the event.
And within months Bolt was crowned Olympic champion – improving his own world record to 9.69.
The 23-year-old came back a season later in Berlin at the world champion to improve the record to 9.58, but Mills still believes there is more work to be done.
[color=red][b]“I think we have a lot more that we can do in-terms of the strength aspect of it and this is an area that is slightly behind in his development,” said Mills, who has coached several Jamaican top sprinters, including the veteran Raymond Graham.
“I still think that his physical strength, especially for his size, needs to go up several notches, maybe another 20 per cent, and I think when we get there we would have reached where we want to be,” he added.[/b][/color]
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
No argument there, anything will work.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
If you were getting stronger with 10RM loads instead of 3-5RM loads, you were doing something dreadfully wrong.
-
Participant
Jake:
…I think many people believe that using lower loads (ie below the arbitrary 85% that Star uses to define max strength training) can significantly improve your max. What using heavier loads (generally defined as 90% and more) will do it make you better at handling single reps at high weight. You may quickly add weight to your 1RM, but only because you are inexperienced at doing a heavy 1RM. Your 5RM or 10RM or even more importantly the weight you would use for a given workout like 5×5 or 3×10 may not be significantly different, if at all.
You prick, I don’t define 85% and above as the load range for max strength, just about every researcher in the field of strength training does.
Here’s an example. If you took two twins that had trained the equivalent amount of time and everything and had 1RM of 225 on a given lift, if you get one to do 225×10 and the other to do 315×1, the maxes would probably have no difference at all. It wouldn’t take more than a couple workouts at most for the 225×10 athletes to do 315×1 and the same [i]might[/i] be able to be said for the 315×1 guy doing 225×10.
This is absolute garbage. Who cares how much you can do for 10 reps, endurance in the weightroom doesn’t translate to the track at all. Study after study, as well as both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting teams for decades, have proven Daven’s ridiculous assertion to be absolutely false. If it were true, those bodybuilders would be as strong as powerbuilders, powerlifters and Olympic lifters, but they are not. I’ve never met an Olympic lifter or powerlifter who never goes heavier than a 12RM. If it worked, why not? It would be a lot easier on the joints and CNS. Oh yea, the CNS, the primary control mechanism for strength isn’t stressed at such low loads. This garbage has gone past “what’s good for a track athlete” and is now being asserted as what works best for strength in general. I wish some weightlifters would chime in here and let us know if any of you won meets without EVER lifting above your 12RM during training. What a joke.
The truth is, regardless what “Idonttrytoliftheavybecausetheotherpeopleinthegymlaughatme” Daven says, anyone who has extensive experience strength training will tell you that sets of 10 (if that puts you within a couple of reps of failure) will build hypertrophy and some strength. That’s what bodybuilders do. As far as 315×1, nobody does singles for anything but testing. However, if the other twin included sets at 85% or above, he would not only get stronger much faster, he would reach a higher level of strength. Don’t take my word for it, do some simple research on max strength training and you will see that NOBODY believes that light loads done at any volume will build strength better than heavier loads.
If you want to say that sprinters shouldn’t lift heavy because it interferes with sprinting, fine. You might be wrong, you might be right, but it would be debatable. But to say that, in general, strength can be built as quickly, and as extensively, with 10rep sets as theyare with 2-5rep sets done with high intensity loads it just dopey. Mike should ban you from posting in the strength training forum, you’re going to screw all the youngsters up with that ridiculous nonsense.
-
Participant
3-1-3 max strength block, using sub max loads:
wk 1: 3x4x75%
wk 2: 3x4x80%
wk 3: 3x4x85%
wk 4: 2x3x65%
wk 5: 3x3x80%
wk 6: 3x3x85%
wk 7: 3x3x88%
This method will get a track athlete stronger without over loading his CNS.
[quote author="davan" date="1252985465"]Jake:
…I think many people believe that using lower loads (ie below the arbitrary 85% that Star uses to define max strength training) can significantly improve your max. What using heavier loads (generally defined as 90% and more) will do it make you better at handling single reps at high weight. You may quickly add weight to your 1RM, but only because you are inexperienced at doing a heavy 1RM. Your 5RM or 10RM or even more importantly the weight you would use for a given workout like 5×5 or 3×10 may not be significantly different, if at all.
You prick, I don’t define 85% and above as the load range for max strength, just about every researcher in the field of strength training does.
Here’s an example. If you took two twins that had trained the equivalent amount of time and everything and had 1RM of 225 on a given lift, if you get one to do 225×10 and the other to do 315×1, the maxes would probably have no difference at all. It wouldn’t take more than a couple workouts at most for the 225×10 athletes to do 315×1 and the same [i]might[/i] be able to be said for the 315×1 guy doing 225×10.
This is absolute garbage. Who cares how much you can do for 10 reps, endurance in the weightroom doesn’t translate to the track at all. Study after study, as well as both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting teams for decades, have proven Daven’s ridiculous assertion to be absolutely false. If it were true, those bodybuilders would be as strong as powerbuilders, powerlifters and Olympic lifters, but they are not. I’ve never met an Olympic lifter or powerlifter who never goes heavier than a 12RM. If it worked, why not? It would be a lot easier on the joints and CNS. Oh yea, the CNS, the primary control mechanism for strength isn’t stressed at such low loads. This garbage has gone past “what’s good for a track athlete” and is now being asserted as what works best for strength in general. I wish some weightlifters would chime in here and let us know if any of you won meets without EVER lifting above your 12RM during training. What a joke.
The truth is, regardless what “Idonttrytoliftheavybecausetheotherpeopleinthegymlaughatme” Daven says, anyone who has extensive experience strength training will tell you that sets of 10 (if that puts you within a couple of reps of failure) will build hypertrophy and some strength. That’s what bodybuilders do. As far as 315×1, nobody does singles for anything but testing. However, if the other twin included sets at 85% or above, he would not only get stronger much faster, he would reach a higher level of strength. Don’t take my word for it, do some simple research on max strength training and you will see that NOBODY believes that light loads done at any volume will build strength better than heavier loads.
If you want to say that sprinters shouldn’t lift heavy because it interferes with sprinting, fine. You might be wrong, you might be right, but it would be debatable. But to say that, in general, strength can be built as quickly, and as extensively, with 10rep sets as theyare with 2-5rep sets done with high intensity loads it just dopey. Mike should ban you from posting in the strength training forum, you’re going to screw all the youngsters up with that ridiculous nonsense.[/quote]
-
Participant
[/quote]If you were getting stronger with 10RM loads instead of 3-5RM loads, you were doing something dreadfully wrong.[/quote]
Please explain? People across the board got substantially stronger! We are talking about guys who can press 225 for 25-30 reps seeing marked gains in strength when contrasted with a Westside style approach. In the spirit of full disclosure we also worked with weights in the 6 RM range but often ended up with 7-9RM.
In any event, progressive overload is the key principle at work. It just so happens that some methods work better with the training necessary for speed.
-
Participant
You prick, I don’t define 85% and above as the load range for max strength, just about every researcher in the field of strength training does.
Based on what? The number given by many and previously by yourself is 90%. 85% (and really any other number for the most part) is by definition arbitrary (use a dictionary) because it is based on few solid facts and fluctuates significantly depending on who you read (with %s starting anywhere from 75-95% being used by “experts” and “gurus” as I have seen).
This is absolute garbage. Who cares how much you can do for 10 reps, endurance in the weightroom doesn’t translate to the track at all. Study after study, as well as both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting teams for decades, have proven Daven’s ridiculous assertion to be absolutely false. If it were true, those bodybuilders would be as strong as powerbuilders, powerlifters and Olympic lifters, but they are not. I’ve never met an Olympic lifter or powerlifter who never goes heavier than a 12RM. If it worked, why not? It would be a lot easier on the joints and CNS. Oh yea, the CNS, the primary control mechanism for strength isn’t stressed at such low loads. This garbage has gone past “what’s good for a track athlete” and is now being asserted as what works best for strength in general. I wish some weightlifters would chime in here and let us know if any of you won meets without EVER lifting above your 12RM during training. What a joke.
So if I take my 1 rep max, I get to the point where I can do it for 10 reps, I have not increased my strength? It isn’t usable? I can’t help, but laugh at the logic here. If doing 10 reps isn’t an assessment of strength, I guess running a 100m isn’t an assessment of max speed since anybody >10.3 or so is going to spend half the race or so decelerating. Strength training is primarily about progressive overload, so regardless of how you do it, if you are progressively increasing the loads at non-extreme rep ranges, you are going to get stronger. How you aren’t stressing the CNS is beyond me, perhaps you good explain the neurology of how the CNS isn’t being activated? Hell, you would actually get greater intramuscular tension on the last rep of a 10RM versus a 1RM.
Maybe you forget the thread where you completely ignored the fact that natural bodybuilders are quite comparable in strength to natural powerlifters once you take out the equipment AND stance changes: https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/5442/P75/
Here is an example of a drug tested, natural bodybuilder lifting:
He weighs ~220 in these videos. He competes at under 200lbs, so you can look at some of your 198lb class powerlifters (since they are just cutting water weight before competition anyway) to compare.
Most natural unequipped powerlifters, once you make them bring in their stance, take off the belt, step out of the monolift, will be struggling to compare to this guy. Look at the assistance lifts to get a good idea of this.
As I said before, if you take out the equipment, stances, and drugs, the numbers are pretty comparable between powerlifters and bodybuilders. Once you take out the differences in certain musculature development (powerlifters spending little time on their biceps, pecs, etc. compared to bodybuilders and the like), then there is little difference outside of some skill adaptations (being able to be stable during a 1RM, for example).
The truth is, regardless what “Idonttrytoliftheavybecausetheotherpeopleinthegymlaughatme” Daven says, anyone who has extensive experience strength training will tell you that sets of 10 (if that puts you within a couple of reps of failure) will build hypertrophy and some strength. That’s what bodybuilders do. As far as 315×1, nobody does singles for anything but testing. However, if the other twin included sets at 85% or above, he would not only get stronger much faster, he would reach a higher level of strength. Don’t take my word for it, do some simple research on max strength training and you will see that NOBODY believes that light loads done at any volume will build strength better than heavier loads.
If you want to say that sprinters shouldn’t lift heavy because it interferes with sprinting, fine. You might be wrong, you might be right, but it would be debatable. But to say that, in general, strength can be built as quickly, and as extensively, with 10rep sets as theyare with 2-5rep sets done with high intensity loads it just dopey. Mike should ban you from posting in the strength training forum, you’re going to screw all the youngsters up with that ridiculous nonsense.
That isn’t what I said, at all. Take Reading Comprehension 101. Regarding my lifts, perhaps you didn’t read earlier in this thread: https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/8555/P75/#70259 Yes, I know, quite weak. I’m sure your unathletic powerlifting nephews are doing much more weight when using comparable stances/grips and being unequipped.
Regarding the training methods, the main thing in increasing strength is progressive overload. It doesn’t matter if you’re using partial reps, 1s, 5s, or 10s, 70% or 95%, it is about progressive overload first and foremost (as the literature and empirical evidence shows) and then the rest comes well after and matter much less. The vast majority of people, who will never need to test a 1RM (which is a specific skill beyond simply being able to create peak amounts of force since there is a strong technical component beyond the ability to create a strong enough muscular contraction), will be much better served to use progressive overload @ relatively higher reps (>4 in most cases) as it will be significantly easier to recover from, easier to match-up with the track/field/jumps/etc. training, and be better suited to increase muscle mass in the right places. It doesn’t get any simpler than that and no circa-max Westside/Metal Militia drug based bullshit will ever change that.
Hell, take off the equipment and go to normal, non-extreme stances and Westside can barely get guys to be comparable to Ed Coan and numerous others from the 60s-80s that did mostly “bodybuilder” training.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1252985465"]Jake:
…I think many people believe that using lower loads (ie below the arbitrary 85% that Star uses to define max strength training) can significantly improve your max. What using heavier loads (generally defined as 90% and more) will do it make you better at handling single reps at high weight. You may quickly add weight to your 1RM, but only because you are inexperienced at doing a heavy 1RM. Your 5RM or 10RM or even more importantly the weight you would use for a given workout like 5×5 or 3×10 may not be significantly different, if at all.
You prick, I don’t define 85% and above as the load range for max strength, just about every researcher in the field of strength training does.
Here’s an example. If you took two twins that had trained the equivalent amount of time and everything and had 1RM of 225 on a given lift, if you get one to do 225×10 and the other to do 315×1, the maxes would probably have no difference at all. It wouldn’t take more than a couple workouts at most for the 225×10 athletes to do 315×1 and the same [i]might[/i] be able to be said for the 315×1 guy doing 225×10.
This is absolute garbage. Who cares how much you can do for 10 reps, endurance in the weightroom doesn’t translate to the track at all. Study after study, as well as both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting teams for decades, have proven Daven’s ridiculous assertion to be absolutely false. If it were true, those bodybuilders would be as strong as powerbuilders, powerlifters and Olympic lifters, but they are not. I’ve never met an Olympic lifter or powerlifter who never goes heavier than a 12RM. If it worked, why not? It would be a lot easier on the joints and CNS. Oh yea, the CNS, the primary control mechanism for strength isn’t stressed at such low loads. This garbage has gone past “what’s good for a track athlete” and is now being asserted as what works best for strength in general. I wish some weightlifters would chime in here and let us know if any of you won meets without EVER lifting above your 12RM during training. What a joke.
The truth is, regardless what “Idonttrytoliftheavybecausetheotherpeopleinthegymlaughatme” Daven says, anyone who has extensive experience strength training will tell you that sets of 10 (if that puts you within a couple of reps of failure) will build hypertrophy and some strength. That’s what bodybuilders do. As far as 315×1, nobody does singles for anything but testing. However, if the other twin included sets at 85% or above, he would not only get stronger much faster, he would reach a higher level of strength. Don’t take my word for it, do some simple research on max strength training and you will see that NOBODY believes that light loads done at any volume will build strength better than heavier loads.
If you want to say that sprinters shouldn’t lift heavy because it interferes with sprinting, fine. You might be wrong, you might be right, but it would be debatable. But to say that, in general, strength can be built as quickly, and as extensively, with 10rep sets as theyare with 2-5rep sets done with high intensity loads it just dopey. Mike should ban you from posting in the strength training forum, you’re going to screw all the youngsters up with that ridiculous nonsense.[/quote]
Read Kelly’s posts on this page and the corresponding study, doesn’t seem like bodybuilders are doing such a bad job……
https://dbhammer.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=power&thread=2736&page=3
Also here is a post on CF.com (lkh):
Some more published studies in favor of hypertrophy methods for sprinting:
D’Antona G, et al,”Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders,” J. Physiol. 2006;570;611-627
Kenya Kumagai, Takashi Abe, William F. Brechue, Tomoo Ryushi, Susumu Takano, and Masuhiko Mizuno, “Sprint performance is related to muscle fascicle length in male 100-m sprinters,” J Appl Physiol 88: 811-816, 2000
The D’Antona paper compared the muscle structure of serious, experienced bodybuilders doing conventional hypertrophy training (multiple sets, 6-12 reps/set, IIa -> IIx, whereas neural training (1-3 reps/set) has been shown to convert IIb -> IIx -> IIa <- I. The bodybuilders had higher IIx and lower I types than controls and the hypertrophy was more pronounced in IIx and IIax than in IIa fibers (i.e., the fiber transition was to be LESS oxidative than controls, which is the opposite direction from neural training).
The Japanese paper measured the fascile muscle length in the legs of sprinters with personal best times of 10.0-11.9 seconds for 100m. The faster sprinters had longer fascile muscle lengths (i.e. more sarcomeres stacked in series). Other research has shown that hypertrophy training on legs acts primarily in the mid-upper leg (i.e., by sarcomere hypertrophy) and leaves the lower leg largely unaffected by hypertrophy training.
-
Participant
[quote author="Thomas White" date="1252975166"]I would argue that the rank beginner would be much better served using higher reps to build needed size in the prime movers. Remember, “If it looks right, it flies right.”
No argument there, anything will work.
Anecdotally, back in school we used both APRE and Westside protocols. We got stronger using 10 RM loads than we did building up to max doubles and triples with the Westside protocol. Additionally vertical jump height increased across the board during the APRE period and decreased rather substantially during the Westside loading.
If you were getting stronger with 10RM loads instead of 3-5RM loads, you were doing something dreadfully wrong.[/quote]
The logic here is incredible, Star. It amounts to you liking one method more than another, so when a relatively large sample of genetically elite and highly “qualified” athletes goes against you, it just means they did something wrong.
Have you ever actually TRIED using more basic and higher rep methods? IE 2-4×6-10 where the last rep of the sets are near max and you increase the weight on the bar each week? Did the weight being added to the bar magically stop happening on 10s, but continued to happen on 1s/2s/3s?
-
Participant
You do realize that all the circa max training that powerlifters do is their form of skill training. They often use “bodybuilding” as you would call it to build the real strength behind those lifts.
This post is from a powerlifter…….
https://dbhammer.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=strength&action=display&thread=2760
Excerpt:
the interesting thing is that real strength levels of the athletes in both sports really havnt changed all that much in the last 30 years. alexiev clean and jerked around 575lbs almost 30 years ago, and the best lifters of each of the intervening decades has been within 5 or so kilos of this number either way. i know that the actuall weights in powerlifting have gone up a lot recently, but there were 900+ squats in the 70’s without squat suits, and with knee wraps that people wouldnt even consider as supportive equipment today, and i doubt any of the current 1000+ squatters in their canvas suits could really beat that. likewise, jim williams benched 700 in the 70’s without a shirt, and that number really hasnt been bettered by any large margin even today.
so it would seem to me that exercise selection and whether your training style emphasises the competitive lifts or assistance exercises isnt the most important variable when it comes to successfull training. ill agree that bands and chains and the 100 versions of the good morning are fun and can help break plateaus, but in reality, the strength levels of the best powerlifters havent increased signigicantly since we all started using these things. likewise in OL, we argue about whether to use the soviet or bulgarian models, but in reality, both have produced comparable athletes.
perhaps there is another variable, a thing or things not talked about often enough, that can be successfully applied within widely different training regimines, that is more important than what band to use or whether to do powercleans or pulls, or just clean and jerks. of course i have my own ideas about this, but id like to hear what some other people think.
Besides the obvious answer that you need more practice with more advanced gear, like squat suits and bench shirts, couldn’t one make the argument that the two styles aren’t that different after all?I should tell everyone that Glenn and I were talking about something very closely related to this issue already about a month ago. So I’m sort of repeating a lot of what he told me then, but for the benefit of everyone else here now.
To be a good strength athlete, you pretty much need good neural efficiency with your competitive lifts, and the muscles that are going to be doing all that work really do need to be pretty big.
Do not both styles of training (Russian/WSB versus Bulgarian/Milita) accomplish this?
For OLing and PLing with Russian training and WSB respectively, using the conjugate method, you develop your neural ability with lots of dynamic and max effort work. With Bulgarian and Militia training, we’ll call it ‘direct training’ for now I guess, you develop this ability through lots of repetitive practice with the competition lifts…for hours and hours per training session. Just different methods of achieving the same result…a highly ‘peaked’ degree of neural strength.
But you can’t just be peaked…you can’t get away from myofibril hypertrophy of the muscle groups that are going to be doing all this work. To do this with the conjugate method you need lots of volume with difficult weight. Glenn called this, “real gut busting sets”…”boring and really hard”. Stuff like 6 sets of 4, or 5 sets of 5, or 4 sets of 10 with weight that is difficult…like around 80% of your max. The Russians did lots of variations of pulls and jerks to accomplish this, and WSB guys do a lot of GHRs, rows, dumbell presses, and goodmornings. The “direct training” camp gets all this volume straight from the huge amount of competitive lifts that they practice. No one is going to accuse the Bulgarians or the Militia of using anything but a lot of volume. And these of course work the necessary muscles because the lifts are mostly the competitive lifts (with a few exceptions). Again, its just a different way of achieving the same goal.
As long as you are efficient and big (big enough), isn’t exercise selection really a moot point? After all, the lifts you do in the gym are really only one training variable…if all the other variables are similar…is your training really that different?
This is more Glenn regurgetation coming at you…I hope he doesn’t mind too much.You need to get lots of work in at the 80% range, with multiple sets of multiple reps. 5×5 is an easy way to do it…but 6×4 or 4×10 seems to work really well too. Just keep the weight on the barbell the same for all of the sets. For example, warm up with the barbell by itself, than do 5 sets of 5 reps of 225 for Romanian deadlifts.
-
Participant
Some more published studies in favor of hypertrophy methods for sprinting:
D’Antona G, et al,”Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders,” J. Physiol. 2006;570;611-627
Kenya Kumagai, Takashi Abe, William F. Brechue, Tomoo Ryushi, Susumu Takano, and Masuhiko Mizuno, “Sprint performance is related to muscle fascicle length in male 100-m sprinters,” J Appl Physiol 88: 811-816, 2000
The D’Antona paper compared the muscle structure of serious, experienced bodybuilders doing conventional hypertrophy training (multiple sets, 6-12 reps/set, IIa -> IIx, whereas neural training (1-3 reps/set) has been shown to convert IIb -> IIx -> IIa <- I. The bodybuilders had higher IIx and lower I types than controls and the hypertrophy was more pronounced in IIx and IIax than in IIa fibers (i.e., the fiber transition was to be LESS oxidative than controls, which is the opposite direction from neural training).
Hmm…now that's interesting. I don't remember ever seeing that. Thanks.
-
Participant
LOL
-
Member
Tom, the problem with that LKH quote is that typical muscular hypertrophy results in more fibers running in parallel to one another, not in series. To get more sarcomeres running in series stretch forces have to be involved in one way or another. Whether these come from plyos, or weight work done at the extreme end of the ROM, it’s stretch force that leads to that particular adaptation.
Besides that though, more intermediate training does seem to be the way to take things when all things are taken into consideration.
-
Participant
Now people are quoting DB Hammer. Hilarious.
I know understand why low intensity training seems to work better for Daven even though it seems to contradict what all of the top scientific research and anecdotal observations of Russian and Bulgarian strength coaches…
Relative Training Intensity and Increases in Strength in Older Women
Hunter, Gary R.; Treuth, Margarita S.
AbstractThis research note describes a series of correlations found between relative training intensity and increases in strength following a strength conditioning program with 15 women ages 60 to 77 years. Before and after 16 weeks of 3-day-a-week training, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) was evaluated in 6 exercises. Subjects trained at intensities varying from 50 to 80% of 1-RM, increasing an average of 48% in the upper body and 60% in the lower body. Exercise intensity (%1-RM trained during the last 2 weeks of the study) was negatively related to changes in 1-RM for all 6 strength tests (r varying from -0.26 to -0.80; 3 were significant and 3 were nonsignificant). The negative relationships were independent of age and initial 1-RM values. Subjects training at relatively low intensity, 50 to 60% 1-RM, tended to increase strength more than those training at relatively high intensity, 70 to 80% 1-RM. These results call for further research to determine the optimal training prescription for obtaining strength gains in older women.(C) 1995 National Strength and Conditioning Association
-
Participant
LOL, how long did it take you to find this?
Now people are quoting DB Hammer. Hilarious.
I know understand why low intensity training seems to work better for Daven even though it seems to contradict what all of the top scientific research and anecdotal observations of Russian and Bulgarian strength coaches…
[b]Relative Training Intensity and Increases in Strength in Older Women[/b]
Hunter, Gary R.; Treuth, Margarita S.
AbstractThis research note describes a series of correlations found between relative training intensity and increases in strength following a strength conditioning program with 15 women ages 60 to 77 years. Before and after 16 weeks of 3-day-a-week training, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) was evaluated in 6 exercises. Subjects trained at intensities varying from 50 to 80% of 1-RM, increasing an average of 48% in the upper body and 60% in the lower body. Exercise intensity (%1-RM trained during the last 2 weeks of the study) was negatively related to changes in 1-RM for all 6 strength tests (r varying from -0.26 to -0.80; 3 were significant and 3 were nonsignificant). The negative relationships were independent of age and initial 1-RM values. Subjects training at relatively low intensity, 50 to 60% 1-RM, tended to increase strength more than those training at relatively high intensity, 70 to 80% 1-RM. These results call for further research to determine the optimal training prescription for obtaining strength gains in older women.(C) 1995 National Strength and Conditioning Association
-
Participant
Now we can bring diferent studies, but I would like with a higher level athletes, not older women or beginner athletes. Still want do know how effective are Olimpic lifts, if athlete already does a solid work on the track and lifting in a weight room. That study with rugby players shows that Pmax loads weren’t more effective compared with 80% 1RM loads:
Harris, NK, Cronin, JB, Hopkins, WG, and Hansen, KT. Squat jump training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: effect on sprint ability. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1742-1749, 2008-Training at a load maximizing power output (Pmax) is an intuitively appealing strategy for enhancement of performance that has received little research attention. In this study we identified each subject’s Pmax for an isoinertial resistance training exercise used for testing and training, and then we related the changes in strength to changes in sprint performance. The subjects were 18 well-trained rugby league players randomized to two equal-volume training groups for a 7-week period of squat jump training with heavy loads (80% 1RM) or with individually determined Pmax loads (20.0-43.5% 1RM). Performance measures were 1RM strength, maximal power at 55% of pretraining 1RM, and sprint times for 10 and 30 m. Percent changes were standardized to make magnitude-based inferences. Relationships between changes in these variables were expressed as correlations. Sprint times for 10 m showed improvements in the 80% 1RM group (-2.9 ± 3.2%) and Pmax group (-1.3 ± 2.2%), and there were similar improvements in 30-m sprint time (-1.9 ± 2.8 and -1.2 ± 2.0%, respectively). Differences in the improvements in sprint time between groups were unclear, but improvement in 1RM strength in the 80% 1RM group (15 ± 9%) was possibly substantially greater than in the Pmax group (11 ± 8%). Small-moderate negative correlations between change in 1RM and change in sprint time (r ≈ -0.30) in the combined groups provided the only evidence of adaptive associations between strength and power outputs, and sprint performance. In conclusion, it seems that training at the load that maximizes individual peak power output for this exercise with a sample of professional team sport athletes was no more effective for improving sprint ability than training at heavy loads, and the changes in power output were not usefully related to changes in sprint ability.
-
Participant
Glad to see you took your humor medicine and laid off the pills, you have much less anger filled posts. Now please post up your out of shape family members running. That’ll be a site to see.
More D1 scholarship athletes in my immediate family than in your entire family tree. You are small and weak…get over it.
-
Participant
Now we can bring diferent studies, but I would like with a higher level athletes, not older women or beginner athletes. Still want do know how effective are Olimpic lifts, if athlete already does a solid work on the track and lifting in a weight room. That study with rugby players shows that Pmax loads weren’t more effective compared with 80% 1RM loads:
You aren’t going to find any worthwhile studies on “higher level” athletes. Look at that study and see the huge improvement in 30s from both types of training. If the athlete is high level, they aren’t going to improve their sprint times 3% in under 2 months pretty much regardless of what they do.
The Pmax loads vs 80% loads aren’t really relevant to an issue of Olympic lifts versus no Olympic lifts. It doesn’t even really address any part of the issue. There is so little known and wide variations in what has created success, that you aren’t going to find a definitive answer. Numerous very intelligent and experienced coaches will tell you that their program suffers when they are unable to effectively use Olympic lifts for whatever reason and there are others who will say that their program benefited from dropping them. It isn’t a black or white issue.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1253174472"]Glad to see you took your humor medicine and laid off the pills, you have much less anger filled posts. Now please post up your out of shape family members running. That’ll be a site to see.
More D1 scholarship athletes in my immediate family than in your entire family tree. You are small and weak…get over it.[/quote]
Are you still upset that you cannot use any logic to back up your arguments? No facts? Come on, Star, I was hoping for some responses that used logic.
-
Keymaster
I am sorry to be joining this discussion so late and I didn’t have time to really read through every thing so excuse any comments / questions that might have already been posed but here are some initial thoughts:
*There seems to be a growing trend away from max strength development just as there was a full bore trend towards it several years ago. I think a more conservative and balanced approach is the best way to look at it. Many people have pointed out those who have succeeded without lots of (or any) strength work to speak of, or perhaps just no strength work. My devil’s advocate stance would be that we can say exactly the same thing about speed work. Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay both seem to be on long-to-short training plans with lots of tempo and little speed work until late in the year. Should we jump to the conclusion that speed work is unimportant? Likewise, many sprinters NEVER do plyometrics. Should we assume they are of no benefit? I think that we need to look at commonalities in successful programs and when there are not similarities, we need to attempt to rationalize why. The defining thing seems to be that there are many ways to arrive at the same point. Some though are better than others. Max strength can play a very important role in a training plan as a stimulus. However it’s a stimulus that can be replaced or developed in part through other methods (10 RM work for example). In fact, I would throw out the analogy that 10RM work (hypertrophy) is to 1RM work (max strength) as tempo running is to sprint training. We’ve seen both work and the reason is that they are not as far apart as most would like to believe. Ultimately though I think that there are better ways to develop certain physical capacities across broad ranges of athletes (not counting the outlier who responds differently than expected). Ultimately, our job as coaches is to place the ultimate goal as the centerpiece and then figure out what the best way to get there is while working with the individual characteristics of the athlete and knowing your own strengths and weaknesses as a coach.
*Although there are plenty of weak sprinters, there are likewise plenty of examples of very strong sprinters. Dwain Chambers, Ben Johnson, Donovan Bailey, etc were all very strong relative to their bodyweight. And if we are to expand this to field eventers, there are some VERY strong athletes who do lots of >85% weight room work and I’m not just speaking of throwers. As far as coaches, some of the most respected coaches that I’ve worked with do quite a bit of heavy loading in the weight room (Pfaff, Schexnayder, Rovelto). The goal though is always kept in mind and strength work (or any other trained capacity) is never taken out of the context of what the ultimate objective is.
*Aren’t the people arguing that higher rep work being the best way to develop max strength while concurrently arguing that max strength work is unimportant somewhat contradicting themselves?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I am sorry to be joining this discussion so late and I didn’t have time to really read through every thing so excuse any comments / questions that might have already been posed but here are some initial thoughts:
*There seems to be a growing trend away from max strength development just as there was a full bore trend towards it several years ago. I think a more conservative and balanced approach is the best way to look at it. Many people have pointed out those who have succeeded without lots of (or any) strength work to speak of, or perhaps just no strength work. My devil’s advocate stance would be that we can say exactly the same thing about speed work. Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay both seem to be on long-to-short training plans with lots of tempo and little speed work until late in the year. Should we jump to the conclusion that speed work is unimportant? Likewise, many sprinters NEVER do plyometrics. Should we assume they are of no benefit? I think that we need to look at commonalities in successful programs and when there are not similarities, we need to attempt to rationalize why. The defining thing seems to be that there are many ways to arrive at the same point. Some though are better than others. Max strength can play a very important role in a training plan as a stimulus. However it’s a stimulus that can be replaced or developed in part through other methods (10 RM work for example). In fact, I would throw out the analogy that 10RM work (hypertrophy) is to 1RM work (max strength) as tempo running is to sprint training. We’ve seen both work and the reason is that they are not as far apart as most would like to believe. Ultimately though I think that there are better ways to develop certain physical capacities across broad ranges of athletes (not counting the outlier who responds differently than expected). Ultimately, our job as coaches is to place the ultimate goal as the centerpiece and then figure out what the best way to get there is while working with the individual characteristics of the athlete and knowing your own strengths and weaknesses as a coach.
It is more like the difference between a 10m fly and a submax 60m fly. I am surprised to hear this coming from you–I imagine you have at least read, if not been involved with, some of the research on progressive overload and maximal muscular tension? I am failing to see why someone using 10RM loads is going to not have very significant improvements in max strength. The amount of empirical data alone should have put this to rest by now. Even a lot of the Westside guys, at least in their articles, are backing off some of the extreme stuff.
*Although there are plenty of weak sprinters, there are likewise plenty of examples of very strong sprinters. Dwain Chambers, Ben Johnson, Donovan Bailey, etc were all very strong relative to their bodyweight. And if we are to expand this to field eventers, there are some VERY strong athletes who do lots of >85% weight room work and I’m not just speaking of throwers. As far as coaches, some of the most respected coaches that I’ve worked with do quite a bit of heavy loading in the weight room (Pfaff, Schexnayder, Rovelto). The goal though is always kept in mind and strength work (or any other trained capacity) is never taken out of the context of what the ultimate objective is.
*Aren’t the people arguing that higher rep work being the best way to develop max strength while concurrently arguing that max strength work is unimportant somewhat contradicting themselves?
Do we need to post the videos of Donovan Bailey or some of Boo’s guys lifting? If you want to talk about heavy, well above parallel squats and muscle cleans, then the discussion changes significantly in my mind (much different training effects, stresses, etc.). And doesn’t Pfaff even say that 5×5 (90% (or >85%, depending on who you ask or what someone’s agenda is), with the idea being that lifting at slightly reduced loads may actually increase strength more in a general sense. It is simply an issue of using the same phrase to describe two different things (one being an athletic quality and the other a way of programming resistance training). One group believes that slightly lower loads @ greater volumes will improve strength at least as well (sometimes better) in athletes (ie anyone who does not primarily lift for their sport) versus max strength training.
-
Keymaster
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1253698567"]I am sorry to be joining this discussion so late and I didn’t have time to really read through every thing so excuse any comments / questions that might have already been posed but here are some initial thoughts:
*There seems to be a growing trend away from max strength development just as there was a full bore trend towards it several years ago. I think a more conservative and balanced approach is the best way to look at it. Many people have pointed out those who have succeeded without lots of (or any) strength work to speak of, or perhaps just no strength work. My devil’s advocate stance would be that we can say exactly the same thing about speed work. Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay both seem to be on long-to-short training plans with lots of tempo and little speed work until late in the year. Should we jump to the conclusion that speed work is unimportant? Likewise, many sprinters NEVER do plyometrics. Should we assume they are of no benefit? I think that we need to look at commonalities in successful programs and when there are not similarities, we need to attempt to rationalize why. The defining thing seems to be that there are many ways to arrive at the same point. Some though are better than others. Max strength can play a very important role in a training plan as a stimulus. However it’s a stimulus that can be replaced or developed in part through other methods (10 RM work for example). In fact, I would throw out the analogy that 10RM work (hypertrophy) is to 1RM work (max strength) as tempo running is to sprint training. We’ve seen both work and the reason is that they are not as far apart as most would like to believe. Ultimately though I think that there are better ways to develop certain physical capacities across broad ranges of athletes (not counting the outlier who responds differently than expected). Ultimately, our job as coaches is to place the ultimate goal as the centerpiece and then figure out what the best way to get there is while working with the individual characteristics of the athlete and knowing your own strengths and weaknesses as a coach.
It is more like the difference between a 10m fly and a submax 60m fly. I am surprised to hear this coming from you–I imagine you have at least read, if not been involved with, some of the research on progressive overload and maximal muscular tension? I am failing to see why someone using 10RM loads is going to not have very significant improvements in max strength. The amount of empirical data alone should have put this to rest by now. Even a lot of the Westside guys, at least in their articles, are backing off some of the extreme stuff.[/quote]I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I’m saying that tempo and sprinting aren’t altogether different just as 10RM and 1RM aren’t altogether different. This is why you can see good gains both from tempo and 10RM work. Kinda like what I wrote about here.[/url]
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1253698567"]
*Although there are plenty of weak sprinters, there are likewise plenty of examples of very strong sprinters. Dwain Chambers, Ben Johnson, Donovan Bailey, etc were all very strong relative to their bodyweight. And if we are to expand this to field eventers, there are some VERY strong athletes who do lots of >85% weight room work and I’m not just speaking of throwers. As far as coaches, some of the most respected coaches that I’ve worked with do quite a bit of heavy loading in the weight room (Pfaff, Schexnayder, Rovelto). The goal though is always kept in mind and strength work (or any other trained capacity) is never taken out of the context of what the ultimate objective is.*Aren’t the people arguing that higher rep work being the best way to develop max strength while concurrently arguing that max strength work is unimportant somewhat contradicting themselves?
Do we need to post the videos of Donovan Bailey or some of Boo’s guys lifting? If you want to talk about heavy, well above parallel squats and muscle cleans, then the discussion changes significantly in my mind (much different training effects, stresses, etc.). And doesn’t Pfaff even say that 5×5 (90% (or >85%, depending on who you ask or what someone’s agenda is), with the idea being that lifting at slightly reduced loads may actually increase strength more in a general sense. It is simply an issue of using the same phrase to describe two different things (one being an athletic quality and the other a way of programming resistance training). One group believes that slightly lower loads @ greater volumes will improve strength at least as well (sometimes better) in athletes (ie anyone who does not primarily lift for their sport) versus max strength training.[/quote]I understand that fully. The 85% / 5RM loads is not what I’d debate….that’s where the overwhelming bulk of my weight room training occurs. I’m questioning suggestions that 10RM (65-70%) loads could be as effective as >80% loads for developing max strength. I would listen to arguments and can even rationalize situations where those loads might be ideal in the context of a training plan centered around speed development but not as a means for developing strength maximally.
Again, I haven’t read through all 11 pages so let me know if I’m missing something.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I was in the weight room for 4 years with Boo’s group. Every squat test was done to a box below parallel. Cleans were likewise regulated. While not competition level lifters if you have video of a jumps group athlete from LSU 2001-2005 (my experience) who wasn’t strong or had bad technique / high squats I’d like to see it because I never did. I’ve seen Dan’s guys. He has guys that responded well from heavy lifting and some who didn’t lift at all but achieved nearly equivalent results. Those who lifted heavy, while not master technicians, were quite strong.
Bringing this up again…I have almost never seen a sprinter jumper lift heavy with decent form.
-I see good training videos of throwers lifting heavy…even in commercial instructional videos.
-I see training hall tapes of weightlifters lifting their fabled #s.
-I see jumper/sprinter footage of guys doing squats & cleans w/ 135 for instructional purposes only…Why is finding actual video of speed guys lifting good numbers like finding bigfoot? Surely if people can post pictures and videos of themselves drunk, they can post a photo or video squatting 400+. I have been keeping my eyes open on this for years with no result. All I see is Mike Conley 1/8 squatting 405, Staffan Strand squatting 185, still photos of Kajsa with a bar on her shoulders that looks heavier than it actually is, and Asafa doing stepups with girl weight.
It’s almost to the point where believing these guys have high max strength is like believing that all the steroid athletes are innocent. “I swear sir, I though that the 10kg bumper plates were 45lbs…I mean they’re the same size! How am I supposed to know?”
-
Keymaster
Video became necessary when Davan said he had seen video of a particular group I know had several 400 lb below parallel squatters. Notice I never claimed to speak for the other groups and in fact I’ve witnessed sprinters with world leading times use attrocious technique with bad technique. My point is to say that there are very strong and weak athletes….I’m basically fighting against extremism in either direction.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Surely their are some fast boblsed guys with video of them power cleaning or squatting.
Brock Krietzburg maybe…
-
Participant
There is a video of Donovan doing some lifting (with quite questionable depth–technique aside) and IIRC there was a video with some of Boo’s guys “deep squatting” and again above parallel and no crazy weights.
It goes without saying, is going heavy for them going >85%? I doubt someone using a 10RM with <70% if they are actually going hard. If someone is doing multiple sets of 4-6 reps after sprint/jump work, I have a hard time believing they are going over 85% of their conceivable 1RM. When they do go heavy, they also seem to cut the depth, so then you have to adjust the numbers up (and percentages down) even further.
-
Participant
BTW this is not at all a slight against those programs (what they are doing is likely the BEST choice), I just think it shows that the application of “max strength” training that those programs have is quite different from the conception of most people who have been exposed to powerlifting. It is likely quite unnecessary for anyone to go at that high of percentages (while they could be getting plenty of stimulus for strength at a lower percentage and still doing progressive overload) on anything short of a rare basis. A few times a year or maybe once every 4-6 weeks during certain parts of the year, sure why not, but anymore than that is almost definitely going to interfere with other training and performance factors.
-
Participant
The 85% / 5RM loads is not what I’d debate….that’s where the overwhelming bulk of my weight room training occurs. I’m questioning suggestions that 10RM (65-70%) loads could be as effective as >80% loads for developing max strength. I would listen to arguments and can even rationalize situations where those loads might be ideal in the context of a training plan centered around speed development but not as a means for developing strength maximally.
Again, I haven’t read through all 11 pages so let me know if I’m missing something.
Mike, I think I may be the only one on the “lift heavy” side of the debate, so I’ll respond to this. I agree with your position 100%. Some on the other side may be responding after reading Davan’s comments on my posts in which he inaccurately portrays my position. For the record, this is what I believe/have been posting…
– To optimize strength training, a limited number of reps (i.e. 10%-20% of total reps) should be in the 85% and greater load range DURING MAX STRENGTH PHASES. Most lifts will be <85% even for weightlifters, but I believe that to OPTIMALLY develop max strength, you must include at least some heavy reps at some point. That has been my primary argument throughout this thread.
– Furthermore in regards to NOT including heavier loads, I have stated repeatedly that training exclusively at submaximal loads (70% of 1RM) submaximally (never going to failure) will not provide the same progress in the development of max strength as training that includes a limited number of near-maximal loads (equat to or greater than 85%).
– I'm not talking about powerlifting and have made that clear several times. Forget powerlifting lifts and stick to Oly only…my position on loading remains the same. I've said this at least once, and probably several times, in this thread.
– I realize that non-weightlifters must make comprises when it comes to max strength work, especially during SPP and Comp phases. But during off season and GPP, I believe that including some heavy loads would be more effecient in assisting individuals who feel the need to increase their max strength during offseason and GPP. I have stated this repeatedly in this thread.
– Lastly, I do not advocate strength training over power training except for lower qualified athletes, or other athletes with very low strength deficits, as their limit strength may be the limiting factor in improving explosive strength. As training age/maturity and qualification increase, obviously the focus continually shifts to a power-centered training philosophy. No argument there. I've said this at least once or twice in this thread.
As for the recent suggestions that 'progressive overload' is the solution to all issues strength related, this is an incredibly naive statement. If the key to optimally building max strength, or hypertrophy for that matter, was as simple as adding weight to the bar every week, we wouldn't have to worry about things like volume, intensity, overtraining, adaption, exhaustion (de Lorme's term), or peridoization. But we do.
-
Participant
Surely their are some fast boblsed guys with video of them power cleaning or squatting.
Brock Krietzburg maybe…
Beat Hefti- was best brakeman in world until he started driving
https://www.bob-hefti.ch/picture_library/details.php?image_id=1494
-
Participant
Mike, I think I may be the only one on the “lift heavy” side of the debate, so I’ll respond to this. I agree with your position 100%. Some on the other side may be responding after reading Davan’s comments on my posts in which he inaccurately portrays my position. For the record, this is what I believe/have been posting…
Trust me, it isn’t inaccurate at all, as your statements below show.
– To optimize strength training, a limited number of reps (i.e. 10%-20% of total reps) should be in the 85% and greater load range DURING MAX STRENGTH PHASES. Most lifts will be 85% if you do a 5RM twice a week with significant warm-ups, but that is still way too much and way too frequent.
[quote]
– Furthermore in regards to NOT including heavier loads, I have stated repeatedly that training exclusively at submaximal loads (70% of 1RM) submaximally (never going to failure) will not provide the same progress in the development of max strength as training that includes a limited number of near-maximal loads (equat to or greater than 85%).Doing 5×5 is almost definitely using <85% loads and most people will never need to go heavier than that (outside of rare occasions amounts to well <10% of reps) to adequately and effectively develop maximum strength, even in the context of non-elite, non-equipped (raw) powerlifters. If we look at people that are athletes, then the argument to not use such loads becomes even stronger.
– I'm not talking about powerlifting and have made that clear several times. Forget powerlifting lifts and stick to Oly only…my position on loading remains the same. I've said this at least once, and probably several times, in this thread.
There is an inherently different effect when using power versions of Olympic lifts, which are almost exclusively used (versus the full variations, which you seem to not understand) in track and field training groups. 100% of a powerclean is a significantly different stimulus than 100% of a backsquat or deadlift.
– I realize that non-weightlifters must make comprises when it comes to max strength work, especially during SPP and Comp phases. But during off season and GPP, I believe that including some heavy loads would be more effecient in assisting individuals who feel the need to increase their max strength during offseason and GPP. I have stated this repeatedly in this thread.
Again, I can't think of a single athlete who is limited by their maximum strength to the point it would be smart to use such extreme loading (yes, 10-20% of total reps @ your recommended percentages IS extreme for a track and field athlete). Most people, especially those less talented, lack elasticity and more heavy lifting isn't going to fix that. Those that are weak tend to also not have much muscle, so hypertrophy lifting is going to do plenty. Even if someone needs to get stronger, I would rather someone do 4-5×5 or something along those lines than something heavier.
– Lastly, I do not advocate strength training over power training except for lower qualified athletes, or other athletes with very low strength deficits, as their limit strength may be the limiting factor in improving explosive strength. As training age/maturity and qualification increase, obviously the focus continually shifts to a power-centered training philosophy. No argument there. I've said this at least once or twice in this thread.
What is "lower qualified"? There are plenty of slow athletes who are stronger than a large % of the sub 10 population, some even with little relative strength training. I'm not convinced that because someone is slower or somewhat weak (all relative) that they need to do the amount of heavy lifting you advocate.
As for the recent suggestions that 'progressive overload' is the solution to all issues strength related, this is an incredibly naive statement. If the key to optimally building max strength, or hypertrophy for that matter, was as simple as adding weight to the bar every week, we wouldn't have to worry about things like volume, intensity, overtraining, adaption, exhaustion (de Lorme's term), or peridoization. But we do.
All of those are simply a means to create a progressive overload. You are making it a lot more complicated than it is. Just as Westside is founded on hitting new bests on lifts each week and then either changing the lifts or backing off, strength training in general is based around:
1. Increasing the load over time
2. RecoveringVolumes, intensities, periodization, etc. all become specialized for one's specific goals, bodytype, predispositions, etc. Recovering in the short term (post-workout), medium term (on a weekly or monthly basis), and long term (over the course of a career–years) is also specific–are you going to have planned overreaching, are you going with a linear progression, how well do you handle certain styles of training, etc. Simple as that.
-
Participant
Surely their are some fast boblsed guys with video of them power cleaning or squatting.
Brock Krietzburg maybe…
Considering most bobsled federations do some sort of testing on the lifts as a component of selection to their teams, of course there should be some good lifts with at least decent technique. That’s why I want to see track & field athletes do it.
-
Participant
Some James Smith posts, kind of ironic because he started out as a big Westside guy:
https://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=79465&tid;=
-
Participant
Video became necessary when Davan said he had seen video of a particular group I know had several 400 lb below parallel squatters. Notice I never claimed to speak for the other groups and in fact I’ve witnessed sprinters with world leading times use attrocious technique with bad technique. My point is to say that there are very strong and weak athletes….I’m basically fighting against extremism in either direction.
I totally agree, this is what I said earlier in the thread; why we can’t have a middle ground.
-
Participant
Surely their are some fast boblsed guys with video of them power cleaning or squatting.
Bobsled is not track. These bobsled guys can run a great 30 and have great standing jump numbers (just like weightlifters) but after that, then what? These are the guys that run 3.95 to 30 then run 11.00.
-
Participant
” date=”1253746232″][quote author="davan" date="1253744927"]Surely their are some fast boblsed guys with video of them power cleaning or squatting.
Bobsled is not track. These bobsled guys can run a great 30 and have great standing jump numbers (just like weightlifters) but after that, then what? These are the guys that run 3.95 to 30 then run 11.00.[/quote]
I think the times listed are about .5-.6 off of a legitimate track time. Still fairly impressive, especially considering that these are 220-235 lbs., but like you said these are not elite 100m men by any means.
-
Participant
I think the times listed are about .5-.6 off of a legitimate track time. Still fairly impressive, especially considering that these are 220-235 lbs., but like you said these are not elite 100m men by any means.
3.44 to 30? How is this timed? Random fly-in start? Invalid in my book.
-
Participant
You always have to be suspect of these “30m + 1m fly” bobsled times. You can have almost a 2 tenth variance on how much that 1m helps you/improves your time depending on how much you fudge things. Just like people will roll in with their touch pad starts, people will push the limits of what a “1m fly” is. Look at their 30m fly times. 2.89 from 3.44 30m + 1m fly? Gimme a break :). There are guys barely under 11 that can run faster flies than that, with ease, in training.
-
Participant
” date=”1253748097″][quote author="Thomas White" date="1253747766"]
I think the times listed are about .5-.6 off of a legitimate track time. Still fairly impressive, especially considering that these are 220-235 lbs., but like you said these are not elite 100m men by any means.
3.44 to 30? How is this timed? Random bro with a stopwatch? Any why are none of the squats over 200kg? Is it because that’s 100pts?[/quote]
The timing method is FAT (timing gates) with a 1m run in before you break the first beam.
You are right about the cleans and squats, 150 and 200 were 100 pts. Maybe they found that max strength on the squat didn’t correlate as strongly as once thought, hmmmm?
-
Participant
You always have to be suspect of these “30m + 1m fly” bobsled times. You can have almost a 2 tenth variance on how much that 1m helps you/improves your time depending on how much you fudge things. Just like people will roll in with their touch pad starts, people will push the limits of what a “1m fly” is. Look at their 30m fly times. 2.89 from 3.44 30m + 1m fly? Gimme a break :). There are guys barely under 11 that can run faster flies than that, with ease, in training.
I do know that Hefti (the Swiss guy from the squatting picture) ran a 6.70 at a legitimate indoor meet and his best time with this method is 6.20. The Swiss have another guy who was a 6.6 and 10.3 100m:
https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=sui/athcode=132060/index.htmlI am pretty impressed with the broad jump though, over 11 ft. is big time.
-
Participant
I’m not saying they aren’t fast in a general sense, but when you tell people you run a 3.4 or 3.5 30m with electric timing they get a much different idea than if you say you run 6.6-6.7 60m. Plus, on the 1m fly you can adjust gate height or step off your back foot and then you have momentum going into the 1m mark (versus just running a 31m). Didn’t you link a video of a guy running like this on another forum? Or was that someone else? (Honestly forget).
-
Participant
I’m not saying they aren’t fast in a general sense, but when you tell people you run a 3.4 or 3.5 30m with electric timing they get a much different idea than if you say you run 6.6-6.7 60m. Plus, on the 1m fly you can adjust gate height or step off your back foot and then you have momentum going into the 1m mark (versus just running a 31m). Didn’t you link a video of a guy running like this on another forum? Or was that someone else? (Honestly forget).
It’s on the same page. I agree regarding the test, it’s to your advantage to get as much speed/momentum going as possible. I know if this was done at the NFL combine you’d have a lot of people trying to step over the gate with the first step.
-
Participant
You always have to be suspect of these “30m + 1m fly” bobsled times. You can have almost a 2 tenth variance on how much that 1m helps you/improves your time depending on how much you fudge things. Just like people will roll in with their touch pad starts, people will push the limits of what a “1m fly” is. Look at their 30m fly times. 2.89 from 3.44 30m + 1m fly? Gimme a break :). There are guys barely under 11 that can run faster flies than that, with ease, in training.
Edwards tested using this method and his fastest ever time was 3.54 and here’s a guy who ran 10.40. The UK Athletics jumps national squad training weekends uses this same 1m fly method to time their 20 and 40m sprints…
Doubt guys are running 3.4 with that method. Fastest bob sledder Mike ever saw ran 3.6x or 3.5 high like this…
-
Participant
I think the point that UT, Mike and some others have made is there can be cases where increasing one’s max strength will certainly benefit the athlete but you need to have a general idea of what a well-balanced program should look like. Max strength is ONE component in the grand scheme. There are also certain times of year in which the application of max strength is appropriate. Trying to work ones’ max strength concurrently with trying to increase ones’ 100m performance in season is going to be difficult to have great results across the board. Look for trends in performance across your athletes, not for the one case. It is sometimes difficult in the HS setting due to the maturation process and growth spurts year to year, but the point is to be meticulous and record.
Honestly, not to pick on Star, but I used to think a lot like you. It took a lot of reading, talking to people, and going against what I was essentially raised to think was necessary. The key to coaching is to keep an open mind and talk with those who have done it for awhile and constantly produce. Books are good, but sometimes they are written by theorists who give recommendations, so always keep things in context. The real world is different, so talk with those in the trenches.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1253748522"]You always have to be suspect of these “30m + 1m fly” bobsled times. You can have almost a 2 tenth variance on how much that 1m helps you/improves your time depending on how much you fudge things. Just like people will roll in with their touch pad starts, people will push the limits of what a “1m fly” is. Look at their 30m fly times. 2.89 from 3.44 30m + 1m fly? Gimme a break :). There are guys barely under 11 that can run faster flies than that, with ease, in training.
Edwards tested using this method and his fastest ever time was 3.54 and here’s a guy who ran 10.40. The UK Athletics jumps national squad training weekends uses this same 1m fly method to time their 20 and 40m sprints…
Doubt guys are running 3.4 with that method. Fastest bob sledder Mike ever saw ran 3.6x or 3.5 high like this…[/quote]
If you do it right, there aren’t any issues and have a lot of times to compare to. I imagine UKA jumps has some sort of standardized way to do this. If you simply put a line there and don’t regulate how people do their start, they’ll figure out ways to max out any bit they can cheat/bend the rules (look at the video TWhite posted).
BTW Nick, do you remember any of the times, off-hand, for Colin Jackson or Linford?
-
Participant
Yeah your right…
They have a specific foot mark on the floot where you have to put your front foot. You are allowed to rock back (like most jumpers do) but your front foot can’t leave the floor…
Over the years they have established a data sheet for standards etc…with the top times/ distances for each test actually being achieved by someone during one of weekends…
Fastest ever,
0-20m = 2.57
20-40m = 1.94
0-40m = 4.54So from that you can guess the 30m time.
I only have data from Jumpers…Possibly Craig would have access to all that info…I’d imagine Colins numbers were incredible.
-
Participant
Trust me, it isn’t inaccurate at all, as your statements below show.
[quote]Still far too many of the total reps, especially since you have included warm-ups in this figure (not just “work” sets). The examples you have posted in the past show this, in my opinion. You posted an example previously that had almost weekly 5RM, 3RM, and similar workouts. Sure, maybe only “10%” of the lifts are >85% if you do a 5RM twice a week with significant warm-ups, but that is still way too much and way too frequent.Wrong again. I have stated many times that I do not include warm up reps. You are a liar.
Doing 5×5 is almost definitely using <85% loads and most people will never need to go heavier than that (outside of rare occasions amounts to well <10% of reps) to adequately and effectively develop maximum strength, even in the context of non-elite, non-equipped (raw) powerlifters. If we look at people that are athletes, then the argument to not use such loads becomes even stronger.
First, that entire quote is a load of bull. Second, not all sets of 5 x 5 have to be the same weight. You can easily go 75%, 80%, 80%, 85%, 85%, the last two sets of 5 at your 6RM. And we're not talking about most people, we're talking about what works best.
Again, I can't think of a single athlete who is limited by their maximum strength to the point it would be smart to use such extreme loading (yes, 10-20% of total reps @ your recommended percentages IS extreme for a track and field athlete). Most people, especially those less talented, lack elasticity and more heavy lifting isn't going to fix that. Those that are weak tend to also not have much muscle, so hypertrophy lifting is going to do plenty. Even if someone needs to get stronger, I would rather someone do 4-5×5 or something along those lines than something heavier.
First, we're not talking specifically about track athletes, you always hide behind that when your arguments fall apart, which they always do. We are first talking about what works best for strength period, then we can begin making the necessary comprimises for a specific athlete's training. And now you're saying 5 x 5. Up to this point, your stance has been that NEVER lifting heavier than 70% would improve strength equally as good,or better, than heavier lifting, which is a load of garbage.Why 5 x 5? What happened to your 3 x 10
All of those are simply a means to create a progressive overload. You are making it a lot more complicated than it is. Just as Westside is founded on hitting new bests on lifts each week and then either changing the lifts or backing off, strength training in general is based around:
1. Increasing the load over time
2. RecoveringVolumes, intensities, periodization, etc. all become specialized for one's specific goals, bodytype, predispositions, etc. Recovering in the short term (post-workout), medium term (on a weekly or monthly basis), and long term (over the course of a career–years) is also specific–are you going to have planned overreaching, are you going with a linear progression, how well do you handle certain styles of training, etc. Simple as that.
But not all systems that rely on progressive overload impact strength equally. That's my point. The plan you posted for max strength would not improve an atlete's max strength to any appreciable degree unless he was a novice lifter.
Let me ask you something, Daven. In other threads you have thrown out some terms that make me think you are a Charles Staley disciple. Do you train using EDT? If so, for strength training???
-
Participant
Honestly, not to pick on Star, but I used to think a lot like you. It took a lot of reading, talking to people, and going against what I was essentially raised to think was necessary. The key to coaching is to keep an open mind and talk with those who have done it for awhile and constantly produce. Books are good, but sometimes they are written by theorists who give recommendations, so always keep things in context. The real world is different, so talk with those in the trenches.
Chad, did you read my last post in response to Mike? I’m not saying that max strength should be the focus. Please read my response to Mike where I clarified my stance on strength training and tell me specifally where you disagree.
-
Participant
Wrong again. I have stated many times that I do not include warm up reps. You are a liar.
Can you point out where you said this? Your example below is essentially a warm-up for the top sets and I don’t recall you ever saying this.
First, that entire quote is a load of bull. Second, not all sets of 5 x 5 have to be the same weight. You can easily go 75%, 80%, 80%, 85%, 85%, the last two sets of 5 at your 6RM. And we’re not talking about most people, we’re talking about what works best.
Then this isn’t really 5×5. The first set would serve, at best, as a warm-up and if 85% is someone’s 6RM, 80% for 2×5 is going to be pretty easy as well. You essentially have 2 sets that are of significant difficulty. Either way, in the most optimistic scenario you might hit 85%, at a maximum.
First, we’re not talking specifically about track athletes
This is Elitetrack.com and the thread is in reference to training track and field athletes (maybe you missed the blog post all of this is in reference to?).
you always hide behind that when your arguments fall apart, which they always do. We are first talking about what works best for strength period, then we can begin making the necessary comprimises for a specific athlete’s training. And now you’re saying 5 x 5. Up to this point, your stance has been that NEVER lifting heavier than 70% would improve strength equally as good,or better, than heavier lifting, which is a load of garbage.Why 5 x 5? What happened to your 3 x 10
No, it has always been, in these discussions, within the context of training an athlete who has some sort of other obligation/goal/etc. than doing a shitty wide squat out of a monolift. When has my stance even been that never going above 70% would improve strength equally for everyone? Can you post that quote, too? You seem to have a funny memory. And I didn’t bring up 3×10, but I think 3×10 can be quite effective. 5×5 can as well. Interestingly, the volumes are quite similar. I don’t have a hard on for heavy lifting for non-powerlifters.
But not all systems that rely on progressive overload impact strength equally. That’s my point. The plan you posted for max strength would not improve an atlete’s max strength to any appreciable degree unless he was a novice lifter.
What is a novice lifter? Plenty of people far stronger than you or any of your nephews have progressed just fine on such plans. Many raw powerlifters have as well as have many “old school” powerlifters (ala Coan) without the injury histories nearly everyone in Westside has.
Let me ask you something, Daven. In other threads you have thrown out some terms that make me think you are a Charles Staley disciple. Do you train using EDT? If so, for strength training???
lol a Charles Staley disciple? I have read maybe two articles from Charles Staley and read a couple of posts he had on a forum. I do very little that could even remotely look like something Charles Staley would do and even if one were to somehow rearrange how I have done things in some workouts, it would still be difficult to really make it look like EDT. I did do some “EDT-esque” workouts years ago, when I first started lifting, only on pull-ups and push-ups. I did not know who Charles Staley was at the time, so probably irrelevant.
-
Participant
Since Star believes I am lying and misconstruing what he says, let his words speak for me:
How intense does Star have track athletes lift?
We shoot for PRs every workout. Many days we know going in that it won’t happen, and actually we only occasionally achieve a new PR. We rarely go for a 1RM PR. Instead, we shoot for a 3RM or 5RM PR in a core lift such as the box squat or Romanian deadlift.
In reference to training a HS 400m girl:
Much of what we do is based on a WS type of philosophy
What should a sprinter who has no experience lifting weights do?
Posterior Chain Max Effort exercises, 2-5 reps per set, as near as possible to 2-5RM.
– Back Squat (I like box squat best, then safety bar and standard back squat)
– Deadlifts (I like Romanian deadlifts, less back strain, but full range are good)
Posterior Chain Dynamic Effort exercises, 2-5 reps per set, 50%-60% of 2-5RM.
– Back Squat (I like box squat best, then safety bar and standard back squat)
– Powercleans (I like hanging cleans best)
Posterior Chain Accessory exercises, 6-10 reps per set.
– GluteHam raises, if you have access
– Stifflegged deadlifts
– Goodmornings
– Leg extensions
– Calf raisesHow would you organize a track athlete’s training?
Sept. 1 – March 1 (26 weeks)
March 1 – March 7 (Conference)
March 7 – May 15 (11 weeks)4 weeks – Hypertrophy (3-5×8-10 reps,60s rest,70-85%) visiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
4 weeks – Max Strength(5×3-5 reps,3-7min rest,85-95%)
4 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%)
3 weeks – Max Strength revisiting Power-Speed bi-weekly, ballistic reps
3 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
3 weeks – Max Strength(5×3-5 reps,3-7min rest,85-95%)
3 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
2 weeks – Maintenance (conference champs @ the beginning of Mar)Conference
2 weeks – Max Strength/ revisiting Power-Speed by-weekly, ballistic reps
2 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
2 weeks – Max Strength/ revisiting Power-Speed by-weekly, ballistic reps
2 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
3 weeks – maintenance-> completely drop out weights -
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1253748522"]You always have to be suspect of these “30m + 1m fly” bobsled times. You can have almost a 2 tenth variance on how much that 1m helps you/improves your time depending on how much you fudge things. Just like people will roll in with their touch pad starts, people will push the limits of what a “1m fly” is. Look at their 30m fly times. 2.89 from 3.44 30m + 1m fly? Gimme a break :). There are guys barely under 11 that can run faster flies than that, with ease, in training.
Edwards tested using this method and his fastest ever time was 3.54 and here’s a guy who ran 10.40. The UK Athletics jumps national squad training weekends uses this same 1m fly method to time their 20 and 40m sprints…
Doubt guys are running 3.4 with that method. Fastest bob sledder Mike ever saw ran 3.6x or 3.5 high like this…[/quote]
Is it that unbelievable considering they focus on low end power and acceleration and probably never train max speed and certainly do not train speed endurance? Add in the fact that ll of them are most likely over 90kg in bodyweight.
There’s a Canadian bobsled guy that runs 3.4 something with this method and front squats 225kg weighing 96kg.
Of course they are not track guys so this is irrelevant to the topic tight..
-
Participant
[quote author=”mortac8[Ashley Mort]” date=”1253748097″][quote author="Thomas White" date="1253747766"]
I think the times listed are about .5-.6 off of a legitimate track time. Still fairly impressive, especially considering that these are 220-235 lbs., but like you said these are not elite 100m men by any means.
3.44 to 30? How is this timed? Random bro with a stopwatch? Any why are none of the squats over 200kg? Is it because that’s 100pts?[/quote]
The timing method is FAT (timing gates) with a 1m run in before you break the first beam.
You are right about the cleans and squats, 150 and 200 were 100 pts. Maybe they found that max strength on the squat didn’t correlate as strongly as once thought, hmmmm?[/quote]
Isn’t that squat a front squat?
Or is it just the Canadians who test front squat.
-
Participant
Is it that unbelievable considering they focus on low end power and acceleration and probably never train max speed and certainly do not train speed endurance? Add in the fact that ll of them are most likely over 90kg in bodyweight.
There’s a Canadian bobsled guy that runs 3.4 something with this method and front squats 225kg weighing 96kg.
Of course they are not track guys so this is irrelevant to the topic tight..
Considering most of the guys on the chart TWhite posted couldn’t run sub 6.8 60m if their life depended on it, yes, it is quite unbelievable that they run 3.4 with any sort of legitimate timing. Even the “fastest” bobsledders (as in, guys who have actually gotten medals and have competed in track meets) are running 3.5mid at best, likely slower if you made it more strict.
-
Participant
https://www.gonu.com/mtrack/langton.shtml
confused on how these guys morph into
https://www.gonu.com/mtrack/news/langton110807.htm
I think one meter fly in is not accurate. I have worked with 5 push athletes and I cry BS.
-
Participant
Since Star believes I am lying and misconstruing what he says, let his words speak for me:
Yes, and this post is a perfect example of your taking things out of context and misrepresenting my position.
How intense does Star have track athletes lift. We shoot for PRs every workout. Many days we know going in that it won’t happen, and actually we only occasionally achieve a new PR. We rarely go for a 1RM PR. Instead, we shoot for a 3RM or 5RM PR in a core lift such as the box squat or Romanian deadlift.?
This post was primarily in reference to the two powerlifters that I trained for a couple of years, even though some of this training did bleed over into my daughters training. I no longer directly train them, but consult with them on at least a weekly basis. For those two athletes, the post Davan quotes is an accurate representation of their training. Does it work? The first is currently the NASA junior world record holder in the squat: 601bs. in the 198lb. class at age 19. And before Davan whines about equipment and such, NASA is a drug tested, single ply poly organization and there were no monolifts. And this same athlete officially deadlifted 628lbs. in the 198lb. class in a later meet at age 23, after squatting a new PB of 725lbs. Equipment doesn’t have much effect at all on the deadlift, so explain that.
The second powerlifter I trained, Logan Lacy, is the current APF/WPC junior world record holder in the bench press. At age 21, his bench of 738lbs. beat Anthony Clark’s 663lb. lift (set in 1988) by 75lbs, in only Logan’s second powerlifting meet ever. At his third powerlifting meet, held just last month, he improved his official bench press to 771bs., missing his final bench attempt at 801 lbs by two inches at lockout, and threw in a 905 squat for good measure. After Logan started moving past raw 600lb. board presses, I refused to train directly anymore for safety reasons and he now works out at with a local powerlifting club, although I speak to him almost daily about his training. He is sitting in my living room as I type this. Yes he lifts equipped, but considering his bench press is over 100lbs. heavier than the next best junior benchpress I’m aware of, equipped or not, evidently something we were doing seems to work.
We’re talking max strength here, Davan, so if you know anyone who has done a better job training a couple of young guys to world strength records using a better approach than I have, please let me know. I’m always looking for the a better method of training. And I didn’t choose these athletes, the first was my nephew and Logan someone my nephew met at school. To say that both made huge gains in all the strength lifts during the time we worked together is an understatement to say the least.
In reference to training a HS 400m girl:
[quote]Much of what we do is based on a WS type of philosophyWhat should a sprinter who has no experience lifting weights do?
Posterior Chain Max Effort exercises, 2-5 reps per set, as near as possible to 2-5RM.
– Back Squat (I like box squat best, then safety bar and standard back squat)
– Deadlifts (I like Romanian deadlifts, less back strain, but full range are good)
Posterior Chain Dynamic Effort exercises, 2-5 reps per set, 50%-60% of 2-5RM.
– Back Squat (I like box squat best, then safety bar and standard back squat)
– Powercleans (I like hanging cleans best)
Posterior Chain Accessory exercises, 6-10 reps per set.
– GluteHam raises, if you have access
– Stifflegged deadlifts
– Goodmornings
– Leg extensions
– Calf raises[/quote]This was offseason strength and powertraining, and she made great improvments, more than doubling her squat and taking almost a full second off her 100m time. Which exercises scare you, Davan? Squats? Deadlifts versions? GHRs? Surely not powercleans?
Again, I don’t claim to know everything about strength training, and do not claim to be an expert on strength training for track and field, but I have seen incredible results with the two strength athletes I have trained and very good results with my daughter as well. And until Davan has accomplished anything remotely close to that, his disapproving opinion on the methods we used to accomplish these goals means absolutely nothing to me.
-
Participant
[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1253816912"]Is it that unbelievable considering they focus on low end power and acceleration and probably never train max speed and certainly do not train speed endurance? Add in the fact that ll of them are most likely over 90kg in bodyweight.
There’s a Canadian bobsled guy that runs 3.4 something with this method and front squats 225kg weighing 96kg.
Of course they are not track guys so this is irrelevant to the topic tight..
Considering most of the guys on the chart TWhite posted couldn’t run sub 6.8 60m if their life depended on it, yes, it is quite unbelievable that they run 3.4 with any sort of legitimate timing. Even the “fastest” bobsledders (as in, guys who have actually gotten medals and have competed in track meets) are running 3.5mid at best, likely slower if you made it more strict.[/quote]
Yeah, I can see how the timing gate could skew it after watching the video if you got a lucky stepover.
I don’t think the guys are lying as it is published data, meaning I believe the timing clock read 3.4_ after he got done with the run. Whether that is “accurate”……….
Anyway, those guys are not “slow” by any means for 205-235+ lbs. and they have pretty decent strength. Justin Olsen has some box power clean vids up as well. Pretty good technique from such a high start and real high catches.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1253823696"][quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1253816912"]Is it that unbelievable considering they focus on low end power and acceleration and probably never train max speed and certainly do not train speed endurance? Add in the fact that ll of them are most likely over 90kg in bodyweight.
There’s a Canadian bobsled guy that runs 3.4 something with this method and front squats 225kg weighing 96kg.
Of course they are not track guys so this is irrelevant to the topic tight..
Considering most of the guys on the chart TWhite posted couldn’t run sub 6.8 60m if their life depended on it, yes, it is quite unbelievable that they run 3.4 with any sort of legitimate timing. Even the “fastest” bobsledders (as in, guys who have actually gotten medals and have competed in track meets) are running 3.5mid at best, likely slower if you made it more strict.[/quote]
Yeah, I can see how the timing gate could skew it after watching the video if you got a lucky stepover.
I don’t think the guys are lying as it is published data, meaning I believe the timing clock read 3.4_ after he got done with the run. Whether that is “accurate”……….
Anyway, those guys are not “slow” by any means for 205-235+ lbs. and they have pretty decent strength. Justin Olsen has some box power clean vids up as well. Pretty good technique from such a high start and real high catches.[/quote]
What do you mean a lucky step over?
And Carl why is it not accurate? If that is the case, how is timing with a hand touch pad accurate? I would say that method is much less accurate than the 1m fly method…
With the hand touch pad, there are various ways of making it faster…for example, if you lean further back in the 3 point stance if you will have more momentum going forward by the time you release the pad meaning faster times…There is a technique to every timing method which can be manipulated if you practice enough…
Is any sprint timing method “accurate”? according to you and why?
-
Participant
Yeah, I can see how the timing gate could skew it after watching the video if you got a lucky stepover.
I don’t think the guys are lying as it is published data, meaning I believe the timing clock read 3.4_ after he got done with the run. Whether that is “accurate”……….
Anyway, those guys are not “slow” by any means for 205-235+ lbs. and they have pretty decent strength. Justin Olsen has some box power clean vids up as well. Pretty good technique from such a high start and real high catches.
I’m not saying that they are slow or that they are lying (that would be placing a value judgment on how they start, which would be pretty dumb), but there is a much different context around the times. If one person says they do a 1m fly and basically run it like a 31m and another has some oddball set-up to maximize momentum going into the mark to simply get a better test result (versus a more accurate test result), it puts things into a different perspective. For them, it is the smart thing to do since they are selected based on those parameters. I am friends with and worked with a girl on the US national team for bobsled right now–I have a bit of an idea of what they have to go through. I also know the times she recorded in her 30m from 1m fly during testing in comparison to times she ran without the 1m fly and they were substantially different. Not bad, but different.
-
Participant
Since Star believes I am lying and misconstruing what he says, let his words speak for me:
…How would you organize a track athlete’s training?
[quote]
Sept. 1 – March 1 (26 weeks)
March 1 – March 7 (Conference)
March 7 – May 15 (11 weeks)4 weeks – Hypertrophy (3-5×8-10 reps,60s rest,70-85%) visiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
4 weeks – Max Strength(5×3-5 reps,3-7min rest,85-95%)
4 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%)
3 weeks – Max Strength revisiting Power-Speed bi-weekly, ballistic reps
3 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
3 weeks – Max Strength(5×3-5 reps,3-7min rest,85-95%)
3 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
2 weeks – Maintenance (conference champs @ the beginning of Mar)Conference
2 weeks – Max Strength/ revisiting Power-Speed by-weekly, ballistic reps
2 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
2 weeks – Max Strength/ revisiting Power-Speed by-weekly, ballistic reps
2 weeks – Power-Speed (3-4×2-6 reps,3-7min rest,75-85%) revisiting Max Strength (work up to heavy triple 1xwk)
3 weeks – maintenance-> completely drop out weights[/quote]And let’s compare this program, which was presented as an alternative to a very similar plan that UT had presented Premium, to Davan’s idea about max strength training for a sprinter…
April 3, 2009
BW in morning: 173
15×3 Powercleans on the minute (15×3 in 15 minutes total) @ 225lbs
2×8+8 Barbell Reverse Lunges @ 225lbs
3×8 RDL @ lightweight, going for stretch (245lbs)
100 reps of 5 different abdominal exercises (1×20 each)September 3, 2009
BW in morning: 177
3×8 Bench Press w/ Controlled Eccentric @ 245lbs
4×6 Horizontal Rows with brief pause
2×8+8 Alternating DB Press @ 70lb dbs
3×6 Neutral Grip Chin-ups (touch shoulders/clavicles to hands) @ BW+45lbs
300 reps of various ab workFunny. I might use a similar setup if a soccer mom wanted to workout on her lunch hour but didn’t want to work up a sweat so she didn’t have to shower before going back to work. Davan, you can have the last word, as usual. You obviously have the max strength thing well in hand, lol.
-
Participant
What do you mean a lucky step over?
And Carl why is it not accurate? If that is the case, how is timing with a hand touch pad accurate? I would say that method is much less accurate than the 1m fly method…
With the hand touch pad, there are various ways of making it faster…for example, if you lean further back in the 3 point stance if you will have more momentum going forward by the time you release the pad meaning faster times…There is a technique to every timing method which can be manipulated if you practice enough…
Is any sprint timing method “accurate”? according to you and why?
The guy stepped over the timing gate, hence his COM and most of his body was well past the sensor before the timing started.
You are correct in the various ways different tests can be manipulated, but if someone were looking for an accurate result, why would they do any of those things? If you are in a testing/selection setting where you must maximize whatever you have, regardless of actual ability or not, then it makes sense. If you are legitimately trying to measure speed….
-
Participant
[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1253826048"][quote author="davan" date="1253823696"][quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1253816912"]Is it that unbelievable considering they focus on low end power and acceleration and probably never train max speed and certainly do not train speed endurance? Add in the fact that ll of them are most likely over 90kg in bodyweight.
There’s a Canadian bobsled guy that runs 3.4 something with this method and front squats 225kg weighing 96kg.
Of course they are not track guys so this is irrelevant to the topic tight..
Considering most of the guys on the chart TWhite posted couldn’t run sub 6.8 60m if their life depended on it, yes, it is quite unbelievable that they run 3.4 with any sort of legitimate timing. Even the “fastest” bobsledders (as in, guys who have actually gotten medals and have competed in track meets) are running 3.5mid at best, likely slower if you made it more strict.[/quote]
Yeah, I can see how the timing gate could skew it after watching the video if you got a lucky stepover.
I don’t think the guys are lying as it is published data, meaning I believe the timing clock read 3.4_ after he got done with the run. Whether that is “accurate”……….
Anyway, those guys are not “slow” by any means for 205-235+ lbs. and they have pretty decent strength. Justin Olsen has some box power clean vids up as well. Pretty good technique from such a high start and real high catches.[/quote]
What do you mean a lucky step over?
And Carl why is it not accurate? If that is the case, how is timing with a hand touch pad accurate? I would say that method is much less accurate than the 1m fly method…
With the hand touch pad, there are various ways of making it faster…for example, if you lean further back in the 3 point stance if you will have more momentum going forward by the time you release the pad meaning faster times…There is a technique to every timing method which can be manipulated if you practice enough…
Is any sprint timing method “accurate”? according to you and why?[/quote]
Someone early posted about the first timing gate and being able to “stepover” the beam so to speak. I don’t think you could purposely do it very easily without messing up the rest of the run.
I agree…what method of timing is truly accurate if the 1m fly in with timing gate is supposedly not as accurate as touch pad. Besides competition timing of course.
I would assume the reason why bobsleigh tests this way is to take the start and start setup/technique out of the equation somewhat. This way former track guys would not have as much of an advantage over athletes who did not compete in track. Just guessing…..
And the event starts with a fly in I believe. -
Keymaster
I’ve done the USBSF tests on a couple occassions when I was staying and training at Lake Placid several years ago. The fly test is easier to ‘cheat’ on. I realize this is semi-relevant to the topic at hand (the role of max strength on speed) but if we’re going to make timing the focus of discussion let’s start another thread.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
How do you cheat on a 1m fly test? without starting say 2m back?
I realise Mike does the touch pad test, maybe becuase Boo did it and he has numbers for it? But i don’t see how that is a true measure of speed especially for a jumper…We never have start in a 3 point stance etc…UKA do the 1m fly because it mimics how horizontal jumpers run their approach…makes a lotof sense to me.
-
Participant
I’ve done the USBSF tests on a couple occassions when I was staying and training at Lake Placid several years ago. The fly test is easier to ‘cheat’ on. I realize this is semi-relevant to the topic at hand (the role of max strength on speed) but if we’re going to make timing the focus of discussion let’s start another thread.
Is the squat test a front squat?
-
Keymaster
The 1m fly test permits several starting styles (depending on the tester) either with a rollover with lots of momentum before the first step which is faster or running 31m from a down / static crouch start and just timing the last 30m (which is slower).
No more discussion of timing methodology please in this thread. No one should argue that 30m runs with a 1m fly tests are quite a bit faster than 30m crouch start tests. We can debate the methods and value of these tests in another thread. Let’s stay on the topic of the importance of max strength (and how best to develop it).
I have worked with and have several bobsled friends and I have the utmost respect for the sport. With that said, I can assure you that no bobsleigh guy that I’m aware of could make a 60m international final and certainly not a 100m. They are VERY fast over 30m (as this is what the sport requires) but less so over longer distances. This isn’t a knock against them as bobsleigh athletes completely different animals altogether and running fast without a sled isn’t even there sport. My final word….bobsleigh guys are very fast and very strong. There sport requires them to be stronger than track athletes because 1) they are pushing a heavy sled, and 2) they actually do strength test measures just to get selected.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I’ll show my ignorance and ask, is there some sort of relationship (mathematical?) between the various RM numbers being used in this discussion and elsewhere?
I think so far in this thread there has been reference to 1RM, 3RM, 6RM, 10RM plus I have seen a table for 4RM and am curious if one can be a predictor for another. Plus, perhaps even a less educated question, when put in relation to BW, do expected numbers take into account whether or not the lift actually uses body weight (e.g. a 2xBW squat is very different than 2xBW bench because 1xBW when squatting is already “there”)?
I ask partially as using “RM” implies that testing for the reference to a particular lift has been done and unless there is a fairly consistent relationship between all of those numbers, using the above example, that would mean at least 4 different tests per lift and to me that says a fair bit of time would need to be used testing PLUS, just in casual observation, you can have some pretty wide swings in body weight with athletes that are in the process of maturing (say from Jr in HS to soph in college) so to have value how accurate do those percentages need to be? And even if you use very accurate percentages, is there any huge value or is a general trend upward sufficient?
I use percentages in a different way by giving them as a reference point to work done in the cycle immediately preceding the cycle in question (and testing on occasion).
-
Participant
I’ll show my ignorance and ask, is there some sort of relationship (mathematical?) between the various RM numbers being used in this discussion and elsewhere?
I think so far in this thread there has been reference to 1RM, 3RM, 6RM, 10RM plus I have seen a table for 4RM and am curious if one can be a predictor for another. Plus, perhaps even a less educated question, when put in relation to BW, do expected numbers take into account whether or not the lift actually uses body weight (e.g. a 2xBW squat is very different than 2xBW bench because 1xBW when squatting is already “there”)?
There are dozens of 1RM calculators and tables. There are many subtle differeces, some do not take into consideration weight classes, none that I know factor in bodyweight, and only a couple actually have different coeffecients for the different lifts.
I ask partially as using “RM” implies that testing for the reference to a particular lift has been done and unless there is a fairly consistent relationship between all of those numbers, using the above example, that would mean at least 4 different tests per lift and to me that says a fair bit of time would need to be used testing PLUS, just in casual observation, you can have some pretty wide swings in body weight with athletes that are in the process of maturing (say from Jr in HS to soph in college) so to have value how accurate do those percentages need to be? And even if you use very accurate percentages, is there any huge value or is a general trend upward sufficient?
I use percentages in a different way by giving them as a reference point to work done in the cycle immediately preceding the cycle in question (and testing on occasion).
I actually use percentages and RM terminology when discussing the training…it puts things into a general context, i.e. 6 x 3 with a 5RM vs 3 x 10 with a 12RM. With the exceptions of explosive strength/power training and training during a deload/taper, we generally train close to failure for the lsst few primary work sets, whether its hypertrophy or strength. After warming up for the first exercise, we generally pyramid up using triples. By the time we get a descent amount of weight on the bar (70%??) we have a good feeling of how strong we will be that day. We then use sort of a buffer system, in that depending on what part of a microcycle we are in, we may train to within 1, 2, or 3 reps of failure. For hypertrophy, we will train one or two sets actually to failure during the most intense phases. But we do not use exact percentages in the gym…we actually only use percentages and RM in planning and discussion, although we do try to stick as close to the plan as possible.
Hope that answers your question.
-
Participant
I think the problem that people run into is trying to take the “best” lifting program and try to mesh it with their speed training. The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training.
CF on the subject:
“While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to all of you with limited success for several years now.
This is why strength work IS general, functions as a stimulus, and why strength moves relentlessly upwards with performance even though the corresponding weight work may, at times, appear spotty.
The concept that weights can be made specific and thus be the leading element in the pursuit of higher sprint performance is dangerous. Despite my best efforts, I am constantly lectured on here that I am wrong.
I will, once again, try to make my point through a cautionary tale. The 1980 Olympic women’s sprint champ left her husb/coach and married Yuri Seydich, the Oly Hammer Champ. After having a baby, she started coming back under Yuri’s guidance. He told me: “I went through her weight program and it was a mess! The weights were all over the place, here today, absent tomorrow! The first thing I did was straighten out the weight program!”
I recognized why, as a secondary element, her weights varied, but cringed and said nothing. Predictably, perhaps, he wanted to use his unsurpassed knowledge of weights to help his wife. Equally predictably, she never ran well again.
The operation was a success but the patient died!”Also from CF.com (Hakan Andersson):
“Is it possible that excessive maximal lifting and to extreme jumping exercises might disturb sprint performance? Is there a risk that if non specific training is taking to large proportion there might be a risk that it will obstruct the learning of an for sprinting optimal motor pattern? Isn’t it possible that maximal velocity sprinting with to much tension will be negative from a metabolic perspective?”Here is what I think, to avoid any misunderstanding:
-Strength is very important
-Contrary to popular belief, the squat/deadlift is not the end all be all for quantifying strength–see Carl Lewis
-Research shows that above 80-85%, additional contribution on the lift comes from increased rate coding
-Rate coding is very task specific–Max strength work is skill work for the powerlifter–specific only to lifting heavy weights
-A more conservative approach in the weight room produces much less CNS fatigue and allows for more resources to be used for the primary stimulus
-You want to see the effects of your weightlifting program on the track/playing field
-Strength gains may not manifest themselves in the weight room because of the effect of the primary stimulus, sure you could deload and blow up the weight room but the whole reason for lifting is to SUPPORT the speed work.
-I believe that “if it looks right, it flies right”
-Weight work in the 70-85% (Repetition method) is not only less competitive for CNS resources but it also is better suited to building hypertrophy which is often beneficialAs far as the bobsled is concerned, notice that the 100 point strength standard on the squat is MUCH more attainable than the corresponding sprint and jump standards. Even in a sport that requires moving a heavy object from a dead start, the top standard is barely 2x bodyweight and even less for some. Perhaps they have found that additional strength gains past that point correlate poorly to world class push times? They appear to be putting a premium on size, power and speed–not absolute strength.
-
Participant
Mike, I have had a brief stint in europa cup bobsledding..fast guys for sure in europe..track times:
Austrian brakeman Martin Lachkovic has a 6″72 60m time.Best push guy in the world turn pilot Beat Hefti, had 6″71..his teammate cedric Grand, a beast of a guy, had swiss record in 6″60..these are just some…Italian team is full of sub 10″60 guys for example..so..there are guys who can flat out run…how do we compare 30m with fly in?Similarand a bit faster than accurate manual timing taken from back foot leaving the track, first motion.Glenreoy Gilbert used to run Bobsled, and Donovan Bayley had a season in 93..his best times on 20m with and without a sled ( non a bobsled, like resisted running) have been beaten by an amazing specimen, Giulio Zardo…later gone back to play in the CFL if I remember correctly.
Regarding speed..they have good…regarding strength, just 2 real experiences in Cortina.(italy)
Heafti, the day before a WC race some years ago, easy and deep singles with 250kg squat.
Romanini, Italian Brakeman, at 103 kg -105kg ( now maybe more, and 6″3) Cleaning 165 kg..( now up to 172,5, have been told)
Now, Going back to the thread…. -
Participant
I think the problem that people run into is trying to take the “best” lifting program and try to mesh it with their speed training. The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training…
No argument from me here. Athletes must make choices, compromises. BUT…don’t you want to start with the best strength training, best power training, best plyo training, best sprint training etc. etc. and THEN begin making choices and compromises? If you start out with a sub-optimal plan and then make additional compromises, you might not have much left to work with. Priorities must be addressed due to limited resources (time, CNS, etc. etc.). This fact makes it even more critical that you choose the optimal methods/means to reach your goals. Why use suboptimal methods/means even when addressing supplementary, auxilliary or ‘general’ training? Races are won by hundreths of a second…why squander a chance for even the smallest degree of improved performance?
-
Participant
I think the problem that people run into is trying to take the “best” lifting program and try to mesh it with their speed training. The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training.
CF on the subject:
“While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to all of you with limited success for several years now.
This is why strength work IS general, functions as a stimulus, and why strength moves relentlessly upwards with performance even though the corresponding weight work may, at times, appear spotty.
The concept that weights can be made specific and thus be the leading element in the pursuit of higher sprint performance is dangerous. Despite my best efforts, I am constantly lectured on here that I am wrong.
I will, once again, try to make my point through a cautionary tale. The 1980 Olympic women’s sprint champ left her husb/coach and married Yuri Seydich, the Oly Hammer Champ. After having a baby, she started coming back under Yuri’s guidance. He told me: “I went through her weight program and it was a mess! The weights were all over the place, here today, absent tomorrow! The first thing I did was straighten out the weight program!”
I recognized why, as a secondary element, her weights varied, but cringed and said nothing. Predictably, perhaps, he wanted to use his unsurpassed knowledge of weights to help his wife. Equally predictably, she never ran well again.
The operation was a success but the patient died!”Also from CF.com (Hakan Andersson):
“Is it possible that excessive maximal lifting and to extreme jumping exercises might disturb sprint performance? Is there a risk that if non specific training is taking to large proportion there might be a risk that it will obstruct the learning of an for sprinting optimal motor pattern? Isn’t it possible that maximal velocity sprinting with to much tension will be negative from a metabolic perspective?”Here is what I think, to avoid any misunderstanding:
-Strength is very important
-Contrary to popular belief, the squat/deadlift is not the end all be all for quantifying strength–see Carl Lewis
-Research shows that above 80-85%, additional contribution on the lift comes from increased rate coding
-Rate coding is very task specific–Max strength work is skill work for the powerlifter–specific only to lifting heavy weights
-A more conservative approach in the weight room produces much less CNS fatigue and allows for more resources to be used for the primary stimulus
-You want to see the effects of your weightlifting program on the track/playing field
-Strength gains may not manifest themselves in the weight room because of the effect of the primary stimulus, sure you could deload and blow up the weight room but the whole reason for lifting is to SUPPORT the speed work.
-I believe that “if it looks right, it flies right”
-Weight work in the 70-85% (Repetition method) is not only less competitive for CNS resources but it also is better suited to building hypertrophy which is often beneficialAs far as the bobsled is concerned, notice that the 100 point strength standard on the squat is MUCH more attainable than the corresponding sprint and jump standards. Even in a sport that requires moving a heavy object from a dead start, the top standard is barely 2x bodyweight and even less for some. Perhaps they have found that additional strength gains past that point correlate poorly to world class push times? They appear to be putting a premium on size, power and speed–not absolute strength.
a key post here
-
Participant
Star, what you are fundamentally missing is that sprinters do not use weights to get stronger, they use weights to get better at sprinting. General strength, plyos and sprinting itself will all make the athlete stronger for sprinting, as will lower load hypertrophy work. More importantly all of the above work will address other qualities that will also get the athlete better at sprinting. There is no point chasing numbers and just trying to squat more, and elites do not do this, strength is a side effect NOT a goal as it is for powerlifters.
You seem to work from the assumption that better training is just additive i.e. sprints + weights = performance. This is wrong, all stimuli have negative effects as well, everytime you do anything you sacrifice something else, hence why sprinters use the methods listed above to develop strength with minimal negative effects from the stimuli and maximum efficiency in developing multiple qualities with lower overall fatigue. Your additive view of training stimuli speaks volume to a lack of real-world application with sprinters.
As a general question for everyone, is it really so hard to believe that with proper background (a few years for a teenage sprinter) of general strength + sprints + plyos athletes are not strong enough to hit close to the necessary strength “standards” in the weight room within a short familiarisation with weights, and easily with some hypertrophy work added as davan has suggested? Are we just proving they have the strength when we use max loads?
Gambetta’s blog posts recently have been right on the money, there is no point chasing numbers, strength and conditioning is about helping the athlete get better at their sport, the same applies for sprinters which is why elite sprint coaches do what they do in terms of strength work, despite those think they know better but have no concept of the reality of the sport.
https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-4829/ is particularly relevant, train for your sport, as charlie says it is just “a stimulus”, the general supports the specific.
Edit: Agreed with Mortac, all of TWhite posts in this thread have been spot on.
-
Participant
The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training.
I am not so sure I agree entirely and it maybe splitting hairs but are there not times of the year (phases or cycles or even days of a cycle) when strength/weight program is the primary or at least equal to ?
I mean if someone is in GPP and doing accel/speed 2x per week and lifting 4x per week and something, for whatever reason, has to be dropped (and you have a choice) to me if say two upper body lifting days get dropped OK (based on being least related to what it is you are trying to do for the primary event, sprinting) but that still leaves those remaining days in balance (though running would still outweigh if you were doing other runs days as you likely would but those days may not be speed or skill development). If you have to drop another day and have to make a choice of either dropping an accel/speed day or one of the leg strength days (weights per se as I agree you will be doing strength just doing the run work) I am not entirely sure you always automatically drop one of the leg days since should it not be based on individual needs?I understand the points being made in the latter posts [agree 100% if you only had a single session per cycle to do it should be speed/skill] and it maybe semantics but “must” implies always and I don’t like “always”.
Star61: yes it did, thanks.
-
Participant
I think the problem that people run into is trying to take the “best” lifting program and try to mesh it with their speed training. The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training.
CF on the subject:
“While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to all of you with limited success for several years now.
This is why strength work IS general, functions as a stimulus, and why strength moves relentlessly upwards with performance even though the corresponding weight work may, at times, appear spotty.
The concept that weights can be made specific and thus be the leading element in the pursuit of higher sprint performance is dangerous. Despite my best efforts, I am constantly lectured on here that I am wrong.
I will, once again, try to make my point through a cautionary tale. The 1980 Olympic women’s sprint champ left her husb/coach and married Yuri Seydich, the Oly Hammer Champ. After having a baby, she started coming back under Yuri’s guidance. He told me: “I went through her weight program and it was a mess! The weights were all over the place, here today, absent tomorrow! The first thing I did was straighten out the weight program!”
I recognized why, as a secondary element, her weights varied, but cringed and said nothing. Predictably, perhaps, he wanted to use his unsurpassed knowledge of weights to help his wife. Equally predictably, she never ran well again.
The operation was a success but the patient died!”Also from CF.com (Hakan Andersson):
“Is it possible that excessive maximal lifting and to extreme jumping exercises might disturb sprint performance? Is there a risk that if non specific training is taking to large proportion there might be a risk that it will obstruct the learning of an for sprinting optimal motor pattern? Isn’t it possible that maximal velocity sprinting with to much tension will be negative from a metabolic perspective?”Here is what I think, to avoid any misunderstanding:
-Strength is very important
-Contrary to popular belief, the squat/deadlift is not the end all be all for quantifying strength–see Carl Lewis
-Research shows that above 80-85%, additional contribution on the lift comes from increased rate coding
-Rate coding is very task specific–Max strength work is skill work for the powerlifter–specific only to lifting heavy weights
-A more conservative approach in the weight room produces much less CNS fatigue and allows for more resources to be used for the primary stimulus
-You want to see the effects of your weightlifting program on the track/playing field
-Strength gains may not manifest themselves in the weight room because of the effect of the primary stimulus, sure you could deload and blow up the weight room but the whole reason for lifting is to SUPPORT the speed work.
-I believe that “if it looks right, it flies right”
-Weight work in the 70-85% (Repetition method) is not only less competitive for CNS resources but it also is better suited to building hypertrophy which is often beneficialAs far as the bobsled is concerned, notice that the 100 point strength standard on the squat is MUCH more attainable than the corresponding sprint and jump standards. Even in a sport that requires moving a heavy object from a dead start, the top standard is barely 2x bodyweight and even less for some. Perhaps they have found that additional strength gains past that point correlate poorly to world class push times? They appear to be putting a premium on size, power and speed–not absolute strength.
great post..agree with everything you said
-
Participant
[quote]The reality is that the weight program must be secondary and take a back seat to the speed/skill training.
I am not so sure I agree entirely and it maybe splitting hairs but are there not times of the year (phases or cycles or even days of a cycle) when strength/weight program is the primary or at least equal to ?
I mean if someone is in GPP and doing accel/speed 2x per week and lifting 4x per week and something, for whatever reason, has to be dropped (and you have a choice) to me if say two upper body lifting days get dropped OK (based on being least related to what it is you are trying to do for the primary event, sprinting) but that still leaves those remaining days in balance (though running would still outweigh if you were doing other runs days as you likely would but those days may not be speed or skill development). If you have to drop another day and have to make a choice of either dropping an accel/speed day or one of the leg strength days (weights per se as I agree you will be doing strength just doing the run work) I am not entirely sure you always automatically drop one of the leg days since should it not be based on individual needs?I understand the points being made in the latter posts [agree 100% if you only had a single session per cycle to do it should be speed/skill] and it maybe semantics but “must” implies always and I don’t like “always”.
Star61: yes it did, thanks.[/quote]
I don’t think you can simply subtract upper weights here, sprint day there, etc. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Not to mention, most people are not going to be limited by in their training by “CNS” fatigue or better phrased by someone else “Non-Muscular Fatigue”, but by tendon/ligament, muscular, and even hormonal recovery. It is likely that lower body weights would be one of the first things cut or modified because of the fact they tax many of the same areas that sprints/plyos/throws/etc. do.
Now, most people would need to make adjustments in both areas. Rarely is someone going to be chronically training to such a point where they need to entirely drop and entire lower body weights session every week. If they always end up doing that, the sprint sessions are likely too intense or voluminous for the individual anyway.
With all of that said, I cannot think of an individual whose primarily limited in their speed or acceleration by maximum strength to the point it would take precedence over speed training. I would rather someone take a balanced approach that includes adjusting speed and weights instead of simply cutting out weights altogether, but weights would always take the back seat to speed training. In my own training, time after time after time, if I try to cut running versus another element or do not keep the primary focus on speed (whether it is acceleration/top speed/SE/whatever the focus is), performance inevitably drops, stagnates, or just has so-so progress compared to what would otherwise be possible. That goes for pretty much everyone I have seen as well.
-
Participant
Star, what you are fundamentally missing is that sprinters do not use weights to get stronger, they use weights to get better at sprinting. General strength, plyos and sprinting itself will all make the athlete stronger for sprinting, as will lower load hypertrophy work. More importantly all of the above work will address other qualities that will also get the athlete better at sprinting. There is no point chasing numbers and just trying to squat more, and elites do not do this, strength is a side effect NOT a goal as it is for powerlifters.
You seem to work from the assumption that better training is just additive i.e. sprints + weights = performance. This is wrong, all stimuli have negative effects as well, everytime you do anything you sacrifice something else, hence why sprinters use the methods listed above to develop strength with minimal negative effects from the stimuli and maximum efficiency in developing multiple qualities with lower overall fatigue. Your additive view of training stimuli speaks volume to a lack of real-world application with sprinters.
As a general question for everyone, is it really so hard to believe that with proper background (a few years for a teenage sprinter) of general strength + sprints + plyos athletes are not strong enough to hit close to the necessary strength “standards” in the weight room within a short familiarisation with weights, and easily with some hypertrophy work added as davan has suggested? Are we just proving they have the strength when we use max loads?
Gambetta’s blog posts recently have been right on the money, there is no point chasing numbers, strength and conditioning is about helping the athlete get better at their sport, the same applies for sprinters which is why elite sprint coaches do what they do in terms of strength work, despite those think they know better but have no concept of the reality of the sport.
https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-4829/ is particularly relevant, train for your sport, as charlie says it is just “a stimulus”, the general supports the specific.
Edit: Agreed with Mortac, all of TWhite posts in this thread have been spot on.
Unfortunately, it are you who is missing my point. I agree that strenth AND power are all secondary goals, speed is the goal for a track athlete. I fully understand, and have acknowledged several times in this very thread, that comprimises in general training, including hypertrophy, strength, power, RFD etc. take a back seat to sprinting for sprinters. My question remains, why are so many willing to subscribe to suboptimal methods for improving strength (inferior exercises, minimal loading) but less so for plyos, explosive strength development etc. Keep in mind that most of my posts were not directed to sprinters…they were discussions on the best means for improving strength period. I made this clear several times.
I do understand the need to use all general means as supportive only, to not allow general means to interfere with the ultimate athletic goal, but this is no excuse to use inferior genreal means. “If you want to improve RFD, use the best means available at the appropriate phases of training to improve RFD as much as possible without interfering with sprint training/performance.” I don’t think many would argue with that point. But replace RFD with strength, and everyone goes nuts. It makes no sense to me.
-
Participant
from CF
What I see in Charlie’s statements…
-Strength is very important
-Weight work in the 70-85% (Repetition method) is not only less competitive for CNS resources but it also is better suited to building hypertrophy which is often beneficialCharlie has always stated strength is important and includes work up to 85%. Obviously, 70% would have less CNS demands, so the fact he takes the risk of working up to 85% must be because there are benefits in that range that can’t be obtained working exclusively in the 70% range.
I do admit that I when I first began studying sprint training (late 2006) I felt that training in the 95-100% was appropriate for a sprinter, but more recently I have toned that down to 85-90% during max strength phases. I think that as long as you include at least some reps a 85%, good progress can be made. My primary argument in this thread has been that work below 85%, and definitely 70% as some promote, is outside the load range that will most effeciently build strength without training to failure, and I don’t think anyone here advocates that.
“While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
With all due respect to CF, this is obviously false for several reasons. Observation will tell you that many very fast individuals are not that strong. Is Bolt the strongest man on the planet? No. Secondly, studies show that while improvements on the slow/heavy end of the force-time curve positively impact points farther down (faster/lighter) the converse is not true. Sprinting, plyos, DE work have very little impact on max strength. Olympic lifts are the exception, but only, IMHO, when suffecient loads are used.
As far as quotes from James Smith…he advocates a load range of 50%-70%…for football players!!! This is a total joke. A load of 50% is about a 20RM. You can lift any volume you want at any frequency, and you will not build strength at this load, probably very little if any hypertrophy as well. If 70% is your max load, you would need to do sets of 10 with a fairly high volume to even see hypertrophy. A range of 50-70% cannot work as the primary load range for max strength. Again, this argument has been the focus of my comments on this thread.
-
Participant
My question remains, why are so many willing to subscribe to suboptimal methods for improving strength (inferior exercises, minimal loading) but less so for plyos, explosive strength development etc.
Optimal is context dependent- that is what you seem not to realize.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1253908661"]My question remains, why are so many willing to subscribe to suboptimal methods for improving strength (inferior exercises, minimal loading) but less so for plyos, explosive strength development etc.
Optimal is context dependent- that is what you seem not to realize.[/quote]I do realize it, 100% and have stated in many times, including the post you responded to. But I have seen NO evidence that lifting in exclusively the 70% range, even in the off season, which does very little to improve strength in any context, is a better choice than a one that includes some reps at 85% during phases where such lifting won’t impact sprint training, i.e, off season and early GPP, no matter the sport. It is a dogma that certainly has no basis in science, and the anecdotal responses and excuses just don’t hold water. That seems to be something that you, and others, seem not to realize.
-
Participant
[quote author="tscm" date="1253860928"]Star, what you are fundamentally missing is that sprinters do not use weights to get stronger, they use weights to get better at sprinting. General strength, plyos and sprinting itself will all make the athlete stronger for sprinting, as will lower load hypertrophy work. More importantly all of the above work will address other qualities that will also get the athlete better at sprinting. There is no point chasing numbers and just trying to squat more, and elites do not do this, strength is a side effect NOT a goal as it is for powerlifters.
You seem to work from the assumption that better training is just additive i.e. sprints + weights = performance. This is wrong, all stimuli have negative effects as well, everytime you do anything you sacrifice something else, hence why sprinters use the methods listed above to develop strength with minimal negative effects from the stimuli and maximum efficiency in developing multiple qualities with lower overall fatigue. Your additive view of training stimuli speaks volume to a lack of real-world application with sprinters.
As a general question for everyone, is it really so hard to believe that with proper background (a few years for a teenage sprinter) of general strength + sprints + plyos athletes are not strong enough to hit close to the necessary strength “standards” in the weight room within a short familiarisation with weights, and easily with some hypertrophy work added as davan has suggested? Are we just proving they have the strength when we use max loads?
Gambetta’s blog posts recently have been right on the money, there is no point chasing numbers, strength and conditioning is about helping the athlete get better at their sport, the same applies for sprinters which is why elite sprint coaches do what they do in terms of strength work, despite those think they know better but have no concept of the reality of the sport.
https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-4829/ is particularly relevant, train for your sport, as charlie says it is just “a stimulus”, the general supports the specific.
Edit: Agreed with Mortac, all of TWhite posts in this thread have been spot on.
Unfortunately, it are you who is missing my point. I agree that strenth AND power are all secondary goals, speed is the goal for a track athlete. I fully understand, and have acknowledged several times in this very thread, that comprimises in general training, including hypertrophy, strength, power, RFD etc. take a back seat to sprinting for sprinters. My question remains, why are so many willing to subscribe to suboptimal methods for improving strength (inferior exercises, minimal loading) but less so for plyos, explosive strength development etc. Keep in mind that most of my posts were not directed to sprinters…they were discussions on the best means for improving strength period. I made this clear several times.
I do understand the need to use all general means as supportive only, to not allow general means to interfere with the ultimate athletic goal, but this is no excuse to use inferior genreal means. “If you want to improve RFD, use the best means available at the appropriate phases of training to improve RFD as much as possible without interfering with sprint training/performance.” I don’t think many would argue with that point. But replace RFD with strength, and everyone goes nuts. It makes no sense to me.[/quote]
Again you are completely wrong here…
POWER is NEVER a secondary goal for a sprinter/jumper…not a chance.
-
Participant
[quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1253911548"][quote author="star61" date="1253908661"]My question remains, why are so many willing to subscribe to suboptimal methods for improving strength (inferior exercises, minimal loading) but less so for plyos, explosive strength development etc.
Optimal is context dependent- that is what you seem not to realize.[/quote]I do realize it, 100% and have stated in many times, including the post you responded to.[/quote]
You say you realize it but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Most people make sprinting a priority the entire year for their sprinters therefore they can’t afford negative effects from too much intensity/volume of secondary activities. That is why more intense lifting may not be optimal in this context.
You see the same thing other situations- coaches have to optimize secondary training based on the situation. For example: flying 20m sprints on a mondo track in spikes may be “optimal” for speed development but you don’t see too many coaches having 300-330lb lineman doing that to improve their speed because its not optimal in that context.
-
Participant
But I have seen NO evidence that lifting in exclusively the 70% range, even in the off season, which does very little to improve strength in any context, is a better choice than a one that includes some reps at 85% during phases where such lifting won’t impact sprint training, i.e, off season and early GPP, no matter the sport. It is a dogma that certainly has no basis in science, and the anecdotal responses and excuses just don’t hold water. That seems to be something that you, and others, seem not to realize.
As long as you are above a certain threshold, the intensity is not all that important. Earlier (or elsewhere, I forget) you said max strength was the ability to lift the heaviest weight for one rep. As others have discussed- this is a specific skill so its no wonder those that don’t practice it will not perform as well in that specific task as they could have had they practiced. That specific skill, however, is irrelevant for a t+f athlete.
In terms of general strength or force production capabilities or whatever you want to call it… there is going to be minimal, if any, difference between the guy who goes from 400×1 to 500×1 and the guy who goes from 300×10 to 375×10.
-
Participant
Quoting studies by Blazevich as a guide: Train a wide range of the force-velocity spectrum. However a close look at the study suggests that a slight bias should be towards high-velocity resistance training.
Effect of the movement speed of resistance training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training elite junior sprinters.
J Sports Sci 2002 Dec;20(12):981-90Blazevich AJ, Jenkins DG.
Department of Sport Sciences, Brunel University, UK. anthony.blazevich@brunel.ac.uk
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of 7 weeks of high- and low-velocity resistance training on strength and sprint running performance in nine male elite junior sprint runners (age 19.01.4 years, best 100 m times 10.890.21 s; mean s). The athletes continued their sprint training throughout the study, but their resistance training programme was replaced by one in which the movement velocities of hip extension and flexion, knee extension and flexion and squat exercises varied according to the loads lifted (i.e. 30-50% and 70-90% of 1-RM in the high- and low-velocity training groups, respectively).
There were no between-group differences in hip flexion or extension torque produced at 1.05, 4.74 or 8.42 rad x s(-1), 20 m acceleration or 20 m ‘flying’ running times, or 1-RM squat lift strength either before or after training. This was despite significant improvements in 20 m acceleration time (P < 0.01), squat strength (P < 0.05), isokinetic hip flexion torque at 4.74 rad x s(-1) and hip extension torque at 1.05 and 4.74 rad x s(-1) for the athletes as a whole over the training period. Although velocity-specific strength adaptations have been shown to occur rapidly in untrained and nonconcurrently training individuals, the present results suggest a lack of velocity-specific performance changes in elite concurrently training sprint runners performing a combination of traditional and semi-specific resistance training exercises.
PubMed
My own opinion is that really heavy weights are needed only when the exercise is so far removed from sprint biomechanics. Of course sometimes heavy weights are needed when strength in a particular movement is lacking but over time this exercise would increase in speed once the minimum strength requirements are achieved.
-
Participant
How does 70% lifting do very little to improve strength? Why does anybody do assistance work if it doesn’t improve strength?
Maybe Star can explain to us why there are only significant strength improvements when lifting >85% when plenty of studies show strength building @ 70% (and even below) as well as above. Increasing the protein content within muscles also happens when lifting @ 70% and that general area and I have a hard time believing that someone increasing the density of proteins within a muscle is going to not increase their strength. If I take my 10 rep max and increase it 50lbs, will my 1 rep max not be improved as well? Star already said that it won’t be (to any significant degree), but I’ll let others muse about how funny that logic is…
-
Participant
And what does that say about the Kaatsu studies as well which show significant improvements in both hypertrophy and strength while training at 20% of one’s 1RM while focusing on occlusion? I’d love to see the deconstruction of that one. And of course, nobody ever got big or strong doing 5×5, Dr. Squat, DoggCrapp, Ed Coan stuff, Pendlay/Rippetoe/etc. type training, most of which have far less than even 5% of their reps >85%.
-
Participant
How does 70% lifting do very little to improve strength? Why does anybody do assistance work if it doesn’t improve strength?
Maybe Star can explain to us why there are only significant strength improvements when lifting >85% when plenty of studies show strength building @ 70% (and even below) as well as above. Increasing the protein content within muscles also happens when lifting @ 70% and that general area and I have a hard time believing that someone increasing the density of proteins within a muscle is going to not increase their strength. If I take my 10 rep max and increase it 50lbs, will my 1 rep max not be improved as well? Star already said that it won’t be (to any significant degree), but I’ll let others muse about how funny that logic is…
70% does improve strength. Training at 70% will improve 1RM strength but not as closely as the “charts” predict although it only takes a little 1RM training to bring one’s 1RM strength in line with the “charts”. The question is really why would someone want to train excessively heavy?
Sprinting/jumping etc require coordination of muscles to provide movement. Training at 70% or similar allows one to train the muscles to coordinate better. I don’t think the sprint (and scientific) community have accepted this or tried to base their program design on this concept. Success is guaranteed for anyone that does.
-
Participant
And what does that say about the Kaatsu studies as well which show significant improvements in both hypertrophy and strength while training at 20% of one’s 1RM while focusing on occlusion? I’d love to see the deconstruction of that one. And of course, nobody ever got big or strong doing 5×5, Dr. Squat, DoggCrapp, Ed Coan stuff, Pendlay/Rippetoe/etc. type training, most of which have far less than even 5% of their reps >85%.
It’s now beyond laughable. Significant strength and hypertrophy at 20%…what a joke. The people you mention DO include reps above 85% in their training, especially during max strength phases, with the exception of strict DC training, which trains EVERY SET to failure. Daven, you ignore the millions of trees and upon seeing a single blade of grass, claim to the world that you’ve discovered more evidence that you are standing in a meadow. If anything you said were true, there would be a host of strength athletes and bodybuilders that got very strong and very big without ever lifting heavy. If there are any, they are the rare exceptions.
Why do people include lighter loads? The same reasons sprinters don’t run every rep every day at 100%. But how many sprinters make elite status having never run above 85% intensity? Maybe we could find one or two, but would the masses be best served following the examaples of the few exceptions or the examples of the vast majority? Unless you are incredibly blessed to be one of those exceptional people, you may end up being greatly disappointed in your results.
-
Participant
I believe single leg cleans were mentioned during this thread? correct me if i’m wrong…
Just thought i’d say that Australian horizontal jumps coach Gary Bourne used these for you years with both female and male Australian record holders in the long jump…It was a competition phase exercise for them.
-
Participant
Again you are completely wrong here…
POWER is NEVER a secondary goal for a sprinter/jumper…not a chance.
There is one primary goal for a jumper…jumping. Jumping higher, or farther, is your primary goal. For a sprinter, running faster is the primary goal. Improvements in strength, power, technique are secondary to that goal. Would you give up jumping distance to improve power? You could easily improve your power by gaining 30lbs. of muscle and training like a shot putter or Olympic lifter. But you wouldn’t jump farther.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1253937849"]And what does that say about the Kaatsu studies as well which show significant improvements in both hypertrophy and strength while training at 20% of one’s 1RM while focusing on occlusion? I’d love to see the deconstruction of that one. And of course, nobody ever got big or strong doing 5×5, Dr. Squat, DoggCrapp, Ed Coan stuff, Pendlay/Rippetoe/etc. type training, most of which have far less than even 5% of their reps >85%.
It’s now beyond laughable. Significant strength and hypertrophy at 20%…what a joke. The people you mention DO include reps above 85% in their training, especially during max strength phases, with the exception of strict DC training, which trains EVERY SET to failure. Daven, you ignore the millions of trees and upon seeing a single blade of grass, claim to the world that you’ve discovered more evidence that you are standing in a meadow. If anything you said were true, there would be a host of strength athletes and bodybuilders that got very strong and very big without ever lifting heavy. If there are any, they are the rare exceptions.
Why do people include lighter loads? The same reasons sprinters don’t run every rep every day at 100%. But how many sprinters make elite status having never run above 85% intensity? Maybe we could find one or two, but would the masses be best served following the examaples of the few exceptions or the examples of the vast majority? Unless you are incredibly blessed to be one of those exceptional people, you may end up being greatly disappointed in your results.[/quote]
Wow are joking or what?
You equate intensity solely with lifting heavy weights? Becuase you can’t lift 75% at maximal intensity right?
Come on dude, your arguments are becoming really stupid now…
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1253920248"]
Again you are completely wrong here…
POWER is NEVER a secondary goal for a sprinter/jumper…not a chance.
There is one primary goal for a jumper…jumping. Jumping higher, or farther, is your primary goal. For a sprinter, running faster is the primary goal. Improvements in strength, power, technique are secondary to that goal. Would you give up jumping distance to improve power? You could easily improve your power by gaining 30lbs. of muscle and training like a shot putter or Olympic lifter. But you wouldn’t jump higher.[/quote]
What you fail to realise still…
Is that everything is specific to the event…My MAIN goal is to improve sprinting power and jumping power…not shot put specific power…
You think max strength work for a weight lifter is specific to a sprinter…and we’re all trying to tell you that it’s not!
-
Participant
Sprinting/jumping etc require coordination of muscles to provide movement. Training at 70% or similar allows one to train the muscles to coordinate better. I don’t think the sprint (and scientific) community have accepted this or tried to base their program design on this concept. [b]Success is guaranteed for anyone that does.[/b]
Break out the Kool-aid.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1253938179"]The question is really why would someone want to train excessively heavy?
I don’t think anyone is advocating that. I merely suggest the world would not come to an end if they throw in a small number of reps at 85%.[/quote]
That statement I posted was not directed at you but at the broader athletic community. They take a basic exercise like the squat and turn it into a series of record breaking periods of training without any consideration of such factors like pennation angle of the muscle being developed, recruitment speed of the muscles, or recruitment sequence required in the coordinated pattern of the biomechanical movement they are trying to improve in such as the sprint start (3rd step for example), top speed, or jump.
Heavy training does have some benefit to sprinting/athletics/sport. One benefit is the ability to train the brian to produce a large pulse of electrical signals to activate the muscles or improve the capacity of the nerves to transmit the signals. (Nerves use ATP as well and this needs to be trained).
Finally, I am an advocate of low reps (or equivalent intensity when speed of movement is taken into account) as regular part of a training program. Perhaps one such training period should be carried out every four weeks.
-
Participant
Funny how much your argument/position has changed, Star… First you had to do a significant amount over 90%, then over 85%, then you need to hit 85% occasionally, now you need to do a few reps there.
Please look at the Kaatsu studies and argue with those. They have been peer reviewed numerous times and the results have been repeated, what else is there to say? Some of the work actually involves Olympic level athletes (speed skaters). Ironically, it shows that the stimulation shown there and in medium to higher rep sets @ relatively high intensity (for the given rep range) have similar effects. The effects are, in a physiological sense, basically the same.
Comparing submaximal running (ie tempo) to 75% weights is beyond moronic. Nick pointed out one problem with the idea (the fact that you can often produce greater amounts of power and the like at lower loads, hence the intensity being well beyond simply the percentage relative to 1RM) and there are many more points to consider as well–the top speed hit in an all out 400-600m repetition is nothing compared to that hit in a flying 30m, but it is most definitely intensive in nature and will have significant effects.
So assistance training in Westside is for the same reason as tempo for sprinters. lol
Also, as I said, most of those training systems have a very limited number of reps above 85% of 1RM. You 10-20% of reps >85% (btw you never did mention the thread where you said it was only counting the work sets…) significantly dwarfs any amount seen in their training, which is generally only during testing or based off of old 1RM (hence not even >85% of their current status).
-
Participant
So what is wrong if I include heavy lifting especially during offseason? I’m risking something, will it make me slower even if reps/sets/frequency is kept to a minimum? Now it looks that heavy lifting simply can do something wrong for a t&f athlete, so what is it, CNS fatique, not enough rest before a work on the track?
No doubt that the most important and the most specific work for sprinters is sprinting, so if to choose just one exercise between all exercises then it would be sprinting itself. But if I want lift heavy from time to time so what I’m risking for? Many are talking that heavy lifting can interfer with track work, but we can say same about any work if loads are too high like too much sprinting, too much plyos, too much submaximal weight lifting, too much tempo running, even too much flexibility work, too high frequency of any training load, too short GPP and too long SPP preparation or an oposite one and ect.
-
Participant
So what is wrong if I include heavy lifting especially during offseason? I’m risking something, will it make me slower even if reps/sets/frequency is kept to a minimum? Now it looks that heavy lifting simply can do something wrong for a t&f athlete, so what is it, CNS fatique, not enough rest before a work on the track?
No doubt that the most important and the most specific work for sprinters is sprinting, so if to choose just one exercise between all exercises then it would be sprinting itself. But if I want lift heavy from time to time so what I’m risking for? Many are talking that heavy lifting can interfer with track work, but we can say same about any work if loads are too high like too much sprinting, too much plyos, too much submaximal weight lifting, too much tempo running, even too much flexibility work, too high frequency of any training load, too short GPP and too long SPP preparation or an oposite one and ect.
Have you been following the thread? A lot of different ideas to answer this question have been provided.
Essentially, you have to ask yourself for what purpose are you include the heavy lifting and to what extent are you really including it? 10-20% of reps (and presumably a regular frequency @ no less than once a week, most likely twice a week) is going to amount to a great deal of your training volumes. At these frequencies and volumes, this is going to require significant recovery, which is hard to compliment with sprint training. On its own, it also does little to increase muscle mass where it is needed. Presumably, anybody that is weak enough to find strength to be significantly problematic is likely going to be lacking enough muscle in the right places (glutes, hamstrings, back, etc.).
What extra benefits are you going to see from regularly (10-20% of volume, essentially) using heavier loads versus more moderate loading? Frankly, there isn’t really going to be any if you are a sprinter/jumper and you will most likely experience significant problems in training from a recovery standpoint. You could easily do a hard 5×5 program twice a week, testing your 1rm, 3rm, or 5rm once every 3-4 weeks and you wouldn’t approach 10% of total volume >85% of 1RM, let alone >90%. That is likely far beyond what anybody would ever need (quite excessive, in fact) and it is still significantly below what Star has recommended.
-
Participant
I don’t think you can simply subtract upper weights here, sprint day there, etc. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Not to mention, most people are not going to be limited by in their training by “CNS” fatigue or better phrased by someone else “Non-Muscular Fatigue”, but by tendon/ligament, muscular, and even hormonal recovery. It is likely that lower body weights would be one of the first things cut or modified because of the fact they tax many of the same areas that sprints/plyos/throws/etc. do.
I agree, it does not make a lot of sense BUT the point I was trying to get at in dropping days was that it does, at least in my little world, happen and more than on the rare occasion [believe me I would love to coach only athletes that always show up, do exactly what is asked etc. etc. but for me, that is just not reality] so one has to compromise. The day itself may not be dropped but moved and that can lead to the entire week being re-arranged which in turn, can mean, somewhere something needs to be dropped simply because you run out of days to move things to.
No sarcasm intended and please don’t view this as crying but from what I have seen on this site, the athletes I coach simply don’t train like a lot of these discussions imply that others do. Classes get canceled so now there is suddenly a spot to train that was not available before or those same canceled classes get moved or an additional lab gets added so now that second speed session planned that week gets dropped or changed. Or you are dead from having to study the night before, or your ride/bus doesn’t show, or the space gets double booked and you get bounced or if you don’t work that extra shift you lose your regular shift as well and so can’t pay bills etc. etc. I get most of those reasons/excuses at least once a week from someone. YET, if you look at many of the training journals on this site, and certainly no offense here, there are gaps all over the place, so what happened on those days? It is completely different if someone just did not do an entry or if there was nothing to enter. And if there was nothing to enter, what happened to the training that was supposed to be done on those days? To me it also does not make a lot of sense to just continue on with whatever the next day was on the calendar. I know this sort of answers my own question but if any run day gets dropped it will be those Tempo days as accel/speed will be the last to be sacrificed for a sprinter.The point I was trying to make re: dropping upper body was related to specificity. What I was saying is that if you have to drop some or all of either lower body or upper body and you can still reshuffle the week to allow for good rest, I would tend to drop the upper body work 1st as to me it is the least related to sprinting in terms of specificity. What you are saying, I believe, is that what should be dropped first in that same scenario is the lower body as the sprint/run work will effect the same areas. Does that not contradict “specificity”? And if it does, or seemingly does, how do you know what to change and when just because of the contradiction? Or is it not a contradiction?
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1253954954"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1253920248"]
Again you are completely wrong here…
POWER is NEVER a secondary goal for a sprinter/jumper…not a chance.
There is one primary goal for a jumper…jumping. Jumping higher, or farther, is your primary goal. For a sprinter, running faster is the primary goal. Improvements in strength, power, technique are secondary to that goal. Would you give up jumping distance to improve power? You could easily improve your power by gaining 30lbs. of muscle and training like a shot putter or Olympic lifter. But you wouldn’t jump higher.[/quote]
What you fail to realise still…
Is that everything is specific to the event…My MAIN goal is to improve sprinting power and jumping power…not shot put specific power…
You think max strength work for a weight lifter is specific to a sprinter…and we’re all trying to tell you that it’s not![/quote]We’re not talking about strength, we’re talking about your commentj, above. You can’t hold me to one standard, saying strength is secondary to sprint speed (which it is) then say I’m ‘completely wrong’ by implying power is secondary to your jumping as far as possible. YOU are wrong on this comment. It is just semantics, but don’t rip me for being careless with a term then stand firm defending your use of a term in the exact same way. And your MAIN goal is to jump far, not improve jumping and sprinting power. Those are very, very important qualities that help you jump far, but your main goal is too jump far. Again, don’t try to hold me to one standard but refuse to honor it yourself.
And look up ‘power’ in any elementary physics text. Replace the word ‘force’ with strength and tell me how strength is completely unimportant to someone whose MAIN goal is power.
-
Participant
Have you been following the thread? A lot of different ideas to answer this question have been provided.
Yes, but still haven’t got a “proper” answer, maybe I’m the one who won’t get a “proper” answer
Essentially, you have to ask yourself for what purpose are you include the heavy lifting and to what extent are you really including it? 10-20% of reps (and presumably a regular frequency @ no less than once a week, most likely twice a week) is going to amount to a great deal of your training volumes. At these frequencies and volumes, this is going to require significant recovery, which is hard to compliment with sprint training. On its own, it also does little to increase muscle mass where it is needed. Presumably, anybody that is weak enough to find strength to be significantly problematic is likely going to be lacking enough muscle in the right places (glutes, hamstrings, back, etc.).
How do you determine where extra muscle mass is needed? Are trying to increase muscle mass in a particular area? I don’t need any extra mass b/c my main event is 400m and I weight 82kg, height is 1.88m
What extra benefits are you going to see from regularly (10-20% of volume, essentially) using heavier loads versus more moderate loading? Frankly, there isn’t really going to be any if you are a sprinter/jumper and you will most likely experience significant problems in training from a recovery standpoint. You could easily do a hard 5×5 program twice a week, testing your 1rm, 3rm, or 5rm once every 3-4 weeks and you wouldn’t approach 10% of total volume >85% of 1RM, let alone >90%. That is likely far beyond what anybody would ever need (quite excessive, in fact) and it is still significantly below what Star has recommended.
I compete just during summer season, but never prepared for a full 10 month as a whole macrocycle, usually 5 month before main summer competition. This year I have a long time before summer season, so I won’t rush during my GPP. Now I can lift heavy b/c I do very minimal endurance work, very minimal sprint work so I don’t have much problems with recovery. I’ll start to introduce special endurance work just in the end of the winter b/c I noticed that for me there is no point spending more than 5 month for it, it’s sufficient time for increasing speed endurance levels before main competition. Now during my GPP sprinting at intensities near 100% is enough about once every two weeks, later I’ll do once a week b/c I don’t need quick adaptation for it as well. Believe me I worked with submaximal loads as well and it’s ok, my max strength quickly plateud, faster adapatation might have been due to interferance doing special enduranc work 3 times a week . Now I don’t have what to loose so I’ll try using heavier loads two times a week with reloading every 3-4 weeks to bring my max strength to another level. I’m doing it for a month now, I don’t feel slower or another interferance. I just want another stimulus which might help to increase my running speed. If heavy loads won’t help, so submaximal as well. Of course I introduce some explosive work as well for longer adaptation and to keep some specificity, I’ll simply replace heavy lifting during certine periods with explosive work. During spring all my strenght and speed levels wich I’ll get, simply more or less will be maintained b/c tempo/special endurance, speed endurance workouts will come into play. Simply during that time there won’t be possible to improve all qualities at once.
-
Participant
Funny how much your argument/position has changed, Star… First you had to do a significant amount over 90%, then over 85%, then you need to hit 85% occasionally, now you need to do a few reps there.
Its not funny Davan, its called growth, learning, education. When I came to this forum a couple of years ago I had no true understanding of the explosive side of the strength curve. I’ve learned. For a weightlifter of any kind, my original positions, lifting regularly at 90% and above hold true. For other athletes, I’ve relaxed that attitude to accept that much of the strength needed can be gained as long as at least some reps are done at 85% or higher. As I’ve said several times, at least 10% during strength phases, not including warm up reps. But that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of studies, and almost all empirical observation, dictates that lifting with loads at 85% and above will improve strength faster and farther than lifting below that threshold. Below 85%, it is much more difficult to gain strength without going to failure.
Please look at the Kaatsu studies and argue with those. They have been peer reviewed numerous times and the results have been repeated, what else is there to say? Some of the work actually involves Olympic level athletes (speed skaters). Ironically, it shows that the stimulation shown there and in medium to higher rep sets @ relatively high intensity (for the given rep range) have similar effects. The effects are, in a physiological sense, basically the same.
Kaastu studies are based on restricting blood flow using tourniquettes during training!! Along with low load training, these studies also state that ‘walking slowly’ while restricting blood flow increases strength and hypertrophy!!! Child, please! Daven, are you wearing rubber bands around your limbs while walking slowly around the gym and lifting little rubber dumbells? You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you are kidding me.
Also, as I said, most of those training systems have a very limited number of reps above 85% of 1RM. You 10-20% of reps >85% (btw you never did mention the thread where you said it was only counting the work sets…) significantly dwarfs any amount seen in their training, which is generally only during testing or based off of old 1RM (hence not even >85% of their current status).[/quote] Have I ever said that they DO include warm ups? I’ve told you several times that they don’t. What else can I say about that? And they DO perform reps at 85% and above during strength phases. Do you have any understanding of periodization? Is your max v volume the same year round? During max strength phases, ALL of these athletes perform reps in the heavier load range, and again, they are the exception, not the rule.
-
Participant
[quote]Have you been following the thread? A lot of different ideas to answer this question have been provided.
Yes, but still haven’t got a “proper” answer, maybe I’m the one who won’t get a “proper” answer[/quote] What is a proper answer? There aren’t any hard and fast answers. People give their perspective and their reasoning. Write it off, accept it, or do what you wish, but that is about as proper as you will get.
[quote]Essentially, you have to ask yourself for what purpose are you include the heavy lifting and to what extent are you really including it? 10-20% of reps (and presumably a regular frequency @ no less than once a week, most likely twice a week) is going to amount to a great deal of your training volumes. At these frequencies and volumes, this is going to require significant recovery, which is hard to compliment with sprint training. On its own, it also does little to increase muscle mass where it is needed. Presumably, anybody that is weak enough to find strength to be significantly problematic is likely going to be lacking enough muscle in the right places (glutes, hamstrings, back, etc.).
How do you determine where extra muscle mass is needed? Are trying to increase muscle mass in a particular area? I don’t need any extra mass b/c my main event is 400m and I weight 82kg, height is 1.88m[/quote] That is the art of coaching. Some athletes need more muscle to perform at their best than others.
[quote]What extra benefits are you going to see from regularly (10-20% of volume, essentially) using heavier loads versus more moderate loading? Frankly, there isn’t really going to be any if you are a sprinter/jumper and you will most likely experience significant problems in training from a recovery standpoint. You could easily do a hard 5×5 program twice a week, testing your 1rm, 3rm, or 5rm once every 3-4 weeks and you wouldn’t approach 10% of total volume >85% of 1RM, let alone >90%. That is likely far beyond what anybody would ever need (quite excessive, in fact) and it is still significantly below what Star has recommended.
I compete just during summer season, but never prepared for a full 10 month as a whole macrocycle, usually 5 month before main summer competition. This year I have a long time before summer season, so I won’t rush during my GPP. Now I can lift heavy b/c I do very minimal endurance work, very minimal sprint work so I don’t have much problems with recovery. I’ll start to introduce special endurance work just in the end of the winter b/c I noticed that for me there is no point spending more than 5 month for it, it’s sufficient time for increasing speed endurance levels before main competition. Now during my GPP sprinting at intensities near 100% is enough about once every two weeks, later I’ll do once a week b/c I don’t need quick adaptation for it as well. Believe me I worked with submaximal loads as well and it’s ok, my max strength quickly plateud, faster adapatation might have been due to interferance doing special enduranc work 3 times a week . Now I don’t have what to loose so I’ll try using heavier loads two times a week with reloading every 3-4 weeks to bring my max strength to another level. I’m doing it for a month now, I don’t feel slower or another interferance. I just want another stimulus which might help to increase my running speed. If heavy loads won’t help, so submaximal as well. Of course I introduce some explosive work as well for longer adaptation and to keep some specificity, I’ll simply replace heavy lifting during certine periods with explosive work. During spring all my strenght and speed levels wich I’ll get, simply more or less will be maintained b/c tempo/special endurance, speed endurance workouts will come into play. Simply during that time there won’t be possible to improve all qualities at once.[/quote]
I think you should read up on the thoughts many of the members here have along with that of some respected coaches. The fact you sprint once every couple of weeks for a substantial portion of the year is probably going to be hindering your training more than any lifting.
-
Participant
What is a proper answer? There aren’t any hard and fast answers. People give their perspective and their reasoning. Write it off, accept it, or do what you wish, but that is about as proper as you will get.
Now doubt that with many things I agree and accept. For me it’s not enough to say that many guys are strong but slow on the track for example or that you need more recovery after heavy lifting. Yes many guys are strong and slow, but does it answer to a question that heavy lifting for T&F athlete is worthless? If an athlete through many years of training tried many combinations of plyos, Olympic lifts, sprinting, submaximal lifting then what is wrong to get another stimulus during offseason like heavy lifting when macrocycle is long enough and other qualities during that training phase are kept to a minimum? Yes, it won’t do wonders, but it won’t affect in negative way as well using adequate volumes.
I think you should read up on the thoughts many of the members here have along with that of some respected coaches. The fact you sprint once every couple of weeks for a substantial portion of the year is probably going to be hindering your training more than any lifting.
Yes, I can learn from many coaches and not just respected. How sprinting at near 100% intensity during early GPP once every two weeks can hinder my training? During that period I do more sprinting but at lower intensities. More sprinting too early in the season won’t make me stronger, won’t make me faster for summer season. It’s enough sprinting for me during GPP to maintain my motor memory for that activity. Later I’ll do it more frequently. I don’t think that I’ll forget how to sprint.
-
Participant
It hinders you because you aren’t doing a thing to improve what you are trying to accomplish. If you think sprinting more than once every two weeks isn’t going to help, then quit wasting your time competing. It isn’t even worth arguing about whether or not a 400m sprinter needs more than one sprint day every two weeks.
-
Participant
It hinders you because you aren’t doing a thing to improve what you are trying to accomplish. If you think sprinting more than once every two weeks isn’t going to help, then quit wasting your time competing. It isn’t even worth arguing about whether or not a 400m sprinter needs more than one sprint day every two weeks.
I’m thinking about summer season, not winter. Adapatation to fast sprinting is pretty quick, I noticed 6-8 weeks of fast sprinting and usually my max speed plateus. After a month I’ll keep max speed sessions once a week and still I’m going to have 7 month of training before summer season, later I’ll move to two times a week and in spring again about once a week b/c of speed endurance sessions. So are you suggesting to sprint at near max speed all year round and at least two times a week? Now it’s time for max strength improvement using mainly heavy loads and this is the main quality which I’m focusing on. I won’t get any extra benefits of sprinting fast too early and too frequently in the season. To your logic Hart is doing garbidge job with his 400m runners b/c they don’t do enough fast sprinting earlier in the season?
-
Participant
You equate intensity solely with lifting heavy weights? Becuase you can’t lift 75% at maximal intensity right? …
That IS the definition of intensity, genius. We’re not talking perceived effort. If you’re talking intensity on the track, its percentage of best speed…in the gym, its %1RM. Do you think before you write, or is this really the best you can do?
-
Participant
Definition =
“The amount of weight used, percentage of the one repetition maximum, or the effort used during the exercise”
Please, lets not talk to each other about the subject again. Your an idiot and it’s clear for all to see.
-
Participant
Definition =
“The amount of weight used, percentage of the one repetition maximum, or the effort used during the exercise”
Please, lets not talk to each other about the subject again. Your an idiot and it’s clear for all to see.
Only an idiot would spend the time researching for a quote to support a statement that does NOT represent the understanding of the term as used by the VAST majority of coaches and researchers with regards to weight training. YOU called me out, saying I was stupid because I equated intensity to %1RM…my usage of the term is absolutely correct. What a dope. No wonder you don’t understand much of what you read here, or anywhere else. If you equate intensity to effort, I can see why you think lifting hard at 70% can be considered higher intensity. Its not, and all can see that you don’t even have a grasp of the terminology, much less the concepts.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1254095698"]Definition =
“The amount of weight used, percentage of the one repetition maximum, or the effort used during the exercise”
Please, lets not talk to each other about the subject again. Your an idiot and it’s clear for all to see.
Only an idiot would spend the time researching for a quote to support a statement that does NOT represent the understanding of the term as used by the VAST majority of coaches and researchers with regards to weight training. YOU called me out, saying I was stupid because I equated intensity to %1RM…my usage of the term is absolutely correct. What a dope. No wonder you don’t understand much of what you read here, or anywhere else. If you equate intensity to effort, I can see why you think lifting hard at 70% can be considered higher intensity. Its not, and all can see that you don’t even have a grasp of the terminology, much less the concepts.[/quote]
Dude, i spent no time finding that quote…and YOU were the one who even mentioned quotes!
And you say i don’t understand what i read on here? What is the basis of that statement? You don’t know me at all, you know nothing about my education level or experiences. Who has mentored me, what i’ve read, what conferences i’ve been to, who i’ve watched and spoke with…nothing! Shall i go and tell all the coaches, presenters, proffessors etc that i’ve heard speak about insensity that they are wrong?
STOP changing your arguments all the damn time…You said ONLY…i said it isn’t ONLY to do with heavy weights…You speak in absolutes and then change it when your made to look stupid. You’ve done it all through this thread.
Intensity is one of the BASIC principles of training and adaptation. It is one of the first things we learn about.
How do you have a high intensity plyo workout or anything of that nature? It’s also known that one of the most highly intense times of the training year is the time that doesn’t include a high percentage of heavy lifting. So how is this? You can have a very high intense workout and never lift above 30%…Anyone in the field or who knows anything about S&C knows this…
Why and how can you even argue against it…
The funny thing is, so many people on this site alone have told you numerous times that your wrong, or your ideas aren’t accurate etc etc etc…but you still ignore most of them becuase your head is too far up you know where…You honestly need to listen to others a lot more.
-
Participant
Dude, i spent no time finding that quote…and YOU were the one who even mentioned quotes!
Dude, you must be talking to yourself. You have chimed in numerous times making incorrect statements, just as you did on this one. We’re not talking about overall intensity or CNS impact, we were discussing intensity as it relates to load in the weight room, and I was/am using the term correctly. You pulled a quote to defend your argument, but the fact remains that in the weight room, intensity is defined as the % of 1RM.
And you say i don’t understand what i read on here? What is the basis of that statement? You don’t know me at all, you know nothing about my education level or experiences. Who has mentored me, what i’ve read, what conferences i’ve been to, who i’ve watched and spoke with…nothing! Shall i go and tell all the coaches, presenters, proffessors etc that i’ve heard speak about insensity that they are wrong?
Again, we were not talking about CNS impact, we were talking about load. You can’t seem to understand the difference. Many things, including sprinting with no load, are very CNS intensive. Everyone on this board knows that. But when discussing loads in the weightroom, intensity has a specific definition. A 1RM is a maximum intensity load, but if there is only a few ‘maximum intensity loads’ performed, it actually doesn’t impact the CNS with relatively great intensity compared to 600m of max v work. One word, two slightly different uses, depending on context. YOU changed the context…we were never talking about CNS impact, only loads and rep ranges. And you were wrong.
STOP changing your arguments all the damn time…You said ONLY…i said it isn’t ONLY to do with heavy weights…You speak in absolutes and then change it when your made to look stupid. You’ve done it all through this thread.
I have been consitently talking about the same thing…the load range, or intensity, and its impact on max strength. If the context changed, you changed it, not me. You are the one looking stupid continuing to defend an incorrect statement. You were wrong.
How do you have a high intensity plyo workout or anything of that nature? It’s also known that one of the most highly intense times of the training year is the time that doesn’t include a high percentage of heavy lifting. So how is this? You can have a very high intense workout and never lift above 30%…Anyone in the field or who knows anything about S&C knows this…
Why and how can you even argue against it…
I’m not, and never have. You have tried to change the context of the discussion, not me, to cover up a stupid post. And yes, you can have an impact on your CNS using no load at all, but thats not what we’re talking about. Intensity has been defined, as it relates to load in the weightroom, as % of 1RM, period. The word intensity can be used to describe many things, some that don’t even relate to training. We weren’t talking about that it either. We were talking about load in the weightroom. Period.
The funny thing is, so many people on this site alone have told you numerous times that your wrong, or your ideas aren’t accurate etc etc etc…but you still ignore most of them becuase your head is too far up you know where…You honestly need to listen to others a lot more.
Funny thing is, only a few people agree with you and Daven about 70% loads being as effecient, or even more effecient, for building max strength. Is Mike still your coach? Ask him if including reps in the 85% intensity range is beneficial. Do you not even know what your own coach advocates? That’s one of the reasons why I beleive you don’t understand fully the importance of strength, and how it is best developed.
And ironically, you have been posting that you are considering giving up catches on cleans (something Mike thinks is very imporant) just to increase the load of your pulls. Why give up the benefits of eccentric loading on the catch just to increase the load on your pulls if lifting at 70% is the best way to develop strength and explosive power? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
-
Keymaster
Not to rehash this thread but since it was a good one and one that I didn’t have time to really chime in on when it was hot and heavy I thought I’d share some quick thoughts.
*I do think max strength development is important for a variety of reasons (as a lead-in to eccentric strength devlepment, hormonal responses, motor unit recruitment, providing alternative high intensity training stimulus that is no / low-impact)
*I think to develop max strength most effectively (no qualifiers) you have to train above 85% with trained athletes and some time should be spent above 90%.
*Max strength is beneficial but not vital aspect of speed-power development. In my opinion, the only area that you really absolutely CANNOT do with out when training for speed is high intensity sprint training with sufficient rest.
*Max strength work will provide greater bang for your buck with intermediate level athletes who have not already developed high levels of strength.
*We have to recognize that ifts and tests of strength in the weight room are somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things…although it’s nice and easy to use them to say so and so is / is not strong to further our points, a single lift itself may not be the best assessment. The thing that has really driven this point home to me is seeing some of the athletes who worked on farms when I lived in OH. I’ve seen them toss around odd, awkward objects easily than most any weight room trained athlete could do but they were just slightly above average in the weight room. I’ve even seen the same thing with some elite throwers that I work with who do not have insane weight room numbers.
*I’ve only rarely had a problem with too much emphasis on strength development. In such cases it was more due to the unique characteristics of the athlete. In fact, with most of my athletes they are at peak strength levels (PRing left and right in the weight room) at the same time as they are at peak speed levels.
*Related to the previous point, I have no qualms doing some limited volume but very high intensity work deep in to the competitive season…often times going up to 95%. With that said, I’m increasingly balancing that with lower load (70-85%) work with a greater emphasis on speed of movement. The mix of these 2 methods is proving very effective for me over the last 2 years.
*Intensity is generally regarded as just a load variable (% of 1RM) but it can be tricky because when the emphasis is on speed of movement you can have equivalent intensities (and force outputs, and higher power outputs) with lower loads. This only seems to hold true within a relatively small range of loads though.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Not to rehash this thread but since it was a good one and one that I didn’t have time to really chime in on when it was hot and heavy I thought I’d share some quick thoughts.
*I do think max strength development is important for a variety of reasons (as a lead-in to eccentric strength devlepment, hormonal responses, motor unit recruitment, providing alternative high intensity training stimulus that is no / low-impact)
*I think to develop max strength most effectively (no qualifiers) you have to train above 85% with trained athletes and some time should be spent above 90%.
*Max strength is beneficial but not vital aspect of speed-power development. In my opinion, the only area that you really absolutely CANNOT do with out when training for speed is high intensity sprint training with sufficient rest.
*Max strength work will provide greater bang for your buck with intermediate level athletes who have not already developed high levels of strength.
*We have to recognize that ifts and tests of strength in the weight room are somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things…although it’s nice and easy to use them to say so and so is / is not strong to further our points, a single lift itself may not be the best assessment. The thing that has really driven this point home to me is seeing some of the athletes who worked on farms when I lived in OH. I’ve seen them toss around odd, awkward objects easily than most any weight room trained athlete could do but they were just slightly above average in the weight room. I’ve even seen the same thing with some elite throwers that I work with who do not have insane weight room numbers.
*I’ve only rarely had a problem with too much emphasis on strength development. In such cases it was more due to the unique characteristics of the athlete. In fact, with most of my athletes they are at peak strength levels (PRing left and right in the weight room) at the same time as they are at peak speed levels.
*Related to the previous point, I have no qualms doing some limited volume but very high intensity work deep in to the competitive season…often times going up to 95%. With that said, I’m increasingly balancing that with lower load (70-85%) work with a greater emphasis on speed of movement. The mix of these 2 methods is proving very effective for me over the last 2 years.
*Intensity is generally regarded as just a load variable (% of 1RM) but it can be tricky because when the emphasis is on speed of movement you can have equivalent intensities (and force outputs, and higher power outputs) with lower loads. This only seems to hold true within a relatively small range of loads though.
I’m in total agreement with everything you say here.
-
Participant
Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Thoughts, star?
-
Participant
Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Good grief – that is big weight. What do you attribute it to? I wonder how much is individual-based? IE – your body may respond better to more reps and sets at lower % ranges, while others do better with fewer reps at higher %ages.
-
Participant
Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Thoughts, star?
That’s impressive. Maybe you should give up sprinting and start powerlifting. I just busted out Science and Practice and it says 2/3 of the lifting done by the weightlifting teams in the USSR was under 80%.
-
Participant
I have also achieved my biggest max strength gains during cycles where the majory of lifting was under 85%.
-
Participant
I have also achieved my biggest max strength gains during cycles where the majory of lifting was under 85%.
I think the majority of lifting will always be under 85-90%. The question would be more accurately stated as how much over 85% do you need? I would venture a guess at 5-10%.
-
Keymaster
I have also achieved my biggest max strength gains during cycles where the majory of lifting was under 85%.
Perhaps biggest strength gains percentage-wise but most PRs seem to have occurred when there are quite a few sets in the 90+% range.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
But that’s always after a long training time…16+ weeks. So of course pr’s will happen.
-
Keymaster
But that’s always after a long training time…16+ weeks. So of course pr’s will happen.
Yeah but the reverse could be said for the percentage gains…they always follow a layoff (transition phase following the end of the last competition cycle) and initial strength values are lower so gains are expected.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Ha, yeah i thought of that after i wrote the last one…
Still, if you manipulate sets correctly i don’t think there’s much of a difference.
-
Participant
Good grief – that is big weight. What do you attribute it to? I wonder how much is individual-based? IE – your body may respond better to more reps and sets at lower % ranges, while others do better with fewer reps at higher %ages.
Ironically, of all exercises, the ones I used to routinely do substantial lifting over 85% (substantial to me is still quite different than how Star defined, but a good amount for me) included Olympic lift variations and bench press. This training season, I decided to cut that out and do a substantial lesser % than I normally do and what do you know, they have gone up the most of any exercise I’ve been doing.
Perhaps it is how I respond to things, but I know some other people from this board and elsewhere who have done the same with pretty good success (relative obviously) as well. Now, I know that most will say you HAVE to lift way heavier for optimal gains and that I clearly could have done 455 instead of 355 if I would have just lifted heavier, but frankly, I tried it, I have the logs of me trying it, and it did not work as well. I also recover better now than I did then (and I have replaced with the relatively lower loads with greater training volumes, also doing most reps with a controlled eccentric and focusing much more on bar speed).
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257744890"]I have also achieved my biggest max strength gains during cycles where the majory of lifting was under 85%.
Perhaps biggest strength gains percentage-wise but most PRs seem to have occurred when there are quite a few sets in the 90+% range.[/quote]
You also are making numerous more attempts @ PR levels, so I’d hope you would hit a higher # of PRs…. I’ve only attempted a new RM on one exercise one time, so I’m sure if I started doing it a lot more frequently I’d hit “more” PRs, but I’m not sure I’d attribute it to the training effect caused by it.
Funny enough, the people least surprised by this are two different individuals (have never spoken to each other and have no mutual contacts really–completely different generations), who were national caliber throwers (one in the shot, one in the disc) who have done stuff like this for a long time.
-
Keymaster
You also are making numerous more attempts @ PR levels, so I’d hope you would hit a higher # of PRs…. I’ve only attempted a new RM on one exercise one time, so I’m sure if I started doing it a lot more frequently I’d hit “more” PRs, but I’m not sure I’d attribute it to the training effect caused by it.
Not really…at least not in our (Nick’s situation with my training plans). I will sometimes prescribe 92.5% and sometimes allow the opportunity for autonomy with a prescription at 90+% but the only time we actually go for PRs is once per cycle during the test week (every 4th week).
I’m not terribly surprised by your personal findings as I’ve seen it happen before (in myself as well) but I’ve typically had more success hitting PR levels during the test cycle when there are at least a few sets at 90% during the preceding cycle.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Yes, but you’re actually practicing lifting heavy weights for singles and the like. It is a lot different to have the “muscle” per se to do a lift than it is to have the skill to actually handle a heavy load for a controlled lift (ie a good 1RM). Also, I said PR level and I consider lifts >90% to be PR level in this circumstance. It is about as good of practice as you can get.
-
Keymaster
It is a lot different to have the “muscle” per se to do a lift than it is to have the skill to actually handle a heavy load for a controlled lift (ie a good 1RM).
I’m not sure I follow this. Can you explain a little.
Also, I said PR level and I consider lifts >90% to be PR level in this circumstance. It is about as good of practice as you can get.
As I said very few lifts (in the grand scheme of all the reps in a macrocycle) are above 90% in my protocols but I do think they’re beneficial for most.
Also, just as food for thought…90% is at least as far away from PR levels (which may actually be 101-110% of the load used from the previous test cycle that was used to calculate %s for the current training session) as 80% is from what you’re considering “PR levels” if we use your low end of your definition of PR levels (91-93%).
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257738820"]Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Thoughts, star?
That’s impressive. Maybe you should give up sprinting and start powerlifting. I just busted out Science and Practice and it says 2/3 of the lifting done by the weightlifting teams in the USSR was under 80%.[/quote]
Why, he’s in 6.7 shape no need to switch to a different sport..
-
Keymaster
That’s impressive. Maybe you should give up sprinting and start powerlifting. I just busted out Science and Practice and it says 2/3 of the lifting done by the weightlifting teams in the USSR was under 80%.
This is misleading on 3 fronts:
1) These %s are based on absolute rep counts and because it’s possible to do 70% quite easily for 8 reps in a set but a 95% load for only 1-2 times you can quickly see that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
2) From what I’ve read the Soviets monitored all sets throughout the entire year including warmups so 20% of all reps (especially in light of point 1) is still quite a bit of volume at higher intensities.
3) Soviets have been outperformed by the Greeks, Chinese, Bulgarians, etc of late and most of these countries do a much greater % of work at higher loads, including frequent daily max attempts.ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
One other thing I think we need to make clear is that the best way for developing strength for a powerlifter or Olympic weightlifter is not always going to be the best way for a track athlete who is supplementing their strength work with high training volumes of other complementary training modes like sprinting, plyos, etc. I think this is what might make up for some of the discrepancy we see between what’s best for strength sport athletes and what can work for track athletes who tend to have much more balanced biomotor development and implement many more means of speed-strength-power development.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257751776"]It is a lot different to have the “muscle” per se to do a lift than it is to have the skill to actually handle a heavy load for a controlled lift (ie a good 1RM).
I’m not sure I follow this. Can you explain a little. [/quote] You can think of strength in a variety of ways and while there are numerous neurological factors to consider, much of the improvement in strength that people see is going to come from increasing the protein content of the muscle cells. Contraction times are also very specific, as I’m sure you know probably even better than I do from the research, so being able to demonstrate your strength in very long contractions (like most 1 rep maxes and other heavy lifts) is going to be very specific and it is pretty obvious that introducing that work (for someone who does not typically do it) will result in improvements.
[quote]Also, I said PR level and I consider lifts >90% to be PR level in this circumstance. It is about as good of practice as you can get.
As I said very few lifts (in the grand scheme of all the reps in a macrocycle) are above 90% in my protocols but I do think they’re beneficial for most.
Also, just as food for thought…90% is at least as far away from PR levels (which may actually be 101-110% of the load used from the previous test cycle that was used to calculate %s for the current training session) as 80% is from what you’re considering “PR levels” if we use your low end of your definition of PR levels (91-93%).[/quote]
Please see what I said above about contraction times. Of course, we could continue to take this further than further out, but for practical purposes training @ 90% is much more specific to one’s ability to handle a heavy single than 80% is. I don’t even think that is debatable.
-
Keymaster
You can think of strength in a variety of ways and while there are numerous neurological factors to consider, much of the improvement in strength that people see is going to come from increasing the protein content of the muscle cells. Contraction times are also very specific, as I’m sure you know probably even better than I do from the research, so being able to demonstrate your strength in very long contractions (like most 1 rep maxes and other heavy lifts) is going to be very specific and it is pretty obvious that introducing that work (for someone who does not typically do it) will result in improvements.
Exactly. This is why I think it is beneficial to include these near maximal loads from time to time….you’re essentially widening the window of the force-velocity / speed-power continuum that you’re training in which I’ve found to be beneficial.
Please see what I said above about contraction times. Of course, we could continue to take this further than further out, but for practical purposes training @ 90% is much more specific to one’s ability to handle a heavy single than 80% is. I don’t even think that is debatable.
No argument there…what I was pointing out (and correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you originally said) is that saying that 90% is PR (100+%) is basically the same as saying 80% is essentially the same as 90%.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Thoughts, star?
That’s a good lift for your weight, but 40lbs. in a year for a young guy is not uncommon. Unfortunately, we don’t know how including more reps in the >85% range would have affected this result, but I can guess. The vast majority of lifters in your weight class I know also lift in the 65-75% range for most of their reps in the gym, and NONE of them can bench close to 2x bodyweight. The only people I know that can bench 2x bodyweight, and I know quite a few, DO include a higher percentage in the >85% range, and quite a bit in the >90% range.
I congratulate you on your progress, but it is an anecdotal drop in a sea of experience that doesn’t jive with the training means you’re suggesting.
-
Participant
Remember that while the lifts are @ a relatively low load as a % of 1RM, they are most definitely “difficult” and I constantly have challenged the load in a progressive manner, which is the most important thing in most strength training programs anyway. I started out benching 4×6-8 once a week with a controlled eccentric and 2 second pause at the bottom (not resting it on chest mind you, actually holding weight barely off chest) @ just 205lb (which was easy) and slowly progressing up in weight (and slowly lessening the pause to just a controlled touch and go). I also did depletion push-ups once a week (3x max reps w/ 90 seconds between sets) as well. I just have to emphasize that load is just one way to challenge someone in strength training and if you aren’t specifically training to do a heavy 1RM, you can increase strength just fine doing little to no work >85% (or even >80%) if you are still challenging yourself in other ways.
-
Participant
Remember that while the lifts are @ a relatively low load as a % of 1RM, they are most definitely “difficult” and I constantly have challenged the load in a progressive manner, which is the most important thing in most strength training programs anyway. I started out benching 4×6-8 once a week with a controlled eccentric and 2 second pause at the bottom (not resting it on chest mind you, actually holding weight barely off chest) @ just 205lb (which was easy) and slowly progressing up in weight (and slowly lessening the pause to just a controlled touch and go). I also did depletion push-ups once a week (3x max reps w/ 90 seconds between sets) as well. I just have to emphasize that load is just one way to challenge someone in strength training and if you aren’t specifically training to do a heavy 1RM, you can increase strength just fine doing little to no work >85% (or even >80%) if you are still challenging yourself in other ways.
We don’t disagree that there are many ways to skin a cat. The question is, which way works best for the masses. When I started lifting many years ago, I made great progress lifting twice a week doing 4 x 8. I would not increase weight until I could get every rep of every set. Normally, I would fail on two sets, then progress to failing only on the final set, then complete the 4 x 8 without failure. It worked great, but its not the best method. I think most athletes come here looking for what works best. Everyone has a different story on what great results they had using 5 x 5, or 4 x 8, or DC triple sets to failure etc. etc. But after sifting through hundreds of anecdotal stories over the years, experiencing or witnessing first hand every kind of progression than can be done in the gym, speaking to literally hundreds of powerlifters who lift specifically to develop max strength, and reading literally hundreds of articles, books, and scientific papers, I come to the same conclusion; including a reasonable amount of lifts in the >85% of 1RM will lead to greater and faster gains in max strength. I also believe if you polled the top powerlifters and gold-medal-winning Olympic lifters, the vast majority would concur with my position. But you already knew that, right?
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257812970"]Remember that while the lifts are @ a relatively low load as a % of 1RM, they are most definitely “difficult” and I constantly have challenged the load in a progressive manner, which is the most important thing in most strength training programs anyway. I started out benching 4×6-8 once a week with a controlled eccentric and 2 second pause at the bottom (not resting it on chest mind you, actually holding weight barely off chest) @ just 205lb (which was easy) and slowly progressing up in weight (and slowly lessening the pause to just a controlled touch and go). I also did depletion push-ups once a week (3x max reps w/ 90 seconds between sets) as well. I just have to emphasize that load is just one way to challenge someone in strength training and if you aren’t specifically training to do a heavy 1RM, you can increase strength just fine doing little to no work >85% (or even >80%) if you are still challenging yourself in other ways.
We don’t disagree that there are many ways to skin a cat. The question is, which way works best for the masses. When I started lifting many years ago, I made great progress lifting twice a week doing 4 x 8. I would not increase weight until I could get every rep of every set. Normally, I would fail on two sets, then progress to failing only on the final set, then complete the 4 x 8 without failure. It worked great, but its not the best method. I think most athletes come here looking for what works best. Everyone has a different story on what great results they had using 5 x 5, or 4 x 8, or DC triple sets to failure etc. etc. But after sifting through hundreds of anecdotal stories over the years, experiencing or witnessing first hand every kind of progression than can be done in the gym, speaking to literally hundreds of powerlifters who lift specifically to develop max strength, and reading literally hundreds of articles, books, and scientific papers, I come to the same conclusion; including a reasonable amount of lifts in the >85% of 1RM will lead to greater and faster gains in max strength. I also believe if you polled the top powerlifters and gold-medal-winning Olympic lifters, the vast majority would concur with my position. But you already knew that, right?[/quote]
This is a circular argument that can be easily summed up: What is best for increasing maximal strength at an absolute level needed for powerlifting is not the best manner for increasing one’s maximal strength in the context of a complete program directed at the improvement of speed or sport form.
The advantage of lifting above 85% is becoming accustomed to heavy loads for people who’s sport is to lift the most weight possible. As I’ve said before, it’s skill work for the powerlifter. Research shows that above 80% loading, additional strength comes from increased rate coding rather than more muscular involvement. Because rate coding is very task specific, you aren’t getting any extra benefit from the increased loading and I would argue that you start to chance negative results for something that won’t do anything for you but make you a better lifter.
This is becoming ridiculous and I think that some people need to re-examine some of the paradigms they are operating from.
-
Participant
Like I said, that is only relevant if your sport is lifting as heavy as load as possible one time, which is highly technical and takes many people a number of years, if not decades, to do properly under heavy relative loading. Most people technically falter under extremely heavy relative loads and of course you will need significant practice to improve this skill (just like most people have a hard time maintaining relaxation, complete extension, pelvic position, etc. at top speed in a race). It isn’t so different from improving speed where it’d be pointless to have say linemen doing flying 30s from a 40-50m run-up on Super-X mondo or doing Fast/Easy/Fast drills over 90-120m when they don’t need anything like that and it would likely hurt their development significantly, if they even survived it to begin with.
-
Participant
I think star61 is correct. If we were only training powerlifters. Elitetrack.com not elitefts.com
-
Participant
I think star61 is correct. If we were only training powerlifters. Elitetrack.com not elitefts.com
Truth is always relevent. If you reread the thread, you will see that the context was not ‘what’s best for sprinters’. Others, and now apparently Carl, want to rename this site elitesprinters.com and confine all discussion to sprint related training. Not all track and field athletes sprint. Shotputters don’t train the same as a 400m sprinter. Each has to have a program tailored specifically to their event. But where do you start? With an inferior system, and then work from there?
Some proclaim that lifting low loads for higher reps is the best in ALL cases. Ed Coan has been cited, incorrectly, as an example in powerlifting. The question that started this thread was a general question about what method works best IN GENERAL. It just simply isn’t true that lifting lower loads for higher reps is as effective as lifting that includes an adequate amount of higher load reps. I can give you 50 powerlifters that include a fairly high number of near maximal reps for every lifter you give me that doesn’t, and Mike can give you several Olympic gold medal winners that include more than a fair number of near maximal reps for every gold medal winner that doesn’t. Confining the discussion to sprinting lends a few more arguments to avoiding near maximal reps during some training phases, but the truth is if you don’t know what method works best when max strength IS actually the goal of training, how can you program an optimal training means to fit your sport when max strength is an important factor in your performance? Do you really want to start by making compromises on an already compromised system, or do you want to start out with the best system, and then modify it to suit your sports demands?
So, if you want to talk about what optimal strength training for a sprinter looks like, that’s fine. But first understand what works optimally when strength IS the ultimate goal. Until you understand that, there is no way you can program optimal strength training means for any event.
-
Participant
“Several” gold medal winners do “more than a fair number of near maximal reps”?? In the squat or deadlift?? If we are talking about sprinting/jumping: Bull. Shit.
Also, you continue to miss the point, Star. You are assuming there is some sort of continuum of what is good when things are qualitatively different and do not lie on the same continuum at all. Just like you wouldn’t look at Usain Bolt’s training program as the basis for a speed development program in American football players, you don’t look at what powerlifters do as the basis for one’s strength development program.
A friend of mine mentioned something last night that I found rather humorous, but is sadly true: Almost everyone on the internet bases their ideas about strength training on random thoughts an uneducated guy made when looking over old Soviet Sport Science literature (much of which we now know has been misinterpreted to begin with). We’re talking about the same guy who said whatever weight you can stand with and support, you can squat….
-
Participant
Everyone’s hero doing a heavy set of 4!!!
Don’t look submax to me..
-
Participant
i go lower on my box squats that he did…maybe that’s why i find them so hard.
-
Participant
i go lower on my box squats that he did…maybe that’s why i find them so hard.
I want to hear The Thinker and Star61 critique Ben’s box squat tech.
-
Participant
lol.
Amazing though…for a set of 4 like that i could do 320 maybe…that dude did 495? WOW! Drugs for ya…
-
Participant
lol.
Amazing though…for a set of 4 like that i could do 320 maybe…that dude did 495? WOW! Drugs for ya…
Look like I saw a little gyno at the end of the vid.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257843893"]i go lower on my box squats that he did…maybe that’s why i find them so hard.
I want to hear The Thinker and Star61 critique Ben’s box squat tech.[/quote]Nice spot. You sprinters sure are friendly with each other.
-
Participant
“Several” gold medal winners do “more than a fair number of near maximal reps”?? In the squat or deadlift?? If we are talking about sprinting/jumping: Bull. Shit.
Olympic weightlifters, genius, not sprinters. Have you not heard me repeat over, and over, and over, and over, and over, that I’m not confining my comments to sprinters, and that my comments about building max strength are not confined to powerlifters or powerlifts, and that I don’t follow a strict Westside template with the exception of one of my lifters, who happens to be the APF Junior National and WPC World Record Holder in the benchpress? I know, I know, he should have been doing 4 x 8 at 75% and he would be benching over 1000lbs. My bad.
Daven, you once again resurrected an old argument and came directly at me. Why don’t you challenge Mike directly over his contention that including a fair amount >85% reps is beneficial?
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257832934"]“Several” gold medal winners do “more than a fair number of near maximal reps”?? In the squat or deadlift?? If we are talking about sprinting/jumping: Bull. Shit.
Olympic weightlifters, genius, not sprinters. Have you not heard me repeat over, and over, and over, and over, and over, that I’m not confining my comments to sprinters, and that my comments about building max strength are not confined to powerlifters or powerlifts, and that I don’t follow a strict Westside template with the exception of one of my lifters, who happens to be the APF Junior National and WPC World Record Holder in the benchpress? I know, I know, he should have been doing 4 x 8 at 75% and he would be benching over 1000lbs. My bad.
Daven, you once again resurrected an old argument and came directly at me. Why don’t you challenge Mike directly over his contention that including a fair amount >85% reps is beneficial?[/quote]
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
-
Participant
[quote author="Derrick Brito" date="1257744586"]
That’s impressive. Maybe you should give up sprinting and start powerlifting. I just busted out Science and Practice and it says 2/3 of the lifting done by the weightlifting teams in the USSR was under 80%.This is misleading on 3 fronts:
1) These %s are based on absolute rep counts and because it’s possible to do 70% quite easily for 8 reps in a set but a 95% load for only 1-2 times you can quickly see that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
2) From what I’ve read the Soviets monitored all sets throughout the entire year including warmups so 20% of all reps (especially in light of point 1) is still quite a bit of volume at higher intensities.
3) Soviets have been outperformed by the Greeks, Chinese, Bulgarians, etc of late and most of these countries do a much greater % of work at higher loads, including frequent daily max attempts.[/quote]1) This is what I was trying to point out in my later post. When you do warmups or sets to failure with lighter weights, the percentage of high intensity work becomes lower.
2) The book said 7% of reps were over 90%, so we are talking about 1/10 or 1/20 reps being high intensity.
3) I was just qualifying my statement about what has worked for international athletes in the past. However, working up to maxes every day is also misleading, as these are ‘comfort RMs’ so to speak and not true 1RMs.
-
Participant
[quote author="Derrick Brito" date="1257744586"][quote author="davan" date="1257738820"]Just updating the thread,
I was feeling good on Friday after a long training session (sprints, hang snatches, hops, etc.) and had bench. I felt good, had good spotters available, and maxed. I benched 355lbs, raw (pinky fingers on inside ringns) @ 90% the last 5 months or so.
Well over 2/3 of training volume (not including warm-ups) has been between 65-75% of max….
Last Thanksgiving, I hit a big PR and did 315×1, so I’ve had substantial improvement without much lifting >80%.
Thoughts, star?
That’s impressive. Maybe you should give up sprinting and start powerlifting. I just busted out Science and Practice and it says 2/3 of the lifting done by the weightlifting teams in the USSR was under 80%.[/quote]
Why, he’s in 6.7 shape no need to switch to a different sport..[/quote]
He has run 6.7? I was just pointing out that he is supposedly stronger than the multiple Washington state powerlifting champ (raw 181) who happens to be a friend of mine.
-
Participant
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
But again, we’re first trying to agree on what works best OVERALL. As I’ve said dozens of times, until you can wrap you mind around the fact the, without respect to any specific sport, including near maximal lifts on a fairly regular basis in a superior method of building max strength, you can’t fully appreciate the programming required when compromises are required as part of a sport specific training program.
I’m not going to get back into this discussion with you, because you are not discussing this to learn or share ideas honestly, you just like pestering me, and I’m tired of dealing with you.
You will always be small, learn to deal with it.
-
Participant
2) The book said 7% of reps were over 90%, so we are talking about 1/10 or 1/20 reps being high intensity.
3) I was just qualifying my statement about what has worked for international athletes in the past. However, working up to maxes every day is also misleading, as these are ‘comfort RMs’ so to speak and not true 1RMs.
Seven percent, including warmups, is a fairly high number, and even if the daily maxes were ‘comfort’ RM, they were most likely above 90%, and surely above 85%. Secondly, if you’re looking for what truly works in terms of max strength, you have to examine the max strength phases specically, and in those phases the percentage of high intensity lifts is much higher, even for the Soviets.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257847996"]
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
But again, we’re first trying to agree on what works best OVERALL. As I’ve said dozens of times, until you can wrap you mind around the fact the, without respect to any specific sport, including near maximal lifts on a fairly regular basis in a superior method of building max strength, you can’t fully appreciate the programming required when compromises are required as part of a sport specific training program.
I’m not going to get back into this discussion with you, because you are not discussing this to learn or share ideas honestly, you just like pestering me, and I’m tired of dealing with you.
You will always be small, learn to deal with it.[/quote]
Maybe you should go back and read my post as I said that the problem is that this is not a continuum and there is not an “optimal” way that is relevant outside of the specific contexts.
Let’s hope your nephews and fellow powerlifters didn’t have a heart attack trying to get out of bed or walk up stairs this morning. I find it funny you criticize my numbers that are likely superior to the vast majority of your powerlifters when I don’t even train for the sport. How many of your guys can break 12, or better yet 13fat, in the 100m right now?
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1257888055"][quote author="davan" date="1257847996"]
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
But again, we’re first trying to agree on what works best OVERALL. As I’ve said dozens of times, until you can wrap you mind around the fact the, without respect to any specific sport, including near maximal lifts on a fairly regular basis in a superior method of building max strength, you can’t fully appreciate the programming required when compromises are required as part of a sport specific training program.
I’m not going to get back into this discussion with you, because you are not discussing this to learn or share ideas honestly, you just like pestering me, and I’m tired of dealing with you.
You will always be small, learn to deal with it.[/quote]
Maybe you should go back and read my post as I said that the problem is that this is not a continuum and there is not an “optimal” way that is relevant outside of the specific contexts.[/quote]There is always an optimal way. It may be very difficult to know what it is, but purposely choosing a method known to be inferior is no excuse.
Let’s hope your nephews and fellow powerlifters didn’t have a heart attack trying to get out of bed or walk up stairs this morning. I find it funny you criticize my numbers that are likely superior to the vast majority of your powerlifters when I don’t even train for the sport. How many of your guys can break 12, or better yet 13fat, in the 100m right now?
My lifters played college football, and the only one near your weight class (198lbs, sorry no one in my family is as small as you) ran 11.low in high school without every training specifically for the sprints. His current vertical was recently measured at 38″. You are nowhere near as strong as he is, as I’ve mentioned his deadlift hovers around 700lbs.
Again, you’re just throwing out inflammatory remarks about people you’ve never met, because you can’t sustain an intelligent debate.
Like I mentioned before, Mike has also stated that he believes that it is well substantiated that including near maximal reps is beneficial in strength training. Why don’t you direct some of your cute little quips his way for a while?
-
Participant
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
I had to reread this. So improving an athletes 1RM in a snatch or clean has no relevance for a non-weightlifting athlete? You can choose the means, but if you are saying that improving an athlete’s 1RM in an exercise he is using to improve maximum strength has 0 relevance to him/her unless he/she is a weightlifting athlete, you are in fact saying that maximum strength plays no role in athletic ability unless you are a weight lifter
.No wonder we can’t agree.
-
Participant
Hvae to disagree with this…sports which involve single explosive attempts followed by rest benifit greatly from single max lifts…
I simply said earlier that max strength levels can be improved greatly without doing MANY single rep maxes…
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257847996"]
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
I had to reread this. So improving an athletes 1RM in a snatch or clean has no relevance for a non-weightlifting athlete? You can choose the means, but if you are saying that improving an athlete’s 1RM in an exercise he is using to improve maximum strength has 0 relevance to him/her unless he/she is a weightlifting athlete, you are in fact saying that maximum strength plays no role in athletic ability unless you are a weight lifter
.No wonder we can’t agree.[/quote]
The ability to exert more force in the lift does not matter, the ability to exert more force in the sporting action does.
-
Participant
[quote author="Derrick Brito" date="1257868250"]
2) The book said 7% of reps were over 90%, so we are talking about 1/10 or 1/20 reps being high intensity.
3) I was just qualifying my statement about what has worked for international athletes in the past. However, working up to maxes every day is also misleading, as these are ‘comfort RMs’ so to speak and not true 1RMs.
Seven percent, including warmups, is a fairly high number, and even if the daily maxes were ‘comfort’ RM, they were most likely above 90%, and surely above 85%. Secondly, if you’re looking for what truly works in terms of max strength, you have to examine the max strength phases specically, and in those phases the percentage of high intensity lifts is much higher, even for the Soviets.[/quote]
If you work up to a comfort max every day, multiple times a day, nothing is ‘sure.’ Even if we worked up to a comfort RM at 90%, and the workout was 90% of that, we are looking at 80% again. Either way, I think we are getting too hung up on this. My whole point with this is that even with high level competitive lifters, the vast majority of lifts (75-80%) are going to be under 85-90%. I’m not trying to say anything about their role, just throwing out descriptives.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257847996"]
Yes, and Olympic weightlifters’ sport is lifting the heaviest possible load in a lift one time. Again, 0 relevance to non-weightlifting athletes.
I had to reread this. So improving an athletes 1RM in a snatch or clean has no relevance for a non-weightlifting athlete? You can choose the means, but if you are saying that improving an athlete’s 1RM in an exercise he is using to improve maximum strength has 0 relevance to him/her unless he/she is a weightlifting athlete, you are in fact saying that maximum strength plays no role in athletic ability unless you are a weight lifter
.No wonder we can’t agree.[/quote]
I can guarantee you that there are easily a half dozen individuals on this site who can out lift, both absolutely and relatively, the many elite sprinters and jumpers. It really has little relevance on their abilities in the sporting action and their ability to produce and absorb force in ways that are relevant.
You continue to confuse the issue. Improved rate coding and technical ability will increase the amount you can lift for a single rep, but has little to no positive effect (quite likely an indirect negative effect, in fact) on the ability to improve force production in relevant sporting actions. Your lack of comprehension of what is being said is baffling. Go back to doing Westside for HS girl 400m runners.
-
Participant
Hvae to disagree with this…sports which involve single explosive attempts followed by rest benifit greatly from single max lifts…
I simply said earlier that max strength levels can be improved greatly without doing MANY single rep maxes…
Isn’t something like >95% of the variation in long jump attributable to speed at the board? And the two greatest LJers ever (WR holder and man with most golds) two of the fastest LJers ever? How is doing a single max lift really relevant at all? How many of the >8.50m long jumpers did single max lifts with any sort of regularity?
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257903295"]Hvae to disagree with this…sports which involve single explosive attempts followed by rest benifit greatly from single max lifts…
I simply said earlier that max strength levels can be improved greatly without doing MANY single rep maxes…
Isn’t something like >95% of the variation in long jump attributable to speed at the board? And the two greatest LJers ever (WR holder and man with most golds) two of the fastest LJers ever? How is doing a single max lift really relevant at all? How many of the >8.50m long jumpers did single max lifts with any sort of regularity?[/quote]
I don’t agree with 95% of distance being down to speed. More like 75% in my opinion.
Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
-
Participant
Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.
-
Participant
[quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257914569"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.[/quote]
I don’t know what you are basing that statement off of, a Tendo unit will tell you otherwise (re. RFD).
-
Participant
How can you reach max force against light weights? Best way is isometrics.
-
Participant
[quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257914569"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.[/quote]
Not what I was asking- my question was about the efficacy of max lifting (compared with more moderate lifting) for improving the RFD displayed in a long jump.
-
Keymaster
I’m not sure about all top jumpers but I know Walter Davis (indoor & outdoor WC); Dwight Phillips (not now but earlier in his career, Olympic Champ); Jonathan Edwards (TJ WR holder); Sotomayer (HJ WR holder); and JJK (1 of top 3 female LJers of all time and greatest female athlete IMO) all lifted heavy loads relatively frequently. Not every day but certainly during pre-comp and in some cases during / late in to the competitive cycle.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
My whole point with this is that even with high level competitive lifters, the vast majority of lifts (75-80%) are going to be under 85-90%. I’m not trying to say anything about their role, just throwing out descriptives.
I still think this is misleading because of my original point about the inverse relationship between reps and load on the bar. For example, you could do:
1 x 10 @ 50%
1 x 8 @ 65%
2 x 1 @ 80%
4 x 1 @ 90%In such a scenario, 20 out of 24 reps were below 90% but it’s misleading because it’s far easier to accumulate high rep counts at low loads than it is at heavier loads. For the purpose of this debate I think it would be more appropriate to look at set counts at a given load. If we did that with my example above you’d see that 50% of the workout was done at high loads. That may be misleading for other reasons but I think it still gives a better indication of the training effect and emphasis.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I’m not sure about all top jumpers but I know Walter Davis (indoor & outdoor WC); Dwight Phillips (not now but earlier in his career, Olympic Champ); Jonathan Edwards (TJ WR holder); Sotomayer (HJ WR holder); and JJK (1 of top 3 female LJers of all time and greatest female athlete IMO) all lifted heavy loads relatively frequently. Not every day but certainly during pre-comp and in some cases during / late in to the competitive cycle.
For many of the top jumpers max lifts are used as a peaking tool as well…as Mike mentioned pre competition and leading upto major competitions…
From my own experience i love lifting single cleans at close to maxes during peak time…it works very well.
-
Participant
Walter Davis? Sotomayer? Really? Are counting heavy 1/4 (more like 1/8) squats as maximal lifting here? With the exception of JE, I don’t really see it and even then he was going heavy with Olympic lifts, not squats/deadlifts/etc.
The maximal lifting would most definitely be in the Oly’s not the squat. Maybe in some rare cases but the majority of the focus will shift to power and elastic qualities in the comp season.
-
Participant
Yes, with my point being the whole thread has been about max strength. Heavy olympic lifts are another matter, though does compromise some form of “heavy” lifting I suppose, but not in the sense of being maximal strength stimulation as defined by Star and others.
-
Participant
Yes, with my point being the whole thread has been about max strength. Heavy olympic lifts are another matter, though does compromise some form of “heavy” lifting I suppose, but not in the sense of being maximal strength stimulation as defined by Star and others.
Maximal strength isn’t related to the Olympic lifts? And I haven’t defined ‘stimulation’ in any way. I’m talking about developing the ability to generate maximum force.
I also think a few on here are confusing force with power. Max force is not time constrained, and does not require that anything move. The ability to generate max force in a sporting event is, hence the importance of RFD. Both should be trained using the most optimal methods, the time devoted to each depending on the athlete’s needs.
This thread was started by an athlete who felt he needed more max strength, and the discussion of what load/rep scheme works best became the focus of discussion. Not the means. Not whether max force or RFD is more important. Simply, which rep scheme works best for developing max strength.
Lifting lighter loads at high speed may improve RFD, but lighter loads lifted at any speed, does not improve an athlete’s ability to generate max force as optimally as a plan that includes some reps at higher intensities; THIS has been my point all along. Not powerlifting vs Olylmpic lifting. Not double leg vs single leg. Not ‘is max strength as important as RFD’. Just this. Lighter loads, even if lifted ballistically, while possibly a superior method for improving RFD, are an inferior method for improving the ability to generate max force.
Davan can run his big mouth, which is connected to a very small body, all he wants. It doesn’t change anything.
-
Keymaster
Walter Davis? Sotomayer? Really? Are counting heavy 1/4 (more like 1/8) squats as maximal lifting here? With the exception of JE, I don’t really see it and even then he was going heavy with Olympic lifts, not squats/deadlifts/etc.
Walter Davis definitely did lifts above 85% when I was at LSU. Mostly OLs during comp phase but sometimes squats as well. Also, you keep alluding (here and elsewhere) to the fact that the LSU jumps group only did partial ROM squats. I’m not sure where this came from because it certainly wasn’t the case in my 4 years there. As I’ve mentioned before you must be thinking of the sprint group who did a completely different strength protocol. All squats outside of 1/2 squat jumps (only done a couple times a year) were below parallel when I was there.
Sotomayer by several accounts would do above parallel squats with 600 lbs….probably similar range as Ben in the video UT posted.
In his own training journal Edwards indicated he was hitting max or near max lifts (albeit in cleans) several times a week and in some weeks that’s all he seemed to do for strength.
If we have to continue putting qualifiers on what is a maximal % lift (nothing but full range of motion squat, deadlift, bench for example) then this discussion becomes fairly pointless because many never do those exercises even with moderate loads.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257976592"]Yes, with my point being the whole thread has been about max strength. Heavy olympic lifts are another matter, though does compromise some form of “heavy” lifting I suppose, but not in the sense of being maximal strength stimulation as defined by Star and others.
Maximal strength isn’t related to the Olympic lifts? And I haven’t defined ‘stimulation’ in any way. I’m talking about developing the ability to generate maximum force. [/quote] You said yourself many times that Olympic lifts have minimal bearing on maximal strength and a heavy Olympic lift is much lighter and produces substantially less maximum force than a heavy deadlift or squat. In terms of maximal strength training via heavy loading in “max strength exercises”, it is well beyond the scope of the discussion. Now, if you want to talk about maximum power, RFD, or the like, that is something different.
I also think a few on here are confusing force with power. Max force is not time constrained, and does not require that anything move. The ability to generate max force in a sporting event is, hence the importance of RFD. Both should be trained using the most optimal methods, the time devoted to each depending on the athlete’s needs.
No shit, you just confused it yourself in the above statement. FTW.
This thread was started by an athlete who felt he needed more max strength, and the discussion of what load/rep scheme works best became the focus of discussion. Not the means. Not whether max force or RFD is more important. Simply, which rep scheme works best for developing max strength.
Which is entirely dependent on what else is going on in the training program AND with max strength defined as strength that can be used in the sporting activity, which is different (as TWhite has already alluded to) when rate coding becomes involved.
Lifting lighter loads at high speed may improve RFD, but lighter loads lifted at any speed, does not improve an athlete’s ability to generate max force as optimally as a plan that includes some reps at higher intensities; THIS has been my point all along. Not powerlifting vs Olylmpic lifting. Not double leg vs single leg. Not ‘is max strength as important as RFD’. Just this. Lighter loads, even if lifted ballistically, while possibly a superior method for improving RFD, are an inferior method for improving the ability to generate max force.
Again, you forget the issue of rate coding which is task specific. Marginal improvements seen in very heavy lifting (>90%) versus more moderate lifting are from rate coding, not an improvement in contractile qualities, protein concentration in muscle cells, or anything else. Being task specific, it becomes nearly irrelevant to other activities and irrelevant when attempting to develop maximal strength in NON-Powerlifting athletes.
Davan can run his big mouth, which is connected to a very small body, all he wants. It doesn’t change anything.
Write up some more annual plans so your daughter can run >60 in the 400.
-
Participant
Walter Davis definitely did lifts above 85% when I was at LSU. Mostly OLs during comp phase but sometimes squats as well. Also, you keep alluding (here and elsewhere) to the fact that the LSU jumps group only did partial ROM squats. I’m not sure where this came from because it certainly wasn’t the case in my 4 years there. As I’ve mentioned before you must be thinking of the sprint group who did a completely different strength protocol. All squats outside of 1/2 squat jumps (only done a couple times a year) were below parallel when I was there.
A person from this forum has seen some of Boo’s group squatting and what he and I would define as parallel was not what they were reaching to say the least. Even if we assume all of the squats were at parallel, how many lifts in the squat were >85% of his 1RM over the course of the entire prep?
Sotomayer by several accounts would do above parallel squats with 600 lbs….probably similar range as Ben in the video UT posted.
In his own training journal Edwards indicated he was hitting max or near max lifts (albeit in cleans) several times a week and in some weeks that’s all he seemed to do for strength.
If we have to continue putting qualifiers on what is a maximal % lift (nothing but full range of motion squat, deadlift, bench for example) then this discussion becomes fairly pointless because many never do those exercises even with moderate loads.
The thread is about maximal strength. Heavy olympics lifts will factor in, but when talking about doing heavy, max force lifts, they ought not be included for numerous obvious reasons. If you follow the thread, this difference has already been covered.
Also, when talking about what amounts to glorified knee unlocks (also called quarter squats by some people, however I’d question that naming), there is going to be a substantial difference in effect than in a full range of motion lift and changes the situation a lot as well since most of the problems with very heavy lifts are specific to the effects observed. If someone was doing a 1RM rack pull that was above the knee level, that’s going to be much different than someone doing a heavy deadlift from the floor.
-
Keymaster
A person from this forum has seen some of Boo’s group squatting and what he and I would define as parallel was not what they were reaching to say the least. Even if we assume all of the squats were at parallel, how many lifts in the squat were >85% of his 1RM over the course of the entire prep?
Did this same person also see Ben Johnson squat 660 x 8 before the Olympic final? My point is that I was there every day for 4 years and do not recall ever consistently seeing high squats used. A2G were rarely used but below parallel was the norm. Something certainly could change in the year after I left (Boo’s final year) or when Boo or I were not around (which happened with the post-collegiates several times a week) but low boxes were used throughout the entire macro to ensure depth of squat. Loads weren’t always prescribed on a % basis but loads in excess of 85% were frequently used.
The thread is about maximal strength. Heavy olympics lifts will factor in, but when talking about doing heavy, max force lifts, they ought not be included for numerous obvious reasons. If you follow the thread, this difference has already been covered.
Perhaps if I were to agree with that definition we would see eye to eye but I actually think heavy OLs are fair game in this discussion. The logic your using is the same logic used by others to say that the deadlift is superior to all lifts because you can lift more. Or that the Olympic lifts are worthless because they’re executed using only 80% of deadlift max. That’s another debate for another day though. Even if we take OLs out of the equation you still have several using heavy loads effectively- Ben Johnson, Soto, much of Dan’s sprint crew from the late 90s, all of the top US bobsleigh team, etc.
Also, when talking about what amounts to glorified knee unlocks (also called quarter squats by some people, however I’d question that naming), there is going to be a substantial difference in effect than in a full range of motion lift and changes the situation a lot as well since most of the problems with very heavy lifts are specific to the effects observed. If someone was doing a 1RM rack pull that was above the knee level, that’s going to be much different than someone doing a heavy deadlift from the floor.
I totally agree with this and while I wouldn’t qualify Ben’s squat (from the video UT posted) to be a full or even parallel squat I likewise think it would be unfair to call that just a lockout. Same thing goes for the others I’ve mentioned and their respective lifts.
Do you have to lift like that to get fast? No. Do you have to lift like that to get strong? No. But the bulk of the strongest speed-power (bobsleigh, sprinters, jumpers, throwers) or pure strength athletes (Olympic lifters, power lifters, etc) in the history of the world have included lifts over 85% in their training program. Are you suggesting these athletes would be stronger if they did higher rep schemes?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257987288"]A person from this forum has seen some of Boo’s group squatting and what he and I would define as parallel was not what they were reaching to say the least. Even if we assume all of the squats were at parallel, how many lifts in the squat were >85% of his 1RM over the course of the entire prep?
Did this same person also see Ben Johnson squat 660 x 8 before the Olympic final? My point is that I was there every day for 4 years and do not recall ever consistently seeing high squats used. A2G were rarely used but below parallel was the norm. Something certainly could change in the year after I left (Boo’s final year) or when Boo or I were not around (which happened with the post-collegiates several times a week) but low boxes were used throughout the entire macro to ensure depth of squat. Loads weren’t always prescribed on a % basis but loads in excess of 85% were frequently used.[/quote] Can you define frequently via number? The number thrown around as considered “Frequent” is ~10% of lifts (not including warm-ups) at over >85% of 1RM.
[quote]
The thread is about maximal strength. Heavy olympics lifts will factor in, but when talking about doing heavy, max force lifts, they ought not be included for numerous obvious reasons. If you follow the thread, this difference has already been covered.Perhaps if I were to agree with that definition we would see eye to eye but I actually think heavy OLs are fair game in this discussion. The logic your using is the same logic used by others to say that the deadlift is superior to all lifts because you can lift more. Or that the Olympic lifts are worthless because they’re executed using only 80% of deadlift max. That’s another debate for another day though. Even if we take OLs out of the equation you still have several using heavy loads effectively- Ben Johnson, Soto, much of Dan’s sprint crew from the late 90s, all of the top US bobsleigh team, etc.[/quote] Not really. Olympic lifts involve less force almost by definition than a squat or deadlift. The discussion was about the need to lift >85% to improve max strength athletes effectively. 100% of an Olympic lift is not reaching the force requirements defined by that, which is what the issue has been. I mean, you could include shot and medball throws or standing long jumps as stuff done >85% if you want to include non-maximum force lifts in the equation.[/quote]
Further, Charlie has said numerous times Ben NEVER lifted above his 6RM in the videos and frankly, after seeing the lifts from that video and others, I would question whether they are even reaching depths that would have a similar effect. By executing a much shorter ROM and bouncing off a bench, you’re going to have a much different effect. I am perhaps inappropriately assuming we are talking about non-completely shit coached and executed lifts.
I totally agree with this and while I wouldn’t qualify Ben’s squat (from the video UT posted) to be a full or even parallel squat I likewise think it would be unfair to call that just a lockout. Same thing goes for the others I’ve mentioned and their respective lifts.
He reaches a lower depth than a knee unlock, but also bounces with knee wraps, spotter seemingly assisting to some degree, etc.
Do you have to lift like that to get fast? No. Do you have to lift like that to get strong? No. But the bulk of the strongest speed-power (bobsleigh, sprinters, jumpers, throwers) or pure strength athletes (Olympic lifters, power lifters, etc) in the history of the world have included lifts over 85% in their training program. Are you suggesting these athletes would be stronger if they did higher rep schemes?
I am suggesting that there is little need to include a substantial amount of lifting >85%. I also question whether it is necessary at all, but the main point is that a substantial amount (which Star previously REdefined as 10% of non-warm-up reps in certain phases) of lifting >85% is not needed to effectively and APPROPRIATELY develop maximum strength in non-powerlifting athletes.
And never did I say they’d be stronger. Please, Mike, read what has been said throughout the thread. The context is a non-powerlifting athlete looking to develop maximum strength to enhance their sporting performance. As TWhite and others have alluded to, lifting >85% is mostly going to assist with rate coding and being able to technically handle relatively heavy loads better, versus actually improving contractile qualities that may be relevant to the sporting requirements. Lifting 85% (with ATHLETES that have other requirements) because of being able to be easier to recover from and being more relevant to their sport. Will they be as good at handling 100% of max with adequate technique? No, but that is something different.
Further, the confusion many here have is that somehow there is a continuum where there is an optimal way to develop maximal strength and you simply vary that based on the sporting requirements. Sadly, what is forgotten is that what powerlifters and other athletes who are tested on maximal 1 rep lifts have to do is COMPETE in something which requires them to be able to perform 1 rep at the most weight they can technically handle. This poses many problems because sustaining great technique like this is very technical and the research shows that much of the strength improvements over a certain percentage come from rate coding (task specific) versus improvement in muscular involvement. That won’t have relevance once you move to a completely different task (ie jumping or sprinting).
-
Participant
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).
-
Keymaster
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1257988367"]My point is that I was there every day for 4 years and do not recall ever consistently seeing high squats used. A2G were rarely used but below parallel was the norm. Something certainly could change in the year after I left (Boo’s final year) or when Boo or I were not around (which happened with the post-collegiates several times a week) but low boxes were used throughout the entire macro to ensure depth of squat. Loads weren’t always prescribed on a % basis but loads in excess of 85% were frequently used.
Can you define frequently via number? The number thrown around as considered “Frequent” is ~10% of lifts (not including warm-ups) at over >85% of 1RM.[/quote]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.
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1257988367"]
Perhaps if I were to agree with that definition we would see eye to eye but I actually think heavy OLs are fair game in this discussion. The logic your using is the same logic used by others to say that the deadlift is superior to all lifts because you can lift more. Or that the Olympic lifts are worthless because they’re executed using only 80% of deadlift max. That’s another debate for another day though. Even if we take OLs out of the equation you still have several using heavy loads effectively- Ben Johnson, Soto, much of Dan’s sprint crew from the late 90s, all of the top US bobsleigh team, etc.Not really. Olympic lifts involve less force almost by definition than a squat or deadlift. The discussion was about the need to lift >85% to improve max strength athletes effectively. 100% of an Olympic lift is not reaching the force requirements defined by that, which is what the issue has been. I mean, you could include shot and medball throws or standing long jumps as stuff done >85% if you want to include non-maximum force lifts in the equation.[/quote]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.
Further, Charlie has said numerous times Ben NEVER lifted above his 6RM in the videos and frankly, after seeing the lifts from that video and others, I would question whether they are even reaching depths that would have a similar effect. By executing a much shorter ROM and bouncing off a bench, you’re going to have a much different effect. I am perhaps inappropriately assuming we are talking about non-completely shit coached and executed lifts.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Charlie do lesser reps to get Ben that strong in the first place and then when he felt he was sufficiently strong and the added stress of low rep / higher load wouldn’t benefit him due to the cumulative CNS stress (and potential injury) of lifting and sprinting he restricted rep ranges to 6RM. I apologize if I butchered that but that’s what I thought was the case.
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1257988367"]I totally agree with this and while I wouldn’t qualify Ben’s squat (from the video UT posted) to be a full or even parallel squat I likewise think it would be unfair to call that just a lockout. Same thing goes for the others I’ve mentioned and their respective lifts.
He reaches a lower depth than a knee unlock, but also bounces with knee wraps, spotter seemingly assisting to some degree, etc.[/quote]While not something I would do how does that diminish the fact that he’s lifting near limit loads? Isn’t the gear just allowing him to lift even heavier? And isn’t the fact that he’s requiring a spot indicative that in that video he is lifting in excess of 85%?
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1257988367"]
Do you have to lift like that to get fast? No. Do you have to lift like that to get strong? No. But the bulk of the strongest speed-power (bobsleigh, sprinters, jumpers, throwers) or pure strength athletes (Olympic lifters, power lifters, etc) in the history of the world have included lifts over 85% in their training program. Are you suggesting these athletes would be stronger if they did higher rep schemes?I am suggesting that there is little need to include a substantial amount of lifting >85%. I also question whether it is necessary at all, but the main point is that a substantial amount (which Star previously REdefined as 10% of non-warm-up reps in certain phases) of lifting >85% is not needed to effectively and APPROPRIATELY develop maximum strength in non-powerlifting athletes.[/quote]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.
And never did I say they’d be stronger. Please, Mike, read what has been said throughout the thread.
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.
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:
Perhaps it is how I respond to things, but I know some other people from this board and elsewhere who have done the same with pretty good success (relative obviously) as well. Now, I know that most will say you HAVE to lift way heavier for optimal gains and that I clearly could have done 455 instead of 355 if I would have just lifted heavier, but frankly, I tried it, I have the logs of me trying it, and it did not work as well.
Maybe YOU should read what has been said throughout the thread.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
Further, the confusion many here have is that somehow there is a continuum where there is an optimal way to develop maximal strength and you simply vary that based on the sporting requirements. Sadly, what is forgotten is that what powerlifters and other athletes who are tested on maximal 1 rep lifts have to do is COMPETE in something which requires them to be able to perform 1 rep at the most weight they can technically handle. This poses many problems because sustaining great technique like this is very technical and the research shows that much of the strength improvements over a certain percentage come from rate coding (task specific) versus improvement in muscular involvement. That won’t have relevance once you move to a completely different task (ie jumping or sprinting).
Any evidence to suggest that there’s a complete disconnect between maximal strength that is appropriate for one sport and for another? I’m having a hard time following why this wouldn’t operate on a continuum. Also, before you tell me to reread the thread again please note that I’ve already said this:
One other thing I think we need to make clear is that the best way for developing strength for a powerlifter or Olympic weightlifter is not always going to be the best way for a track athlete who is supplementing their strength work with high training volumes of other complementary training modes like sprinting, plyos, etc. I think this is what might make up for some of the discrepancy we see between what’s best for strength sport athletes and what can work for track athletes who tend to have much more balanced biomotor development and implement many more means of speed-strength-power development.
That said, I’m having trouble seeing why there’s so much hate for 85+% loads?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
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?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
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.
-
Participant
]Any evidence to suggest that there’s a complete disconnect between maximal strength that is appropriate for one sport and for another? I’m having a hard time following why this wouldn’t operate on a continuum. Also, before you tell me to reread the thread again please note that I’ve already said this:
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1257754020"]One other thing I think we need to make clear is that the best way for developing strength for a powerlifter or Olympic weightlifter is not always going to be the best way for a track athlete who is supplementing their strength work with high training volumes of other complementary training modes like sprinting, plyos, etc. I think this is what might make up for some of the discrepancy we see between what’s best for strength sport athletes and what can work for track athletes who tend to have much more balanced biomotor development and implement many more means of speed-strength-power development.That said, I’m having trouble seeing why there’s so much hate for 85+% loads?[/quote]
A continuum would imply that there is a singular best way to train max strength for everyone, period. It would then apply that you would try to best apply this single method to whatever the given situation was, while what myself and many others are arguing is that the logic there is flawed for a variety of reasons:
1. There is no single best way to train for max strength
2. Other factors will inherently interact with the training as it is not a 0 sum game. Doing throws or jumps, for example, will have an impact on maximum strength. With large volumes of those included, it is necessarily going to have a huge impact on how the program is designed.
3. It would imply that the people in the strength sports have no skill element in their training and that their training is entirely based on improving the “maximum strength” of said individual. The problem, as pointed out numerous times, is that there is a huge technical component to handling heavy loads for a single repetition. This is conveniently ignored.As far as the hate, nothing of the kind. Re-read the thread. 🙂
-
Participant
[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]
Charlie specifically stated multiple times that at NO POINT in Ben’s progression did he ever lift heavier than a 6 rep max in the squat. They did a lower number of reps at times, but not above a 6RM load.
-
Participant
[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]
Charlie specifically stated multiple times that at NO POINT in Ben’s progression did he ever lift heavier than a 6 rep max in the squat. They did a lower number of reps at times, but not above a 6RM load.[/quote]
Can we really believe everything CF says about his athletes training?
-
Keymaster
Please quit with the “thread you didn’t read” bit. It’s getting tired. The thread is long enough that Star can say that about you. You can say that about Star. I can say that about Nick and on and on.
I have given plenty of training examples on the site over the years and Nick’s journal has been on the site for 2 years with a very detailed plan now so there’s plenty of examples of how much 85+% training I like to use and when I like to do it. If I had to quantify I would guesstimate that 15% of my total reps on the major strength exercises (squat, bench, and incline bench are the only ones I think would qualify by your standards) are at 85+% between what most would consider SPP and the end of Pre-Comp. I would guesstimate this represents anywhere between 15 and 40 reps in a given week depending on the athlete and the time of year. If we include the reps of the other lifts I do (lunges, RDLs, pullups, etc) the % of total rep count at or above above 85% would drop well below 2-3% of total rep count.
I actually agree with most everything you said but it’s a much more moderate approach then what you seemed to be saying previously.
I would still nitpick that higher loads at med-heavy intensities will spur hypertrophy in the presence of a hypercaloric diet far more than a very light load or a very heavy load. This is perhaps one of the most tried-and-true findings of millions of bodybuilders around the world. Sure calories need to be there but the training is also a factor.
As for soreness, other than a few occasions where I’ve admittedly overshot, when Nick or any other of my athletes is sore it is a directly or indirectly intended consequence of what I’m trying to do…and often times it’s when the rep schemes ARE higher. Maybe you should rea…oh never mind.
Any evidence to suggest that we should be primarily concerned with the contractile qualities developed and not also the neuromuscular coordination that 85+% loads also spur?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I’m going to bed but I know that Enoka mentions it, I have the findings somewhere.
-
Participant
[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…
Star61 said
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).
-
Participant
The thread is about maximal strength. Heavy olympics lifts will factor in, but when talking about doing heavy, max force lifts, they ought not be included for numerous obvious reasons. If you follow the thread, this difference has already been covered.
Not really. Olympic lifts involve less force almost by definition than a squat or deadlift. The discussion was about the need to lift >85% to improve max strength athletes effectively. 100% of an Olympic lift is not reaching the force requirements defined by that, which is what the issue has been. I mean, you could include shot and medball throws or standing long jumps as stuff done >85% if you want to include non-maximum force lifts in the equation.
I’m printing this out and framing it.
-
Participant
[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…
Star61 said
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]
100% right about the box squats being harder than free parallel! By a long way actually..
And yeah 85% or under never feels as heavy and Ben made it look even during the first of the 6 reps in that video.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1257989181"]
The thread is about maximal strength. Heavy olympics lifts will factor in, but when talking about doing heavy, max force lifts, they ought not be included for numerous obvious reasons. If you follow the thread, this difference has already been covered.Not really. Olympic lifts involve less force almost by definition than a squat or deadlift. The discussion was about the need to lift >85% to improve max strength athletes effectively. 100% of an Olympic lift is not reaching the force requirements defined by that, which is what the issue has been. I mean, you could include shot and medball throws or standing long jumps as stuff done >85% if you want to include non-maximum force lifts in the equation.
I’m printing this out and framing it.[/quote]
Perhaps you misunderstood again, which isn’t uncommon. I think Olympic lifts can improve max strength and they have many qualities which will carry over; however, they do not fit the requirement of being a high force lift to improve max strength (ie >85% in a static lift) to fulfill your qualifiers made earlier.
-
Participant
[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…
Star61 said
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%.
EDIT: Typo
-
Participant
I don’t understand the thought that 80% is not heavy lifting, Star I encourage you to do a set at 80% on your squat to within a rep or two of failure and come back and tell me that it wasn’t “max effort” lifting. For me, a max single or double was always infinitely easier than work sets at 70-80%. Then again maybe Zatsiorsky was onto something when he said that a fiber recruited but not fatigued wasn’t trained. Yet again I have anecdotal evidence, even lifting sessions with some of your powerlifting football guys from ACU, to prove my points but given the last twenty pages of discussion I’m sure it would fall on deaf ears.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257920678"][quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257914569"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.[/quote]
Not what I was asking- my question was about the efficacy of max lifting (compared with more moderate lifting) for improving the RFD displayed in a long jump.[/quote]
Nick- any evidence of max lifting improving RFD in a long jump more than moderate lifting? -
Keymaster
I don’t understand the thought that 80% is not heavy lifting, Star I encourage you to do a set at 80% on your squat to within a rep or two of failure and come back and tell me that it wasn’t “max effort” lifting.
Heavy is relative though. The load can be heavy but not intense (as rated by % of maximal effort / force output). I think the reason your point isn’t holding water is because the discussion is about % of max. I think you make a good point but it doesn’t seem to be the question at hand…whether including a decent volume of 85+% loads in training is a worthwhile and valuable addition to the training of a speed-power athlete.
For me, a max single or double was always infinitely easier than work sets at 70-80%.
No question about it. But that’s not quite the same as intensity…that’s effort. It’s the same reason my athletes like doing 60m sprints with full recovery but hate doing an intensive tempo workout where the running is done at 80-85%.
Then again maybe Zatsiorsky was onto something when he said that a fiber recruited but not fatigued wasn’t trained. Yet again I have anecdotal evidence, even lifting sessions with some of your powerlifting football guys from ACU, to prove my points but given the last twenty pages of discussion I’m sure it would fall on deaf ears.
I don’t think anyone is doubting lower % loads can work…I don’t think anyone is arguing that. I’m pretty sure the debate is over what I mentioned above.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I wasn’t trying to infer that effort is a determining factor, I was just responding to Star’s assertion that effort was somehow exclusive to max lifts.
Let’s take this from another angle, Mike what do you feel you obtain from working above 85% that you do not feel you can get from 80-85%?
-
Keymaster
Answer my questions (RE: rate coding being only benefit from 85+% loads and rate coding adaptation being completely task specific) then I’ll answer yours 🙂
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257929058"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257920678"][quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257914569"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.[/quote]
Not what I was asking- my question was about the efficacy of max lifting (compared with more moderate lifting) for improving the RFD displayed in a long jump.[/quote]
Nick- any evidence of max lifting improving RFD in a long jump more than moderate lifting?[/quote]Im pretty sure yes. It’s all i’ve been taught for the last 8 years…
Heavy weights moved as fast as possible = RFD
Light weights moved as fast as possible = RVDObviously there are some carry over from most types of lifting however…
For the LJ maximum rate of force development needs to be developed. Can’t achieve max force against a light weight. Plus i know many athletes with super RFD and i know how they train…seems to be a very high coorelation there…
-
Keymaster
I just posted this over HERE[/url] but I thought it would be helpful to double post here as well so we can at least all get on the same page.
Maybe we just need to really come to a conclusion about what we’re debating…is it:
1) What is the best way to get strong without regard to sport?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get strong without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong (as measured by weight room maxes)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be strong in the first place?
6) And on and on….I had the impression that the debate was not necessarily ‘what is best for sprinters’ (i.e. what will yield the best results on the track for a sprinter) but ‘what is the best way for a sprinter to get strong as measured by 1RM.’ More specifically, isn’t the question currently being addressed in the this thread whether including a regular dosage of 85+% loads in strength training activities at appropriate times of the year is a worthwhile and valuable addition to the training of a speed-power athlete.
Without defining what the question is we won’t be able to come to any type of conclusion (if that’s even possible in the first place)?
Please chime in to what we’re debating and then perhaps we can at least either see that no common ground can be met or try to reach a meaningful conclusion.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
people produce most power at 30% of squat max for a jump squat…so does that they should only train at 30% of max for jump squats?
We are talking about training here…
-
Participant
I had a big convo today with someone very highly qualified who’s been working in this area for 50 years…
So Davan, your so damn ignorant that it really sucks talking to you about anything. So this just isn’t worth it.
-
Participant
[….
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%.
EDIT: Typo
What a prick. YOU are the one the brings Charlie, and Ben, into these threads. As I’ve told you before, if YOU can use Charlie’s opinions on training, so can I. I just wanted to clarify your misrepresentation of the loads Ben used. Without knowing anything, it is obvious in the videos of Ben that he was lifting near maximal loads, not the 70% of 1RM you subscribe to.
-
Participant
….
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%.And yes, most people can do 6 reps with an 85% load, that is how the RM chart was constructed. And…Ben wasn’t “most people”.
-
Participant
I had a big convo today with someone very highly qualified who’s been working in this area for 50 years…
So Davan, your so damn ignorant that it really sucks talking to you about anything. So this just isn’t worth it.
You have repeatedly shown you don’t even understand basic elements of the English language. That is “non-significant” though.
By the way, I was commenting on the definitions, which you had confused. I didn’t comment in that post on any specific training method. Maybe you should re-read it.
Who is the someone and what did they specifically say? Did they say max force = RFD?
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1258068753"][….
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%.
EDIT: Typo
What a prick. YOU are the one the brings Charlie, and Ben, into these threads. As I’ve told you before, if YOU can use Charlie’s opinions on training, so can I. I just wanted to clarify your misrepresentation of the loads Ben used. Without knowing anything, it is obvious in the videos of Ben that he was lifting near maximal loads, not the 70% of 1RM you subscribe to.[/quote]
Please tell me how many athletes you have ever seen who were capable of doing 6 reps @ 90% of their real 1RM. They never tested 1RM and he said he wasn’t sure what the percentage would be and you simply asked if he thought it could be 90%–either way, he didn’t know and he said they never went over the 6RM It’s pretty simple.
-
Participant
Charlie said he had Ben max early in his career for sure. I’m not sure that the bench wasn’t suppose to be a 2rm than just happened to end up heavier than he thought it would.
I have Ato’s plan saved somewhere and he lifted in the max strength range. They also were said to do full squats. He stated a 330 bench an 440 squat if I rememer correctly. I know I have seen Mo at full depth but it was with 220.
-
Participant
[quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1258080629"][quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257929058"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257920678"][quote author="Ian Cooley" date="1257914569"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1257913125"]Max lifting is very important for RFD development and i asure you you’ll hardly ever find an elite long jumper without great RFD ability. So it is very relevant both physiologically and pychologically.
Are you saying that max lifting increases RFD in a long jump to a greater degree than more moderate lifting?[/quote]
It is an extremely important part yes. You need to hit maximum force in minimum time…lighter weights won’t let you achieve max force.[/quote]
Not what I was asking- my question was about the efficacy of max lifting (compared with more moderate lifting) for improving the RFD displayed in a long jump.[/quote]
Nick- any evidence of max lifting improving RFD in a long jump more than moderate lifting?[/quote]Im pretty sure yes. It’s all i’ve been taught for the last 8 years…
Heavy weights moved as fast as possible = RFD
Light weights moved as fast as possible = RVDObviously there are some carry over from most types of lifting however…
For the LJ maximum rate of force development needs to be developed. Can’t achieve max force against a light weight. Plus i know many athletes with super RFD and i know how they train…seems to be a very high coorelation there…[/quote]
1. Making a claim that something is true is not evidence of such
2. Not being able to achieve max force doesn’t mean RFD can’t be high. It also doesn’t address how the weight work affects RFD in the long jump
3. Correlation = / = causation -
Participantstar61 on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm
-
