Author Topic: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?  (Read 12305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2012, 11:08:22 pm »
0
little bit about that here: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/explosive-strength-training-research-on-resistance-training-suggests-that-doing-less-is-more-41048

studies have already shown you don't have to lift aht heavy to gain optimal strength, lifting fast works.

THis article didn't mention my biggest problem with lifting, which was just addiction and burnout. i developed mild adrenal fatigue from training way too often. I had burning sensations in my eyes all the time, couldn't focus as well in class, and had trouble keeping my eyes open. training less, eating more, eating salt, helped. Aloowing my body to recover more basically.
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
  • Respect: +2469
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2012, 05:50:11 am »
0
I think lifting heavy is a "fixed" way of actually knowing you're lifting that weight and you're recruiting a high % of motor neurons for doing that, whereas when you lift ligther weights explosively there's not a determined way to really know if you're lifting fast enough, or as fast as the last time you trained, or faster. That's the culprit with that.

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • Respect: +3779
    • View Profile
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2012, 06:01:49 am »
0
If you really think about it, noone in here lifts near 100%. Even the guys that do singles ( kingfish , raptor , etc ) dont do it at 100%.
Also, kellyb says that above 85% you recruit all muscle fibers. So my point is that although it appears that the author is 'against' heavy lifting , he is actually not. 85% is not light at all.
Target training paces (min/km), calculated from 5K PR 22:49 :
Easy run : 5:48
Tempo run : 4:50
VO2-max run :4:21
Speed form run : 4:02

---

it's the biggest trick in the run game.. go slow to go fast. it doesn't make sense until it smacks you in the face and you're like ....... wtf?

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
  • Respect: +2469
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 07:54:55 am »
0
I still think it's important to adapt it to the type of person you are. If you really grind out the squat and take a ton of time to complete the movement, then maybe you should use a lower % and move the bar faster. The question is - how fast is fast enough? Then you need to ask yourself how much time do you squat and how much time do you play/jump/do plyos etc. Because if you really spend quite a bit of time doing explosive movements, then doing a few sets of squats very slow for muscle building purposes should have no bearing in making you slow by any means.

Also, when training for strength vs specificity, should the eccentric part of the lift be slow vs. fast? Meaning - should you train with a slow and very controlled eccentric for building muscle vs. going on a very fast dip down when training for specificity (as in half squats)?

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2012, 05:01:25 pm »
0
Lifting fast is more specific, but does it result in the same improvements in performance?

What about superslow training? Any place for that in the explosive athlete's arsenal?

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/superslow.html

"In a muscle fiber, the slower the rate at which the actin and myosin filaments slide past each other, the greater the number of links or cross-bridges that can be formed between the filaments (Smith, Weiss, and Lehmkuhl, 1995)."

It's surprising to hear this but I might try superslow for a few reps from now and and see if it really  makes me superslow. I have a feeling though it won't make me as slow as I think.
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
  • Respect: +2469
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2012, 05:32:06 pm »
0
Yeah but compare the volume of slow training to the volume of explosive stuff you do in a period of time. If you jump a lot playing ball and doing plyos, I can't believe you're going to get slow even training strength wise with super slow movements.

That article still gave me more awareness towards actually recovering properly, and not going to failure is a good way in doing that.

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2012, 06:28:06 pm »
0
The author agrees that athletes need to be strong - good. Discussions seem to be a lot more uniform once you can agree on such a basic thing. I am sure most coaches also agree that an athlete needs to be able to display good form on every lift to train efficiently and avoid injuries.

If we can take those two things for granted, then there is an objective way to measure progress in strength once in a while. Just determine a repetition maximum (1 rm - 8 rm) and see if it has improved compared to before and by how much.

Having established an objective way to measure strength, how to get to an adequate level is up to the means and preferences of the coach and athlete. In general, it is always better to get away with less work to gain the same profit (so that resources can be spent elsewhere). So if an athlete lucks out in the genetic lottery and has incredible strength per default, that is the easiest thing to work with (case A). You don't need to lift, you are fucking strong in the first place. The next best thing is training and taking performance enhancers (case B), followed by just training (case C).

When we are concerned with how to optimize only the training (in case C), then the question becomes how to get strong the fastest OR how to get strong investing the least amount of resources.
The question is however NOT what works at all, since a lot of things work to some degree.

So I cannot disagree with what has been said in the article. I do by no means think that going up to heavy singles would be the only method to improve strength. In fact, I have been a big fan of 5s and 3s and occasionally even 8s for strength training from the very beginning. But I think the article lacks an answer to the question that truly interests us. How do we, as athletes, get our squats to 600 ASAP. Instead it merely reminds us that methods other than ME help strength as well - as if people were foreign to this idea...

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2012, 07:16:22 pm »
+1
The author agrees that athletes need to be strong - good. Discussions seem to be a lot more uniform once you can agree on such a basic thing. I am sure most coaches also agree that an athlete needs to be able to display good form on every lift to train efficiently and avoid injuries.

If we can take those two things for granted, then there is an objective way to measure progress in strength once in a while. Just determine a repetition maximum (1 rm - 8 rm) and see if it has improved compared to before and by how much.

Having established an objective way to measure strength, how to get to an adequate level is up to the means and preferences of the coach and athlete. In general, it is always better to get away with less work to gain the same profit (so that resources can be spent elsewhere). So if an athlete lucks out in the genetic lottery and has incredible strength per default, that is the easiest thing to work with (case A). You don't need to lift, you are fucking strong in the first place. The next best thing is training and taking performance enhancers (case B), followed by just training (case C).

When we are concerned with how to optimize only the training (in case C), then the question becomes how to get strong the fastest OR how to get strong investing the least amount of resources.
The question is however NOT what works at all, since a lot of things work to some degree.

So I cannot disagree with what has been said in the article. I do by no means think that going up to heavy singles would be the only method to improve strength. In fact, I have been a big fan of 5s and 3s and occasionally even 8s for strength training from the very beginning. But I think the article lacks an answer to the question that truly interests us. How do we, as athletes, get our squats to 600 ASAP. Instead it merely reminds us that methods other than ME help strength as well - as if people were foreign to this idea...


  I think what hes doing is going after the newly popular "bulgarian" method of working up to a max single, then doing back off sets at 2's and 3's etc.  I could be wrong, but hes a james smith intern, and evo sport/schroeder guy, and those camps worship russian methodics like no other.  Russian method advocates dont particularly care for advocates of the bulgarian methods, and vice versa.

  The problem with attacking the max effort method is, it does not ONLY entail max singles, it also entails a rep max such as 2 ,3, 4 etc, as used VERY successfully with athletes by guys like joe defranco, etc.


  As far the injury woes, training with excessive VOLUME is imo WAYYYY more to blame than the rep range/intensity that you choose.  You can get hurt just as easy doing too much with 10rm or with shitty form as you can with singles, just look at the injury rates of powerlifting compared to other sports... it pales in comparison, and thats a true max single, on THREE lifts.

  I agree with several of his points and the guy is a good writer not claiming to coach or train anyone, but asserting that the "max effort method is KILLING our athletes" is pretty silly.... How many guys died last week at defrancos?


Quote
Max Effort Upper Body Day - The max effort method is the best method for developing maximal strength. In my opinion, max effort work should be the "nuts and bolts" of any strength-training program. If you're weak, you're dead!

Remember that most athletic qualities (sprinting speed, jumping power, etc.) rely heavily on your foundation of maximal strength. This is because maximal strength builds the foundation for all other strength qualities such as speed-strength and strength-endurance.

joe defranco
 
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 07:32:44 pm by LanceSTS »
Relax.

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2012, 07:57:05 pm »
0
Lance, do you think then that the author understands the ME concept the same way that you do (or that it is generally understood)?

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2012, 08:24:32 pm »
0
Lance, do you think then that the author understands the ME concept the same way that you do (or that it is generally understood)?


 I dont know for sure, he seems to hold consistent with the percentages he thinks are too high, which would disqualify one from using even the true repeated effort method in many cases.  From what I gather in that article, he is opting for the typical bodybuilding style intensities/ rep ranges for the athlete. 
Relax.

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2012, 08:31:42 pm »
+1
Relax.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
  • Respect: +2469
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2012, 08:41:01 pm »
0
Yeah ^^^

At least this article increases awareness for proper recovery. I also think that the volume is detimental not necessarily for the protagonistig, big muscles, but because the stabilizers fail during longer set (with many reps) and therefore a whole bunch of stuff starts to happen (muscles start to overload because other muscles are already fatigued, poor form occurs and so on and so forth).

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3056
  • Respect: +1056
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2012, 02:07:06 am »
+1
I think lifting heavy is a "fixed" way of actually knowing you're lifting that weight and you're recruiting a high % of motor neurons for doing that, whereas when you lift ligther weights explosively there's not a determined way to really know if you're lifting fast enough, or as fast as the last time you trained, or faster. That's the culprit with that.
i agree here. it's the same reason i go full rom on say, chin ups. i want to know if i got stronger or if i just did a more shallow chin up than last time.
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Is The Maximal Effort Method Killing Our Athletes?
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2012, 08:37:36 am »
0
I would be interested to know people's opinions about John Broz' statement, that very high volume protects from injuries because the ever present fatigue hinders the body from using intensities where such injuries are likely to occur.

This is obviously in respect to weight training, not throwing a baseball etc. But that is a perspective that stands in large contrast to the points made in the article.


I think this position, volume as the main predictor of injury, can only be argued for when there is a minimum intensity requirement. To effectively train there certainly is. But regarding the bench press example one could certainly ask whether an injury had occurred, when 395 lbs were used for 5x5. I think it is less likely. So my counter-argument would be that injury risk is best predicted by an interaction of volume x intensity - much more so then one of those alone (which again leads to the author's point of view and the real questions: how much intensity is required to make progress and at which intensity can efficiency be maximized?)

On a side note: Volume as a predictor of injury could also have nothing to do with improper programming, but simple statistics. If there was a fixed injury risk of 0,1% per repetition at a given intensity, then doing more repetitions would increase the likelihood of an injury. But NOT because of fatigue and improper mechanics, but just because there are more opportunities for the incident to occur. The injury risk of 0,1% could still remain the same and injury could even happen when a heavy single is programmed (although less likely). The take-away message is that injury cannot ever be ruled out and not every injury is due to improper programming.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 08:39:08 am by steven-miller »