841
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Utilization of Strength
« on: August 29, 2011, 07:07:55 pm »
Just wondering RJ, where do you put the 110 lbs? Do you have some type of heavy weight vest?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
842
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfish
« on: August 29, 2011, 03:15:41 pm »^ yes. all my maintenance reps aside from 1RM testing a while ago are all paused. im trying to keep my strength while doing more speed and jump drills. BW also went down from 188-192 to 172-174lb while improving my paused rep to 425x1.
i like paused reps. trains me to really explode and go all out really quick. non-explosive paused rep will slow down too much and get me pinned nicely.
Almost missed this. Damn impressive... closer to a 3x bw squat than you are to 2x....freak!
With your bodyweight coming down are you feeling much change with your vert?
Yeah, that's REALLY impressive weight loss. And it's pretty much exactly what I am trying to achieve right now. A few questions? Was it just diet? How far down did you cut your calories? Did you up protein intake? While cutting the weight you were able to maintain close to your maxes just by doing the ramp up singles? How much did you have to cut the volume when you were in negative energy balance? And finally, did you add any additional cardio? I am pretty anti-cardio but was considering something low impact like swimming to add a little energy expenditure and get the weight coming off a little faster. Thanks.
843
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Utilization of Strength
« on: August 26, 2011, 03:17:31 pm »Hi
I was wondering, when you weight train like doing squats you become stronger and you recruit more muscle units as more muscle mass has been added.
A person who weighs 150lbs works up to a squat of 360lbs and yet his strength will below this level when doing sprint.
So i was wondering that after you reach the squat target is there any types of exercise you do so that you can utilize most of the force from the squat training to carry over onto your sprint. So utilize the force/strength acquired from the squat in a short time so it can be useful in the track.
Thanks
You should continue sprint work WHILE you progressively get stronger in the squat. If you want to run faster than you need to remember that weight training is secondary to sprint work and that the main effect of weight training will be on acceleration while most short sprint races are decided by maximum velocity and most middle distant races are decided by speed endurance. You are correct that many adaptations govern increases in strength and unfortunately only some of the adaptations will carry over well to different activities. Although I personally include full squats in my training and am in favor of all athletes at least being able to perform them, they are an exercise which may not have as immediate a carryover as partial squats.
That said, as long as you perform all your squat variations and some compound movements for your whole body while you continue to train hard on the track you won't have to do anything special after you hit your goal of a 360lb squat. The reward will ahve already manifested itself in a faster time.
844
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: T-DUBS biggest secret. Elastic winding & coiling.
« on: August 24, 2011, 06:02:27 pm »
Honestly, no. I don't see much similarity to a high jumper jumping off one leg and the other video. High jumpers have to turn their body cause they flop! You do realize that right?
Anyway...there isn't much point to responding to this thread... but please notice that you summed up your point really succinctly in your last post. First people pointed out the flaws with what you offered up as research to support your argument. Then you were presented with multiple athletes who all perform the same activity (two footed jump) equally well and you responded with:
"I still believe T-DUB possesses the better athleticism & elastic energy which separates him from the rest"
In the end your whole argument comes down to this. You believe he is better than the rest (for no measurable reason) and therefore his technique is better. In the best case this is harmless. You might continue to train and keep your focus on getting stronger, leaner, and more dynamic while also spending a few minutes of your training sessions trying to emulate how Tdub jumps. If you follow this course you will no doubt jump higher and whether or not your ascribe a large part of your improvement to copying his technique doesn't really matter.
However... That's the best case. I am no expert on vertical jump improvement but I have seen so many athletes have their block start simply ruined by the same line of thinking you are displaying. All too often, whether it's Asafa Powell's toe drag or Maurice Greene's low block position, any idiosyncrasy displayed by an elite athlete is analyzed by idiot coaches and determined to be beneficial and then copied by athletes all around. When the mechanical change is small (ie. Michael Jordans tounge wag) usually the effect is small. But when athletes to completely retool their start to look more some elite athlete the effect is never positive. Asafa Powell has probably been dragging his toe for twenty years. It doesn't help him, but he is probably so used to his movement pattern that it doesn't hurt him much either. Although I have never really trained for vertical specifically, I think I am pretty safe to assume that the main ingredients for speed and vertical are the same:
A) Be really strong
B) Be really light (relative to A)
C) Be really reactive
Asafa drags his toe but Maurice Greene doesn't. But they both accomplish A,B,and C better REALLY well. Tdub has this strange takeoff. The other examples presented to you do not. But again; they all accomplish A,B, and C REALLY well. In fact you won't find a elite counterexample for A B and C! That alone should be reason enough to focus on those. Get A,B and C down. Getting A B and C down might even change your mechanics such that you jump in a mechanically unique way which favors your body. In the meantime try to let your progress get derailed by over analysis. Good luck!
Anyway...there isn't much point to responding to this thread... but please notice that you summed up your point really succinctly in your last post. First people pointed out the flaws with what you offered up as research to support your argument. Then you were presented with multiple athletes who all perform the same activity (two footed jump) equally well and you responded with:
"I still believe T-DUB possesses the better athleticism & elastic energy which separates him from the rest"
In the end your whole argument comes down to this. You believe he is better than the rest (for no measurable reason) and therefore his technique is better. In the best case this is harmless. You might continue to train and keep your focus on getting stronger, leaner, and more dynamic while also spending a few minutes of your training sessions trying to emulate how Tdub jumps. If you follow this course you will no doubt jump higher and whether or not your ascribe a large part of your improvement to copying his technique doesn't really matter.
However... That's the best case. I am no expert on vertical jump improvement but I have seen so many athletes have their block start simply ruined by the same line of thinking you are displaying. All too often, whether it's Asafa Powell's toe drag or Maurice Greene's low block position, any idiosyncrasy displayed by an elite athlete is analyzed by idiot coaches and determined to be beneficial and then copied by athletes all around. When the mechanical change is small (ie. Michael Jordans tounge wag) usually the effect is small. But when athletes to completely retool their start to look more some elite athlete the effect is never positive. Asafa Powell has probably been dragging his toe for twenty years. It doesn't help him, but he is probably so used to his movement pattern that it doesn't hurt him much either. Although I have never really trained for vertical specifically, I think I am pretty safe to assume that the main ingredients for speed and vertical are the same:
A) Be really strong
B) Be really light (relative to A)
C) Be really reactive
Asafa drags his toe but Maurice Greene doesn't. But they both accomplish A,B,and C better REALLY well. Tdub has this strange takeoff. The other examples presented to you do not. But again; they all accomplish A,B, and C REALLY well. In fact you won't find a elite counterexample for A B and C! That alone should be reason enough to focus on those. Get A,B and C down. Getting A B and C down might even change your mechanics such that you jump in a mechanically unique way which favors your body. In the meantime try to let your progress get derailed by over analysis. Good luck!
845
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: T-DUBS biggest secret. Elastic winding & coiling.
« on: August 24, 2011, 12:18:29 am »
Yeah imagine a jumper trying to dunk. Totally horrible comparison:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqymSa79vqg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqymSa79vqg</a>
846
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: T-DUBS biggest secret. Elastic winding & coiling.
« on: August 23, 2011, 07:34:50 pm »
This comes from an advertisement not scientific study:
www.somatics.de/FascialFitnessTerraRosa.pdf
The advertisement is pretty dishonest as well. Kram and Dawson's paper is about whether hopping is favourable in arid climates, their paper never mentions the word catapult, nor do they mention gazelles. The statement is quite silly because most mammals (including humans) can jump farther than can be explained by just the force of muscular contraction. This is why we jump father after an approach, we are able to store energy in our tendons. This is why plyometric training in addition to strength training allows people to jump higher.
If you believe that this tdubs athlete is able to jump high because of some technical prowess that is fine. But to claim he is able to twist his myosin filaments and then severely misquote an advertisement which severely misquotes some scientific papers is unnecessary and does a disservice to those who read your posts.
It also makes people refuse to consider the possibility that this athletes take off mechanics allow him to store more energy from his approach, something which is entirely possible. However, I will tell you that I have extensively studied long jump mechanics and even written papers concerning the long jump and that Carl Lewis and Mike Powell both jump close to 30 feet and have drastically different takeoff mechanics and takeoff velocity. So even if this athlete uses this take off to achieve his high leap, it does not suggest at all that this is the only way to do it.
www.somatics.de/FascialFitnessTerraRosa.pdf
The advertisement is pretty dishonest as well. Kram and Dawson's paper is about whether hopping is favourable in arid climates, their paper never mentions the word catapult, nor do they mention gazelles. The statement is quite silly because most mammals (including humans) can jump farther than can be explained by just the force of muscular contraction. This is why we jump father after an approach, we are able to store energy in our tendons. This is why plyometric training in addition to strength training allows people to jump higher.
If you believe that this tdubs athlete is able to jump high because of some technical prowess that is fine. But to claim he is able to twist his myosin filaments and then severely misquote an advertisement which severely misquotes some scientific papers is unnecessary and does a disservice to those who read your posts.
It also makes people refuse to consider the possibility that this athletes take off mechanics allow him to store more energy from his approach, something which is entirely possible. However, I will tell you that I have extensively studied long jump mechanics and even written papers concerning the long jump and that Carl Lewis and Mike Powell both jump close to 30 feet and have drastically different takeoff mechanics and takeoff velocity. So even if this athlete uses this take off to achieve his high leap, it does not suggest at all that this is the only way to do it.
847
Introduce Yourself / Re: Hey Everyone
« on: August 23, 2011, 01:31:12 am »
I am confused. You are flat out shredded? But you are also 15% bodyfat? I'm not trying to tell you not to dream big but I am just trying to get you to make realistic goals. If you are 15% bodyfat and you want to commit to getting to 6% body fat then that will benefit you greatly and is a great goal. Focus on it. Additionally rather than have goals of "Repping 225 on bench" when you currently bench 135 you should make a concrete goal. If you think a stronger bench press would benefit you then make a concrete goal. It doesn't have to be a max single. It could easily be a 3 or a 5 rep max. But make it a goal, write it down and think about how you are going to get there. Going from 135 to 225 is almost doubling your bench. Make an intermediate goal. Lets assume you can bench 135 for 8 reps. Make an intermediate goal of benching 155 for 6 reps. Think about how you are going to progress there each week. Learning this mindset while you are young will help you a lot. Bottom line: Don't set as goals the lifts that you would like to do (ie I like the idea of repping 2 plates cause thats what the big guys bench), but set goals that you think would both help you are reachable (ie My upper body pushing strength is a major weakness so I will aim to increase my flat bench press by 15% in the next 8 weeks, at this point I will evaluate whether I should continue to focus on this lift or shift my focus to a different weakness).
848
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Sprinting technique tips
« on: August 22, 2011, 08:41:02 pm »
Could be weak glutes, cause be fatigue could be a lot of things. Often happens when people try to accelerate after they are already at top speed. It's important to relax and remain neutral after you hit top speed. A lot of tempo work should fix this.
849
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Intermittent Fasting
« on: August 22, 2011, 08:28:23 pm »
Hah. That's tough. First off, it's really difficult to try to establish a mechanism for WHY calorie restriction slows down ageing when we are not even in agreement as to what the mechanism of ageing is. This was discovered in the 1930's (that CR extends lifespan in rodents) and since then the proposed mechanism has changed as research into ageing has progressed.
Although there are many proposed mechanisms for the effect of CR you can put most of the mechanism into two camps.
1) Metabolism is very bad.
This camp basically points to the fact that with less food, you invariably have a lower metabolic rate, less oxidative damage, less inflammation, less plasma glucose, lower body temperature. These results are pretty well established. The story most biologists will give you is the story of blood glucose metabolism. We know if blood glucose is high then mitochondria operate poorly and generate more superoxide (a free radical implicated in ageing). If blood glucose is too high for too long we know cells eventually become insulin resistant which results in a increased glycation of proteins, higher probability of infection (bugs eat sugar), and what we call metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes.
2) Metabolism is not necessarily bad, but the lack of metabolism "trains" the body and this adaptation increases lifespan.
This camp really turns the idea of "free radical damage" on it's head. Most of the research in this camp is less than 5 years old. It's been shown in nematode that small increases in oxidative stress lead to increased resistance to further oxidative stress. Basically, it's the idea that the free radical damage actually trains the cell to be robust to further damage. It's believed that the low-intensity biological stress of calorie restriction A) Causes changes in cell physiology which make it more robust in the face of stress B) Cause transcription of "longevity genes" which turn on protective proteins like heat-shock protein.
********************
In all likelihood, its probably a combination of factors from both camps and a few unmentioned factors. But....the reason why the studies about intermittent fasting are so encouraging is because they shift the likelihood that camp 2 is playing a major role in the increased longevity. If IF == CR as far as results, it's not simply the lack of calories. It's a poor analogy, but I would describe Camp 1 is sort of like saying you will live longer if you do less because by doing less you accumulate less damage. To effectively calorie restrict activity must be kept to a minimum which is not what people who love to train want to hear! Camp 2 can be summarized as saying "just like you train your your muscles (with progressive overload) and they supercompensate so to must you train your cells (by intermittently reducing the amount of energy you provide to them) so they will supercompensate and become efficient
at glucose metabolism and ready to withstand all the stresses of life!
Now that's something we can all get behind! Hope that made sense!
Although there are many proposed mechanisms for the effect of CR you can put most of the mechanism into two camps.
1) Metabolism is very bad.
This camp basically points to the fact that with less food, you invariably have a lower metabolic rate, less oxidative damage, less inflammation, less plasma glucose, lower body temperature. These results are pretty well established. The story most biologists will give you is the story of blood glucose metabolism. We know if blood glucose is high then mitochondria operate poorly and generate more superoxide (a free radical implicated in ageing). If blood glucose is too high for too long we know cells eventually become insulin resistant which results in a increased glycation of proteins, higher probability of infection (bugs eat sugar), and what we call metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes.
2) Metabolism is not necessarily bad, but the lack of metabolism "trains" the body and this adaptation increases lifespan.
This camp really turns the idea of "free radical damage" on it's head. Most of the research in this camp is less than 5 years old. It's been shown in nematode that small increases in oxidative stress lead to increased resistance to further oxidative stress. Basically, it's the idea that the free radical damage actually trains the cell to be robust to further damage. It's believed that the low-intensity biological stress of calorie restriction A) Causes changes in cell physiology which make it more robust in the face of stress B) Cause transcription of "longevity genes" which turn on protective proteins like heat-shock protein.
********************
In all likelihood, its probably a combination of factors from both camps and a few unmentioned factors. But....the reason why the studies about intermittent fasting are so encouraging is because they shift the likelihood that camp 2 is playing a major role in the increased longevity. If IF == CR as far as results, it's not simply the lack of calories. It's a poor analogy, but I would describe Camp 1 is sort of like saying you will live longer if you do less because by doing less you accumulate less damage. To effectively calorie restrict activity must be kept to a minimum which is not what people who love to train want to hear! Camp 2 can be summarized as saying "just like you train your your muscles (with progressive overload) and they supercompensate so to must you train your cells (by intermittently reducing the amount of energy you provide to them) so they will supercompensate and become efficient
at glucose metabolism and ready to withstand all the stresses of life!
Now that's something we can all get behind! Hope that made sense!
850
Introduce Yourself / Re: Hey Everyone
« on: August 22, 2011, 06:14:09 pm »
You should make realistic goals. Unless you have just started puberty it's really unrealistic to make the massive strength gains whilst also losing fat in 3 months time. Since you are pressed for time I would focus on a exercise routine that uses moderately high reps. You can get practice at the movements, your strength will increase, and most of all if you follow a good diet you will lose some fat. Fat is killer. The best advice I can give to a young fat trainee is first and foremost lose all the fat. It's fine if afterwards you want to build some mass and in doing so gain a little bit of fat... But if you have never been lean.... well the longer you stay like that the harder it will to ever get lean... Also being lean is biggest bang for the buck in sports like track.
851
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Intermittent Fasting
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:26:43 pm »
Interesting. A lab I collaborate with just found data that IF in rodents pretty much replicates the long term calorie restriction as far as lifespan, lipid markers, etc. I like it. IF is MUCH easier than long term calorie restriction.
852
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Loaded vs. unloaded plyos -- effects on basketball players
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:25:23 pm »
Interesting. Do you have data on the SVJ/RVJ and strength numbers of the athletes before the test? My point of view has always been:
1) Athlete is weak and slow: Plyometrics are of little use
2) Athlete is moderately strong: Plyometrics are useful but weighted plyometrics are not.
3) Athlete is strong reactive and does not carry extra bodyfat: Plyometrics and weighted plyometrics are useful.
Obviously the scale is continuous. But the point is basically the more advanced the trainee is the more helpful weighted plyos are. I think of weighted plyos sort of like depth jumps from a large height. For advanced athletes they are great. For beginners they are simply a fast track to injury.
1) Athlete is weak and slow: Plyometrics are of little use
2) Athlete is moderately strong: Plyometrics are useful but weighted plyometrics are not.
3) Athlete is strong reactive and does not carry extra bodyfat: Plyometrics and weighted plyometrics are useful.
Obviously the scale is continuous. But the point is basically the more advanced the trainee is the more helpful weighted plyos are. I think of weighted plyos sort of like depth jumps from a large height. For advanced athletes they are great. For beginners they are simply a fast track to injury.
853
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Load and Volume in Muscle Building
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:17:55 pm »
The point is that none of the conclusions you can make are relevant to those of us who are interested in training.
They compared using 30% vs 90% of 1RM one time. If your training plan is to be "recreationally active" for eight weeks and then perform a new exercise one time at 30% or 90% and you can't decide which is a better choice then this study might be useful. However, nobody here trains like that. The first time you do an exercise 90% will quickly turn into 70% within a matter of weeks. Additionally beginners don't have the neuromuscular coordination to perform an exercise with 90% of their true 1RM. We really should not make conclusions about a study that was performed once as to how it relates to repeated progressive overload which is what most people here use.
They compared using 30% vs 90% of 1RM one time. If your training plan is to be "recreationally active" for eight weeks and then perform a new exercise one time at 30% or 90% and you can't decide which is a better choice then this study might be useful. However, nobody here trains like that. The first time you do an exercise 90% will quickly turn into 70% within a matter of weeks. Additionally beginners don't have the neuromuscular coordination to perform an exercise with 90% of their true 1RM. We really should not make conclusions about a study that was performed once as to how it relates to repeated progressive overload which is what most people here use.
854
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: protein intake limit per meal
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:06:25 pm »
Agreed. Not necessary to space your protein out. Just make sure you get some protein post-workout and then you can eat the rest of your protein requirement whenever you want. Will point out that the 1g/pound mantra is probably an overestimation, especially for strength and power athletes that are not actively trying to cut weight. If you are not trying to cut weight (and I assume you are not because you are eating a subway philly cheese steak sandwhich) then 100g of protein is more than sufficient for a 150 lb athlete.
855
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Eating late at night
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:01:06 pm »
The only meal where timing is really important is your postworkout nutrition. Beyond that it's not very important when you eat. The don't eat late at night myth got started because epidemiological studies showed that people who ate late at night were much more likely to be obese. However, it didn't take into account that people who eat late at night are more often making really poor food choices. If you eat the majority of your carbs before bed then you will fill up your glycogen stores quite well for performance the next day. Also you will provide a lot of glucose for your brain during the night which will help with recovery. Often this is preferred because if one wants to perform a strenuous task in the morning it's best not eat much upon waking because digestion may compromise the workout.