[sizerp]

sizerp on September 28, 2010 at 6:51 am #17063

I was pondering about a more structured way to select variations of the Olympic lifts for the next 2-3 months of my strength preparation. I decided to ask a weightlifting coach about how they approach this issue, and he said the following:

Choosing the starting height parameter (from the floor, from blocks, hang) not only depends on the rest of the setup for a given period, but also is strongly correlated with an individual’s strength and technical condition during a given training session. For example, if the coach does not like the execution of the snatch during a session, he might modify the exercises for that day and the athlete could end up going through the whole continuum – snatch with the bar above the knees, below the knees and from the floor. However, there is one regularity – with the approaching of the competition period, they gradually shift the emphasis from OL variations to the classic competition movements (pretty much transition from GPP to SPP for OL lifters). My take from this part is to do the opposite – progress from floor to above-the knee variations.

The choice for the height of the catch is also as variable as the previous point. The regularity here again is that the closer the competitions, the less “power”, the more full movements. However, there’s a “catch”: while they move towards a lower catch, their goal to put more and more weight on the bar remains. This means that, no matter how fast the athlete manages to get under the bar from the triple extension, there still is a significant strength component to the movement – there still is this heavy ass bar that needs to be pulled high enough before the body moves down around it. Whenever I reach the period when most of the OL are performed with a lower catch, I think a more appropriate emphasis would be not to strive to lift more weight, but to keep the weight I reached during the predominantly “power” clean/snatch phase, focus on pulling it to a lower point than before, and moving faster to get under it.

As a summary, what I plan on doing is progressing from a power clean to a full clean with the bar starting above the knees.

Comments/thoughts?

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on September 28, 2010 at 9:07 am #102313

I’d go,

full clean – power clean – hang clean for clean progression…

Same with snatch

DEEP squat – half squat – quarter squat – jump squat for squat progression

[sizerp]

sizerp on September 28, 2010 at 9:53 am #102316

I’d go,

full clean – power clean – hang clean for clean progression…

Why?

[star61]

star61 on September 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm #102322

…I think a more appropriate emphasis would be not to strive to lift more weight, but to keep the weight I reached during the predominantly “power” clean/snatch phase, focus on pulling it to a lower point than before, and moving faster to get under it…

Since the phase of the lift that generates the most power is the second pull through triple extension, wouldn’t it make more sense to progress by lifting the bar more explosively to a higher catch, not a lower catch? Weight could stay the same, but strive to pull the bar higher/faster by progressively generating more and more power through the triple extension.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on September 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm #102323

Higher catch…yes correct…full clean being low catch and power clean being high catch.

[sizerp]

sizerp on September 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm #102325

Since the phase of the lift that generates the most power is the second pull through triple extension, wouldn’t it make more sense to progress by lifting the bar more explosively to a higher catch, not a lower catch? Weight could stay the same, but strive to pull the bar higher/faster by progressively generating more and more power through the triple extension.

The bar will get higher if I increase the duration of force application. As the competitive season approaches, I’ll need less of that. Lifting a certain weight to a certain height and progressively getting under it faster I think will help me develop a greater RFD and better coordination while changing direction of movement. That doesn’t preclude me from increasing the weight if I feel satisfied with the catch. Picture a hammer thrower. 4 turns means a long duration of force application on the implement. 2 turns is a shorter duration. Imagine being able to hit the same distance from 2 as from 4 turns. That would mean the thrower managed to accelerate the implement to a similar velocity in the 2-turn throw in a significantly shorter time than in the 4-turn.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on September 29, 2010 at 3:35 am #102321

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1285645078"]I’d go,

full clean – power clean – hang clean for clean progression…

Why?[/quote]

A full clean will have little carry over to the runway or jump specific fitness…The overall movement time is super slow and heavy weights during that time isn’t the way to go anyway…

Start off with full range of motion for the major exercises for the recruitment of the largest muscle and FT fibers…then move towards the faster movements with similar ROM and overall speed as the event and which also places a large emphasis on leg stiffness which the high catch does…

Same with the squat.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 1:38 am #105738

My advice would be to select a variation and stick with it throughout the entire training year. Otherwise a significant amount of time is wasted ‘relearning’ the new movement. Further my preference would be to perform ALL lifts from the floor as they provide greater time under tension and far more stimulus to the posterior chain.

In my experience, excessive lifting from the hang does not translate well to the floor and often leads to technical errors (e.g. a ‘2 stage’ pull; over pulling with the arms; significant horizonatal bar displacement etc)

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 1:41 am #105739

[quote author="Denis Eradiri (sizerp)" date="1285647820"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1285645078"]I’d go,

full clean – power clean – hang clean for clean progression…

Why?[/quote]

Start off with full range of motion for the major exercises for the recruitment of the largest muscle and FT fibers…then move towards the faster movements with similar ROM and overall speed as the event and which also places a large emphasis on leg stiffness which the high catch does…

Same with the squat.[/quote]

Speed of movement on the track is so much greater than can be achieved in the gym that any ‘periodisation’ towards faster movements is pointless.

KISS

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 24, 2011 at 3:31 am #105742

Working very well actually.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 3:57 am #105743

Working very well actually.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 24, 2011 at 5:34 am #105746

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298498492"]Working very well actually.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/quote]

Tunc propter quid?

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 24, 2011 at 5:37 am #105747

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1285711571"]

Start off with full range of motion for the major exercises for the recruitment of the largest muscle and FT fibers…then move towards the faster movements with similar ROM and overall speed as the event and which also places a large emphasis on leg stiffness which the high catch does…

Same with the squat.

Speed of movement on the track is so much greater than can be achieved in the gym that any ‘periodisation’ towards faster movements is pointless.

KISS[/quote]

In that case one is left with but 2 choices:

Start movements slow and keep them slow during all training phases;

Start movements fast and keep them fast during all training phases;

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 9:26 am #105757

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298491910"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1285711571"]

Start off with full range of motion for the major exercises for the recruitment of the largest muscle and FT fibers…then move towards the faster movements with similar ROM and overall speed as the event and which also places a large emphasis on leg stiffness which the high catch does…

Same with the squat.

Speed of movement on the track is so much greater than can be achieved in the gym that any ‘periodisation’ towards faster movements is pointless.

KISS[/quote]

In that case one is left with but 2 choices:

Start movements slow and keep them slow during all training phases;

Start movements fast and keep them fast during all training phases;[/quote]

No, the velocity portion of the FV curve is sufficiently developed on the track, the focus on the gym should be improving maximum force. However, when an athlete is power cleaning around 1.5x body weight the exercise provides a powerful whole body ‘strength’ stimulus.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 24, 2011 at 9:31 am #105761

And how do you suggest improviing maximum force Mr. Woodhouse?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 10:00 am #105763

And how do you suggest improviing maximum force Mr. Woodhouse?

Pretty straight forward. PCleans or squats to max.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 24, 2011 at 11:10 am #105765

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298520125"]And how do you suggest improviing maximum force Mr. Woodhouse?

Pretty straight forward. PCleans or squats to max.[/quote]

So either are equivalently effective for the development of max force (assuming we are discussing the lower body’s strength)?

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 24, 2011 at 11:23 am #105766

…

No, the velocity portion of the FV curve is sufficiently developed on the track, the focus on the gym should be improving maximum force. However, when an athlete is power cleaning around 1.5x body weight the exercise provides a powerful [b]whole body[/b] ‘strength’ stimulus.

The problem with this statement is that the FV curve has no “velocity portion”. The portions of the curve are usually described as max strength, strength speed, etc. up to speed. In order to develop these “portions”, one usually employs exercises that are performed with force and speed parameters that correspond to the targeted “portion”. Jumpers I think need all of the points on that curve covered. Long jumpers in particular, and even more so triple jumpers. And we’re still leaving out eccentric and isometric strength, which the power clean for example doesn’t really address sufficiently enough.

And by the way, from personal experience I can say that a 1.5x body weight power clean does not really provide me with a strength stimulus, it’s more of an explosion stimulus, i.e. I want to jump on top of tables and benches after it.

Sir Roderick

[star61]

star61 on February 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm #105774

…

The problem with this statement is that the FV curve has no “velocity portion”…

Obviously he’s speaking about the low force/high velocity end of the curve, as opposed to the low velocity/high force end.

And we’re still leaving out eccentric and isometric strength, which the power clean for example doesn’t really address sufficiently enough.

The catch portion of the clean has very high eccentric loading. Mike has referenced this on many occasions when discussing the clean vs the high pull, which does lack an eccentric phase.

And by the way, from personal experience I can say that a 1.5x body weight power clean does not really provide me with a strength stimulus, it’s more of an explosion stimulus, i.e. I want to jump on top of tables and benches after it.

Strength can obviously be improved with high load cleans, and IMHO, 1.5x body weight is a probably a high enough load to do it, although I would prefer to reference the athlete’s 1RM to make that determination.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm #105775

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298519841"]
…

No, the velocity portion of the FV curve is sufficiently developed on the track, the focus on the gym should be improving maximum force. However, when an athlete is power cleaning around 1.5x body weight the exercise provides a powerful [b]whole body[/b] ‘strength’ stimulus.

The problem with this statement is that the FV curve has no “velocity portion”. The portions of the curve are usually described as max strength, strength speed, etc. up to speed. In order to develop these “portions”, one usually employs exercises that are performed with force and speed parameters that correspond to the targeted “portion”. Jumpers I think need all of the points on that curve covered. Long jumpers in particular, and even more so triple jumpers. And we’re still leaving out eccentric and isometric strength, which the power clean for example doesn’t really address sufficiently enough.

And by the way, from personal experience I can say that a 1.5x body weight power clean does not really provide me with a strength stimulus, it’s more of an explosion stimulus, i.e. I want to jump on top of tables and benches after it.

Sir Roderick[/quote]

Not sure you understand the concept. If you improve Fm and max velocity then you improve at ALL points on the curve.

Cleans will absolutely have a positive impact on Fmax if performed correctly. Not sure it’s worth arguing with anyone who thinks otherwise.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 24, 2011 at 11:41 pm #105779

I actually do the opposite of what you said Woodhouse. I switch variations constantly, it’s always been the way for me to improve – and i’ve been relying on weights for my performance heavily in recent years.

Why do you go by body weight and not ability? 1.5x bw is a bit light for some, the bar moves too quickly for it to give me a strength stimulus.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 24, 2011 at 11:56 pm #105781

I actually do the opposite of what you said Woodhouse. I switch variations constantly, it’s always been the way for me to improve – and i’ve been relying on weights for my performance heavily in recent years.

Why do you go by body weight and not ability? 1.5x bw is a bit light for some, the bar moves too quickly for it to give me a strength stimulus.

What is your best power clean? What has your progression been over the last 3 or 4 years? In my experience, changing exercises merely gives the ILLUSION of getting stronger since the athlete is constantly (re)learning new movements.

Just so I understand correctly, what you’re saying is that power cleans, one of the top 3 barbell exercises for athletes, DOESN’T make you stronger? Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one!

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 12:29 am #105782

Ive seen some quite weak people p.clean a fair weight. They can’t even full squat the same weight. But i meant going by BW, i thought it would be better to go by %?

I change every few weeks, i vary rarely test my max but i did a couple recently to see where i was at after ankle surgery and will be trying some maxes next week. I’ve only done weight training for 3 full years and i don’t write much down, but i can give you some progressions, just not exact times because i dont know.

P.clean – did 90 1st time ever, 6 months later 122.5, didnt do it for a year (wrist injury) then did a 140 last year but didnt ever try a complete max.
Hang.p.clean – started 2 years ago, went from 105 to more recently 140, should be good for a 145 next week.
Olympic squat – 140 – 200 now
I started push press a year ago, went from 90 to now 120.

I change very regularly, might do front, back, paused variations (did 180 atg paused on back). Not a deadlift fan but throw in a session maybe once every 8 weeks if that – this has gone from 190-270, no illusion of strength increase. And without even practicing bounding tests like i used to, i keep improving them. I don’t practice long jump very often at all (few weeks a year) and i keep getting better.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 12:33 am #105783

I also thought sticking to the same thing would give the illusion of getting stronger? Whats the point in adapting to something that’s not specific to us? I could stick with cleans from floor for a while and add 10kg without getting stronger, and won’t help me jump further.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 1:40 am #105786

Ive seen some quite weak people p.clean a fair weight. They can’t even full squat the same weight. But i meant going by BW, i thought it would be better to go by %?

I change every few weeks, i vary rarely test my max but i did a couple recently to see where i was at after ankle surgery and will be trying some maxes next week. I’ve only done weight training for 3 full years and i don’t write much down, but i can give you some progressions, just not exact times because i dont know.

P.clean – did 90 1st time ever, 6 months later 122.5, didnt do it for a year (wrist injury) then did a 140 last year but didnt ever try a complete max.
Hang.p.clean – started 2 years ago, went from 105 to more recently 140, should be good for a 145 next week.
Olympic squat – 140 – 200 now
I started push press a year ago, went from 90 to now 120.

I change very regularly, might do front, back, paused variations (did 180 atg paused on back). Not a deadlift fan but throw in a session maybe once every 8 weeks if that – this has gone from 190-270, no illusion of strength increase. And without even practicing bounding tests like i used to, i keep improving them. I don’t practice long jump very often at all (few weeks a year) and i keep getting better.

Bench press doesn’t improve full squat, is that not a strength exercise either?

I gave 1.5x body weight as an estimate of the point at which the power clean becomes an effective strength exercise. My athletes never use percentages and almost always go to maximum.

If you don’t test your maximum how can you ever tell that you have improved? Or that a certain program was effective?

All I can tell you, from over 10 years experience in Olympic lifting, is that the quickest way to improve your power clean is to…. power clean!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 1:43 am #105787

I also thought sticking to the same thing would give the illusion of getting stronger? Whats the point in adapting to something that’s not specific to us? I could stick with cleans from floor for a while and add 10kg without getting stronger, and won’t help me jump further.

What’s the alternative? Doing cleans and trying NOT to get stronger?!

Silly arguement.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 2:26 am #105788

I don’t rate the power clean as a strength exercise. some athletes become obsessed with it. I mean i could get an extra 10kg purely due to neural adaption which would translate to nothing more than to power clean more.

It’s pretty easy to tell if i’ve improved, weights that used to be heavy are no longer as heavy. I think it was an interview that Leonid Tarenenko did, said he never went more than about 240kg in training. And if it was good enough for him to go 90% and be the best at clean and jerk ever (notice i didn’t say the strongest ever), it’ good enough for anyone else.

Who are your athletes? Your a weightlifting coach arent you?

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 25, 2011 at 3:07 am #105790

Woodhouse you’re off on many points…

When you get to a certain point with your power clean…doing power cleans isn’t the best way to improve it…

Why do you think Olympic lifters do so many variations all the time in their training….

I was stuck around 300-310 for 3 years before this season most doing power cleans, rarely hang cleans or other variations. I hang cleaned for 3-4 months at the start on this season and improved the hang clean max to 280…then the first time i power cleaned in months i pr’d at 330. This is all while not doing squats either for the entire time.

The best way to be better at long jumping isn’t just by long jumping is it?

[star61]

star61 on February 25, 2011 at 4:29 am #105793

I agree with David’s points about building strength with the clean. However I also understand the points made by Nick and others who recognize that most sprinters, whose training we’re famliar with on this site, don’t clean at maximal loads. The clean is not used by these athletes to develop Fmm, its used to develop RFD, which theoretically can be done with much lighter loads.

David is talking about full cleans at near maximal loads which, IMHO, can be used for both RFD and Fmm. While cleans are not the the BEST tool for developing Fmm (even elite Olympic lifters perform squat variations, as Nick points out), it doesn’t mean you can’t improve Fmm with heavy, full cleans.

This goes back to an argument we’ve had for years on this site. My stance has always been that unless you are full cleaning at near maximal loads, as apparently David’s crew is, then you’re not really improving max strength in an effecient manner, if at all. I have always stated that most athletes don’t have the proficiency in the clean to actually perform true maximal strength loads, they are limited by their poor form. This is evident in the disparity between their deadlift/squat numbers and their clean number. But if you are technically proficient in the full clean and you lift at near maximal loads using proper form, you can improve max strength with the clean, IMHO. It wouldn’t be my first choice, however, as I think squats are a better tool for Fmm, and when used in complexes with cleans, jumps and sprinting, hit more points on the curve in a synergistic manner.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 5:16 am #105796

…

Not sure you understand the concept. If you improve Fm and max velocity then you improve at ALL points on the curve.

Cleans will absolutely have a positive impact on Fmax if performed correctly. Not sure it’s worth arguing with anyone who thinks otherwise.

That means if I improve my Fmax and my top speed, my vertical, my jump squat height, my snatch max will automatically increase?

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 5:28 am #105798

With regard to the power cleans’ ability to develop max strength, I think one shouldn’t consider it in absolute terms. Different variables need to be taken into account in order to come up with a statement with a high probability for correctness.

For example, if an athlete’s max squat is 1x bodyweight, and he starts to do power cleans only, reaching a 1.2x-1.5x bodyweight clean max for example, then most probably the athlete’s max strength will increase. In such a case, if the athlete does a clean and a squat max test at the end of this hypothetical development phase, he will see not only his clean max grow, but also his squat max.

However, if an athlete is capable of more than 2.5x bodyweight max squat, getting up to 1.5x lbs max clean will in no way guarantee that any of his other maxes increase, besides of course the clean.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:11 am #105800

Woodhouse you’re off on many points…

When you get to a certain point with your power clean…doing power cleans isn’t the best way to improve it…

Why do you think Olympic lifters do so many variations all the time in their training….

I was stuck around 300-310 for 3 years before this season most doing power cleans, rarely hang cleans or other variations. I hang cleaned for 3-4 months at the start on this season and improved the hang clean max to 280…then the first time i power cleaned in months i pr’d at 330. This is all while not doing squats either for the entire time.

The best way to be better at long jumping isn’t just by long jumping is it?

I had to laugh at this post. A long jumper ‘educating’ an Olympic lifter on weightlifting?!

Take a read of my article and see that the most successful lifting coach in history eliminated ALL assistance exercises other than front squats:

https://mikesgym.org/articles/index.php?show=article&sectionID=2&articleID=113

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:13 am #105801

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298552837"]
…

Not sure you understand the concept. If you improve Fm and max velocity then you improve at ALL points on the curve.

Cleans will absolutely have a positive impact on Fmax if performed correctly. Not sure it’s worth arguing with anyone who thinks otherwise.

That means if I improve my Fmax and my top speed, my vertical, my jump squat height, my snatch max will automatically increase?[/quote]

No because the snatch is a highly technical movement.

However, if you improve your Overhead throw with 20kg and with 2kg then there is no doubt you will also improve with 10kg!!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:18 am #105803

With regard to the power cleans’ ability to develop max strength, I think one shouldn’t consider it in absolute terms. Different variables need to be taken into account in order to come up with a statement with a high probability for correctness.

For example, if an athlete’s max squat is 1x bodyweight, and he starts to do power cleans only, reaching a 1.2x-1.5x bodyweight clean max for example, then most probably the athlete’s max strength will increase. In such a case, if the athlete does a clean and a squat max test at the end of this hypothetical development phase, he will see not only his clean max grow, but also his squat max.

However, if an athlete is capable of more than 2.5x bodyweight max squat, getting up to 1.5x lbs max clean will in no way guarantee that any of his other maxes increase, besides of course the clean.

Clearly it depends. Let’s say I take a novice athlete and he power cleans 50kg in his session. He then performs power cleans and NO other strength exercises whatsoever and after two years he P.cleans 150kg… he has got stronger!!

Different variables need to be taken into account in order to come up with a statement with a high probability for correctness.

How verbose!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:24 am #105804

I don’t rate the power clean as a strength exercise. some athletes become obsessed with it. I mean i could get an extra 10kg purely due to neural adaption which would translate to nothing more than to power clean more.

It’s pretty easy to tell if i’ve improved, weights that used to be heavy are no longer as heavy. I think it was an interview that Leonid Tarenenko did, said he never went more than about 240kg in training. And if it was good enough for him to go 90% and be the best at clean and jerk ever (notice i didn’t say the strongest ever), it’ good enough for anyone else.

Who are your athletes? Your a weightlifting coach arent you?

By neural adaptation I assume you mean specific improvements in inter/intra muscular coordination as opposed to a general increases in rate coding (motor unit recruitment). THe more advanced the lifter the less adaptation is generated by the former anyway. So if you go from 140 to 150 then you HAVE got stronger!! (not just better at that specific exercise)

I agree there are better exercises available to increase maximum strength than cleans however you have to factor in the cost in CNS fatigue and time efficiency. Cleans hit a higher percentage of the body’s motor units, eliminate the need for other less complex exercises and have less CNS cost.

It certainly worked for Jonathan Edwards…

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:28 am #105806

I think it was an interview that Leonid Tarenenko did, said he never went more than about 240kg in training. And if it was good enough for him to go 90% and be the best at clean and jerk ever (notice i didn’t say the strongest ever), it’ good enough for anyone else.

Why do you guys keep trying to educate me about weightlifting?!

THis statement is false. LT did not push his SQUAT but apparently C&J 272 (600 pounds!) in training.

THe most successful strength program in history called for maximum lifts 3 sessions a day and 6 days per week (See link above)…

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:37 am #105808

Phew… you guys are tiring me out!

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 25, 2011 at 7:39 am #105809

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298583450"]Woodhouse you’re off on many points…

When you get to a certain point with your power clean…doing power cleans isn’t the best way to improve it…

Why do you think Olympic lifters do so many variations all the time in their training….

I was stuck around 300-310 for 3 years before this season most doing power cleans, rarely hang cleans or other variations. I hang cleaned for 3-4 months at the start on this season and improved the hang clean max to 280…then the first time i power cleaned in months i pr’d at 330. This is all while not doing squats either for the entire time.

The best way to be better at long jumping isn’t just by long jumping is it?

I had to laugh at this post. A long jumper ‘educating’ an Olympic lifter on weightlifting?!

Take a read of my article and see that the most successful lifting coach in history eliminated ALL assistance exercises other than front squats:

https://mikesgym.org/articles/index.php?show=article&sectionID=2&articleID=113%5B/quote%5D

To say that says a lot about you actually.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 25, 2011 at 7:42 am #105810

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298583450"]Woodhouse you’re off on many points…

When you get to a certain point with your power clean…doing power cleans isn’t the best way to improve it…

Why do you think Olympic lifters do so many variations all the time in their training….

I was stuck around 300-310 for 3 years before this season most doing power cleans, rarely hang cleans or other variations. I hang cleaned for 3-4 months at the start on this season and improved the hang clean max to 280…then the first time i power cleaned in months i pr’d at 330. This is all while not doing squats either for the entire time.

The best way to be better at long jumping isn’t just by long jumping is it?

I had to laugh at this post. A long jumper ‘educating’ an Olympic lifter on weightlifting?!

Take a read of my article and see that the most successful lifting coach in history eliminated ALL assistance exercises other than front squats:

https://mikesgym.org/articles/index.php?show=article&sectionID=2&articleID=113%5B/quote%5D

I actually had to laugh also…an Olympic lifter “educating” track athletes and coaches about how to use Olypic lifting and weight training in relation to the other training we do?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:45 am #105811

If I’m building a house I don’t ask the plumber to do the electrics!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:48 am #105812

I actually had to laugh also…an Olympic lifter “educating” track athletes and coaches about how to use Olypic lifting and weight training in relation to the other training we do?

You really think that’s unreasonable?

And also, did I not learn anything in the 3 yrs I was moderating CFs site?!

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 8:02 am #105814

…

I had to laugh at this post. A long jumper ‘educating’ an Olympic lifter on weightlifting?!

Take a read of my article and see that the most successful lifting coach in history eliminated ALL assistance exercises other than front squats:

https://mikesgym.org/articles/index.php?show=article&sectionID=2&articleID=113

Abadjiev’s Olympic weightlifting training methods and consideration are a topic too complex for our discussion, and have no real connection to weightlifting within a track & field program.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 25, 2011 at 8:35 am #105816

Seems a bit unreasonable considering some of the things you’re saying.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 8:41 am #105817

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298598105"]
…

I had to laugh at this post. A long jumper ‘educating’ an Olympic lifter on weightlifting?!

Take a read of my article and see that the most successful lifting coach in history eliminated ALL assistance exercises other than front squats:

https://mikesgym.org/articles/index.php?show=article&sectionID=2&articleID=113

Abadjiev’s Olympic weightlifting training methods and consideration are a topic too complex for our discussion, and have no real connection to weightlifting within a track & field program.[/quote]

You’re both right.. and wrong

The nuances involved in applying the Bulgarian system are incredibly complex and take a career (a lifetime) to truely master… But the principle of SAID is universal and relatively easy to apply. Basically what Abadjiev did was progressively eliminate EVERYTHING that didn’t add value. I believe track athletes would be wise to do the same.

Abadjiev actually applied his theories to THanou and Kenderis who both won gold in Sydney.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 8:41 am #105818

What do you know, i got the 145kg hang power clean today. And i have only used more than 120 once in training. Anyway, don’t compare us to your drug fueled lifters because we aren’t the same.

LT’s interview – https://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/news/nv005.html

Taranenko: “My best results are 210 and 262.5 kg. But I do not try to lift record weights in training, as a rule. For instance, the heaviest weights I handled prior to my world records in Australia, last year, were 200 kg in the snatch and 245 kg in the clean and jerk.”

So he doesn’t train maxes all the time, just a 1 off.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 8:45 am #105819

What do you know, i got the 145kg hang power clean today. And i have only used more than 120 once in training

Well done. Imagine what you would do if you trained correctly!

Anyway, don’t compare us to your drug fueled lifters because we aren’t the same.

Haha cos sprinters never take drugs?!?

You read an interview about what he SAID he did. I spoke to someone who TRAINED with him

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 9:03 am #105820

So what exactly are you saying? What would make me run faster and jump higher/further? Maxing out pretty much most days on the weights, all year round? I can barely handle lifting twice a week heavy. And at 75kg im pretty sure im not going to get much more out of my lifts with the training time i have, and not being fueled up to the eyeballs.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 9:07 am #105821

…

No because the snatch is a highly technical movement.

However, if you improve your Overhead throw with 20kg and with 2kg then there is no doubt you will also improve with 10kg!!

That would correspond to all shot putters, that increase their heavier and lighter implement distances, PRing invariably.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 9:12 am #105822

…

Clearly it depends. Let’s say I take a novice athlete and he power cleans 50kg in his session. He then performs power cleans and NO other strength exercises whatsoever and after two years he P.cleans 150kg… he has got stronger!!

He has gotten stronger in the power clean. In no way does it become clear whether his leg muscles are able to generate more force than before from this situation.

[i]Different variables need to be taken into account in order to come up with a statement with a high probability for correctness. [/i]

How verbose!

[/quote]

That’s how I talk.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 9:15 am #105824

…
I agree there are better exercises available to increase maximum strength than cleans however you have to factor in the cost in CNS fatigue and time efficiency. Cleans hit a higher percentage of the body’s motor units, eliminate the need for other less complex exercises and have less CNS cost.

It certainly worked for Jonathan Edwards…

Not throughout his entire career.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 9:17 am #105825

So what exactly are you saying? What would make me run faster and jump higher/further? Maxing out pretty much most days on the weights, all year round? I can barely handle lifting twice a week heavy. And at 75kg im pretty sure im not going to get much more out of my lifts with the training time i have, and not being fueled up to the eyeballs.

Yes, I would have you power clean and squat to maximum twice per week.

As I said in another thread, I believe the ideal template would be:

M. Track
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. TEmpo
Sn. Rest

THe gym sessions should take no longer than 45 minutes.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 9:19 am #105826

He has gotten stronger in the power clean. In no way does it become clear whether his leg muscles are able to generate more force than before from this situation.

THat’s an incredible statement!!

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 9:24 am #105827

I know alot of us are being very defenive againt you, but i appreciate your input.

The incredible statement – Ive seen a vid of the world record holder in triple jump (indoor) cleaning about 60kg and he has no clue what hes doing. He could probably double this weight in time, and not be able to generate more force.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 9:31 am #105828

I know alot of us are being very defenive againt you, but i appreciate your input.

The incredible statement – Ive seen a vid of the world record holder in triple jump (indoor) cleaning about 60kg and he has no clue what hes doing. He could probably double this weight in time, and not be able to generate more force.

Believe me. If he PCleans 150 he’ll be stronger!

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 9:31 am #105829

…

You’re both right.. and wrong

The nuances involved in applying the Bulgarian system are incredibly complex and take a career (a lifetime) to truely master… But the principle of SAID is universal and relatively easy to apply. Basically what Abadjiev did was progressively eliminate EVERYTHING that didn’t add value. I believe track athletes would be wise to do the same.

Abadjiev actually applied his theories to THanou and Kenderis who both won gold in Sydney.

Obviously a coach and an athlete would not employ means that are known to be valueless.
The adaptation of his methods to those 2 sprinters is not as transparent as you present it. He didn’t just eliminate what he considered superfluous and bang, gold medals 🙂

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 9:34 am #105830

[b]He has gotten stronger in the power clean. In no way does it become clear whether his leg muscles are able to generate more force than before from this situation.[/b]

THat’s an incredible statement!!

why is it?

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on February 25, 2011 at 9:38 am #105831

[quote author="joe" date="1298604825"]So what exactly are you saying? What would make me run faster and jump higher/further? Maxing out pretty much most days on the weights, all year round? I can barely handle lifting twice a week heavy. And at 75kg im pretty sure im not going to get much more out of my lifts with the training time i have, and not being fueled up to the eyeballs.

Yes, I would have you power clean and squat to maximum twice per week.

As I said in another thread, I believe the ideal template would be:

M. Track
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. TEmpo
Sn. Rest

THe gym sessions should take no longer than 45 minutes.[/quote]

How much success have you had with your sprinters squatting and power cleaning to max twice per week?

Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 9:53 am #105832

Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week

They’re world class track coaches NOT world class STRENGTH coaches. Most track coaches are still utilising largely dated training methods. Malcom Arnold, for example, still stays loyal to the old ‘pyramid’ loading system.

Periodisation, as most understand it, is a dated concept within elite strength circles.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 9:59 am #105833

I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

[Rich Tolman(mr-glove)]

Rich Tolman(mr-glove) on February 25, 2011 at 10:03 am #105834

[b]Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week[/b]

They’re world class track coaches NOT world class STRENGTH coaches. Most track coaches are still utilising largely dated training methods. Malcom Arnold, for example, still stays loyal to the old ‘pyramid’ loading system.

Periodisation, as most understand it, is a dated concept within elite strength circles.

Could you expand on the dated training methods and the fact that periodization is a dated concept?

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:05 am #105835

I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

What does “Squat – Triples to maximum” stand for?

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 25, 2011 at 10:07 am #105836

I think i will give it a go, might post some of it here as well. So your saying just p.clean and olympic squat only and thats the session? What about hang clean, front squat and the push press’ that i normally do?

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:09 am #105837

I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

Any firsthand practical experience that leads you to believe the system is that successful?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:10 am #105838

I think i will give it a go, might post some of it here as well. So your saying just p.clean and olympic squat only and thats the session? What about hang clean, front squat and the push press’ that i normally do?

No ,just p.clean and squat. A maximum of 2 fails on the cleans and 1 on the squats.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:11 am #105839

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298608195"]I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

Any firsthand practical experience that leads you to believe the system is that successful?[/quote]

Yes

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:16 am #105840

Could you expand on the dated training methods and the fact that periodization is a dated concept?

Pls reference the Abadjiev article. THe information that came out of Bulgaria in the late 80s massively undermined the concept of periodisation.

“In Bulgaria, many other sports disciplines were built on the methods developed by the Soviet experts. The main concept is distinct periodisation, preparation stage, interim stage and competition stage… I threw it away… Is it logical to achieve outstanding results by hard work and then stop and go back to a lower level?” – Ivan Abadjiev

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:22 am #105841

[quote author="Denis Eradiri (sizerp)" date="1298608799"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298608195"]I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

Any firsthand practical experience that leads you to believe the system is that successful?[/quote]

Yes[/quote]

Like what?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:23 am #105842

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298608888"][quote author="Denis Eradiri (sizerp)" date="1298608799"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298608195"]I understand everyone’s sceptism. Training philosophies are similar to religious ones.. almost impossible to change!

But I challenge you all – try the program for 6 weeks and judge it objectively

Here’s a more detailed article to reference: https://foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html

Any firsthand practical experience that leads you to believe the system is that successful?[/quote]

Yes[/quote]

Like what?[/quote]

The athletes I work with improve… alot!

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:31 am #105843

…

[i]“In Bulgaria, many other sports disciplines were built on the methods developed by the Soviet experts. The main concept is distinct periodisation, preparation stage, interim stage and competition stage… I threw it away… Is it logical to achieve outstanding results by hard work and then stop and go back to a lower level?” [/i]– Ivan Abadjiev

The late 80s, when Abadjiev’s coaching produced a lot of weightlifting medals and records, correspond with the period of some of the greatest successes in Bulgarian track & field – world records and olympic gold medals. Yet those athletes were not utilizing Abadjiev’s methodology.
I wonder how you explain that.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on February 25, 2011 at 10:32 am #105844

[b]Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week[/b]

They’re world class track coaches NOT world class STRENGTH coaches. Most track coaches are still utilising largely dated training methods. Malcom Arnold, for example, still stays loyal to the old ‘pyramid’ loading system.

Periodisation, as most understand it, is a dated concept within elite strength circles.

Many track coaches understand strength training as well as they do all other aspects of training. In fact, I would argue they understand much better than most strength coaches because they understand how to integrate weights into a training program for a track athlete. Especially the successful ones. They do not need plyometric coaches or overhead back throw coaches. They do not need strength coaches. Weights is such a small part and I know of more track coaches that DO NOT do pyramid weights than who do. If anyone around here does anything resembling a pyramid it would be something like 5,4,3,2 and all sets would leave a rep or two to spare. Getting strong enough to be great at track is easy and is not a big deal. Absolute strength is not what limits the great track athletes from the non-great track athletes. Carl Lewis, Oba Thompson, Kim Collins, Bolt, Lemaitre, all weak as kittens, all way faster than anyone on this board.

Call it periodisation call it whatever you want all programs go from less specific and more volume to more specific and less volume. That is common to all track training approaches. That is even common to the Bulgarian weightlifting program you reference. The things I have read from actual Bulgarians showed that they will use more volume, less intensity and even power variations and move toward more volume, higher intensity and less variation.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:32 am #105845

The athletes I work with improve… alot!

Can you give an example of such an improvement? Also, is there an example where another methodology employed by the same lifter failed to produce such an improvement?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:37 am #105846

The late 80s, when Abadjiev’s coaching produced a lot of weightlifting medals and records, correspond with the period of some of the greatest successes in Bulgarian track & field – world records and olympic gold medals. Yet those athletes were not utilizing Abadjiev’s methodology.
I wonder how you explain that.[/quote]

I assume you are implying drug use? A bit of a silly arguement given that 5 of the 100m finalists in Seoul tested postive for drugs!

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 10:44 am #105847

[quote]The late 80s, when Abadjiev’s coaching produced a lot of weightlifting medals and records, correspond with the period of some of the greatest successes in Bulgarian track & field – world records and olympic gold medals. Yet those athletes were not utilizing Abadjiev’s methodology.
I wonder how you explain that.

I assume you are implying drug use? A bit of a silly arguement given that 5 of the 100m finalists in Seoul tested postive for drugs![/quote]

Not implying anything, just wondering how you explain the world-record-level success of different athletes with access to the same training environment, conditions and methods, using different methodologies(one of which you consider superior to the other), and still getting extraordinary results.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:46 am #105848

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298607816"][b]Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week[/b]

They’re world class track coaches NOT world class STRENGTH coaches. Most track coaches are still utilising largely dated training methods. Malcom Arnold, for example, still stays loyal to the old ‘pyramid’ loading system.

Periodisation, as most understand it, is a dated concept within elite strength circles.

Many track coaches understand strength training as well as they do all other aspects of training. In fact, I would argue they understand much better than most strength coaches because they understand how to integrate weights into a training program for a track athlete. Especially the successful ones. They do not need plyometric coaches or overhead back throw coaches. They do not need strength coaches. Weights is such a small part and I know of more track coaches that DO NOT do pyramid weights than who do. If anyone around here does anything resembling a pyramid it would be something like 5,4,3,2 and all sets would leave a rep or two to spare. Getting strong enough to be great at track is easy and is not a big deal. Absolute strength is not what limits the great track athletes from the non-great track athletes. Carl Lewis, Oba Thompson, Kim Collins, Bolt, Lemaitre, all weak as kittens, all way faster than anyone on this board.

Call it periodisation call it whatever you want all programs go from less specific and more volume to more specific and less volume. That is common to all track training approaches. That is even common to the Bulgarian weightlifting program you reference. The things I have read from actual Bulgarians showed that they will use more volume, less intensity and even power variations and move toward more volume, higher intensity and less variation.[/quote]

The information you reference is incorrect. Intensity remained maximal right up to competition (tho training frequency WAS reduced). For reference see the Training Hall tapes that can be bought from Ironmind. I have spoken, at length, to lifters who trained with Abadjiev in California:

Donny Shankle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTwTYKUhC3E

Max Atia: https://www.youtube.com/user/kinselbj#p/u/8/SMCh4Qj3PRE

Yes strength training is just one component, and perhaps one that is over valued given the success of the athletes you mention. HOWEVER if you do employ resistance training as a tool to improve performance – at least do it correctly!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 10:51 am #105849

Here’s an example of a PROPER power snatch/power clean workout:

Obviously you guys would only be cleaning

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 25, 2011 at 11:04 am #105850

Here’s an example of a PROPER power snatch/power clean workout:

Obviously you guys would only be cleaning

That’s just a lot of snatches, cleans and clean&jerks;.
And we could be snatching.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 11:21 am #105852

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298611306"]Here’s an example of a PROPER power snatch/power clean workout:

Obviously you guys would only be cleaning

That’s just a lot of snatches, cleans and clean&jerks;.
And we could be snatching.[/quote]

They did only 3 or 4 reps over 90%?! THIS is how to train in the weights room.

Watch and learn people!

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on February 25, 2011 at 1:24 pm #105856

Have been lurking on this thread, and is an interesting discussion.

Personally, I follow a progression pretty similar to what Nick outlines on Cleans and Squats – and progressing from double leg support to single leg toward end of season.

That said, I like the notion of more frequently ramping up to a maximum effort as a means of hitting better strength gains. Also like the simplicity of what David lays out.

@ David – I assume there is a measure of “auto-regulation” in place here – IE – On a good day, my volume and intensity may be pretty damn high (might set new records in gym) and a bad day they might be 10% under my 1 RM… Is that how you view it?

If so, I think “the system” holds some merit for stronger and/or more experienced athletes. Also like that it forces some higher total volume if you ramp slowly enough – and focuses on explosive and “good” reps, with only a few reps at near maximal loads. I do worry about many people’s ability to handle that frequency of near maximal efforts.

Also think athletes earlier in the development curve that some classic periodization models are still essential to get progress.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on February 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm #105857

Also – David – How come your athletes aren’t lifting bigger weights? Don’t get me wrong, your 131kg snatch is pretty damn impressive, but the rest of the numbers on there were kind of underwhelming for lifters (IMO).

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on February 25, 2011 at 1:35 pm #105858

I meant to type from more volume less intensity to less volume more intnesity. By dropping frequency of course that is decreasing density and effectively volume over a given period. Common tonall approaches. I got my info from reading Krychev’s site, maybe it’s wrong.

[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1298610180"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298607816"][b]Many on here will power clean pretty heavily, and some world class coaches have their athletes power clean for multiple sets of doubles and singles in the 90% range, however I have never heard of any track coach who has had athletes squat or power clean to max multiple times per week[/b]

They’re world class track coaches NOT world class STRENGTH coaches. Most track coaches are still utilising largely dated training methods. Malcom Arnold, for example, still stays loyal to the old ‘pyramid’ loading system.

Periodisation, as most understand it, is a dated concept within elite strength circles.

Many track coaches understand strength training as well as they do all other aspects of training. In fact, I would argue they understand much better than most strength coaches because they understand how to integrate weights into a training program for a track athlete. Especially the successful ones. They do not need plyometric coaches or overhead back throw coaches. They do not need strength coaches. Weights is such a small part and I know of more track coaches that DO NOT do pyramid weights than who do. If anyone around here does anything resembling a pyramid it would be something like 5,4,3,2 and all sets would leave a rep or two to spare. Getting strong enough to be great at track is easy and is not a big deal. Absolute strength is not what limits the great track athletes from the non-great track athletes. Carl Lewis, Oba Thompson, Kim Collins, Bolt, Lemaitre, all weak as kittens, all way faster than anyone on this board.

Call it periodisation call it whatever you want all programs go from less specific and more volume to more specific and less volume. That is common to all track training approaches. That is even common to the Bulgarian weightlifting program you reference. The things I have read from actual Bulgarians showed that they will use more volume, less intensity and even power variations and move toward more volume, higher intensity and less variation.[/quote]

The information you reference is incorrect. Intensity remained maximal right up to competition (tho training frequency WAS reduced). For reference see the Training Hall tapes that can be bought from Ironmind. I have spoken, at length, to lifters who trained with Abadjiev in California:

Donny Shankle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTwTYKUhC3E

Max Atia: https://www.youtube.com/user/kinselbj#p/u/8/SMCh4Qj3PRE

Yes strength training is just one component, and perhaps one that is over valued given the success of the athletes you mention. HOWEVER if you do employ resistance training as a tool to improve performance – at least do it correctly![/quote]

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm #105862

@ David – I assume there is a measure of “auto-regulation” in place here – IE – On a good day, my volume and intensity may be pretty damn high (might set new records in gym) and a bad day they might be 10% under my 1 RM… Is that how you view it?

Yes. The ‘daily’ maximum mcan be up to 10% less than the absolute maximum. Although because I recommend a low training frequency this is rarely the case.

I have to stress again however that volume is never high. We typically do only 3 or 4 reps above 90%

Also think athletes earlier in the development curve that some classic periodization models are still essential to get progress.

This is 100% incorrect. The lower the level of the athlete, the more BASIC the program should be. A novice will improve at a linear rate for several months.

[eroszag]

eroszag on February 26, 2011 at 12:37 am #105864

David, your program can be good to improve max lifts, but that does not mean anything for a sprinter, or a jumper.
You have to integrate track and weight work, I’d never push a max triple to my sprinters and the expect 2 days later to run a 12 flat 120 in training…asking for troubles.( can and will do occasionally in early Spp..like 3 weeks in a Year.., on OL, bench, never on squats..always leave a rep)
Anyway, even if we get from 120 to 140 pc, ok the athlete got stronger ( in the PC), but how that translates on the track?We can increase the kilos lifted just by increasing techincal proficiency, and that leads to better starts?Better take off leg stability?Is neither that simple nor linear.
I’m in favour of semplicity in the weight room, however, we cannot use just 3 lits all year long..not all the athlete are equals, and some need more specific work in neglected areas.
When asking for results, I think nick joe and the others were asking about sprinters, not Wlifter…sprinters getting faster, jumpers jumping longer, and not just getting stronger.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 26, 2011 at 1:17 am #105867

You go to the gym to get stronger. Plain and simple. Are you suggesting athletes should PURPOSELY reduce the efficiency of their training? That they should NOT try to get stronger?… Because if they DO get stronger, they might not get quicker anyway!! Very silly.

I’d never push a max triple to my sprinters and the expect 2 days later to run a 12 flat 120 in training…asking for troubles.

Most who employ this type of training actually find it far easier to recover from than traditional set and rep schemes suchs as 5x3r or 4x5r. I’m suggesting doing LESS work, less frequently and in fewer exercises! That means MORE adaptation energy for the track… What I generally see from track athletes is 4 or 5 faffy exercises that achieve nothing but fatigue the organism.

Kind of destroyed that arguement eh?!

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 26, 2011 at 3:32 am #105868

.

[star61]

star61 on February 26, 2011 at 4:23 am #105871

The arguments made by David in this thread are almost identical to the ones I made in Bear Droppings. While I don’t agree with every point or argument that David makes, in general I agree with what he says regarding…

– If you are going to work on strength in the gym, do it using the most effecient and effective methods possilble, as long as you are not interfering with your sprint training.

– Strength is best developed with programs that include at least some lifts in the >90% range. This could actually mean 10-15% or less of the total reps in a session being over 90%.

– If you feel your weight training is interfering with your sprint or jump training, perhaps you might first consider reducing the number of accessory exercises you do before you cut out the meat of the strength program…the max strength lifts themselves.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on February 26, 2011 at 4:47 am #105872

My session yday – hang p.clean to max, 100,120,140,145,145, then 100×3,120×3,140×3,160×3,185×3 on olympic squat. Nearly a max triple but not quite. Not even 24 hours later and im feeling good to sprint so it’s easy to recover from triples.

I think most people’s problem here is that we only need a cirtain amount of strength for our event, and we don’t need the best program in the world to achieve it, if it really is better. If we strive for more than needed, it becomes counter-productive because we should be working towards other things. Like the sprinter/powerlifter guy we had on here, thought if his hamstrings were stronger he would run faster. He got a world record on deadlift for 82kg bw, then i noticed his time for 60m after this – and it was a lot slower than he was. Harry as well now.

Like I said above, the strength track athletes need is not freaky and is easily attainable by those athletes. They are already gifted enough that it just is not hard or complicated to get them to strength levels that will help them stay injury free and give them the low end power required at the start. Whats great for getting strong when that is the only goal isn’t necessarily what is best when that is a small part of an athlete’s requirement.

Seriously, don’t you think, considering the athletes and coaches involved in T&F that if max squatting was really a viable tool for a track athlete, and that the bang for buck was so great they would already be doing it. Most of the coaches that people reference on this site don’t even have their T&F athletes squat in the comp phase.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 26, 2011 at 6:30 am #105875

My session yday – hang p.clean to max, 100,120,140,145,145, then 100×3,120×3,140×3,160×3,185×3 on olympic squat. Nearly a max triple but not quite. Not even 24 hours later and im feeling good to sprint so it’s easy to recover from triples.

I think most people’s problem here is that we only need a cirtain amount of strength for our event, and we don’t need the best program in the world to achieve it, if it really is better. If we strive for more than needed, it becomes counter-productive because we should be working towards other things. Like the sprinter/powerlifter guy we had on here, thought if his hamstrings were stronger he would run faster. He got a world record on deadlift for 82kg bw, then i noticed his time for 60m after this – and it was a lot slower than he was. Harry as well now.

If you made 145 why didn’t you go 147? Keep going til you fail or hit a pb.

[eroszag]

eroszag on February 26, 2011 at 7:53 am #105879

Kind of destroyed that arguement eh?!

In reality you did not answer at all.
You cannot pretend all track coaches train the same way.
I personally use a very low volume of strenght training, few exercises ( hardly more than 40 min each session), but off course I stress real strength development for a very small time frame.
Other than that, just supporting role..mantaining and lower %.
You cannot just go to the weightroom to get stronger each and every month ( as PB in a few selected lifts) .
There is a point of diminishing return.
Off course no one suggests to become intentionally weaker, but there are other important elements in training.
I can go to single max in PC while stressing acceleration, but would never test max squats while working top speed..( cns, muscle and joint recovery an issue here)
Also, still no track world examples.
You cannot use typical british track/weights repeated 3 times and using 3×6 as a benchmark for ALL sprint coaches around.

[eroszag]

eroszag on February 26, 2011 at 7:57 am #105880

BTW, I agree on some points ( few lifts, after speed training, using bang for your bucks exercises), but I disagree on the %, and the way it is exposed.

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on February 26, 2011 at 11:50 am #105885

David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on February 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm #105886

David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

Pfaff, Boo, Mike lift more similarly to David than other track coaches but they aren’t maxing multiple times
per week, certainly not squats. They all do multiple sets of low rep Olympic variations.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on February 26, 2011 at 10:47 pm #105897

David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

Ok, let’s play this game differently. You guys give me some example sessions and I’ll explain objectively why they are inefficient/sub optimal.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on February 27, 2011 at 12:54 am #105901

.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on February 27, 2011 at 1:00 am #105905

[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1298701263"]David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

Ok, let’s play this game differently. You guys give me some example sessions and I’ll explain objectively why they are inefficient/sub optimal.[/quote]

Sub-optimal for what? Any example session can be picked apart as sub-optimal for whatever its goal is. You’d need to look at a training set-up on the whole – and see what it looks like for a whole phase of training (at least blocks of 4-6 weeks I would argue).

All of us are interested in getting athletes stronger (in pursuit of speed, power, or whatever technical event demands we have).

There are a handful of training logs on the boards here that are pretty meticulously maintained daily that give an idea of full programs. We all welcome critique of them. Take a look at mine, Eric Broadbent’s, or Nick Newman’s. Then consider our goals and tell us how you would set it up differently.

The goal of my training, for instance, is as follows:

1. To get my body back to the condition I had as a collegiate athlete 10 years ago
2. To develop the general physical abilities necessary to run 100m in low 11s, shot put 15m, and LJ 7m (whether I hit those goals is a separate issue)
3. To progress in the specific demands of 10 events so that I can take advantage of the general capacity I’ve built
4. Lifting: To be strong enough to where strength is not a limiting factor to achieving above. I’d like to be as strong as possible, with the smallest possible energy expenditure in the WR, which is why I think your set-up has some real merit. All my lifting (and lifting goals) are taking place after fairly intensive track sessions, so probably are a little lower than my actual strength abilities. IMO – for a decathlete weighing 95 kg, “strong enough” looks like this:
– Power Clean: 140 kg (I’m currently around 130 kg) – although I would continue to progress this far past 140 if my progress doesn’t stall and it does not detract from other training (would love to be able to hit 150 kg)
– Parallel Squat – 190 kg (Currently around 155 kg) – would love to be much stronger here and feel like it’s a limiting factor
– Bench Press: 140 kg (currently around 120 kg but was higher before a pretty bad shoulder dislocation)
– Jerk Press: 130 kg (DK where I’m currently at. Probably 115kg or so).

Here is my weekly set-up – tell me how you’d do stuff differently to better achieve above goals by next spring.

M: Acceleration/Speed (250-350m volume going from 10m in early season up to 60m by end of year); Plyos (progressing from static jumps to running jumps, from bounds to hops, from ground to depth); Weights (Clean, Squat, Bench, Upper body pull, maybe some assistance work – Cleans – typically doubles with increasing weight each set – usually up to around 90% – squats and bench a little higher rep (4-5 per set) working up to 90% – all with occasional workouts that I work up to a higher weight (95-105% of max if I’m feeling good)
T: Intensive Tempo/Special Endurance
W: Max Velocity, plyos, and event work – Maybe some light lifting circuits (Crossfit type stuff)
Th: Extensive Tempo/Recovery
F: Weights (Snatch – doubles working up in weight until I have a lousy rep but rarely/never to failure; Deadlifts or clean pulls – kind of adlib; OH Press – Same set up as bench and squat – which in season is a modified 5-3-1 set up)
S: Special Endurance/Speed Endurance, Technical work

Fire away.

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on February 27, 2011 at 1:51 am #105909

Ok, let’s play this game differently. You guys give me some example sessions and I’ll explain objectively why they are inefficient/sub optimal.

Snatch 1 x 3 @ 50%, 1 x 2 @ 70%, 2 x 3 @ 78%, 2 x 2 @ 82%
Bench 1 x 5 @ 50%, 1 x 3 @ 70%, 2 x 1, @ 85, 2 x 1 @ 90%
Coupled with 1 x 3 medball toss from ground
3 x 10 Rebound jumps w/ weighted vest + 1 x 10 unweighted
3 x 8 Medball rotations at shoulder height

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on February 27, 2011 at 7:42 am #105918

[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1298701263"]David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

Ok, let’s play this game differently. You guys give me some example sessions and I’ll explain objectively why they are inefficient/sub optimal.[/quote]

Are you serious? You’re going to do that without knowing the context of the session, week, month etc etc….

Again says a lot about your opinions.

[sizerp]

sizerp on February 27, 2011 at 11:05 am #105925

eroszag, I am going to yous part of your post:

…
Anyway, even if we get from 120 to 140 pc, ok the athlete got stronger ( in the PC), but how that translates on the track?We can increase the kilos lifted just by increasing techincal proficiency, and that leads to better starts?Better take off leg stability?Is neither that simple nor linear.

to try to make something clear with regard to this post:

You go to the gym to get stronger. Plain and simple. Are you suggesting athletes should PURPOSELY reduce the efficiency of their training? That they should NOT try to get stronger?… Because if they DO get stronger, they might not get quicker anyway!! Very silly.

The “(in the PC)” clarification is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Going from 120 to 140 does not guarantee anything in particular. It only suggests a combination of several possibilities that enabled that increase to happen. It is possible that the athlete improved their cleaning technique. It is possible that the athlete got a max strength increase – directly or indirectly from the clean. It is possible that the athlete was able to decrease the time necessary for the generation of the force that enables one to perform a 140 kg clean, which made it possible for the 140kg weight to travel upwards with sufficient velocity and the athlete to have enough time to get under it and catch it. Those possibilities do not mean the athlete got stronger.

I can give myself as an example. Since I started with track, my clean has increased about 20%, my snatch 50%, and my squat has decreased about 10%.

…

What I generally see from track athletes is 4 or 5 faffy exercises that achieve nothing but fatigue the organism.

Kind of destroyed that arguement eh?!

What do you mean by faffy? What I saw as possible meanings are: vagina, gay, someone who is really fit, intelligent, happy, friendly, and TOTTALY AWESOME!!!!!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 1:11 am #105961

Things I believe:

– Reps should not exceed 3 on lower body movements
– All squats should be full range
– All ‘core’ exercises should be omitted
– No isolation exercises
– No single leg movements
– Weight training frequency (for T&F athletes) should not exceed twice per week (once per week during peak comp period)
– Once a pair or trio of compound exercises has been selected they should not be changed (injury permitting) for the remainder of the athlete’s career (e.g. Squat, bench and pull downs; Squats and power cleans; Deadlift and bench)
– Exercise options: Squat; Front squat; Power Clean; Deadlift; Bench press; Pull Downs/Pull ups

I am happy to provide objective arguements to support any of these points. BTW ‘Asafa Powell does X’ or ‘Usain Bolt does Y’ are not objective arguements

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 1:34 am #105962

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298740696"][quote author="Chad Williams" date="1298701263"]David has some points but to discount the work of guys like Pfaff, Boo, Mike, Tellez and all people whom have produced track athletes is just plain ludicrous. By quotes like 95% of coaches could be better or whatever that quote was . . .

If track was purely about strength, then this would be a different discussion. As we have touched upon many times, the greatest correlation found between strength and sprinting was the OHB toss. Pure strength certainly helps, but there is a point where you are strong enough. Sprinting at a high level requires neuromuscular coordination that only a blessed few have. Always trying sprint fast and lift hard (even if the volume is low) is a surefire way to CNS overload. If David’s methods were the best, then I would surely believe that someone who coaches world class athletes would have implored this type of program, like Brooke stated.

Personally, we would do very little in season in the weight room. So a program like David’s would not help because they are a few auxiliary lifts that I liked to keep in, and some elastic properties that are touched upon.

Ok, let’s play this game differently. You guys give me some example sessions and I’ll explain objectively why they are inefficient/sub optimal.[/quote]

Sub-optimal for what? Any example session can be picked apart as sub-optimal for whatever its goal is. You’d need to look at a training set-up on the whole – and see what it looks like for a whole phase of training (at least blocks of 4-6 weeks I would argue).

All of us are interested in getting athletes stronger (in pursuit of speed, power, or whatever technical event demands we have).

There are a handful of training logs on the boards here that are pretty meticulously maintained daily that give an idea of full programs. We all welcome critique of them. Take a look at mine, Eric Broadbent’s, or Nick Newman’s. Then consider our goals and tell us how you would set it up differently.

The goal of my training, for instance, is as follows:

1. To get my body back to the condition I had as a collegiate athlete 10 years ago
2. To develop the general physical abilities necessary to run 100m in low 11s, shot put 15m, and LJ 7m (whether I hit those goals is a separate issue)
3. To progress in the specific demands of 10 events so that I can take advantage of the general capacity I’ve built
4. Lifting: To be strong enough to where strength is not a limiting factor to achieving above. I’d like to be as strong as possible, with the smallest possible energy expenditure in the WR, which is why I think your set-up has some real merit. All my lifting (and lifting goals) are taking place after fairly intensive track sessions, so probably are a little lower than my actual strength abilities. IMO – for a decathlete weighing 95 kg, “strong enough” looks like this:
– Power Clean: 140 kg (I’m currently around 130 kg) – although I would continue to progress this far past 140 if my progress doesn’t stall and it does not detract from other training (would love to be able to hit 150 kg)
– Parallel Squat – 190 kg (Currently around 155 kg) – would love to be much stronger here and feel like it’s a limiting factor
– Bench Press: 140 kg (currently around 120 kg but was higher before a pretty bad shoulder dislocation)
– Jerk Press: 130 kg (DK where I’m currently at. Probably 115kg or so).

Here is my weekly set-up – tell me how you’d do stuff differently to better achieve above goals by next spring.

M: Acceleration/Speed (250-350m volume going from 10m in early season up to 60m by end of year); Plyos (progressing from static jumps to running jumps, from bounds to hops, from ground to depth); Weights (Clean, Squat, Bench, Upper body pull, maybe some assistance work – Cleans – typically doubles with increasing weight each set – usually up to around 90% – squats and bench a little higher rep (4-5 per set) working up to 90% – all with occasional workouts that I work up to a higher weight (95-105% of max if I’m feeling good)
T: Intensive Tempo/Special Endurance
W: Max Velocity, plyos, and event work – Maybe some light lifting circuits (Crossfit type stuff)
Th: Extensive Tempo/Recovery
F: Weights (Snatch – doubles working up in weight until I have a lousy rep but rarely/never to failure; Deadlifts or clean pulls – kind of adlib; OH Press – Same set up as bench and squat – which in season is a modified 5-3-1 set up)
S: Special Endurance/Speed Endurance, Technical work

Fire away.[/quote]

Looks ok. A few suggestions:

If I were you I would pick one pulling lift and stick with it. I would therefore continue with power cleans and drop:
Deadlifts – too CNS draining
Clean pulls – too difficult to quantify progress and generally performed with poor form
Snatch – too technical and too far towards the velocity end of the FV curve to really impact on Fm

Why are you afraid to miss lifts? You must challenge your body with higher loads if you want optimal adaptation.

Pyramid loading patterns like 5, 3, 1 are dated and inefficient. Why fatigue yourself with heavy sets of 5 and 3 before performing a heavy single? Test the single when you’re fresh and do any volume afterwards (if at all)

I would drastically decrease the volume of plyos. Sprinting and OLs are themselves plyometric, imo any more is overkill

What physiological component are you trying to develop with the circuits?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 1:36 am #105963

That’s a good idea. Ive got a few things i want an opinion on

Karl Grant – you may know him, got me to do 3×3 with max triple, i did it for about a year. This was for cleans, squats and presses.

In the summer i regularly do 80% for a double or triple for cleans and squats or a fast single at about 95% on both. Do you think this is a good idea? Squatting during competition periods heavy?

Last one – max 5 reps, ive only just recently tried these for my strength exercies- would you say it benefits me in any way?

Not exactly what I would do but I’ll defer to Karl

Working up to a limit 5 will definately make you stronger in the squat but will also induce significant fatigue that will impact negatively on your other training components.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 1, 2011 at 2:09 am #105966

[/quote]

Looks ok. A few suggestions:

If I were you I would pick one pulling lift and stick with it. I would therefore continue with power cleans and drop:
Deadlifts – too CNS draining
Clean pulls – too difficult to quantify progress and generally performed with poor form
Snatch – too technical and too far towards the velocity end of the FV curve to really impact on Fm

[/quote]

Re: Clean Pulls – Why are they difficult to quantify progress – this second pull is often where athletes make technical errors (shoulders not ahead of bar, bad spine angles, etc) seems like heavy clean pulls could begin to address that.

Re: Snatch – I do as a power snatch, with a relatively high catch (sometimes a split catch) and a relatively narrower grip – both of which seem to take some of the technical nuance out of the lift. I include it specifically because it is toward the velocity end of the FV curve.

[/quote]

Why are you afraid to miss lifts? You must challenge your body with higher loads if you want optimal adaptation.

[/quote]

Not afraid to, just don’t see a lot of benefit in doing so (at least not frequently).

[/quote]

Pyramid loading patterns like 5, 3, 1 are dated and inefficient. Why fatigue yourself with heavy sets of 5 and 3 before performing a heavy single? Test the single when you’re fresh and do any volume afterwards (if at all)

[/quote]

I don’t agree that traditional pyramid loading is inefficient – I’ve found 5/3/1 is an easy way to get solid progress on relatively lower volume – and like the prescriptive nature of the program. I also do modify it a bit, and tend to increase weight on the single rep days, IE – hit my 95% lift and then rather than going for 2nd and 3rd reps, will up the weight to 100%+ of previous max (more like what you outline). Also, the days with 5+ reps are not heavy (lower than 85%).

[/quote]

I would drastically decrease the volume of plyos. Sprinting and OLs are themselves plyometric, imo any more is overkill

[/quote]

I’m actually increasing volume of plyos slightly, esepecially in-season as I decrease the emphasis on weights. Would argue my plyometric volume is actually far less than most multi-eventers – and possesses significant opportuntiy for me to emphasize in driving greater efficiency in take-offs for jumps and in stance phase of sprinting.

[/quote]

What physiological component are you trying to develop with the circuits?[/quote]

3 things:

1. Aid Recovery
2. Allows me to maintain some lifting volume that otherwise wouldn’t be possible in season
3. Work on technique for OLs

[/quote]

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 2:39 am #105967

Re: Clean Pulls – Why are they difficult to quantify progress – this second
pull is often where athletes make technical errors (shoulders not ahead of
bar, bad spine angles, etc) seems like heavy clean pulls could begin to
address that.

Ok. What is a ‘pb’ clean pull?! Unless you’er pulling to a height gauge how do you know objectively and accurately whether you are stronger today than last week or last month?

Cleans pulls, when done by novice/intermediates, tend to lead to excessive pulling with the arms and negatively affect the timing of the full movement. At full extension in the snatch or clean the feet will move – this does not happen in the pull.

I do as a power snatch, with a relatively high catch (sometimes a split catch) and a relatively narrower grip – both of which seem to take some of the technical nuance out of the lift. I include it specifically because it is toward the velocity end of the FV curve.

Narrow gripped split snatch?! You seriously think that’s LESS technical? Sounds like circus lifting to me!… You get plenty of stimulus for RFD from the sprints and plyos (and p.cleans)

Not afraid to, just don’t see a lot of benefit in doing so (at least not frequently).

There is no risk, or physiological cost, of missing lifts. How can you know your limits if you don’t stretch them. You must claw and fight for every kilo – force the body to adapt.

I don’t agree that traditional pyramid loading is inefficient – I’ve found 5/3/1 is an easy way to get solid progress on relatively lower volume – and
like the prescriptive nature of the program. I also do modify it a bit, and
tend to increase weight on the single rep days, IE – hit my 95% lift and
then rather than going for 2nd and 3rd reps, will up the weight to 100%+ of
previous max (more like what you outline). Also, the days with 5+ reps are
not heavy (lower than 85%).

You’re wrong here for the reason already stated… I’m advocating 3 or 4 reps TOTAL above 90% so volume is incredibly low.

I’m actually increasing volume of plyos slightly, esepecially in-season as
I decrease the emphasis on weights. Would argue my plyometric volume is
actually far less than most multi-eventers – and possesses significant
opportuntiy for me to emphasize in driving greater efficiency in take-offs
for jumps and in stance phase of sprinting.
I would strongly advise against this. There is an enormous CNS cost from plyos. I expect this decision, more than any other, is limiting your progress.

Aid Recovery
– Already achieved through tempo

Allows me to maintain some lifting volume that otherwise wouldn’t be
possible in season
– 2 sessions per week is already sufficient.

Work on technique for OLs
– High volume OLs will have a NEGATIVE impact on your technique! Do one OL variation and you’ll get more practice at it!

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 1, 2011 at 5:16 am #105972

David: Ok. What is a ‘pb’ clean pull?! Unless you’er pulling to a height gauge how do you know objectively and accurately whether you are stronger today than last week or last month?

Cleans pulls, when done by novice/intermediates, tend to lead to excessive pulling with the arms and negatively affect the timing of the full movement. At full extension in the snatch or clean the feet will move – this does not happen in the pull.

[b]Matt: Pretty easy to gauage height and simply not pull excessively with the arms.

Whey does the feet moving matter?[b]

David: Narrow gripped split snatch?! You seriously think that’s LESS technical? Sounds like circus lifting to me!… You get plenty of stimulus for RFD from the sprints and plyos (and p.cleans)

[/b]Matt: Usually do not do split catch. I find a narrower grip is far less technical, and also for a guy who has shoulder probs far less demanding on the shoulder. Snatch bar speeds trains a different point on the fv curve that is not hit anywhere else.

Though I get your point re: picking one OL. Makes decent sense.[b]

David: There is no risk, or physiological cost, of missing lifts. How can you know your limits if you don’t stretch them. You must claw and fight for every kilo – force the body to adapt.

[/b]Matt: In theory, I agree. In reality – many are like me and are either spotter or facility challenged (no consistent access to training partners, or facilities that do not allow OLs dropped from a height). Failed PCs – depending on where you miss the lift – certainly pose some physical risk.[b]

David: You’re wrong here for the reason already stated… I’m advocating 3 or 4 reps TOTAL above 90% so volume is incredibly low.

[/b] Matt: I think we’re using different language to say the same thing. I also believe some low volume work above 90% is necessary. As I stated, on my “1” week on 5-3-1, I will progress to weights at and over 100% as able.

Periodized models are not dead and work very well for many athletes – due to simplicity and due to the reality that many do not know how to gauage their own abilities to know when/how to push their limits.

What I do like about your model is it allows us to optimize gains on days when one is feeling great. I think that is a very positive thing. Also like your idea about getting in volume (as needed) after intensity. Will give that some thought.[b]

David: I would strongly advise against this. There is an enormous CNS cost from plyos. I expect this decision, more than any other, is limiting your progress.

[/b]Matt: We’ll have to disagree. Moreover, I feel my progress has been fantastic. The limiting factor in my progress is the 8 years I took away from sport in my 20’s 🙂 !

My plyo volume is not outrageous. We’re talking about weekly volume of:

– 100-150m bounding
– 40-60 double leg contacts
– 10-20 single leg (hopping) contacts
– 20-30 takeoffs with various approach lengths[b]

David – Already achieved through tempo

[/b]Matt: There is ample (mostly anecdotal) research that resistance based exercises further enhance recovery.[b]

David – 2 sessions per week is already sufficient.

[/b]Matt: You’re probably right.[b]

David – High volume OLs will have a NEGATIVE impact on your technique! Do one OL variation and you’ll get more practice at it!

[/b]Matt: Nobody said anything about high volume OLs[/b]

Am curious why more of your lifters haven’t put up bigger numbers?

(though video of your 131k snatch was impressive. Well done).

Also curious – how many sprinters have you worked with in your set-up and what have results been?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 7:16 am #105974

D: Ok. What is a ‘pb’ clean pull?! Unless you’er pulling to a height gauge how do you know objectively and accurately whether you are stronger today than last week or last month?

Cleans pulls, when done by novice/intermediates, tend to lead to excessive pulling with the arms and negatively affect the timing of the full movement. At full extension in the snatch or clean the feet will move – this does not happen in the pull.

M: Pretty easy to gauage height and simply not pull excessively with the arms.

D: Ok I disagree but will have defer to your greater knowledge and experience!

M: Why does the feet moving matter?

D: Because you catch the bar with a wider foot spacing than you pull it. And because triple extension is so aggressive that the feet will often leave the platform (esp with power variations)

D: Narrow gripped split snatch?! You seriously think that’s LESS technical? Sounds like circus lifting to me!… You get plenty of stimulus for RFD from the sprints and plyos (and p.cleans)

M: Usually do not do split catch. I find a narrower grip is far less technical, and also for a guy who has shoulder probs far less demanding on the shoulder.

D: Why do it then?

M: Snatch bar speeds trains a different point on the fV curve that is not hit anywhere else.

D: You don’t have to hit the FV curve at EVERY point, just at the extremes. Maximise velocity and force, and the remainder will take care of itself.

M: Though I get your point re: picking one OL. Makes decent sense

D: Good

X X X

D: There is no risk, or physiological cost, of missing lifts. How can you know your limits if you don’t stretch them. You must claw and fight for every kilo – force the body to adapt.

M: In theory, I agree. In reality – many are like me and are either spotter or facility challenged (no consistent access to training partners, or facilities that do not allow OLs dropped from a height). Failed PCs – depending on where you miss the lift – certainly pose some physical risk

D: So find a better training facility

X X X

D: You’re wrong here for the reason already stated… I’m advocating 3 or 4 reps TOTAL above 90% so volume is incredibly low.

M: I think we’re using different language to say the same thing. I also believe some low volume work above 90% is necessary. As I stated, on my “1” week on 5-3-1, I will progress to weights at and over 100% as able.

Periodized models are not dead and work very well for many athletes – due to simplicity and due to the reality that many do not know how to gauage their own abilities to know when/how to push their limits.

D: At your level of development, periodisation will simply slow your rate of progress.

M: What I do like about your model is it allows us to optimize gains on days when one is feeling great. I think that is a very positive thing. Also like your idea about getting in volume (as needed) after intensity. Will give that some thought.

D: Good

X X X

D: I would strongly advise against this. There is an enormous CNS cost from plyos. I expect this decision, more than any other, is limiting your progress.

M: We’ll have to disagree. Moreover, I feel my progress has been fantastic. The limiting factor in my progress is the 8 years I took away from sport in my 20’s 🙂 !

D: How do you quantify your progress?

X X X

David – Already achieved through tempo

M: There is ample (mostly anecdotal) research that resistance based exercises further enhance recovery.

D: Lol ‘anecdotal’ evidence is not research

D: 2 sessions per week is already sufficient.

M: You’re probably right

D: Yep

D: High volume OLs will have a NEGATIVE impact on your technique! Do one OL variation and you’ll get more practice at it!

M: Nobody said anything about high volume OLs

D: You said OLs in Crossfit style. THat to me means high repetitions

M: Am curious why more of your lifters haven’t put up bigger numbers?

D: THey have. THe website is out of date

M: Also curious – how many sprinters have you worked with in your set-up and what have results been?

D: I worked with Michael Affilaka’s group

[sizerp]

sizerp on March 1, 2011 at 7:38 am #105975

David,

what do you think about the relationship between muscle tone and maxV?

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 1, 2011 at 8:03 am #105976

David – Good dialogue… Like having new forum members who have a point of view and are willing to debate it.

Re: Moving feet – Gotcha

Re: Split Catch – do it sometimes for following reasons:
– When Traveling and limited to weights I can do as a clean or heavier snatch alternative
– Hits a little higher eccentric load of front leg on catch

Re: Bar Speeds – If you only managed velocity and force at the extreme ends, all you’d need is all out sprinting and powerlifts. I disagree. Faster bar speeds are beneficial for the same reason OLs are beneficial in general.

Re: Training Facility – When you work 60+ hours per week and have a family of 5 to support/be with, ideal takes a backseat to proximity. There are only 2 places within an hour where I could lift exactly as I want – And I get to one of them on occasion.

Re: My level of development – being a 30 year old guy just getting back in training, I’d argue my level of development is based on a training age of under 5 years.

Re: How I quantify progress (over the last 2 years) –

100m – 12.46 to 11.72
LJ – 5.24 to 5.89
Shot Put – 11.5x to 13.x
HJ – 1.65 to 1.75
400m – 56.x to 53.x
55mh – 9.05 to 8.40
Discus – 35.x to 41.x
Bench Press – from a 255 1RM to 3 at 285 in September prior to dislocating shoulder
Power Clean – From a 245 1 RM to 285 1RM
A2G Squat – From around 225 to 315 last week
Dead Lift – From 315 1RM to 475 1RM
3 Pull MaxW Row – from mid 700s to mid 900s

Would like more/better, but is pretty damn good.

Re: LOL at anecdotal evidence. Sadly, that is what much of available exercise research is. Even experimental design work is often with untrained subjects, low sample sizes, certainly not random or representative samples. Have yet to see more than “anecdotes” from you either. I’d love to see more truly experimental research, but most good coaches are hesitant to have a control group doing something other than what the coach deems ideal. Show me your objective research and I will explain how it is a poorly designed study that has little statistical validity or representativeness

Re: High Rep OLs – Gotcha. When I say CF style, I really just mean creative complexes – I maintain relatively low reps on them.

Re: Your lifters numbers. So what are they?

Re: Sprinters/Track Athletes – Which athletes in Affilika’s group? Which other athletes? What level of development are they at? What were their numbers before? What were their numbers after? What years did you work with them?

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 1, 2011 at 9:13 am #105982

.

[star61]

star61 on March 1, 2011 at 11:26 am #105986

No insults intended, but if can’t be bothered to work hard or even compete, you probably don’t need to worry about trying to tweak the last few percentages out of you training.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 1, 2011 at 12:32 pm #105990

Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm #105997

Things I believe:

– Reps should not exceed 3 on lower body movements
– All squats should be full range
– All ‘core’ exercises should be omitted
– No isolation exercises
– No single leg movements
– Weight training frequency (for T&F athletes) should not exceed twice per week (once per week during peak comp period)
– Once a pair or trio of compound exercises has been selected they should not be changed (injury permitting) for the remainder of the athlete’s career (e.g. Squat, bench and pull downs; Squats and power cleans; Deadlift and bench)
– Exercise options: Squat; Front squat; Power Clean; Deadlift; Bench press; Pull Downs/Pull ups

I am happy to provide objective arguements to support any of these points. BTW ‘Asafa Powell does X’ or ‘Usain Bolt does Y’ are not objective arguements

I hate cutting and pasting for quoting purposes . . .

Wouldn’t an athlete who has a muscle imbalance benefit from hypertrophy in the weak area?

Many good (i mean great) coaches/programs use core circuits to fix posture, enhance recovery, produce lactate, fix imbalances. Explain why it is not necessary.

Why does every squat session have to be full range?

I will touch upon the others after getting answers from these. I understand this is what you believe, but do you have hard data that shows the difference between eliminating core, only squatting full range, not doing single leg movements . . . I am talking about data you have collected over many seasons. What athletes have you coached that have benefitted from the elimination of all these smaller things?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 7:43 pm #106002

[quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

Lol. What a hater.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 1, 2011 at 8:04 pm #106003

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298922129"]Things I believe:

– Reps should not exceed 3 on lower body movements
– All squats should be full range
– All ‘core’ exercises should be omitted
– No isolation exercises
– No single leg movements
– Weight training frequency (for T&F athletes) should not exceed twice per week (once per week during peak comp period)
– Once a pair or trio of compound exercises has been selected they should not be changed (injury permitting) for the remainder of the athlete’s career (e.g. Squat, bench and pull downs; Squats and power cleans; Deadlift and bench)
– Exercise options: Squat; Front squat; Power Clean; Deadlift; Bench press; Pull Downs/Pull ups

I am happy to provide objective arguements to support any of these points. BTW ‘Asafa Powell does X’ or ‘Usain Bolt does Y’ are not objective arguements

I hate cutting and pasting for quoting purposes . . .

Wouldn’t an athlete who has a muscle imbalance benefit from hypertrophy in the weak area?

Many good (i mean great) coaches/programs use core circuits to fix posture, enhance recovery, produce lactate, fix imbalances. Explain why it is not necessary.

Why does every squat session have to be full range?

I will touch upon the others after getting answers from these. I understand this is what you believe, but do you have hard data that shows the difference between eliminating core, only squatting full range, not doing single leg movements . . . I am talking about data you have collected over many seasons. What athletes have you coached that have benefitted from the elimination of all these smaller things?[/quote]

It’s simple application of ‘Mills Law of Difference’. If you remove an exercise would it negatively impact on performance? What I and other coaches have actually discovered is that removing exercises actually has a POSITIVE effect on performance by increasing the available adaptation energy for what remains. Cut away ALL the fat.

Squats and cleans (and sprinting) provide a huge core stimulus in themselves. Some elite strength athletes do core work… most do not. I’m not really prepared to argue this point any further.

Full range squatting means reduced loads, which means decreased CNS stress, and a lower risk of injury. Full squatting means greater time under tension, less muscle imbalance and better joint health…Train the legs through the full range of motion like you would any other muscle.

Give me an example of a ‘muscle imbalance’.

[eroszag]

eroszag on March 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm #106004

Hello Matt..
In your set up I see days M to WEd a bit hard, anda maybe too much special endurance work
You could follow mondays’acc work with extensive tempo, and then max speed, ext tempo again on thursday nad leaving the other 2 days as written.
Could not be a great Idea to push for a squat record and the following day working on speed endurance ( if they are 80% 200s no problem…If you want to run 2×150 fast…it is)
David, you could state that many “strength athletes ” do not perform core work, and I reaply almost ALL “track athletes” perform core work.
Postural stability is of utter importance, as is some remedial work.
Circuits , hurdle mobility , med ball work and so called rudiments all work on small muscles,posture, work capacity..the same as tempo does, but not all athletes can run tempo and have benefits…with othe low intensity work we have more options and for sure better results.
Results are track PB, not weight room pb.
Remedial work , plyos and strength endurance should all be worked, in a way or another.
While the core exercises are almost always the same with my sprinters , I vary assistance work as needed, because no athlete is like another.
And while I almost always use lower than parallel squat, I find a place for 1/4 squats too, during comp periodo as a stimulus , 1-2 days before a competition.
The lata and great Charlie Francis produced some videos regarding general and specific weight training, which could be helpful for many here.
Also, Charlie was a big fan of remedial work, mainly done with med ball, abs, hurdle mobility added to tempo runs…other prefer not to have tempo runs( maybe once a week), and use more remedial exercises.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm #106007

.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 2, 2011 at 3:15 am #106013

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

Lol. What a hater.[/quote]

Influencing a talented jumper do dumb shit when you know nothing about him or his previous training is stupid. So I would be wise for Joe not to listen to you was my point. I don’t know YOU so am not hating on you. All I see are the words you type.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 2, 2011 at 4:06 am #106016

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298988863"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

Lol. What a hater.[/quote]

Influencing a talented jumper do dumb shit when you know nothing about him or his previous training is stupid. So I would be wise for Joe not to listen to you was my point. I don’t know YOU so am not hating on you. All I see are the words you type.[/quote]

You think getting him to improve his power clean by 5kg is dumb?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 2, 2011 at 4:40 am #106017

[quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

I have spoken at length to Carl Johnson and actually referenced him in a recent article. Carl was WAY ahead of his time in T&F circles. However, Jon made most of his gains in strength (and distance!) after Norman Anderson took control of his weights. So Nick there is certainly a precedent for track athletes to turn to specialist strength coaches for their work in the gym.

It’s clear having a glance at your training log that you are a talented and explosive young athlete, but it’s also clear than much of the time you spend in the gym is wasted. Loadings below 80% are not even counted by most lifting coaches. Why do ‘dynamic’ squats or bench presses, you are getting sufficient stimulus to RFD from sprinting, plyos and OLs…

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on March 2, 2011 at 5:20 am #106018

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

I have spoken at length to Carl Johnson and actually referenced him in a recent article. Carl was WAY ahead of his time in T&F circles. However, Jon made most of his gains in strength (and distance!) after Norman Anderson took control of his weights. So Nick there is certainly a precedent for track athletes to turn to specialist strength coaches for their work in the gym.

It’s clear having a glance at your training log that you are a talented and explosive young athlete, but it’s also clear than much of the time you spend in the gym is wasted. Loadings below 80% are not even counted by most lifting coaches. Why do ‘dynamic’ squats or bench presses, you are getting sufficient stimulus to RFD from sprinting, plyos and OLs…[/quote]

Rarely do track coaches have a strength coach. When they do, the strength coach is typically implementing what the track coach tells him to do.

You are basing your points, i.e. loadings below 80%, not doing dynamic bench/squat, etc. on YOUR anecdotal evidence and what you have read from Charlie Francis. In your opinion you think it is a waste. There are more than a few track coaches who are equally as successful and in some cases more successful than Charlie who do use dynamic squats/bench and loading under 80% and short pyramid weights. Charlie was great but he isn’t the only intelligent and great track coach.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

Charlie Francis
Tom Tellez
Boo Schexnayder – uses dynamic squat and bench
Dan Pfaff – uses dynamic squat and bench

All wrote their own strength programs. Dan had a strength coach at Texas who implemented DAN’s program in the weight room.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading and may or may not have written the strength program. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

John Smith
Stephen Francis
Glen Mills

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 2, 2011 at 5:57 am #106019

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

I have spoken at length to Carl Johnson and actually referenced him in a recent article. Carl was WAY ahead of his time in T&F circles. However, Jon made most of his gains in strength (and distance!) after Norman Anderson took control of his weights. So Nick there is certainly a precedent for track athletes to turn to specialist strength coaches for their work in the gym.

It’s clear having a glance at your training log that you are a talented and explosive young athlete, but it’s also clear than much of the time you spend in the gym is wasted. Loadings below 80% are not even counted by most lifting coaches. Why do ‘dynamic’ squats or bench presses, you are getting sufficient stimulus to RFD from sprinting, plyos and OLs…[/quote]

Joe is very very strong in all the prime lifts. Stronger than 99% of ELITE long jumpers. SO increasing his PC by 5kg i’m almost certain would do nothing for his performance at all. His problem isn’t strength. It is (as with most) speed and elasticity which also happens to a key area of jumps performance. He (as do I) need to focus on firing rates and high speed force production.

As for me, my weight training volume away from the Olympic lifts has been very low all year to be honest. If you saw my previous years weight training routines you’d probably have a heart attack! And i’d agree that it was too much and not worth it for me. This year though I feel i’m getting mostly right.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 2, 2011 at 6:02 am #106020

Another thing to note…

My lifts under 80% are performed a maximum speed and are often measured using devices i have available. If the speed i can move 75% of my clean max becomes faster does this do more or less for my performance as an EXPLOSIVE athlete than if my clean max goes from 330 – 340? ? ? ?

Also, Over the last 6+ months i have been advised quite regularly from someone who is likey the most successful jumps coach over the last half decade if you account for his young athlete development as well as his Olympic medals…

[star61]

star61 on March 2, 2011 at 11:38 am #106032

[quote author="star61" date="1298959040"]No insults intended, but if can’t be bothered to work hard or even compete, you probably don’t need to worry about trying to tweak the last few percentages out of you training.

Star – Not sure if you know anything about me but i do train very hard. I’m not used to maxing out, i barely test once a year. I still go very heavy (80-95% all year round) and I can be bothered to compete but i had sinus tarsi syndrome for 5 years up till surgery in Nov. It stopped me doing a lot in training but not weights and sprints. I want every last % i can get out of my weights because that’s the reason i’ve jumped a reasonable distance so far, even without jump training.

Seriously, do you think i sit on my ass all day and h.p.c 150kg at my weight? It sounds like you was trying to have a dig at me.[/quote]No digs, look at the preface of my post. No, I don’t know you. I was responding to your statement that you couldn’t be bothered to to max out or even compete more than twice a year. The phrase “couldn’t be bothered” seemed like a slacker attitude that apparently doesn’t represent your actual training style. If you’re trully trying to get every last % from you weights, you may need to reconsider being bothered by a few things you don’t currently do, in order to get those last few %.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 3, 2011 at 4:31 am #106038

Another thing to note…

My lifts under 80% are performed a maximum speed and are often measured using devices i have available. If the speed i can move 75% of my clean max becomes faster does this do more or less for my performance as an EXPLOSIVE athlete than if my clean max goes from 330 – 340? ? ? ?

Also, Over the last 6+ months i have been advised quite regularly from someone who is likey the most successful jumps coach over the last half decade if you account for his young athlete development as well as his Olympic medals…

THe OL power variations are explosive movements even at maximal loads. Doing them at low intensities for ‘speed’ if a complete waste of time.

But out of interest, how (and how often) do you measure bar speed?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 3, 2011 at 4:45 am #106039

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299021069"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

I have spoken at length to Carl Johnson and actually referenced him in a recent article. Carl was WAY ahead of his time in T&F circles. However, Jon made most of his gains in strength (and distance!) after Norman Anderson took control of his weights. So Nick there is certainly a precedent for track athletes to turn to specialist strength coaches for their work in the gym.

It’s clear having a glance at your training log that you are a talented and explosive young athlete, but it’s also clear than much of the time you spend in the gym is wasted. Loadings below 80% are not even counted by most lifting coaches. Why do ‘dynamic’ squats or bench presses, you are getting sufficient stimulus to RFD from sprinting, plyos and OLs…[/quote]

Rarely do track coaches have a strength coach. When they do, the strength coach is typically implementing what the track coach tells him to do.

You are basing your points, i.e. loadings below 80%, not doing dynamic bench/squat, etc. on YOUR anecdotal evidence and what you have read from Charlie Francis. In your opinion you think it is a waste. There are more than a few track coaches who are equally as successful and in some cases more successful than Charlie who do use dynamic squats/bench and loading under 80% and short pyramid weights. Charlie was great but he isn’t the only intelligent and great track coach.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

Charlie Francis
Tom Tellez
Boo Schexnayder – uses dynamic squat and bench
Dan Pfaff – uses dynamic squat and bench

All wrote their own strength programs. Dan had a strength coach at Texas who implemented DAN’s program in the weight room.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading and may or may not have written the strength program. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

John Smith
Stephen Francis
Glen Mills[/quote]

Charlie literally wrote the book on sprinting. He coached John Smith and Glenn Mils is (quietly) a big advocate of his training priciples. I believe Charlie was a genius and the greatest track coach in history. I believe all others are minnows in comparison… But I also appreciate that on a couple of points (e.g. core training) I have different ideas…

What you have to understand is that 99% of training beliefs are based on anecdotal evidence. There are simply too many variables to statistically support theories under experimental conditions. I base my ‘theories’ on over 10 years training and coaching. I base them on conversations/communication with some of the best English speaking athletes and coaches in the world.

I recognise that strength training is but one small component of an elite sprinters training program. I appreciate that strength improvements in the gym do not always translate on the track. But after spending extensive time at gyms in Bath, Brunel, St Marys, Gateshead, Crystal Palce etc, I truely believe that most track athletes are just wasting their time in the gym. THey’d be better off at home resting or simply doing some overhead medicine ball throws….

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on March 3, 2011 at 5:05 am #106041

[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1299023453"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299021069"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1298962954"][quote author="joe" date="1298951056"]Ok, did my second session of the singles. 150kg H.P.Clean and 210kg olympic squat. My only problem is already i can’t be bothered to max so much, feels like im competing twice a week and i barely compete in my own sport twice a year. Mentally tiring.

But if i get results thats all i care about.

Dude you listen to way too many people…

And people who have never developed anyone in your sport? why?[/quote]

I have spoken at length to Carl Johnson and actually referenced him in a recent article. Carl was WAY ahead of his time in T&F circles. However, Jon made most of his gains in strength (and distance!) after Norman Anderson took control of his weights. So Nick there is certainly a precedent for track athletes to turn to specialist strength coaches for their work in the gym.

It’s clear having a glance at your training log that you are a talented and explosive young athlete, but it’s also clear than much of the time you spend in the gym is wasted. Loadings below 80% are not even counted by most lifting coaches. Why do ‘dynamic’ squats or bench presses, you are getting sufficient stimulus to RFD from sprinting, plyos and OLs…[/quote]

Rarely do track coaches have a strength coach. When they do, the strength coach is typically implementing what the track coach tells him to do.

You are basing your points, i.e. loadings below 80%, not doing dynamic bench/squat, etc. on YOUR anecdotal evidence and what you have read from Charlie Francis. In your opinion you think it is a waste. There are more than a few track coaches who are equally as successful and in some cases more successful than Charlie who do use dynamic squats/bench and loading under 80% and short pyramid weights. Charlie was great but he isn’t the only intelligent and great track coach.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

Charlie Francis
Tom Tellez
Boo Schexnayder – uses dynamic squat and bench
Dan Pfaff – uses dynamic squat and bench

All wrote their own strength programs. Dan had a strength coach at Texas who implemented DAN’s program in the weight room.

Here are some coaches who use below 80% loading and may or may not have written the strength program. All have coached Oly and World Champ medalists:

John Smith
Stephen Francis
Glen Mills[/quote]

Charlie literally wrote the book on sprinting. He coached John Smith and Glenn Mils is (quietly) a big advocate of his training priciples. I believe Charlie was a genius and the greatest track coach in history. I believe all others are minnows in comparison… But I also appreciate that on a couple of points (e.g. core training) I have different ideas…

What you have to understand is that 99% of training beliefs are based on anecdotal evidence. There are simply too many variables to statistically support theories under experimental conditions. I base my ‘theories’ on over 10 years training and coaching. I base them on conversations/communication with some of the best English speaking athletes and coaches in the world.

I recognise that strength training is but one small component of an elite sprinters training program. I appreciate that strength improvements in the gym do not always translate on the track. But after spending extensive time at gyms in Bath, Brunel, St Marys, Gateshead, Crystal Palce etc, I truely believe that most track athletes are just wasting their time in the gym. THey’d be better off at home resting or simply doing some overhead medicine ball throws….[/quote]

Charlie DID NOT coach John Smith that is FALSE. Jim Bush coached John Smith. John Smith learned sprinting from Tom Tellez and Jim Bush. John Smith’s program is extremely similar to Tom Tellez’s program, almost verbatim. Tom Tellez’s program is 99% the same as Jim Bush. The connection between Charlie and John Smith is Angela Issajenko, NOT coach/athlete.

I am sure Glen Mills is a Charlie fan. His program does not look anything like Charlie’s though. I have seen some sample weeks. Lots of 85-90% runs. In comp phase. I agree with you, Charlie was a brilliant coach, however there are many others who are just as successful.

The reason I said YOUR opinion is because I understand that most training is based on anecdotal evidence.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 3, 2011 at 5:46 am #106043

Speed Trap Pg. 111:

“Back home, meanwhile, I had the example of John Smith, the American 400m runner who had moved in the fall of 1980 to Toronto, where he’d trained with me for several months. Smith told me he had begun taking 25 mg of Dianabol per day in 1970 while at UCLA, and in one year had improved from 47-flat to 45-flat.”

Lol, must be a different John Smith then!

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on March 3, 2011 at 6:01 am #106044

Speed Trap Pg. 111:

[i]“Back home, meanwhile, I had the example of John Smith, the American 400m runner who had moved in the fall of 1980 to Toronto, [b]where he’d trained with me for several months[/b]. Smith told me he had begun taking 25 mg of Dianabol per day in 1970 while at UCLA, and in one year had improved from 47-flat to 45-flat.”[/i]

Lol, must be a different John Smith then!

A several months…… get real.

This must not be the same John Smith who coached Mo and Ato on the cover of Jim Bush’s book.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120688768733&nma=true&rt=nc&si=OgsgHzMRWvpq5gKYKNh6OsQlLiQ=

Here’s the deal with you….you have a lot to offer because you have clearly been successful. The problem is, you immediately start your “introduction” with critical, dogmatic statements, and that immediately puts 99% of people off whether you are right or wrong. Now, you may not care, but if you are trying show, convince, persuade or prove a point the way you go about it will not work. Either you are trying to show how your ideas are the best or you are just trying to argue for the hell of it. You will get further by teaching them why you feel a certain way, not by criticizing, for instance Craig and Harry’s coach.

Coach them. Don’t beat them over the head with it.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 3, 2011 at 6:40 am #106045

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299111387"]Speed Trap Pg. 111:

[i]“Back home, meanwhile, I had the example of John Smith, the American 400m runner who had moved in the fall of 1980 to Toronto, [b]where he’d trained with me for several months[/b]. Smith told me he had begun taking 25 mg of Dianabol per day in 1970 while at UCLA, and in one year had improved from 47-flat to 45-flat.”[/i]

Lol, must be a different John Smith then!

A several months…… get real.

This must not be the same John Smith who coached Mo and Ato on the cover of Jim Bush’s book.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120688768733&nma=true&rt=nc&si=OgsgHzMRWvpq5gKYKNh6OsQlLiQ=

Here’s the deal with you….you have a lot to offer because you have clearly been successful. The problem is, you immediately start your “introduction” with critical, dogmatic statements, and that immediately puts 99% of people off whether you are right or wrong. Now, you may not care, but if you are trying show, convince, persuade or prove a point the way you go about it will not work. Either you are trying to show how your ideas are the best or you are just trying to argue for the hell of it. You will get further by teaching them why you feel a certain way, not by criticizing, for instance Craig and Harry’s coach.

Coach them. Don’t beat them over the head with it.[/quote]

You are right. I would probably turn people on more if I adopted a softer tone… But that doesn’t mean I’m not right!! And i always make a concerted effort to keep my arguements logical and objective.

P.S I love how everyone conveniently glosses over JS drug use.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 3, 2011 at 6:46 am #106046

… and how ever you feel about me, when was the last time the S&C forum got this much traffic? I’m happy to play devils advocate if it generates debate.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on March 3, 2011 at 7:13 am #106047

[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1299112299"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299111387"]Speed Trap Pg. 111:

[i]“Back home, meanwhile, I had the example of John Smith, the American 400m runner who had moved in the fall of 1980 to Toronto, [b]where he’d trained with me for several months[/b]. Smith told me he had begun taking 25 mg of Dianabol per day in 1970 while at UCLA, and in one year had improved from 47-flat to 45-flat.”[/i]

Lol, must be a different John Smith then!

A several months…… get real.

This must not be the same John Smith who coached Mo and Ato on the cover of Jim Bush’s book.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120688768733&nma=true&rt=nc&si=OgsgHzMRWvpq5gKYKNh6OsQlLiQ=

Here’s the deal with you….you have a lot to offer because you have clearly been successful. The problem is, you immediately start your “introduction” with critical, dogmatic statements, and that immediately puts 99% of people off whether you are right or wrong. Now, you may not care, but if you are trying show, convince, persuade or prove a point the way you go about it will not work. Either you are trying to show how your ideas are the best or you are just trying to argue for the hell of it. You will get further by teaching them why you feel a certain way, not by criticizing, for instance Craig and Harry’s coach.

Coach them. Don’t beat them over the head with it.[/quote]

You are right. I would probably turn people on more if I adopted a softer tone… But that doesn’t mean I’m not right!! And i always make a concerted effort to keep my arguements logical and objective.

P.S I love how everyone conveniently glosses over JS drug use.[/quote]

Everyone seems numb to the drug thing in elite sprinting. Just part of the game. I don’t see how anyone but the sprinters can afford it though. At least in the US.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 3, 2011 at 8:29 am #106009

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1299025959"]Another thing to note…

My lifts under 80% are performed a maximum speed and are often measured using devices i have available. If the speed i can move 75% of my clean max becomes faster does this do more or less for my performance as an EXPLOSIVE athlete than if my clean max goes from 330 – 340? ? ? ?

Also, Over the last 6+ months i have been advised quite regularly from someone who is likey the most successful jumps coach over the last half decade if you account for his young athlete development as well as his Olympic medals…

THe OL power variations are explosive movements even at maximal loads. Doing them at low intensities for ‘speed’ if a complete waste of time.

But out of interest, how (and how often) do you measure bar speed?[/quote]

Effort and speed is also a big part of intensity sir! Not just load. Trust 70%-80% at max speed is very high intensity. And you’re wrong in saying that about maxinal loads. That is not the best way for a long jumper to train for a long period of time. That is why the best jumps coaches do not do it…i would imagine!

Tendo unit and sometimes some program on a computer (can’t remember name) measures force, m/s etc…I do it every 3 weeks….

[eroszag]

eroszag on March 3, 2011 at 9:16 am #106050

We are getting into a “mine is bigger than yours” thread..
David, please post some examples of work by sprinters you have followed.(no names needed, just evolution of track times, weights and so on..)
If you were just overlooking the weight room work, post all the other work done ( med ball, core, circuits at the track, low in hurdle mob, hops and so on.., these are very important).
During the years, I shied away from using OL with all the athletes, and do not miss them.( and I’m a certified WL coach, also comepting)
With some athletes (my fastest male for example, 10″45 100m) I use some OL variations, almost never pushing to a max single…using, on different periods or different days, PC, PS and sometimes PC & J.
Depending on how hard the day wa son the track, we could reach a 90% or slightly more..some days less than 80..
With squatting movements, always lighter % , except for a couple of weeks in late GPP early SPP.
I’ve use many different circuits and weight routine to balance his body…when I started to coach him he had lots of postural imbalances, lack of mobility and hams injuries history..
with just squat cleans anc bench to death every 4 days, we wouldn’t have solved anything.

[sizerp]

sizerp on March 3, 2011 at 9:20 am #106051

You are right. I would probably turn people on more if I adopted a softer tone… But that doesn’t mean I’m not right!! And i always make a concerted effort to keep my arguements logical and objective.

You didn’t come in with arguments, you came in with “I understand Abadjiev and his methods only should be employed by track athletes.”

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 4, 2011 at 12:54 am #106067

I’ve use many different circuits and weight routine to balance his body…when I started to coach him he had lots of postural imbalances, lack of mobility and hams injuries history..
with just squat cleans anc bench to death every 4 days, we wouldn’t have solved anything.

I second what Ero is saying. Power has no application if it can’t be applied in the right manner.

I have had athletes who have had horrible posture due to massive quads and small/weak hamstrings. We did a lot of hypertrophy via RDL’s, Glute-hams, deep squats in order to balance out the body. As the hamstrings got both bigger and stronger, the posture began to improve.

To believe that there is only way to Rome only limits a coaches ability to help an athlete. Sure there are athletes that might thrive under David’s Program. Most women probably would not, given that it has been proven that women typically respond to higher volume and less intensity.

Each athlete might need slight tweaking and that is the art of coaching. To discount a route is to not have thought out the process behind why something else might be done. Sure there are going to be methods and strategies that are “better” than others, but it is a best-fit sport.

To me, it sounds like a pitch when you say, “It takes less time and you get can get better results than X!” To me, your selling something by taking a stance that there is only one best way. If you talk to most of the people on this board, they will have opinions as to what their particular ideas are, but are not absolute.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 4, 2011 at 1:48 am #106070

David – came across some interesting quotes from you on Charlie Francis.com

Thread: https://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=21

One example-

“You should have the confidence to leave an exercise even though you feel you haven’t stressed yourself. I have seen athletes increase their maximum by more than 10% in a month whilst performing only one single above 90% per session! For limit strength movements like squats I generally advocate three single repetitions above 85% whilst for lifts with a speed component (i.e. cleans) I might perform up to 6 singles.”

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 4, 2011 at 5:04 am #106074

Most women probably would not, given that it has been proven that women typically respond to higher volume and less intensity.

Chad, could you expand on this a bit more? Do you mean higher volume and less intensity when lifting weights or on the track as well? Do you suggest that women need longer hypertrophy phases when lifting weights?

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 4, 2011 at 5:56 am #106076

Things I believe:

– Reps should not exceed 3 on lower body movements
– All squats should be full range
– All ‘core’ exercises should be omitted
– No isolation exercises
– No single leg movements
– Weight training frequency (for T&F athletes) should not exceed twice per week (once per week during peak comp period)
– Once a pair or trio of compound exercises has been selected they should not be changed (injury permitting) for the remainder of the athlete’s career (e.g. Squat, bench and pull downs; Squats and power cleans; Deadlift and bench)
– Exercise options: Squat; Front squat; Power Clean; Deadlift; Bench press; Pull Downs/Pull ups

I am happy to provide objective arguements to support any of these points. BTW ‘Asafa Powell does X’ or ‘Usain Bolt does Y’ are not objective arguements

Hi David

I agree on most of your points. However, do you not feel that core exercises are required for injury prevention? From personal experience I have found that the addition of a few core exercises to my training programme has eliminated the symptoms of my back problem almost completely. Similarly for squatting – if they athlete had something in their injury history, or didnt have the required range, to perform full range squats, would you allow modification to half squat, or change exercises completely?

With the single leg movements, I have found through experience that quite a lot of sprinters have left and right leg strength discrepancies. I know myself that I have a fairly significant difference, which leads to stride length imbalances. Would you not have athletes try and correct this, or would you do so through alternative means? I personally think that this is quite important, as in the stride the weight is either only on one, or no, leg at any time point.

With regards to your comments regarding track coaches coaching weights etc., I can only comment on the 2 coaches I have been coached by. With Malcolm Arnold, I agree that his methods are old school with the pyramid method, but that is not al he does. There is room for flexibility within that. At the end of the day, if you have set the weights programme for the 1992 100m Olympic Champion, 1992 110m Hurdles Olympic Champion, 3 x sub-6.5 60m runners, 60mH/110mh Hurdles WR, and multiple World, European and Commonwealth medallists you must be doing something right. Maybe there is more than one way to arrive at the same end result.

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 4, 2011 at 6:30 am #106077

[quote]Most women probably would not, given that it has been proven that women typically respond to higher volume and less intensity.

Chad, could you expand on this a bit more? Do you mean higher volume and less intensity when lifting weights or on the track as well? Do you suggest that women need longer hypertrophy phases when lifting weights?[/quote]

In general, women will have less testosterone which aids in the recovery from high intense activity. Originally, I thought it to be true only in the weight room, but have since found that after coaching women for some time, I was more successful when the intensity stayed down.

For instance, if I had the option to do a shorter more intense track workout or a slightly longer less intense track workout, I would pick option b at least 80% of the time.

With hypertrophy, which we used sparingly, it really was dependent on what our goals were for the individual. I can’t say we even had a hypertrophy phase really, we rarely wanted to add mass. We did prescribe hypertrophy for individual muscle areas which showed lack of development. Then back off the reps once the area was sufficiently built up.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 9, 2011 at 11:56 pm #106203

David – came across some interesting quotes from you on Charlie Francis.com

Thread: https://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=21

One example-

“You should have the confidence to leave an exercise even though you feel you haven’t stressed yourself. I have seen athletes increase their maximum by more than 10% in a month whilst performing only one single above 90% per session! For limit strength movements like squats I generally advocate three single repetitions above 85% whilst for lifts with a speed component (i.e. cleans) I might perform up to 6 singles.”

Yes, my ideas have developed in the last 5 years.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 12:01 am #106204

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1298922129"]Things I believe:

– Reps should not exceed 3 on lower body movements
– All squats should be full range
– All ‘core’ exercises should be omitted
– No isolation exercises
– No single leg movements
– Weight training frequency (for T&F athletes) should not exceed twice per week (once per week during peak comp period)
– Once a pair or trio of compound exercises has been selected they should not be changed (injury permitting) for the remainder of the athlete’s career (e.g. Squat, bench and pull downs; Squats and power cleans; Deadlift and bench)
– Exercise options: Squat; Front squat; Power Clean; Deadlift; Bench press; Pull Downs/Pull ups

I am happy to provide objective arguements to support any of these points. BTW ‘Asafa Powell does X’ or ‘Usain Bolt does Y’ are not objective arguements

Hi David

I agree on most of your points. However, do you not feel that core exercises are required for injury prevention? From personal experience I have found that the addition of a few core exercises to my training programme has eliminated the symptoms of my back problem almost completely. Similarly for squatting – if they athlete had something in their injury history, or didnt have the required range, to perform full range squats, would you allow modification to half squat, or change exercises completely?

With the single leg movements, I have found through experience that quite a lot of sprinters have left and right leg strength discrepancies. I know myself that I have a fairly significant difference, which leads to stride length imbalances. Would you not have athletes try and correct this, or would you do so through alternative means? I personally think that this is quite important, as in the stride the weight is either only on one, or no, leg at any time point.

With regards to your comments regarding track coaches coaching weights etc., I can only comment on the 2 coaches I have been coached by. With Malcolm Arnold, I agree that his methods are old school with the pyramid method, but that is not al he does. There is room for flexibility within that. At the end of the day, if you have set the weights programme for the 1992 100m Olympic Champion, 1992 110m Hurdles Olympic Champion, 3 x sub-6.5 60m runners, 60mH/110mh Hurdles WR, and multiple World, European and Commonwealth medallists you must be doing something right. Maybe there is more than one way to arrive at the same end result.[/quote]

It’s a fallacy that single leg work ‘balances’ leg strength. If anything the opposite is true.

Malcolm is a world class hurdles coach NOT a world class strength coach. THat he has got results simply highlights that weights are an over valued component in an athletes development.

What most of you fail to understand is that my approach would require you to spend LESS time in the gym (both per workout AND per week) and therefore leaves substantially MORE adaptation energy for more specific training components.

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 10, 2011 at 12:05 am #106206

Well then that is a fair comment!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 12:43 am #106208

Re: Women

Taken from ‘The System’

When an athlete lifts a maximum load he activates the maximum possible number of motor units but the slow and intermediate fibres will not adapt since they are more resistant to fatigue. Lifting maximum loads does induce hypertrophy but only in the most powerful motor units. Hypertrophy of intermediate motor units requires greater time under tension, i.e. more repetitions. These fibres contribute to force output but provide less force per unit area.

Obviously athletes with a higher percentages of fast twitch fibres also train a higher percentage of muscle fibres with this type of training. However that does NOT mean it is of no value to athletes with a more intermediate muscle profile (e.g. women). Other adaptations such as increased neural drive, decreased inhibition and a +ve shift in fibre type profile will still occur.

Applying higher repetition ranges causes hypertrophy across a greater range of muscle fibre types. This leads to an increase in body mass WITHOUT proportional increases in strength. Absolutely NOT want you want in a sprinter.

In any case Olympic lifts do not lend themselves well to repetition sets. Those lifters who say they perform triples are in reality performing a ‘cluster’ set with 10 or 15 seconds between repetitions.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 1:08 am #106209

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299106919"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1299025959"]Another thing to note…

My lifts under 80% are performed a maximum speed and are often measured using devices i have available. If the speed i can move 75% of my clean max becomes faster does this do more or less for my performance as an EXPLOSIVE athlete than if my clean max goes from 330 – 340? ? ? ?

Also, Over the last 6+ months i have been advised quite regularly from someone who is likey the most successful jumps coach over the last half decade if you account for his young athlete development as well as his Olympic medals…

THe OL power variations are explosive movements even at maximal loads. Doing them at low intensities for ‘speed’ if a complete waste of time.

But out of interest, how (and how often) do you measure bar speed?[/quote]

Effort and speed is also a big part of intensity sir! Not just load. Trust 70%-80% at max speed is very high intensity. And you’re wrong in saying that about maxinal loads. That is not the best way for a long jumper to train for a long period of time. That is why the best jumps coaches do not do it…i would imagine!

Tendo unit and sometimes some program on a computer (can’t remember name) measures force, m/s etc…I do it every 3 weeks….[/quote]

Don’t know what to say here Nick other than ‘you’re wrong’

Intensity is percentage of maximum. ALL loads, whether 50% or 100%, are lifted as quickly as possible.

… and I seem to remember a certain world record holfer setting power clean pbs in the middle of the competitive season!

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 10, 2011 at 1:17 am #106210

… and I seem to remember a certain world record holfer setting power clean pbs in the middle of the competitive season!

Using Edwards as an example is akin to saying Bolt does x . . . Powell does x.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 1:34 am #106211

Re: Targetting ‘weaknesses’

It seems that most of you are making the mistake of focusing on specific muscular adaptation to weight training when neural adaptation and the hormonal response are far far more important. Improve central drive and create a more anabolic environment, and EVERY muscle will be stronger.

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 10, 2011 at 4:14 am #106216

Weight training can be used for a variety of purposes. Hormonal response and neural adaptation are definitely parts of that. Muscular balance is also a purpose. Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body. Even Jon used a pretty strenuous circuit to achieve this. He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response.

Also, lets clarify intensity. There is intensity of load v. intensity of effort. Intensity of load is easy to gauge, it is simply by the numbers. Intensity of effort, to which Nick is referring, is a lot like RPE. Think about running a 400m in comparison. You run a 400m at sub-max velocity but yet still the intensity of 400m would be ranked by anyone as 100%. By the end of the session, even though the intensity of an individual effort maybe down, the hormonal response is greater have done more repetitions.

A lot of the weight lifting principles used by the likes of Pfaff, as stated by him, were based on the bulgarian system. It has been awhile since I have studied the system, but the basic premise was the sessions of 8×2 x 80% were supplementary to the main session of multiple singles. Since a track athlete will be running or sprinting in place of the singles, the lifting session is supplementary. There is a time and place where heavy singles are warranted, but you also run a high risk of CNS burn-out(without drugs).

David – Define higher rep ranges? Are doubles and triples in this?

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 10, 2011 at 4:15 am #106217

I’m fully aware what the definition of intensity is. However, in reality % max just isn’t the only component of it. Saying that all weight training should be performed using the same method is quite rediculus. Are all jumps to be taken from the same approach length in practice? Are all sprints performed the same way on the track? Do we use super heavy med balls all the time? The list goes on and on…

For myself and the athletes that i coach it has always been the case that jumping power increases dramatically during training blocks where 5/6 weight sessions are performed at between 60-75% for Olympics and 30-50% for squat type movements…

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on March 10, 2011 at 5:10 am #106219

Weight training can be used for a variety of purposes. Hormonal response and neural adaptation are definitely parts of that. Muscular balance is also a purpose. Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body. Even Jon used a pretty strenuous circuit to achieve this. He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response.

Also, lets clarify intensity. There is intensity of load v. intensity of effort. Intensity of load is easy to gauge, it is simply by the numbers. Intensity of effort, to which Nick is referring, is a lot like RPE. Think about running a 400m in comparison. You run a 400m at sub-max velocity but yet still the intensity of 400m would be ranked by anyone as 100%. By the end of the session, even though the intensity of an individual effort maybe down, the hormonal response is greater have done more repetitions.

A lot of the weight lifting principles used by the likes of Pfaff, as stated by him, were based on the bulgarian system. It has been awhile since I have studied the system, but the basic premise was the sessions of 8×2 x 80% were supplementary to the main session of multiple singles. Since a track athlete will be running or sprinting in place of the singles, the lifting session is supplementary. There is a time and place where heavy singles are warranted, but you also run a high risk of CNS burn-out(without drugs).

David – Define higher rep ranges? Are doubles and triples in this?

I pointed out that Pfaff, Boo, Mike use similar principles to what David is recommending, just geared more toward track athletes. No maxing out multiple times per week. A lot of people on here follow what those guys promote. Where’s the problem?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 5:16 am #106220

Weight training can be used for a variety of purposes. Hormonal response and neural adaptation are definitely parts of that. Muscular balance is also a purpose. Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body. Even Jon used a pretty strenuous circuit to achieve this. He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response.

Also, lets clarify intensity. There is intensity of load v. intensity of effort. Intensity of load is easy to gauge, it is simply by the numbers. Intensity of effort, to which Nick is referring, is a lot like RPE. Think about running a 400m in comparison. You run a 400m at sub-max velocity but yet still the intensity of 400m would be ranked by anyone as 100%. By the end of the session, even though the intensity of an individual effort maybe down, the hormonal response is greater have done more repetitions.

A lot of the weight lifting principles used by the likes of Pfaff, as stated by him, were based on the bulgarian system. It has been awhile since I have studied the system, but the basic premise was the sessions of 8×2 x 80% were supplementary to the main session of multiple singles. Since a track athlete will be running or sprinting in place of the singles, the lifting session is supplementary. There is a time and place where heavy singles are warranted, but you also run a high risk of CNS burn-out(without drugs).

David – Define higher rep ranges? Are doubles and triples in this?

Chad – Sorry to be harsh but your post was riddled with inaccuracies. Unfortunately I don’t have time to address them all.

If anything a typical muscular endurance / aerobic circuit will have a NEGATIVE impact on circulating testosterone. There are various factors that affect the hormonal response to resistance training – load, % motor units and time under tension. The snatch will have a LOWER hormonal response than the deadlift or clean since the load is less!

See my article here (originally posted on Charliefrancis.com): https://www.absolutebodybuilding.com/forums/articles-interest/7764-testosterone-physiology-factors-affecting-serum-concentration.html

What do you mean by neural adaptation?
Could you explain to me how circuits ‘balance out the body’?

Intensity is percentage of maximum. ‘Effort’ is a different parameter entirely and one that cannot be objectively measured.

Pfaff absolutely did NOT base his weight training on Bulgarian principles. It’s clear you have no experience or understanding of how the system works in practice OR how it can be adapted for athletes in other sports. Please see my article here: https://weightliftingexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=438&Itemid=60

High reps > 5

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 5:23 am #106221

[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1299710668"]Weight training can be used for a variety of purposes. Hormonal response and neural adaptation are definitely parts of that. Muscular balance is also a purpose. Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body. Even Jon used a pretty strenuous circuit to achieve this. He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response.

Also, lets clarify intensity. There is intensity of load v. intensity of effort. Intensity of load is easy to gauge, it is simply by the numbers. Intensity of effort, to which Nick is referring, is a lot like RPE. Think about running a 400m in comparison. You run a 400m at sub-max velocity but yet still the intensity of 400m would be ranked by anyone as 100%. By the end of the session, even though the intensity of an individual effort maybe down, the hormonal response is greater have done more repetitions.

A lot of the weight lifting principles used by the likes of Pfaff, as stated by him, were based on the bulgarian system. It has been awhile since I have studied the system, but the basic premise was the sessions of 8×2 x 80% were supplementary to the main session of multiple singles. Since a track athlete will be running or sprinting in place of the singles, the lifting session is supplementary. There is a time and place where heavy singles are warranted, but you also run a high risk of CNS burn-out(without drugs).

David – Define higher rep ranges? Are doubles and triples in this?

I pointed out that Pfaff, Boo, Mike use similar principles to what David is recommending, just geared more toward track athletes. No maxing out multiple times per week. A lot of people on here follow what those guys promote. Where’s the problem?[/quote]

I’m recommending two sessions per week and two exercises per session. I’m recommending 3 or 4 repetitions above 90% per workout. ‘Burn out’ is clearly not going to be an issue!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 6:03 am #106222

For myself and the athletes that i coach it has always been the case that jumping power increases dramatically during training blocks where 5/6 weight sessions are performed at between 60-75% for Olympics and 30-50% for squat type movements…

If this is true then I would suggest that your athletes are grossly overtrained. The lower intensity sessions simply function as active recovery and allow strength gains, previously hidden by chronic fatigue, to finally be expressed.

[ex400]

ex400 on March 10, 2011 at 7:06 am #106224

So David, do you advocate continuing the low-rep, high-intensity, 2-exercise, 2-per-week routing through the comp season?

I coach HS girl sprinters. Right now they are on 2 exercises, squat and bench, twice a week. Reps are 5-3-3 at approx 85%, 90%, 95%. On one of the 2 days they also do two sets of 3 DL at about 90%. What is your opinion, what would you suggest?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 7:48 am #106227

So David, do you advocate continuing the low-rep, high-intensity, 2-exercise, 2-per-week routing through the comp season?

I coach HS girl sprinters. Right now they are on 2 exercises, squat and bench, twice a week. Reps are 5-3-3 at approx 85%, 90%, 95%. On one of the 2 days they also do two sets of 3 DL at about 90%. What is your opinion, what would you suggest?

Low rep – yes
High intensity – yes
2 exercise – Yes

Example

Squat (pb 150×3)
60×3 (3)
80×3
100×3
120×3
140×3
152×3

Bench (pb 100×3)
50×3 (3)
70×3
82×3
92×3
102×3

(so they either set a new 3RM or fail the final rep)

On weeks when there is a competition I would drop to a single workout and drop the final set on squats. I would eliminate deadlifts entirely.

[ex400]

ex400 on March 10, 2011 at 7:57 am #106228

Thanks, David. In HS we have dual meets Thursdays from week 3 through 9, then League, District meets. We also have a couple of Saturday meets mid-season. We do speed work and weights on Mondays. In the past we have also lifted on Friday afternoons. Do you think I should drop the Friday sessions?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 8:09 am #106229

Thanks, David. In HS we have dual meets Thursdays from week 3 through 9, then League, District meets. We also have a couple of Saturday meets mid-season. We do speed work and weights on Mondays. In the past we have also lifted on Friday afternoons. Do you think I should drop the Friday sessions?

Actually you might consider continuing 2 weights sessions throughout the whole season (except when you have Saturday meets). Because their absolute strength is lower the fatigue induced by the weights will be lower:

Monday – Speed
Tuesday – Weights
Wednesday – Tempo
Thursday – Speed / Race
Friday – Weights

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 10, 2011 at 8:21 am #106230

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1299710733"]

For myself and the athletes that i coach it has always been the case that jumping power increases dramatically during training blocks where 5/6 weight sessions are performed at between 60-75% for Olympics and 30-50% for squat type movements…

If this is true then I would suggest that your athletes are grossly overtrained. The lower intensity sessions simply function as active recovery and allow strength gains, previously hidden by chronic fatigue, to finally be expressed.[/quote]

100% not the case. And what “lower intensity” days are you talking about? ? ? ? ? Overall intensity rises towards competition time…hopefully you know that…

Ugh you claim some things that are so far off.

YOu will never be most explosive or your fasest during heavy lifting periods. This is oBvious through my experience and backed up by every top coach who i’ve spoke with about this. It amazes me how you claim to know so much yet you get some key basic wrong.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 10, 2011 at 8:28 am #106231

Explain this then according to your concepts…

Tell me everything that is wrong with this:

You do a 6 week max strength phase where you lift 3 times per week. 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps at 85% or higher.

Then you go into a 6 week power block where 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps but this time at 60-75% at maximal speed. During this time you only lift above 85% twice.

You then go into Competition period for 8 weeks. Here you only lift above 85% once every 2 weeks for about a 30 minute session. All other weights are performed at 60-75% at max speed.

And before you say how wrong this is just know that 3 of the top 5 (and many more in the top 20) long jumpers in the world have trained this way from 7m through mid 8 meter level and always seem to peak ontime…

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 10:44 am #106244

Explain this then according to your concepts…

Ok

You do a 6 week max strength phase where you lift 3 times per week. 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps at 85% or higher.

Good except the training frequency is too high

Then you go into a 6 week power block where 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps but this time at 60-75% at maximal speed. During this time you only lift above 85% twice.

Frequency is again too high… Power cleans are themselves ‘power’ exercises. Performing them at low percentages is worthless. Also, as CF points out in Speed Trap, the old Tudor Bompa theory of a ‘conversion phase’ is flawed since speed on the track is so much higher than ANYTHING achieved in the gym.

Consult any strength coach or athlete of reasonable calibre – 6 weeks training below 75% will lead to significant losses in strength (and therefore also RFD).

You then go into Competition period for 8 weeks. Here you only lift above 85% once every 2 weeks for about a 30 minute session. All other weights are performed at 60-75% at max speed.

I would need specific detail to critique this section.

If athletes succeed using this template they do so DESPITE it, not because of it

[Eric Broadbent]

Eric Broadbent on March 10, 2011 at 12:52 pm #106249

[quote author="ex400" date="1299721010"]So David, do you advocate continuing the low-rep, high-intensity, 2-exercise, 2-per-week routing through the comp season?

I coach HS girl sprinters. Right now they are on 2 exercises, squat and bench, twice a week. Reps are 5-3-3 at approx 85%, 90%, 95%. On one of the 2 days they also do two sets of 3 DL at about 90%. What is your opinion, what would you suggest?

Low rep – yes
High intensity – yes
2 exercise – Yes

Example

Squat (pb 150×3)
60×3 (3)
80×3
100×3
120×3
140×3
152×3

Bench (pb 100×3)
50×3 (3)
70×3
82×3
92×3
102×3

(so they either set a new 3RM or fail the final rep)

On weeks when there is a competition I would drop to a single workout and drop the final set on squats. I would eliminate deadlifts entirely.[/quote]

This would really be recommended for a high school female track athlete? Are these stud senior athletes or what? I doubt the majority of high school athletes would benefit much from this as apposed to doing higher rep counts with less weight on the bar. I know the intensity isn’t as high but at this age they need to get use to doing the movement as apposed to getting close to max outs every week. They are still going to benefit and get strong with less risk of injury. Just my personal opinion.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm #106251

Explain this then according to your concepts…

[b]Ok[/b]

You do a 6 week max strength phase where you lift 3 times per week. 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps at 85% or higher.

[b]Good except the training frequency is too high[/b]

Then you go into a 6 week power block where 14/18 sessions are performed with low reps but this time at 60-75% at maximal speed. During this time you only lift above 85% twice.

[b]Frequency is again too high… Power cleans are themselves ‘power’ exercises. Performing them at low percentages is worthless. Also, as CF points out in Speed Trap, the old Tudor Bompa theory of a ‘conversion phase’ is flawed since speed on the track is so much higher than ANYTHING achieved in the gym. [/b]

[b]Consult any strength coach or athlete of reasonable calibre – 6 weeks training below 75% will lead to significant losses in strength (and therefore also RFD).[/b]

You then go into Competition period for 8 weeks. Here you only lift above 85% once every 2 weeks for about a 30 minute session. All other weights are performed at 60-75% at max speed.

[b]I would need specific detail to critique this section.[/b]

[b]If athletes succeed using this template they do so DESPITE it, not because of it[/b]

What i’m not understanding is why i have and do consult many great track and field coaches (who design all the training) about this exact topic. It is certainly not despite of the training. As i’ve proven throughout my training over the past 6 months, max strength increases during this “power” focus training block while power also increases. This is a common occurrence throughout many groups who train in a similar way. It also further validates the very important affect that effort and actual speed of movement has on intensity. All the more reason that heavy weight training done after the initial max strength block (6 weeks) needs to be kept to a minimum. I don’t expect you to get it though because you think very different. Which is fine. There are many good ways to train.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 10, 2011 at 11:59 pm #106258

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1299723554"][quote author="ex400" date="1299721010"]So David, do you advocate continuing the low-rep, high-intensity, 2-exercise, 2-per-week routing through the comp season?

I coach HS girl sprinters. Right now they are on 2 exercises, squat and bench, twice a week. Reps are 5-3-3 at approx 85%, 90%, 95%. On one of the 2 days they also do two sets of 3 DL at about 90%. What is your opinion, what would you suggest?

Low rep – yes
High intensity – yes
2 exercise – Yes

Example

Squat (pb 150×3)
60×3 (3)
80×3
100×3
120×3
140×3
152×3

Bench (pb 100×3)
50×3 (3)
70×3
82×3
92×3
102×3

(so they either set a new 3RM or fail the final rep)

On weeks when there is a competition I would drop to a single workout and drop the final set on squats. I would eliminate deadlifts entirely.[/quote]

This would really be recommended for a high school female track athlete? Are these stud senior athletes or what? I doubt the majority of high school athletes would benefit much from this as apposed to doing higher rep counts with less weight on the bar. I know the intensity isn’t as high but at this age they need to get use to doing the movement as apposed to getting close to max outs every week. They are still going to benefit and get strong with less risk of injury. Just my personal opinion.[/quote]

It would ESPECIALLY be recommended for this exercise population since they have the opportunity to make the MOST rapid gains in strength. The question itself just highlights your lack of experience in the weights room.

[Eric Broadbent]

Eric Broadbent on March 11, 2011 at 12:59 am #106261

Highlights my lack of experience…haha, what a sweetheart. I am not an expert but knowing nothing about these high school girls and you are recommending hitting nothing higher than a triple and having them essentially max out twice a week sounds foolish. I was always taught to keep things simple with high schoolers, get them use to certain movements and essentially don’t break them so that when they get to college they have an opportunity to develop even more. Most of the high schoolers that I have seen in the weight room lack good technique and strength all together. I would think they would benefit from higher rep schemes where they can focus on form and you will still see great gains in strength. Would you have a high school freshmen who has no experience in the weight room do this after a few weeks of training? Do you ever use higher rep schemes with developing athletes? Middle Schoolers should do this also then too right?

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 11, 2011 at 1:17 am #106263

[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1299710668"]Weight training can be used for a variety of purposes. Hormonal response and neural adaptation are definitely parts of that. Muscular balance is also a purpose. Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body. Even Jon used a pretty strenuous circuit to achieve this. He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response.

Also, lets clarify intensity. There is intensity of load v. intensity of effort. Intensity of load is easy to gauge, it is simply by the numbers. Intensity of effort, to which Nick is referring, is a lot like RPE. Think about running a 400m in comparison. You run a 400m at sub-max velocity but yet still the intensity of 400m would be ranked by anyone as 100%. By the end of the session, even though the intensity of an individual effort maybe down, the hormonal response is greater have done more repetitions.

A lot of the weight lifting principles used by the likes of Pfaff, as stated by him, were based on the bulgarian system. It has been awhile since I have studied the system, but the basic premise was the sessions of 8×2 x 80% were supplementary to the main session of multiple singles. Since a track athlete will be running or sprinting in place of the singles, the lifting session is supplementary. There is a time and place where heavy singles are warranted, but you also run a high risk of CNS burn-out(without drugs).

David – Define higher rep ranges? Are doubles and triples in this?

Chad – Sorry to be harsh but your post was riddled with inaccuracies. Unfortunately I don’t have time to address them all.

If anything a typical muscular endurance / aerobic circuit will have a NEGATIVE impact on circulating testosterone. There are various factors that affect the hormonal response to resistance training – load, % motor units and time under tension. The snatch will have a LOWER hormonal response than the deadlift or clean since the load is less!

See my article here (originally posted on Charliefrancis.com): https://www.absolutebodybuilding.com/forums/articles-interest/7764-testosterone-physiology-factors-affecting-serum-concentration.html

What do you mean by neural adaptation?
Could you explain to me how circuits ‘balance out the body’?

Intensity is percentage of maximum. ‘Effort’ is a different parameter entirely and one that cannot be objectively measured.

Pfaff absolutely did NOT base his weight training on Bulgarian principles. It’s clear you have no experience or understanding of how the system works in practice OR how it can be adapted for athletes in other sports. Please see my article here: https://weightliftingexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=438&Itemid=60

High reps > 5[/quote]

“Most use some sort of circuit to achieve a hormonal response (produce lactate) and to balance out the body.” I didn’t mention testosterone in this case. We are in agreement that circuits will lower it. Most distance runners have lower testosterone due to all the endurance work. I was just pointing out that most people use the weight room in this fashion with jumpers, multis and others.

With regards to Pfaff, you are wrong, I don’t need to read your article. It is based on the Bulgarians as I heard it from the horse’s mouth. It is like saying milk isn’t white.

The circuits will hit all the major/minor muscle groups that one would like to target in order to correct posture, balance out protagonist and antagonist.

Neural adaptation is the body’s adaptation to movement with regards to the firing sequences and recruitment of motor units.

There are a lot of great principles, (but other than Edwards who did something like this for one season), are there any other examples of track athletes who use this system of trying to PR every time?

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 11, 2011 at 2:03 am #106266

@ David –

It is good to see this kind of traffic on a thread. And you’ve certainly made some points that I think are worthy of consideration.

But come on… All you’ve said (repeated ad nauseum) is: My way works better for strength gains and would be less time and energy consuming for you all to adopt – and the rest of you are all wrong.

You haven’t shared evidence (even amongst your lifters) that your way is the best. Am not saying you don’t have evidence, but you haven’t shared it (IE – where did they start, what developmental level were they at, and where did you get them to over what time frame). Others of us have shared our (personal evidence) of how our programming works.

And even if you can show that your model works well for lifters – we want to see how it applies to faster speed, bigger jumps, and further throws. Again – show us with real examples. Then we can have a meaningful debate.

[star61]

star61 on March 11, 2011 at 6:45 am #106280

David, I will add to Matt and Chad’s comments that I think your habit of insulting others with demeaning pokes at someone’s intelligence or experience is childish and won’t be tolerated for long. You won’t be the first person who thinks they know everything to be run out of here…just talk to James Smith.

Certainly, your input is welcome and the discussion is enlightening…but keep the pesonal comments to yourself.

[ex400]

ex400 on March 11, 2011 at 7:13 am #106281

While I find insults and personal attacks to be reprehensible, I have found this discussion to be both informative and thought-provoking. So I am glad that David has stirred the pot, even if kind of nastily.

[star61]

star61 on March 12, 2011 at 5:13 am #106303

While I find insults and personal attacks to be reprehensible, I have found this discussion to be both informative and thought-provoking. So I am glad that David has stirred the pot, even if kind of nastily.

Absolutely, and I actually agree with much of what he says. The same can be said of James Smith. Imagine if we had people like James and David regularly contributing who actually enjoyed these discussions as much as we do and could refrain from insults and demeaning comments. Lively debate is great, but personal attacks, of any kind, put a damper on the discussion and take away from the debate.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 18, 2011 at 3:35 am #106458

Pls highlight anywhere on this thread where I made a personal insult.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 18, 2011 at 4:25 am #106459

David, how would you fit plyo/short sprints around this? Would you do them on the same day as the lifts, day before or even day after? I have been doing the singles for 2 week now and got some more pb’s since but now im going backwards and can’t recover in time for these sesions.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 18, 2011 at 7:39 pm #106475

Chad

If Pfaff did say he was using a Bulgarian template, then he has also misunderstood the system. The load on the ‘flushing sets’ are determined from each day’s ‘training’ maximum NOT from a percentage of a recent ABSOLUTE maximum. Abadjiev did not use percentages and he abhorred the idea of classic periodisation. In reality there are several different options available to the coach after a lifter reaches failure in a given workout (hence me directing you to my article!).

“He also did the snatch which IMHO, gets you the most bang for your buck in neural adaptation and hormonal response…”

“Neural adaptation is the body’s adaptation to movement with regards to the firing sequences and recruitment of motor units.”

As I have stated elsewhere, the key adaptation to strength training for sport is an increase in neural drive (or rate coding). This is a GENERAL adaptation that will cross over to ALL movements by generating greater motor unit recruitment. The snatch is such a technical exercise that a high proportion of improvements (particularly in the novice/intermediate lifter) will result from inter and intra muscular coordination that are more specific to the exercise… So the snatch does not generate the best hormonal response OR the greatest neural adaptation either. Your statement was incorrect.

The circuits will hit all the major/minor muscle groups that one would like to target in order to correct posture, balance out protagonist and antagonist

THis is a fancy statement on paper but if we drill down we can see that it is entirely flawed. What muscles will circuits ‘hit’ that are not stimulated by power cleans, squats and bench? What useful stimulus will be generated by a muscular endurance workout? Circuits will not cause hypertophy or neural adaptation in the trained athlete. Can you explain how does such a session “corrects posture and balance out protagonist and antagonists”?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 18, 2011 at 9:13 pm #106476

David, how would you fit plyo/short sprints around this? Would you do them on the same day as the lifts, day before or even day after? I have been doing the singles for 2 week now and got some more pb’s since but now im going backwards and can’t recover in time for these sesions.

Trrack always gets preference over weights:

M. Track, e.g. 6×60; 10-15 min rec
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. Tempo
S. Rest

I’m not a big advocate of plyos.

[af678480]

af678480 on March 18, 2011 at 10:40 pm #106477

-David
Why do you not advocate plyos? Wouldn’t they benefit joe, who is a jumper not sprinter? I feel that the use of plyos in a jumpers program should be just as important if not more than weights.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 18, 2011 at 11:15 pm #106478

Everything David says makes sence to me. I havent done plyo for a few years now because of injury, apart from the odd stadning lj to warm up. I basically just lifted heavy for the main exercises, did short sprints, couldnt even do technique work but im still improving each year.

The only thing i want to try is a bit of complex training, oly squats then a few depth jumps as my only plyo exercise. Any thoughts on this David?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 12:50 am #106480

-David
Why do you not advocate plyos? Wouldn’t they benefit joe, who is a jumper not sprinter? I feel that the use of plyos in a jumpers program should be just as important if not more than weights.

I don’t like plyometrics for a number of reasons. First sprinting and the Olympic lifts are themselves plyometric in nature. I feel additional work is overkill and carries a substantial risk of injury. I also believe performance and progress are difficult to quantify accurately even with expensive analysis equipment. Finally, they are incredibly fatiguing to the CNS even in low volumes so they can easily be detrimental to performance.

However, I would never say ‘don’t do them’ as they’re not my area of expertise.

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 19, 2011 at 5:49 am #101802

This guy did plyos and jumped 2.40

2.10 scissor jump not bad as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFG1oIE_IJc&feature=related

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 19, 2011 at 5:52 am #101803

Lol…

Sprinting and lifting maximum heavy weights is all an elite jumper needs to do to reach the top level!!! …

Come on Linas you didn’t know that???? 😉

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 19, 2011 at 5:58 am #101804

Nick, I think doing only sprinting and heavy weights is not enough to reach top level even for a pure sprinter. So what about jumper??? 🙂

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 19, 2011 at 6:43 am #101805

There’s no chance that it is….

If there were no “connector” exercises as i call them then all guys who can run 10 m/s+ and can clean 1.5x BW and squat 2x BW would be able to get lift at take off…and the majority of them can not.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 7:34 am #106490

There’s no chance that it is….

If there were no “connector” exercises as i call them then all guys who can run 10 m/s+ and can clean 1.5x BW and squat 2x BW would be able to get lift at take off…and the majority of them can not.

Fixating on the wrong things again Nick? I acknowledged my lack of knowledge in this area. I also gave an objective argument to support my opinion… Where’s yours?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 7:43 am #106491

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZ3ZcorTF0

This guy did plyos and jumped 2.40

2.10 scissor jump not bad as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFG1oIE_IJc&feature=related

Did he also break 10s… Silly post.

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 19, 2011 at 4:12 pm #106502

Did he also break 10s… Silly post.

Is joe a sprinter? For sure he is not high jumper, but doing horizontal jumps. You said you are not big advocate for plyos, however it plays a big part in jumpers program.

David, I did very simmilar weight lifting routine as you suggest competing at sprint events , like heavy weights, fewer lifts, low frequency like two times a week. For sure it works, but later when I achieved solid numbers with weights the results stop. For all it stops, but I needed to introduce different routines for further adaptation. Power development through lower weights, special exercises for hip and hamstrings helped to do that. Not saying that when athlete achieves solid numbers with weights he should stop heavy lifting. In my opinion it should be done, but overall volume can be much lower than at the begining.

What you suggest is nothing new. Track athletes are not Olympic weightlifters. Later they need different stimulus, not only heavy weights with fewer reps. It’s not just about getting stronger, but becoming faster and more powerful on the track.

Good luck

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 19, 2011 at 8:42 pm #106503

Horizontal jumpers are also sprinters. David, maybe the reason we can’t go to weightlifting coaches is because you do’t understand all aspects of our training, therefore you can’t put a program together for us.
I am very tired after all these heavy weights and had to have some down time, 1 day hang 155, next time fail 150 from the floor! It’s all over the place. It’s the reason i always go sub max.

Why have i heard in interviews/read that some top sprinters don’t even do plyo? Wan’t Ben Johnson one of thoe that didn’t? I’m not saying that maybe i don’t need them, i just can’t do them. Or at least the only one i think is worth doing – depth jumps.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 9:33 pm #106505

Horizontal jumpers are also sprinters. David, maybe the reason we can’t go to weightlifting coaches is because you do’t understand all aspects of our training, therefore you can’t put a program together for us.
I am very tired after all these heavy weights and had to have some down time, 1 day hang 155, next time fail 150 from the floor! It’s all over the place. It’s the reason i always go sub max.

Why have i heard in interviews/read that some top sprinters don’t even do plyo? Wan’t Ben Johnson one of thoe that didn’t? I’m not saying that maybe i don’t need them, i just can’t do them. Or at least the only one i think is worth doing – depth jumps.

You will always have good and bad sessions. You can’t let your head go down. Be patient, Keep pushing and the improvements will come.

Cleaning from the hang is a very different exercise from cleaning from the floor. That’s why I said at the very start of this thread that one should choose one variation and STICK with it. You get good at what you do.

Regarding plyos I prefer overhead shot throws for max distance. These are quantifiable, low stress and carry minimal injury risk.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm #106507

There seems to be alot of resistance ‘on principle’ but few, if any, OBJECTIVE counter arguments. I have stated I advocate low volume, low frequency weights training. I have said i feel strngth training is overvalued and programmed without respecting it’s impact on the cns. I have said i strongly believe in an emphasis on the specific track work …. but people still want to say ‘he’s all about the weights’.

Carl Johnson would communicate with one of my early coaches for advice on weight training. Why are you all so proud and/or arrogant that you can’t do the same?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 10:26 pm #106508

Take MLF. 10.10 as a teenager whilst training twice a week. Every year we hear ‘this year I’m training harder than ever…’ but he still goes backwards.

That’s the ironic thing. Everyone responds to a bad season by saying ‘I need to train more’. What they actually need to do is train LESS!!

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 19, 2011 at 10:34 pm #106509

There seems to be alot of resistance ‘on principle’ but few, if any, OBJECTIVE counter arguments. I have stated I advocate low volume, low frequency weights training. I have said i feel strngth training is overvalued and programmed without respecting it’s impact on the cns. I have said i strongly believe in an emphasis on the specific track work …. but people still want to say ‘he’s all about the weights’.

Carl Johnson would communicate with one of my early coaches for advice on weight training. Why are you all so proud and/or arrogant that you can’t do the same?

I think we are all asking and interested in your point of view. The fact that it is a little different (not massively) than some of ours makes it interesting.

You say there have been no objective counter arguments when there been numerous examples from separate posters of what we do and what coaching greats have done and the corresponding gains on track and in weight room.

Yet you say: “I advocate” “I feel” “I strongly believe” – and still haven’t given us examples of how well your model works. We asked for athlete examples- age, training age, height, weight, performances on track and in weights – before and after work with you.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 19, 2011 at 10:37 pm #106510

Also – with regards to overstimulating the CNS. Yu suggested somewhere – track-weights-tempo-track-weights-tempo which has us with back to back CNS intensive days – twice in a week.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm #106511

Also – with regards to overstimulating the CNS. Yu suggested somewhere – track-weights-tempo-track-weights-tempo which has us with back to back CNS intensive days – twice in a week.

The approach used by most UK track coaches is to alternate weights with track such that the CNS is in a state of CONSTANT fatigue and the body is always on the brink of injury.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 20, 2011 at 12:05 am #106518

[quote author="Matt Norquist (WashedupDec)" date="1300554490"]Also – with regards to overstimulating the CNS. Yu suggested somewhere – track-weights-tempo-track-weights-tempo which has us with back to back CNS intensive days – twice in a week.

The approach used by most UK track coaches is to alternate weights with track such that the CNS is in a state of CONSTANT fatigue and the body is always on the brink of injury.[/quote]

I realize this – but back back twice a week risks the same thing – why not:

Track/weights
Tempo
Track
Tempo
Track/weights
Tempo/tech

Also – what about My other post you keep not answering.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 12:29 am #106520

I want my posts to stand on their own merit. Giving numbers just turns the thread into a pissing contest. Someone’s friend’s brother always did better doing something different. Suffice it to say I have spoken at length to three coaches who have produced world record holders and all agreed more than they disagreed….

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 1:04 am #106522

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300555556"][quote author="Matt Norquist (WashedupDec)" date="1300554490"]Also – with regards to overstimulating the CNS. Yu suggested somewhere – track-weights-tempo-track-weights-tempo which has us with back to back CNS intensive days – twice in a week.

The approach used by most UK track coaches is to alternate weights with track such that the CNS is in a state of CONSTANT fatigue and the body is always on the brink of injury.[/quote]

I realize this – but back back twice a week risks the same thing – why not:

Track/weights
Tempo
Track
Tempo
Track/weights
Tempo/tech

Also – what about My other post you keep not answering.[/quote]

Logistics are obviously important. Is the gym near the track? Do you have time to do both sessions on one day?

But also you have to ask the question, will overall quality be higher if I space the sessions out more across the week? Will injury risk be higher or lower? Is doing an extra track session a positive or a negative?… I have always taken the philosophy that less is more. I believe there is a far far higher percentage of athletes overtraining than undertraining. I believe this is the reason the UK team is so prone to injury.

How many UK athletes will break 10.2 this year? How many of those ran faster as juniors? Why is no one looking at this trend and asking ‘why’? Einstein said ‘insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different response’…

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 20, 2011 at 1:42 am #106523

You were right that we can’t do more than one thing. I have done purely hang work this year and had another session today with cleans from floor. I just don’t know what im doing, cant hit the right positions. From reps 150 would be a max on a good day, which is down from the hang.

I dont really get why though, i tried a 1 off deadlift max and did a 280 without too much trouble so my pull isn’t weak. Today i did a 200×4 oly squat after the cleans so my legs aren’t weak. My hang is more so i don’t lack power. Why can’t i lift from the floor?? I was expecting 160+

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 20, 2011 at 1:48 am #106524

There seems to be alot of resistance ‘on principle’ but few, if any, OBJECTIVE counter arguments. I have stated I advocate low volume, low frequency weights training. I have said i feel strngth training is overvalued and programmed without respecting it’s impact on the cns. I have said i strongly believe in an emphasis on the specific track work …. but people still want to say ‘he’s all about the weights’.

I agree with your principles like low volume, low frequency weight training. However, I just don’t agree that it should be almost always heavy weights. I don’t advocate too frequent weight and track sessions. I prefer 2-3 intensive days through 7-10 day period. Maybe most talented jamaican and american sprinters can do intensive sessions more frequently, but I think such approach is not very good way for majority of athletes. Doing so most athletes get injuried too often and it simply leads to overtraining. For higher level athletes better way is to do speed and weights on the same day. Usually speed in the morning and weights in the evening. Combining speed and weights in the same session quality suffers.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 1:51 am #106525

You were right that we can’t do more than one thing. I have done purely hang work this year and had another session today with cleans from floor. I just don’t know what im doing, cant hit the right positions. From reps 150 would be a max on a good day, which is down from the hang.

I dont really get why though, i tried a 1 off deadlift max and did a 280 without too much trouble so my pull isn’t weak. Today i did a 200×4 oly squat after the cleans so my legs aren’t weak. My hang is more so i don’t lack power. Why can’t i lift from the floor?? I was expecting 160+

Lol, I know I was right! Pick one movement (ideally power clean from the floor) and stick with it. Otherwise you’ll spend the time constantly relearning movements as opposed to actually getting stronger.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 2:03 am #106526

Craig:

2011 – 6.66
2010 – 6.63
2009 – 6.57
2008 – 6.57
2007 – 6.55

Craig is a UoB grad so I’ve always rooted for him (2007 I thought he’d be the first white man to go sub 10) but this trend simply cannot be ignored. It MUST not be ignored. Someone has taken a prestigious talent and run it into the ground. Who’s going to take responsibility? Malcom Arnold? Michael Khmel?

[utfootball4]

utfootball4 on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 am #106527

You are saying what I have been saying for years, UK athletes are overtraining. I feel bad for guys like Craig!!!

[utfootball4]

utfootball4 on March 20, 2011 at 2:07 am #106528

[quote author="joe" date="1300402567"]David, how would you fit plyo/short sprints around this? Would you do them on the same day as the lifts, day before or even day after? I have been doing the singles for 2 week now and got some more pb’s since but now im going backwards and can’t recover in time for these sesions.

Trrack always gets preference over weights:

M. Track, e.g. 6×60; 10-15 min rec
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. Tempo
S. Rest

I’m not a big advocate of plyos.[/quote]

It’s also easier to overtrain on this setup!!!

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 20, 2011 at 2:19 am #106529

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300463006"][quote author="joe" date="1300402567"]David, how would you fit plyo/short sprints around this? Would you do them on the same day as the lifts, day before or even day after? I have been doing the singles for 2 week now and got some more pb’s since but now im going backwards and can’t recover in time for these sesions.

Trrack always gets preference over weights:

M. Track, e.g. 6×60; 10-15 min rec
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. Tempo
S. Rest

I’m not a big advocate of plyos.[/quote]

It’s also easier to overtrain on this setup!!![/quote]

I think such setup is ok for developing athletes, but not best way for higher level athletes.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 2:21 am #106530

Khmel

Sun – Rest

Mon – 6 x60m (with and without harness)& Weights
Good start to the week!

Tues – 8 x200m, 2 min rec
I assume this is done at a low intensity and serves as tempo?

Wed – Weights
Weights given priority over track?!

Thur – 6x150m, 2 min rec

Friday – Weights
MORE weights?!?!

Saturday – 4 x 300 with 5 min recovery
Lactate tolerance for a 100m specialist?

So they do 3 weights sessions, 2 tempo, 1 lactate tolerance and only 1 speed… and then wonder why they can’t push their top speed over 11m/s!

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 am #106531

[quote author="joe" date="1300547554"]Horizontal jumpers are also sprinters. David, maybe the reason we can’t go to weightlifting coaches is because you do’t understand all aspects of our training, therefore you can’t put a program together for us.
I am very tired after all these heavy weights and had to have some down time, 1 day hang 155, next time fail 150 from the floor! It’s all over the place. It’s the reason i always go sub max.

Why have i heard in interviews/read that some top sprinters don’t even do plyo? Wan’t Ben Johnson one of thoe that didn’t? I’m not saying that maybe i don’t need them, i just can’t do them. Or at least the only one i think is worth doing – depth jumps.

You will always have good and bad sessions. You can’t let your head go down. Be patient, Keep pushing and the improvements will come.

Cleaning from the hang is a very different exercise from cleaning from the floor. That’s why I said at the very start of this thread that one should choose one variation and STICK with it. You get good at what you do.

Regarding plyos I prefer overhead shot throws for max distance. These are quantifiable, low stress and carry minimal injury risk.[/quote]

Make up your mind. In one post you’re basically saying train smarter and train less to achieve more and then in another post you’re telling Joe that bad sessions are normal just push through it! That’s rediculus. You shouldn’t just push through it. I haven’t had a bad lifting session all season because i cycle it correctly and listen to my damn body. If you aren’t physically ready for a Max strength session before you’re f’ed up from the previous session still then program is bullshit. And to just say follow it and struggle through the heavy session anyway is terrible coaching. You can’t advocate quality of training and then say something like that…

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 20, 2011 at 2:27 am #106532

[quote author="Matt Norquist (WashedupDec)" date="1300559733"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300555556"][quote author="Matt Norquist (WashedupDec)" date="1300554490"]Also – with regards to overstimulating the CNS. Yu suggested somewhere – track-weights-tempo-track-weights-tempo which has us with back to back CNS intensive days – twice in a week.

The approach used by most UK track coaches is to alternate weights with track such that the CNS is in a state of CONSTANT fatigue and the body is always on the brink of injury.[/quote]

I realize this – but back back twice a week risks the same thing – why not:

Track/weights
Tempo
Track
Tempo
Track/weights
Tempo/tech

Also – what about My other post you keep not answering.[/quote]

Logistics are obviously important. Is the gym near the track? Do you have time to do both sessions on one day?

But also you have to ask the question, will overall quality be higher if I space the sessions out more across the week? Will injury risk be higher or lower? Is doing an extra track session a positive or a negative?… I have always taken the philosophy that less is more. I believe there is a far far higher percentage of athletes overtraining than undertraining. I believe this is the reason the UK team is so prone to injury.

How many UK athletes will break 10.2 this year? How many of those ran faster as juniors? Why is no one looking at this trend and asking ‘why’? Einstein said ‘insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different response’…[/quote]

Dude we talk about this all the time on this site…There is maybe 1-2 people on here that actually think the UK system is good…most of us do not.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 2:28 am #106533

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300550658"][quote author="joe" date="1300547554"]Horizontal jumpers are also sprinters. David, maybe the reason we can’t go to weightlifting coaches is because you do’t understand all aspects of our training, therefore you can’t put a program together for us.
I am very tired after all these heavy weights and had to have some down time, 1 day hang 155, next time fail 150 from the floor! It’s all over the place. It’s the reason i always go sub max.

Why have i heard in interviews/read that some top sprinters don’t even do plyo? Wan’t Ben Johnson one of thoe that didn’t? I’m not saying that maybe i don’t need them, i just can’t do them. Or at least the only one i think is worth doing – depth jumps.

You will always have good and bad sessions. You can’t let your head go down. Be patient, Keep pushing and the improvements will come.

Cleaning from the hang is a very different exercise from cleaning from the floor. That’s why I said at the very start of this thread that one should choose one variation and STICK with it. You get good at what you do.

Regarding plyos I prefer overhead shot throws for max distance. These are quantifiable, low stress and carry minimal injury risk.[/quote]

Make up your mind. In one post you’re basically saying train smarter and train less to achieve more and then in another post you’re telling Joe that bad sessions are normal just push through it! That’s rediculus. You shouldn’t just push through it. I haven’t had a bad lifting session all season because i cycle it correctly and listen to my damn body. If you aren’t physically ready for a Max strength session before you’re f’ed up from the previous session still then program is bullshit. And to just say follow it and struggle through the heavy session anyway is terrible coaching. You can’t advocate quality of training and then say something like that…[/quote]

Bad sessions will happen. You don’t change the whole program just because you ‘only’ hit 95% in one workout!!

You are seriously overdosing on haterade

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 20, 2011 at 2:33 am #106534

Again, not hating at all…quite surprised at some of things you are saying. And again, some of the very best and most medal winning coaches do exactly that. They listen to their athletes and change things accordingly. It is exactly what i’m doing this season for myself and my athletes. My elite tj’er who has been with the same cooach for 4 years without a PR just pr’d first meet and it no where close to her peak yet…

If quality can remain high during every session you do quality gains with continue to accur…it isn’t that difficult. And for the record…i am ALLLLLL about a simple weight training program. But to say Max strength all the time is crazy and probably the worst thing you could actually do for any athlete.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 2:49 am #106536

Again, not hating at all…quite surprised at some of things you are saying. And again, some of the very best and most medal winning coaches do exactly that. They listen to their athletes and change things accordingly. It is exactly what i’m doing this season for myself and my athletes. My elite tj’er who has been with the same cooach for 4 years without a PR just pr’d first meet and it no where close to her peak yet…

If quality can remain high during every session you do quality gains with continue to accur…it isn’t that difficult. And for the record…i am ALLLLLL about a simple weight training program. But to say Max strength all the time is crazy and probably the worst thing you could actually do for any athlete.

Ok lets break it down a little…

Failing the third rep on a bench press will not massively fatigue the system. Failing a power clean is also not a major issue – many Olympic lifters will use maximum power cleans on recovery days!! Squats ARE more fatiguing and therefore have to be managed more sensitively (especially during the competitive season).

You may remember 50 pages ago I actually suggested ONLY doing power cleans. Just ONE exercise in the gym. That’s where Carl was heading with Jonathon before he went to Stanley…

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 2:51 am #106537

Craig:

2011 – 6.66
2010 – 6.63
2009 – 6.57
2008 – 6.57
2007 – 6.55

Craig is a UoB grad so I’ve always rooted for him (2007 I thought he’d be the first white man to go sub 10) but this trend simply cannot be ignored. It MUST not be ignored. Someone has taken a prestigious talent and run it into the ground. Who’s going to take responsibility? Malcom Arnold? Michael Khmel?

Bump

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 3:50 am #106540

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300566835"]Craig:

2011 – 6.66
2010 – 6.63
2009 – 6.57
2008 – 6.57
2007 – 6.55

Craig is a UoB grad so I’ve always rooted for him (2007 I thought he’d be the first white man to go sub 10) but this trend simply cannot be ignored. It MUST not be ignored. Someone has taken a prestigious talent and run it into the ground. Who’s going to take responsibility? Malcom Arnold? Michael Khmel?

Bump[/quote]

Not really sure what you want me to say to this. Its unfair to compare this year to the others as I have changed coaches, and presumably (hopefully) the changes I have made will take longer to show.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 3:54 am #106541

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300569689"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300566835"]Craig:

2011 – 6.66
2010 – 6.63
2009 – 6.57
2008 – 6.57
2007 – 6.55

Craig is a UoB grad so I’ve always rooted for him (2007 I thought he’d be the first white man to go sub 10) but this trend simply cannot be ignored. It MUST not be ignored. Someone has taken a prestigious talent and run it into the ground. Who’s going to take responsibility? Malcom Arnold? Michael Khmel?

Bump[/quote]

Not really sure what you want me to say to this. Its unfair to compare this year to the others as I have changed coaches, and presumably (hopefully) the changes I have made will take longer to show.[/quote]

Would you say you have ‘trained harder’ (i.e. done MORE) each year from 2008?

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 20, 2011 at 4:42 am #106544

I want my posts to stand on their own merit. Giving numbers just turns the thread into a pissing contest. Someone’s friend’s brother always did better doing something different. Suffice it to say I have spoken at length to three coaches who have produced world record holders and all agreed more than they disagreed….

There are so many things wrong with these comments:

– giving numbers turns into a pissing contest – you’re giving other people’s numbers and calling out their training (which I think is great) but it is not a pissing contest – numbers add legitimacy to claims

– someone’s brother – that is all anyone’s opinion is without evidence. Show some evidence. Even general scientific evidence if your individual anecdotal examples are not sufficient

– suffice to say you’ve spoken to 3 coaches of wr holders who agree? – why would that be suffice for anyone?

I’ve spoken to coaches of wr holders and gold medalists who do little direct speed work and don’t lift above 80%. Finding someone nameless who agrees with you Means very little without more context.

Sorry – yours was a lousy response. You can’t get away with spouting off opinions without evidence, while in turn asking for it from others – or asking them to explain/defend their training without doing so for your own.

Come on…

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 5:20 am #106547

Lol I think if you read through this thread carefully you’ll be able to determine which coaches I’m talking about.

Christie was World and Olympic Champion and has also coached Olympic medalists but does anyone really think he’s a good coach?!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 5:32 am #106550

Matt – An example for you.

Below I provided an objective arguement to support an opinion. In response I got a chain of posts telling me that X and Y do plyos bla bla… but NO CONSTRUCTIVE COUNTER ARGUEMENT!!!!

[quote author="Andrew Furst" date="1300468269"]-David
Why do you not advocate plyos? Wouldn’t they benefit joe, who is a jumper not sprinter? I feel that the use of plyos in a jumpers program should be just as important if not more than weights.

I don’t like plyometrics for a number of reasons. First sprinting and the Olympic lifts are themselves plyometric in nature. I feel additional work is overkill and carries a substantial risk of injury. I also believe performance and progress are difficult to quantify accurately even with expensive analysis equipment. Finally, they are incredibly fatiguing to the CNS even in low volumes so they can easily be detrimental to performance. I prefer overhead shot throws for max distance. These are quantifiable, low stress and carry minimal injury risk.

However, I would never say ‘don’t do them’ as they’re not my area of expertise.[/quote]

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 5:37 am #106551

Not really. I think my training 2007-2010 was at the same level. I think you cant just pick one factor why my performance decreased – it is likely to be a multitude of factors, of which overtraining probably/possibly plays a part. I am reluctant to point the finger at overtraining because it is an extremely complex subject. I spoke to a couple of experts on it, and they said that overtraining syndrome is not necessarily caused by overtraining – there can be some many other factors that cause, or in part attribute to it.

Just looking primarily at figures doesnt always give the full story either. If you look at 2007, I ran 10.14. In 2008, I ran 10.15, despite tearing my hamstring very badly in Feb and not running for 8 weeks, and tearing it again in June, so I was always playing catch up. If you look at 2009, I ran 10.22, but also 10.08 (+2.1w), so I was potentially in PB shape. 2010 – clearly was a bad year, but hard to say why.

Unfortunately, my nature is that I like to train hard, which I guess puts me at more risk of overtraining, but with Malcolm I would say my volume or intensity of training increased much from 2007 to 2010.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 20, 2011 at 6:06 am #106552

Lol I think if you read through this thread carefully you’ll be able to determine which coaches I’m talking about.

Christie was World and Olympic Champion and has also coached Olympic medalists but does anyone really think he’s a good coach?!

Not going to read back through whole thread to find your wr coach examples. Your discussing Edwards’ in 95 is all I can recall. If I remember correctly he did not train maxS all that much that yr or necessarily throughout career.

If you want to name drop – then name drop. Am more interested in YOUR results though. Still silence from that corner.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 6:11 am #106553

Not really. I think my training 2007-2010 was at the same level. I think you cant just pick one factor why my performance decreased – it is likely to be a multitude of factors, of which overtraining probably/possibly plays a part. I am reluctant to point the finger at overtraining because it is an extremely complex subject. I spoke to a couple of experts on it, and they said that overtraining syndrome is not necessarily caused by overtraining – there can be some many other factors that cause, or in part attribute to it.

Just looking primarily at figures doesnt always give the full story either. If you look at 2007, I ran 10.14. In 2008, I ran 10.15, despite tearing my hamstring very badly in Feb and not running for 8 weeks, and tearing it again in June, so I was always playing catch up. If you look at 2009, I ran 10.22, but also 10.08 (+2.1w), so I was potentially in PB shape. 2010 – clearly was a bad year, but hard to say why.

Unfortunately, my nature is that I like to train hard, which I guess puts me at more risk of overtraining, but with Malcolm I would say my volume or intensity of training increased much from 2007 to 2010.

Appreciate you being so open and candid Craig. I would love for you to have a big season – I know you have the talent to go sub 10.

Sometimes I think being highly motivated can actually work against yan athlete. When I spoke to Darren Chin about his time with Bolt he said he was, by far, the laziest guy out there. Perhaps there’s something to learn from that?

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 20, 2011 at 6:18 am #106554

Matt – An example for you.

Below I provided an objective arguement to support an opinion. In response I got a chain of posts telling me that X and Y do plyos bla bla… but NO CONSTRUCTIVE COUNTER ARGUEMENT!!!!

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300476054"][quote author="Andrew Furst" date="1300468269"]-David
Why do you not advocate plyos? Wouldn’t they benefit joe, who is a jumper not sprinter? I feel that the use of plyos in a jumpers program should be just as important if not more than weights.

I don’t like plyometrics for a number of reasons. First sprinting and the Olympic lifts are themselves plyometric in nature. I feel additional work is overkill and carries a substantial risk of injury. I also believe performance and progress are difficult to quantify accurately even with expensive analysis equipment. Finally, they are incredibly fatiguing to the CNS even in low volumes so they can easily be detrimental to performance. I prefer overhead shot throws for max distance. These are quantifiable, low stress and carry minimal injury risk.

However, I would never say ‘don’t do them’ as they’re not my area of expertise.[/quote][/quote]

Yes – an objective (or at least clearly stated) argument – but again lacking evidence. It was just more opining.

Counter argument- OLs are only moderately dynamic consider to plyos (this opinion would be evidence based were I too add movement speed data which I do not have in front of me).

Plyos are easily measurable (much more so and less technique dependent than OHBs). Measured by reach height – depth drop – horizontal distance – etc. (this opinion only needs an objective/logic support of it, not evidence)

You bring great discussion to the group – along with some good and well stated opinions supported by logic (as above counter arguments) – but as of yet have not offered even anecdotal evidence.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on March 20, 2011 at 6:22 am #106555

[quote author="speedfreak1" date="1300579649"]Not really. I think my training 2007-2010 was at the same level. I think you cant just pick one factor why my performance decreased – it is likely to be a multitude of factors, of which overtraining probably/possibly plays a part. I am reluctant to point the finger at overtraining because it is an extremely complex subject. I spoke to a couple of experts on it, and they said that overtraining syndrome is not necessarily caused by overtraining – there can be some many other factors that cause, or in part attribute to it.

Just looking primarily at figures doesnt always give the full story either. If you look at 2007, I ran 10.14. In 2008, I ran 10.15, despite tearing my hamstring very badly in Feb and not running for 8 weeks, and tearing it again in June, so I was always playing catch up. If you look at 2009, I ran 10.22, but also 10.08 (+2.1w), so I was potentially in PB shape. 2010 – clearly was a bad year, but hard to say why.

Unfortunately, my nature is that I like to train hard, which I guess puts me at more risk of overtraining, but with Malcolm I would say my volume or intensity of training increased much from 2007 to 2010.

Appreciate you being so open and candid Craig. I would love for you to have a big season – I know you have the talent to go sub 10.

Sometimes I think being highly motivated can actually work against yan athlete. When I spoke to Darren Chin about his time with Bolt he said he was, by far, the laziest guy out there. Perhaps there’s something to learn from that?[/quote]

Wonder how much of that is personality or an act. Also – how much is just freakish genetics (ie – what he does is less relevant than who he is)?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 6:26 am #106557

Craig,

I know that you are a student of your sport so I expect you will have read Speed Trap? Did you ever have concerns over how Malcolm’s traditional training week might impact on the CNS?

Also do you think it’s possible that the quality of your sessions now would be higher if you dropped to 2 speed and weights sessions per week?

DW

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 6:32 am #106558

Counter argument- OLs are only moderately dynamic consider to plyos

‘Moderately dynamic’?! Hmmm define that…

Also, you didn’t address the arguement that sprinting is a powerful ‘plyometric’ stimulus in it’s own right? Is there peer reviewed evidence that you need more? WRs have been set without…

Plyos are easily measurable (much more so and less technique dependent than OHBs). Measured by reach height – depth drop – horizontal distance – etc.

Ok but what if height/distance increased at the expense of ground contact time?!

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 6:41 am #106559

Craig,

I know that you are a student of your sport so I expect you will have read Speed Trap? Did you ever have concerns over how Malcolm’s traditional training week might impact on the CNS?

Also do you think it’s possible that the quality of your sessions now would be higher if you dropped to 2 speed and weights sessions per week?

DW

I have read Speed Trap, and CFTS, and got some of his lectures on video. But I had relatively little input with what training I did with Malcolm – the conversation “Hi Malcolm, the training that has given you success with loads of athletes, and, indeed, myself. Well, I want to change it to this….” would not have gone down well. In addition to which, Malcolms opinion on CF isnt great, primarily because Mark McKoy was trained by CF AND took drugs, but ran his PB when Malcolm coached him. So, basically, I may well have had concerns about how the training would affect CNS, but I couldnt do anything about it!

I do think it is entirely possible that session quality would be higher with the split you suggest. Im not arguing against that, Im saying that it is hard to change a coaches well established and successful training programme!

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 6:42 am #106560

[quote author="speedfreak1" date="1300579649"]Not really. I think my training 2007-2010 was at the same level. I think you cant just pick one factor why my performance decreased – it is likely to be a multitude of factors, of which overtraining probably/possibly plays a part. I am reluctant to point the finger at overtraining because it is an extremely complex subject. I spoke to a couple of experts on it, and they said that overtraining syndrome is not necessarily caused by overtraining – there can be some many other factors that cause, or in part attribute to it.

Just looking primarily at figures doesnt always give the full story either. If you look at 2007, I ran 10.14. In 2008, I ran 10.15, despite tearing my hamstring very badly in Feb and not running for 8 weeks, and tearing it again in June, so I was always playing catch up. If you look at 2009, I ran 10.22, but also 10.08 (+2.1w), so I was potentially in PB shape. 2010 – clearly was a bad year, but hard to say why.

Unfortunately, my nature is that I like to train hard, which I guess puts me at more risk of overtraining, but with Malcolm I would say my volume or intensity of training increased much from 2007 to 2010.

Appreciate you being so open and candid Craig. I would love for you to have a big season – I know you have the talent to go sub 10.

Sometimes I think being highly motivated can actually work against yan athlete. When I spoke to Darren Chin about his time with Bolt he said he was, by far, the laziest guy out there. Perhaps there’s something to learn from that?[/quote]

I agree! I often wish I was stupid and lazy!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 6:50 am #106561

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300582593"]Craig,

I know that you are a student of your sport so I expect you will have read Speed Trap? Did you ever have concerns over how Malcolm’s traditional training week might impact on the CNS?

Also do you think it’s possible that the quality of your sessions now would be higher if you dropped to 2 speed and weights sessions per week?

DW

I have read Speed Trap, and CFTS, and got some of his lectures on video. But I had relatively little input with what training I did with Malcolm – the conversation “Hi Malcolm, the training that has given you success with loads of athletes, and, indeed, myself. Well, I want to change it to this….” would not have gone down well. In addition to which, Malcolms opinion on CF isnt great, primarily because Mark McKoy was trained by CF AND took drugs, but ran his PB when Malcolm coached him. So, basically, I may well have had concerns about how the training would affect CNS, but I couldnt do anything about it!

I do think it is entirely possible that session quality would be higher with the split you suggest. Im not arguing against that, Im saying that it is hard to change a coaches well established and successful training programme![/quote]

But Craig this is your life. YOUR career?

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 6:56 am #106562

[quote author="speedfreak1" date="1300583512"][quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300582593"]Craig,

I know that you are a student of your sport so I expect you will have read Speed Trap? Did you ever have concerns over how Malcolm’s traditional training week might impact on the CNS?

Also do you think it’s possible that the quality of your sessions now would be higher if you dropped to 2 speed and weights sessions per week?

DW

I have read Speed Trap, and CFTS, and got some of his lectures on video. But I had relatively little input with what training I did with Malcolm – the conversation “Hi Malcolm, the training that has given you success with loads of athletes, and, indeed, myself. Well, I want to change it to this….” would not have gone down well. In addition to which, Malcolms opinion on CF isnt great, primarily because Mark McKoy was trained by CF AND took drugs, but ran his PB when Malcolm coached him. So, basically, I may well have had concerns about how the training would affect CNS, but I couldnt do anything about it!

I do think it is entirely possible that session quality would be higher with the split you suggest. Im not arguing against that, Im saying that it is hard to change a coaches well established and successful training programme![/quote]

But Craig this is your life. YOUR career?[/quote]

But what can I do? I have to be coached by UKA coach, and ideally at a high performance centre, and with a high quality training group. Its hard to argue with coaches who have had success with their own methods just because someone else has a different theory.

It basically comes down to the Malcolm Arnold training theory vs the CF training theory – both had have success, so who is right and who is wrong? Just because the CF theory makes more sense to you doesnt mean it is right.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 20, 2011 at 7:00 am #106563

“I have to be coached by UKA coach”
Is this the terms of funding or something? Seems wrong if that the case.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 7:07 am #106564

I totally appreciate that Craig but there’s only 18 months til the Olympics. Can you afford to live without the funding? If you run sub 10 you’ll make more money in 1 race?

If you don’t BELIEVE in the system then it won’t work.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 7:14 am #106565

Come train with me. Live rent free… Fucking smash EVERYONE at the trials…

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on March 20, 2011 at 7:15 am #106566

I totally appreciate that Craig but there’s only 18 months til the Olympics. Can you afford to live without the funding? If you run sub 10 you’ll make more money in 1 race?

If you don’t BELIEVE in the system then it won’t work.

I wish I could afford to live without the funding, but I cant! Not just that, but the medical care, etc. I didn’t say that I didn’t believe in the system. I dont believe it is as black and white as one form of training works, and one form doesn’t. I believe you can arrive at the same place with different methods.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 20, 2011 at 7:25 am #106567

[quote author="David Woodhouse" date="1300585091"]I totally appreciate that Craig but there’s only 18 months til the Olympics. Can you afford to live without the funding? If you run sub 10 you’ll make more money in 1 race?

If you don’t BELIEVE in the system then it won’t work.

I wish I could afford to live without the funding, but I cant! Not just that, but the medical care, etc. I didn’t say that I didn’t believe in the system. I dont believe it is as black and white as one form of training works, and one form doesn’t. I believe you can arrive at the same place with different methods.[/quote]

Fair enough. Good luck man.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 20, 2011 at 8:30 am #106570

What do you think helps performance more, oly squat or p.clean?

Though i would add – they say Ben Johnson didnt do any plyo or cleans,

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm #106679

David,

Some questions for you…

Using your system how do you…

1) avoid accommodation with your lack of variety?
2) work on bilateral deficit?
3) develop max power and not just max strength?
4) Account for specificity of training?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm #106680

Avoid accomodation with your lack of variety

It is a total fallacy that one must rotate or change exercises to make progress. Abadjiev became the most successful strength coach in history by doing the exact opposite – REDUCING the amount of variation. When you change exercises you spend a number of sessions learning or RE-learning the new one (e.g. Joe moving from his clean from the hang to the floor). That is time that would have been better utilised by simply getting stronger on the orginal movement. The other problem with changing exercises is that you expose yourself to a conditioning risk.

Work on bilateral deficit

Bilateral defecit will always exist and is not something one should be overly concerned with (unless you are rehabbing from injury e.g. knee surgery). Your take off leg will always be stronger; your writing hand will always be stronger etc.

Don’t think of training muscles, think of training the nervous system. If you increase central drive you will increase strength in ALL movements whether they are single limb or not.

Single leg training is HIGHLY inefficient, both in terms of time, it’s impact on Fm… AND it’s affect on BD!!

Develop maximum power and not just maximum strength

If you’re doing quality speed sessions, heavy compound strength exercises and OHTs then you are attacking the FV curve at 3 very distinct points. You will get stronger, faster AND more powerful!

BTW the power clean IS a ‘power’ exercise. For a technically efficient lifter, power output will increase as they approach maximum. Doing ‘fast’ repetitions at low percentages on this exercise has little value.

Account for specificity of training

The less time (both duration and frequency) spent in the gym, the more adaptation energy available for specific work on the track!

Sorry my answers are so brief.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm #106681

So you think even 80% for double or triple is a waste of time? I notice many athletes do this. Epecially in season

[af678480]

af678480 on March 21, 2011 at 11:28 pm #106682

David-
I see where you are going with the reduction of exercises but wouldn’t sticking with only two lifts for an entire training year only make you stronger in those two lifts? Like we saw with joe without the continued changing of exercises he became one dimensional in his strength and power application. It just seems to me that you should want to train you body with different variables such as cleans from above knee, below knee, from floor, squats to the ground etc. Its true that we should not train muscles but in fact movements and the nervous system but if we limit the movements we train then isn’t there a lesser chance of transfer to the track?

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 21, 2011 at 11:49 pm #106683

David-
I see where you are going with the reduction of exercises but wouldn’t sticking with only two lifts for an entire training year only make you stronger in those two lifts? Like we saw with joe without the continued changing of exercises he became one dimensional in his strength and power application. It just seems to me that you should want to train you body with different variables such as cleans from above knee, below knee, from floor, squats to the ground etc. Its true that we should not train muscles but in fact movements and the nervous system but if we limit the movements we train then isn’t there a lesser chance of transfer to the track?

No, exactly the opposite. Initially when you perform a new exercise the improvements you see primarily result from improved inter/intra muscular coordination that are specific to THAT exercise. Over time further gains result from structural adaptations and from improvements in central drive (nerve impulses per unit time). These are general adaptations and will cross over to ALL movements… This is really a fundamental point and one I have repeated several times throughout this thread.

When strength improvements fail to transfer to the track it generally means they have been achieved at a cost to the quality of the specific track sessions. That’s why I advocate only 2 weights sessions per week.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 21, 2011 at 11:53 pm #106684

So you think even 80% for double or triple is a waste of time? I notice many athletes do this. Epecially in season

I consider 80% to be the threshold for ‘useful’ training. Anything lower is just warming up!

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 24, 2011 at 2:09 am #106742

Trrack always gets preference over weights:

M. Track, e.g. 6×60; 10-15 min rec
T. Weights
W. Tempo
T. Track
F. Weights
S. Tempo
S. Rest

I’m not a big advocate of plyos.

I have a few questions regarding this set up and anecdotal evidence will suffice.

1) How do your athletes handle the 4 high intensity days a week with two sets of back to back CNS days with one recovery day in between?

2) How are your athletes handling this set-up in the long-term? Do you have any progressions over 3-4 years of athletes steadily improving with lifting for a PR year round? For example, athlete X started in august 04 with these PR’s and elevated to these PR’s by august 07. The weightroom PR’s as well.

3) If the athletes need three days to reset the CNS after lifting, why do you feel like they can sprint after two days? Wouldn’t that be the time of maximal soreness and fatigue with DOMS?

4) Do you ever take rest or recovery weeks? How do you control volume during a peak if the athlete is still trying to max?

5) Have you ever done a long-term set-up like this with women? How does the woman handle it after a few weeks? months? years?

I just want to hear about some real-world application with track athletes over the short-term and long-term.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 24, 2011 at 3:19 am #106743

I dont think we need to see examples of other athletes, because it doesnt really mean anything. Our goal in the gym is to get stronger, or for most of us here is to get a higher power to weight ratio and then take it to the track. This is a simple program, not too hard on the cns, no doms, low training time. My lifts are going through the roof doing this and i know from the past that when my power goes up, i jump further even without technical training or plyo. Although i did do a lot of OHS last year.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 24, 2011 at 4:50 am #106744

Ohhhhhh joe

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 24, 2011 at 4:56 am #106745

What Nick? I cant sprint or jump atm so i thought i would give this a go and gains are coming quickly.

[star61]

star61 on March 24, 2011 at 6:19 am #106746

What Nick? I cant sprint or jump atm so i thought i would give this a go and gains are coming quickly.

If you’ve reduced your volume, that could explain improved recent performance. If you’re lifting heavier loads than normal, you will also make early, rapid improvements. The proof will be in a year, two or three from now. Will you continue to make steady improvements, better than using other strategies, and do your gains translate to the track? I think this is why some have asked for real world examples of athletes who’ve used this program for a few years.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 24, 2011 at 7:38 am #106749

Point is Joe, as you’ve pointed out several times….lifting huge weight numbers does not improve your elastic ability and ability to produce great force in MINIMUM time AKA a long jump take ofF or sprint contact…Just ask some powerlifters who have crossed over…

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 24, 2011 at 8:34 am #106751

Point is Joe, as you’ve pointed out several times….lifting huge weight numbers does not improve your elastic ability and ability to produce great force in MINIMUM time AKA a long jump take ofF or sprint contact…Just ask some powerlifters who have crossed over…

I know. My max strength is way beyond whats needed, unless i’m gonna start to throw (which im not). But there’s nothing else for me to do right now other than rehab. So it’s more like a hobby for now.

But saying that, if i do this now all i will have to do is maintain my strength every year after this and then work on everything else properly.

Anyway, powerlifters suck. Im sure Olympic lifters would be more suited which is more what im doing. Fast oly squats, p.cleans ect, not slow assisted parallel squats and deadlifts.

[comando-joe]

comando-joe on March 24, 2011 at 8:36 am #106753

Plus you must know already, the strength comes naturally for me. Im not really chasing anything. Just putting same time/effort as most athletes are into weights.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 24, 2011 at 8:53 am #106752

All the time you’re putting into lifting super heavy (maxes) weights you could be using for developing explosive power, maximum power and elasticity and not maximum STRENGTH…

All of the above are different!

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 25, 2011 at 7:49 am #106787

Chad,

Your concern over back to back high intensity training is absolutely valid. However, consider that most coaches in the UK (Christie, Arnold and MK) are ALTERNATING high intensity training components. Additionally they are performing more sessions, more volume AND more exercises in the gym! On my template track sessions always follow a days tempo… Not perfect, but certainly a big improvement!

Muscle soreness from my program will be minimal because volume is so low and the exercises remain consistent. My weightlifters require more recovery because they perform the full versions of the lifts; more volume (attempts at maximum, flushing sets etc) and at a higher absolute intensity (since they are fresh for each workout).

During the peak competition period I recommend the athlete stops one set before maximum. This is usually sufficient to maintain 95% of strength without overly fatiguing the organism. During other training phases I don’t advocate formalised deloading weeks but intuitively allow lifters to ‘take the foot of the gas’ for one or two sessions if they are feeling jaded.

I’ve answered the question regarding women earlier in this thread..

DW

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 25, 2011 at 8:01 am #106788

BTW I have a theory as to why Craig, Mark and other talented juniors have regressed over the years.

As juniors they are new to strength training. As a result the loads involved are relatively small and don’t generate excessive CNS fatigue. Over time however strength increases significantly and thus increasingly impacts on the track workouts.

[David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com]

David.Woodhouse@reedglobal.com on March 25, 2011 at 8:05 am #106789

Ohhhhhh joe

Lol you must be sponsored by Haterade?

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on March 25, 2011 at 8:21 am #106790

Aight dude honestly, you know nothing about me. The reason I wrote that is because known Joe for some time and have helped him a lot over the past couple of years. He, like many listen to many different opinions and just try them all and don’t stick to something that works…Joe is talented and he sometimes frustrates me because of this….like a lil brother type of frustration…i like Joe and actually understand him quite bit…

Nothing to do with you though obviously…

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on March 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm #106805

Chad,

Your concern over back to back high intensity training is absolutely valid. However, consider that most coaches in the UK (Christie, Arnold and MK) are ALTERNATING high intensity training components. Additionally they are performing more sessions, more volume AND more exercises in the gym! On my template track sessions always follow a days tempo… Not perfect, but certainly a big improvement!

Muscle soreness from my program will be minimal because volume is so low and the exercises remain consistent. My weightlifters require more recovery because they perform the full versions of the lifts; more volume (attempts at maximum, flushing sets etc) and at a higher absolute intensity (since they are fresh for each workout).

During the peak competition period I recommend the athlete stops one set before maximum. This is usually sufficient to maintain 95% of strength without overly fatiguing the organism. During other training phases I don’t advocate formalised deloading weeks but intuitively allow lifters to ‘take the foot of the gas’ for one or two sessions if they are feeling jaded.

I’ve answered the question regarding women earlier in this thread..

DW

I am glad you answered, and while I will never whole-heartedly agree with a program like this, I think it has some points of interest.

My questions were put out solely because I wanted to know how an athlete would handle something like this in the long-term. I reference women a lot because I have burn out some women in past by doing more than 2 HI days a week over the course of one season. By the middle of outdoor, they were fried, felt dead all the time, and ran like shizzle.

Personally, in the middle of the season, I hold the athletes back everywhere except meets. I find that as the performances approach maximum, ala PR level, the athlete doesn’t need the stimulus of practice to be as intense, only the meets because the overall intensity of the week is higher than any previous training done.

Training back to back HI days is risky and it like UT had said earlier in the thread, it is very easy to over-train, even when you plan very carefully.

[Linas82]

Linas82 on March 26, 2011 at 6:06 am #106817

I reference women a lot because I have burn out some women in past by doing more than 2 HI days a week over the course of one season. By the middle of outdoor, they were fried, felt dead all the time, and ran like shizzle.

I am a bit confused b/c one experienced sprint coach said, that women usually can handle more intensive training compared with men. I’m interested b/c I coach some women too but they are still young. However, when the level will be higher so I need to be more carefull. Are you sure that higher frequency of HI was the result of burn out? Maybe some more factors came into play? What were the main signs of overtraining?

[morgan93]

morgan93 on April 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm #107396

I’ve been off this forum for a while dealing with some crazy injury problems, and have read a considerable amount of this thread.

In regards to David and his weights training philosophy, wouldn’t a program which focuses purely on max lifts be akin to a sprint program where one only does timetrials each session?

Secondly in regards to supplementary exercises, i fail to see how they can be ruled flat out as useless. In my situation where i have had some significant biomechanical issues an approach which suggests high load compound lifts would only serve to further exaggerate the imbalance.

Edit: Second point, im not refering to supplementary exercises with any load designed for strength rather for postural and biomechanical improvement.