Adarq.org
Performance Area => Article & Video Discussion => Topic started by: Raptor on June 08, 2012, 08:32:24 pm
-
http://bretcontreras.com/2012/06/is-the-maximal-effort-method-killing-our-athletes
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
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
-
Lance, do you think then that the author understands the ME concept the same way that you do (or that it is generally understood)?
-
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.
-
Looked through the comments, this is a very good point
Rob Panariello says:
June 9, 2012 at 6:14 am
In my experience it’s usually the excessive exercise volume vs. the lifting of maximum weight that injuries the athlete. It’s not that I ignore exercise intensity, but inappropriate programming re: volume, is what causes fatigue which will have a negative effect upon exercise technique (biomechanics) resulting in injury. Very rarely will someone lift a heavy weight and injure themself; they either make the lift or miss the lift. Most injuries are strains, sprains, tendonitis, etc., overuse type injuries as a result of excessive exercise poor programmed volume. If an athlete injuries themselves lifting a heavy weight it usually at the price of the heavy weight lifted with an inappropriate programmed volume.
For example if an athlete performs 3 sets of 5 in the bench press at 405 pounds and ruptures their pec performing the 2nd rep (rep #17) in the 4th set of 5, was it the 405 pounds that caused the injury or the excessive exercise volume during bench pressing, i.e. the athlete could perform 16 reps at 405 but not prepared for 17 reps at 405?
If a pitcher can throw a “high intensity” 92 MPH fastball, and eventually injures themself, do they blow their shoulder out the first game of the season or does the injury usually occur as the season progresses, when they have thrown a high volume of pitches over time? Doesn’t the injury usually occur when fatigued has reached a point where recovery time is not appropriate/sufficient (poor program volume/pitch count design)?
Lastly if the work of Hammil is reviewed, one will see that for the injuries that occur per 100 hours of athletic participation, Olympic lifting and Powerlifting have much lower injury rates (safer) when compared to sports such as Football, Rugby, Basketball, Soccer and even UK cross-country (i.e. high volume running). This is probably due to the appropriate programmed exercise volumes associated with each specific high exercise intensity.
Incidence of injury per 100 hours of participation – Football 0.10, Rugby 1.92, Basketball 0.03, Soccer 0.014, UK cross-country 0.37, Olympic Weightlifting 0.0017, Powerlifting 0.0027.
Just because an athlete lifts lighter weights doesn’t mean that they are not at the same risk of injury as an athlete who lifts heavier weights. Excessive exercise performance volume for the specific weight programmed, light or heavy, will place the athlete at increased risk of injury.
Just my opinion.
-
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).
-
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 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.
Looked through the comments, this is a very good point
Rob Panariello says:
June 9, 2012 at 6:14 am
In my experience it’s usually the excessive exercise volume vs. the lifting of maximum weight that injuries the athlete. It’s not that I ignore exercise intensity, but inappropriate programming re: volume, is what causes fatigue which will have a negative effect upon exercise technique (biomechanics) resulting in injury. Very rarely will someone lift a heavy weight and injure themself; they either make the lift or miss the lift. Most injuries are strains, sprains, tendonitis, etc., overuse type injuries as a result of excessive exercise poor programmed volume. If an athlete injuries themselves lifting a heavy weight it usually at the price of the heavy weight lifted with an inappropriate programmed volume.
For example if an athlete performs 3 sets of 5 in the bench press at 405 pounds and ruptures their pec performing the 2nd rep (rep #17) in the 4th set of 5, was it the 405 pounds that caused the injury or the excessive exercise volume during bench pressing, i.e. the athlete could perform 16 reps at 405 but not prepared for 17 reps at 405?
If a pitcher can throw a “high intensity” 92 MPH fastball, and eventually injures themself, do they blow their shoulder out the first game of the season or does the injury usually occur as the season progresses, when they have thrown a high volume of pitches over time? Doesn’t the injury usually occur when fatigued has reached a point where recovery time is not appropriate/sufficient (poor program volume/pitch count design)?
Lastly if the work of Hammil is reviewed, one will see that for the injuries that occur per 100 hours of athletic participation, Olympic lifting and Powerlifting have much lower injury rates (safer) when compared to sports such as Football, Rugby, Basketball, Soccer and even UK cross-country (i.e. high volume running). This is probably due to the appropriate programmed exercise volumes associated with each specific high exercise intensity.
Incidence of injury per 100 hours of participation – Football 0.10, Rugby 1.92, Basketball 0.03, Soccer 0.014, UK cross-country 0.37, Olympic Weightlifting 0.0017, Powerlifting 0.0027.
Just because an athlete lifts lighter weights doesn’t mean that they are not at the same risk of injury as an athlete who lifts heavier weights. Excessive exercise performance volume for the specific weight programmed, light or heavy, will place the athlete at increased risk of injury.
Just my opinion.
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.
-
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).
Dude, there is no such word as "protagonistig." Even if you meant "protagonistic", that word is referring to main characters in books or movies and such. Why do you make up words for things when there are already words for them. It's either "prime-movers" or "agonists." Or shit, just say the "big muscles" or "main muscles," you always clutter your posts with made up bullshit words.
-
Because "protagonist" is a synonime to "agonist". Or maybe it isn't. I'm sorry I wasn't born in an English-speaking country. I should be ashamed of myself. I wonder how well you speak Romanian. Or French. Or German? What's that? Oh...
-
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.
Looked through the comments, this is a very good point
Rob Panariello says:
June 9, 2012 at 6:14 am
In my experience it’s usually the excessive exercise volume vs. the lifting of maximum weight that injuries the athlete. It’s not that I ignore exercise intensity, but inappropriate programming re: volume, is what causes fatigue which will have a negative effect upon exercise technique (biomechanics) resulting in injury. Very rarely will someone lift a heavy weight and injure themself; they either make the lift or miss the lift. Most injuries are strains, sprains, tendonitis, etc., overuse type injuries as a result of excessive exercise poor programmed volume. If an athlete injuries themselves lifting a heavy weight it usually at the price of the heavy weight lifted with an inappropriate programmed volume.
For example if an athlete performs 3 sets of 5 in the bench press at 405 pounds and ruptures their pec performing the 2nd rep (rep #17) in the 4th set of 5, was it the 405 pounds that caused the injury or the excessive exercise volume during bench pressing, i.e. the athlete could perform 16 reps at 405 but not prepared for 17 reps at 405?
If a pitcher can throw a “high intensity” 92 MPH fastball, and eventually injures themself, do they blow their shoulder out the first game of the season or does the injury usually occur as the season progresses, when they have thrown a high volume of pitches over time? Doesn’t the injury usually occur when fatigued has reached a point where recovery time is not appropriate/sufficient (poor program volume/pitch count design)?
Lastly if the work of Hammil is reviewed, one will see that for the injuries that occur per 100 hours of athletic participation, Olympic lifting and Powerlifting have much lower injury rates (safer) when compared to sports such as Football, Rugby, Basketball, Soccer and even UK cross-country (i.e. high volume running). This is probably due to the appropriate programmed exercise volumes associated with each specific high exercise intensity.
Incidence of injury per 100 hours of participation – Football 0.10, Rugby 1.92, Basketball 0.03, Soccer 0.014, UK cross-country 0.37, Olympic Weightlifting 0.0017, Powerlifting 0.0027.
Just because an athlete lifts lighter weights doesn’t mean that they are not at the same risk of injury as an athlete who lifts heavier weights. Excessive exercise performance volume for the specific weight programmed, light or heavy, will place the athlete at increased risk of injury.
Just my opinion.
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.
I dont know if there is much *or any* scientific backing to what broz is claiming, but if he thinks that from years of doing his program his way, then I would think there definitely may be some merit to the idea. Even if the reasoning behind WHY it works is different, eg. lifting a heavy weight more frequently actually makes you better "practiced" at lifting that weight, hence the less likely form breakdown, etc.
I agree with you on your analysis of the rest of that, though the comment posted was in context of his problem with the max effort method, which would entail only ONE set of 405, and that set would in that context in fact be less likely to cause injury.
There is also no real PROOF that working up to one heavy set is actually more draining on the cns than doing something like 5 x 8, only speculation from what Ive seen. In my personal experience I would say the days when working up to a low(ish) rep max, compared to the days with more volume via "bodybuilding" type schemes are actually LESS cns draining, and those days can potentiate things like sprints, jumps, etc, much more effectively.
In fact, thats what many program those days via the max effort method for, stimulation, not annihilation of the cns. The higher rep range work at a lower intensity is programmed as a hypertrophy stimulus primarily, and athletic events need to be spaced further apart from these days, as theyre actually MORE draining.
In the long run, progression of LOAD over time is king, however you choose to get there remains trivial as there is more than one way to skin a cat.
-
Because "protagonist" is a synonime to "agonist". Or maybe it isn't. I'm sorry I wasn't born in an English-speaking country. I should be ashamed of myself. I wonder how well you speak Romanian. Or French. Or German? What's that? Oh...
I understand that you are not from America, so why try to use/make up the most complicated sounding words when you could get the point across with much less complex verbiage. If I was in your country, i wouldn't ask for a "carbonated beverage" i would ask for a "drink" or "soda"... you always make it out to sound like you have some educational background in anatomy/physiology/kinesiology with the way you talk and make up theories and hypotheses, but then you use the word "protagonistig" to talk about prime mover muscles. Why not just use words anyone on the forum can understand and comprehend, prime mover is much more self explanatory and informative than "protagonistig muscles." Think of how Kelly Baggett writes: simple, concise, where anyone can understand his point.
-
I dont know if there is much *or any* scientific backing to what broz is claiming, but if he thinks that from years of doing his program his way, then I would think there definitely may be some merit to the idea. Even if the reasoning behind WHY it works is different, eg. lifting a heavy weight more frequently actually makes you better "practiced" at lifting that weight, hence the less likely form breakdown, etc.
I am sure there is no scientific backing to Broz' claims. But I find the reasoning somewhat plausible. The technical execution becoming more staple when doing a movement A LOT certainly makes sense as well.
But no matter the mechanism, it is certainly true that via very high frequency the training intensity HAS to be lower compared to what it could be when training in a rested state.
If we would assume for a second that higher intensity increases the risk for injury and higher volume makes for more opportunities for an incident to happen, albeit not increasing risk via an additional mechanism, then high frequency training would have you train at safer weights while still providing a very potent training stress. This look at things puts the Bulgarian method, that gets critiqued in the article, in somewhat of a different light. It also leads to the question what the training percentages in the article actually mean: What is 80% of 1rm? 1rm of that particular day? Training 1rm? Competition 1rm? And did every writer always mean the same thing with those?
I agree with you on your analysis of the rest of that, though the comment posted was in context of his problem with the max effort method, which would entail only ONE set of 405, and that set would in that context in fact be less likely to cause injury.
I agree!
There is also no real PROOF that working up to one heavy set is actually more draining on the cns than doing something like 5 x 8, only speculation from what Ive seen. In my personal experience I would say the days when working up to a low(ish) rep max, compared to the days with more volume via "bodybuilding" type schemes are actually LESS cns draining, and those days can potentiate things like sprints, jumps, etc, much more effectively.
In fact, thats what many program those days via the max effort method for, stimulation, not annihilation of the cns. The higher rep range work at a lower intensity is programmed as a hypertrophy stimulus primarily, and athletic events need to be spaced further apart from these days, as theyre actually MORE draining.
I wonder as well where the idea comes from, that heavy low-rep sets are more fatiguing compared to lighter weights done often. Heavy sets can obviously produce fatigue, but high volume work-outs much more so in my experience. Doing a heavy set of 5 on squats vs. doing 5x5 sets across even with MUCH lower weights is not even comparable - the 5x5 is that much more fatiguing.
In the long run, progression of LOAD over time is king, however you choose to get there remains trivial as there is more than one way to skin a cat.
My thoughts exactly.
-
Because "protagonist" is a synonime to "agonist". Or maybe it isn't. I'm sorry I wasn't born in an English-speaking country. I should be ashamed of myself. I wonder how well you speak Romanian. Or French. Or German? What's that? Oh...
I understand that you are not from America, so why try to use/make up the most complicated sounding words when you could get the point across with much less complex verbiage. If I was in your country, i wouldn't ask for a "carbonated beverage" i would ask for a "drink" or "soda"... you always make it out to sound like you have some educational background in anatomy/physiology/kinesiology with the way you talk and make up theories and hypotheses, but then you use the word "protagonistig" to talk about prime mover muscles. Why not just use words anyone on the forum can understand and comprehend, prime mover is much more self explanatory and informative than "protagonistig muscles." Think of how Kelly Baggett writes: simple, concise, where anyone can understand his point.
I miswrote "protagonistic". What's so unusual about that? We say "protagonist" for the "agonist" muscle in Romanian.
From PRO and ANTI. Protagonist and Antagonist.
And the fact that you understood what I meant proves I use the words well.
As for the educational background - I don't care about that and I have never pretended that. What I pretend is that I've read quite a lot and I have done quite a lot in the field. And I jump pretty well too despite having nerdish genetics and a nerdish background (haven't played sports until 15-16 years old).
-
Because "protagonist" is a synonime to "agonist". Or maybe it isn't. I'm sorry I wasn't born in an English-speaking country. I should be ashamed of myself. I wonder how well you speak Romanian. Or French. Or German? What's that? Oh...
I understand that you are not from America, so why try to use/make up the most complicated sounding words when you could get the point across with much less complex verbiage. If I was in your country, i wouldn't ask for a "carbonated beverage" i would ask for a "drink" or "soda"... you always make it out to sound like you have some educational background in anatomy/physiology/kinesiology with the way you talk and make up theories and hypotheses, but then you use the word "protagonistig" to talk about prime mover muscles. Why not just use words anyone on the forum can understand and comprehend, prime mover is much more self explanatory and informative than "protagonistig muscles." Think of how Kelly Baggett writes: simple, concise, where anyone can understand his point.
I miswrote "protagonistic". What's so unusual about that? We say "protagonist" for the "agonist" muscle in Romanian.
From PRO and ANTI. Protagonist and Antagonist.
And the fact that you understood what I meant proves I use the words well.
As for the educational background - I don't care about that and I have never pretended that. What I pretend is that I've read quite a lot and I have done quite a lot in the field. And I jump pretty well too despite having nerdish genetics and a nerdish background (haven't played sports until 15-16 years old).
The fact that i understood what you meant comes from the fact that i have an education in kinesiology. My whole point is most of the people on this site probably don't and with the way you spout off made up theories and words like you know something, you are confusing/misleading the younger people on this site. I know you are 30ish are whatever, but most of the people on here are 10+ years younger than you probably. It still amuses me that you have 5000+ post on this site and you think that gives you some credibility as an athlete/trainer.
-
Luckily for me, posts like yours don't bother me anymore.
At least a kinesiology genius guru like you understood me, wow! Imagine if you didn't have that education, oh boy! I'm so impressed.
This is beyond silly.
-
Luckily for me, posts like yours don't bother me anymore.
At least a kinesiology genius guru like you understood me, wow! Imagine if you didn't have that education, oh boy! I'm so impressed.
This is beyond silly.
How can you possibly be so fucking old, you defend yourself like a little punk. Go dunk some more size 5 balls with that great athleticism you've developed. Oh, and no shit, why the fuck should my post bother you? You are a grown ass man that still thinks he is a child, living for the words others write on a computer. Get out the house man.
-
You're retarded. You really are. You started with the premise that I tried to use the "fancy word "protagonist"" and because I don't know any better, I mispelled it and looked bad because of that. So you basically think I was trying to be arrogant and failed. If you knew any better then you'd see how I always use that word and it's not arrogant by any means.
But whatever man... show your diploma everywhere and be happy you did something in your life.
By the way - nice discussion by you on the actual subject of this thread. A real contribution.
-
for the record, in english, when referring to muscles, the words are "agonist" and "antagonist."
-
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.
-
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.
well played.
-
You're retarded. You really are. You started with the premise that I tried to use the "fancy word "protagonist"" and because I don't know any better, I mispelled it and looked bad because of that. So you basically think I was trying to be arrogant and failed. If you knew any better then you'd see how I always use that word and it's not arrogant by any means.
But whatever man... show your diploma everywhere and be happy you did something in your life.
By the way - nice discussion by you on the actual subject of this thread. A real contribution.
Dude, it's not that I think you were trying to be arrogant, it's just pointless to use a more complicated word when on a forum, this isn't a dissertation you are writing. And why are you so butt-hurt with me having a diploma? I mentioned it once to explain why I could understand what you were trying to say with your abnormal jargon, then you start attacking that like i'm bragging about it and showing it off. You're retarded. You really are. :-*
By the way - have fun playing on your computer 10 hours today with your internet friends :headbang: :uhhhfacepalm:
-
Thanks man. I will!
I have a computer science diploma so... heck, I gotta do what I gotta do. :-*
-
I am sure there is no scientific backing to Broz' claims. But I find the reasoning somewhat plausible. The technical execution becoming more staple when doing a movement A LOT certainly makes sense as well.
But no matter the mechanism, it is certainly true that via very high frequency the training intensity HAS to be lower compared to what it could be when training in a rested state.
If we would assume for a second that higher intensity increases the risk for injury and higher volume makes for more opportunities for an incident to happen, albeit not increasing risk via an additional mechanism, then high frequency training would have you train at safer weights while still providing a very potent training stress. This look at things puts the Bulgarian method, that gets critiqued in the article, in somewhat of a different light. It also leads to the question what the training percentages in the article actually mean: What is 80% of 1rm? 1rm of that particular day? Training 1rm? Competition 1rm? And did every writer always mean the same thing with those?
Good point, I would say that the Bulgarian(ish) approach could actually be even less risky, due to the reasons you listed, and also the very frequent "practice".
Its kind of funny when people react to this type of training as "harder" and "insane" etc. Imo, its actually easier, and a lot less draining than many other set ups. The use of the word "max" is partially to blame. Ive mentioned it before, but if you look at most of the a.b.g. videos, theyre not showing a grinding, screaming, true MAX, MOST of the time. Its more of a routine, heavyish lift, that looks like it could be repeated if need be.
There is a coach named David Woodhouse, who has recently pushed his program nicknamed the "syyyystem", that entails lifting only 2 x a week, and VERY low volume on those days. It entails front squatting to a MAX, along with doing the classic lifts in a similar fashion. This would entail more of a "real" max, and here is an example of one of his guys on a "max" front squat in one of their sessions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgLpAzGfH0I
ABG guys, lifting daily, and here is what you tend to see most often as one of their "max" lifts, daily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-SEt13Wyhc
It would be more accurate, to say woodhouse has his guys going for a personal best each session, and the a.b.g. guys are going to a daily "heavy single based on autoregulation". When training that frequently, the autoregulation will happen to some degree regardless of desire or will power to lift past a certain point.
I was reading earlier an interesting programming thread on Glenns forum where some of this is discussed and found some of the experiences to follow along with the same line of reasoning.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=3168&page=5
-
I have been reading about David Woodhouse's method as well and it seems compelling. After all, lifting twice a week and still making weekly gains in the front squat and at least somewhat regular PR's on snatch and clean & jerk could hardly be more efficient. I am considering to try a program like this for a short period of time, probably a couple weeks out of a meet. But I am not yet convinced that it can work long-term and for lifters that still need to work a lot on their basics. I honestly would like to get a little more data/experience from him, also about the population of lifters trained with that approach. I will follow his lifters though as I think it COULD work well for a certain time.
Good thread in Pendlay's forum as well, Nick Horton expressed the important points about the bulgarian style training quite nicely.
-
I hope you do well, and I think it would work, for a while, at least until supercompensation is complete from your previous training, and the peaking effect of that style of training wears thin. Its only my OPINION, but the guys who seem to do well with that type of set up are .1) newbs and 2.) guys that are slightly or massively over reaching, whether they know it or not.
For 2. it almost seems like magic for a while, then gains stop and usually things start to go backwards. Ive seen that scenario play out lots with guys switching to a HIT type plan, they swear its the golden truth and magical in providing progress. Whats really happening is its a a GREAT way to deload, pushing intensity so gains continue throughout the deload, but a massive drop in volume and frequency.
Once supercompensation is done, and the actual gains from their previous training have come through, coupled with the peaking type effect those low freqency/low volume/high intensity programs provide, lifts, gpp levels, etc., start to slide.
Im not saying I dislike Woodhouses methods, and its nice to have some trains flying in from both sides of the high/low frequency issue, but I do think people make up their mind too quickly about whats happening with that type of program, and why its happening. Most of those gains are often made in their previous training cycle, not the peaking/deload program that allows those gains time to simply be realized.
So that you have some info from two sides of that coin, here is one of the guys who didnt feel like that set up worked well for him.
http://weightliftingexchange.com/smf/index.php?topic=6202.0
-
This is an article about an older version of Woodhouse's program. I wonder why he is going with front-squats now. Back-squats are by far the better general strength exercise. On the other hand, front-squats are important for weightlifters, especially considering the clean recovery.
http://www.foxwoodwl.co.uk/testarticle2.html
The Syyyystem is quite minimalistic - it's big strength - but to a point where I doubt that transitioning into more advanced programming when necessary would be an easy task. Pulling strength and just general strength will be hard to fully develop using that setup IMO. Still, for peaking out, it might be worth giving it a try.