Adarq.org
Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: seifullaah73 on August 26, 2011, 01:38:52 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
-
Maintain that strength and go out and sprint a lot, and it will carryover. And you gotta do some plyometric exercises to start developing your RFD and reactivity, or other explosive exercises. You should be doing these WHILE you strength train anyways.
-
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
There are several great exercises that can be used for exactly this purpose. Depending on training advancement I would advise on different ones to improve carryover from the slower exercises (squat, deadlift etc.). The powerclean is a good exercise to start immediately with. From the conventional explosive strength exercises this one allows the most weight to be used and is comparatively easy to learn. Nearing the intermediate stage including the powersnatch and variations of it (hang snatch, jump snatch etc.) has been proven to be a good idea. After that things have to be evaluated on a more individual basis I assume. Various plyometric exercises (first and foremost the depth jump, depth drop and bounding variations) fit somewhere in there as well. I would probably introduce them for intermediates since beginners have no need for them IMO. Nothing wrong with low level plyos for every type of advancement though.
-
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.
-
Utilization of Strength.
Man, what a kickass role I'm on today.
Functional Strength.
Dan Inosanto, another of Bruce Lee's close friends and himself an instructor in Lee's art, adds that Lee was only interested in strength that could readily be converted to power. "I remember once Bruce and I were walking along the beach in Santa Monica, out by where the 'Dungeon' (an old-time bodybuilding gym) used to be," recalls Inosanto, "when all of a sudden this big, huge bodybuilder came walking out of the Dungeon and I said to Bruce, 'Man, look at the arms on that guy!' I'll never forget Bruce's reaction, he said 'Yeah, he's big -- but is he powerful? Can he use that extra muscle efficiently?"
Power, according to Lee, lay in an individual's ability to use the strength developed in the gym quickly and efficiently; in other words, power was the measure of how quickly and effectively one could summon and coordinate strength for "real-world" purposes. On this basis, according to those who worked out with Lee from time to time such as martial arts actor Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee -- pound for pound-- might well have been one of the most powerful men in the world.
-
So a good way to get the most carryover from the squats is by doing sprint work as well as doing a explosive/power strength training by doing exercises such as plymotrics and olympic lifts.
Thanks for the help guys.
-
Utilization of Strength.
Man, what a kickass role I'm on today.
Functional Strength.
Dan Inosanto, another of Bruce Lee's close friends and himself an instructor in Lee's art, adds that Lee was only interested in strength that could readily be converted to power. "I remember once Bruce and I were walking along the beach in Santa Monica, out by where the 'Dungeon' (an old-time bodybuilding gym) used to be," recalls Inosanto, "when all of a sudden this big, huge bodybuilder came walking out of the Dungeon and I said to Bruce, 'Man, look at the arms on that guy!' I'll never forget Bruce's reaction, he said 'Yeah, he's big -- but is he powerful? Can he use that extra muscle efficiently?"
Power, according to Lee, lay in an individual's ability to use the strength developed in the gym quickly and efficiently; in other words, power was the measure of how quickly and effectively one could summon and coordinate strength for "real-world" purposes. On this basis, according to those who worked out with Lee from time to time such as martial arts actor Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee -- pound for pound-- might well have been one of the most powerful men in the world.
Your response is, once again, completely useless.
-
OK, something a bit more useful...
If you didn't have a barbell, do you think this exercise could become a useful alternative for squatting to enhance sprint ability?.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EJtZsA43vI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHDLGWtko4
-
OK, something useful...
If you didn't have a barbell, do you think this exercise could become a useful alternative for squatting to enhance sprint ability?.
This is as useless as it gets since barbells exist and if you are serious about training you get access to them.
-
OK, something useful...
If you didn't have a barbell, do you think this exercise could become a useful alternative for squatting to enhance sprint ability?.
This is as useless as it gets since barbells exist and if you are serious about training you get access to them.
^^^^^^^
the exercise is fine as accessory, or just to mess around with.. it could benefit slightly, "coordination", "stability", and flexibility.. but it's not an exercise that will recruit the highest threshold MU's at a high rate of discharge/firing frequency.. thus, it is accessory.. accessory consists of everything from rdl's, to bosu ball balancing.. it's not a primary exercise of which one would spend vast amount of time trying to perfect/improve for one major reason => results.
pc
-
I disagree with Andrew and Steven, the shrimp is the backbone of my lower body training right now. Provided one is coordinated enough, they should actually be seeing higher levels of muscular tension in the shrimp than in the back squat due to the bilateral deficit. Lack of balance is an individual issue.
That having been said, unweighted shrimps are damn near useless. I'm using 110 lbs on my shoulders for reps at a BW of 225, so the exercise is a bit different the way I do it.
-
I disagree with Andrew and Steven, the shrimp is the backbone of my lower body training right now. Provided one is coordinated enough, they should actually be seeing higher levels of muscular tension in the shrimp than in the back squat due to the bilateral deficit. Lack of balance is an individual issue.
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.
-
I disagree with Andrew and Steven, the shrimp is the backbone of my lower body training right now. Provided one is coordinated enough, they should actually be seeing higher levels of muscular tension in the shrimp than in the back squat due to the bilateral deficit. Lack of balance is an individual issue.
That having been said, unweighted shrimps are damn near useless. I'm using 110 lbs on my shoulders for reps at a BW of 225, so the exercise is a bit different the way I do it.
(http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/michael-jordan-lol.gif)
-
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.
I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?
When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.
For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.
-
Just wondering RJ, where do you put the 110 lbs? Do you have some type of heavy weight vest?
-
Just wondering RJ, where do you put the 110 lbs? Do you have some type of heavy weight vest?
I balance 2 DBs upright on my shoulders in a quasi-front squat position.
-
Thank god your here RJ.
-
How effective do you think explosive lunge walks/jumps are for sprinters RJ?.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HyGwvvST04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPjjgU0FrjY
-
Thank god your here RJ.
True. This forum needs some more misleading, false information.
Everyone keep in mind that RJ hasn't made improvements in years, so take what he does as his main lift with a grain of salt.
(Not trying to bash him, but if he's going to talk like that (as if what he is saying is 100% fact) then I'm not going to be nice)
-
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.
I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?
When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.
For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.
First, you seem to think that I am dumb because you are explaining to me that load is depended on the exercise. I find that hilarious.
Second, your math is wrong because you pretend that people don't have to lift their bodyweight as well in the squat.
Third, you fail to see my point. It is irrelevant that you THINK that your 110 lbs shrimp corresponds to a 410 lbs squat. My argument is that you would be able to train your body more efficiently with an exercise that does not limit your performance due to imposed demand of balancing around on one foot.
-
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.
I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?
When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.
For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.
First, you seem to think that I am dumb because you are explaining to me that load is depended on the exercise. I find that hilarious.
Second your math is wrong because you pretend that people don't have to lift their bodyweight as well in the squat.
Third you fail to see my point. It is irrelevant that you THINK that your 110 lbs shrimp corresponds to a 410 lbs squat. My argument is that you would be able to train your body more efficiently with an exercise that does not limit your performance due to imposed demand of balancing around on one foot.
These
-
Steven, the body weight lifted in the squat is taken into consideration in my equations. They're correct, you're not. Come back when you can power snatch 100+ kilos for reps, SLJ 10'6", and do flips at 225 lbs, and then tell me how useless the exercises I'm using are. Balance is not an issue for those who have it.
Situation, I have improved by leaps and bounds over the years so I don't know what you're talking about. I gave up sprinting a while ago, but everything else keeps going up.
SV, lunge walks are decent general exercises/warmups for sprinters, but you'd be better served by lifting heavy and sprinting.
-
Steven, the body weight lifted in the squat is taken into consideration in my equations. They're correct, you're not.
I am taking back what I said about in which way the math was wrong because I misread what you wrote. The equations are still wrong, though. When a 225 lbs guy only has to lift 190 lbs of that bodyweight standing on one leg, then standing on two legs would mean he only lifts around 155 lbs of that bodyweight. Taking this into consideration the load handled with a 410 lbs back squat equates to 565 lbs, not 600 lbs. But as I said earlier, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion since my point was something else.
Come back when you can power snatch 100+ kilos for reps, SLJ 10'6", and do flips at 225 lbs, and then tell me how useless the exercises I'm using are. Balance is not an issue for those who have it.
It comes off as quite condescending to talk like that. Are you that unconfident in your argument that you have to throw some arbitrary numbers at me that I have to perform before I am allowed to have a discussion with you?
Btw., I just jumpsnatched 102.5 kg x 2 last week at a bodyweight of ~203 lbs. I think I am fit for powersnatching 107.5 kg at this point, soon 110 kg - you can derivate reps from that if you wish. Last time that I checked my broad jump a while ago it was ~ 10'. This was when my best powersnatch was 87.5 kg at around the same bodyweight. If this was in some way important for me I could probably improve on that a lot in very little time. I am not interested in flips. I hope these performances are sufficient to have this conversation with you.
Now, with that out of the way, why don't you address my point and explain to everyone why balance is not an issue when more stability always enables one to lift more weight?
-
Steven, if 155 lbs of bodyweight were lifted in the squat then it would be subtracted from the 600, not added to the 410. It would look like this:
(190 + 110) + (190 + 110) = 600 lbs total tension on the legs
600 - 155 = 445 lbs squat
I intentionally fudge the numbers so my estimates come out on the low side when I compare my "squat" to other movements. Realistically though, you're right, a 110 lb pistol or shrimp at my weight has similar leg/hip loading to a 445 lb back squat.
As for my tone being condescending, I'm sorry. Training boards are full of idiots (The Situation) and I originally left the internet for a reason. I couldn't deal with the jackasses. Sorry, I was on the defensive and called you out unnecessarily. The number comparison was given for a similar reason. You discredited the lift and poked fun at the fact that I was using 110 lbs for a lower body strength movement, which makes no sense. As stated, the load is irrelevant.
Further, I provided my numbers because they are a testament to the usefulness of the shrimp. Yes, a back squat could allow me to accomplish the same feats, but the shrimp is an equally valid lift, more so for someone who has recurring SI joint problems when heavily loading the lower back for long stretches of time. I stand by my case that it is a useful lift, perhaps more so than the squat if one does not need an overly developed lower back.
And regarding your own numbers, Steven, they're impressive. Keep up the good work.
EDIT: Oops, yeah, you were right about the 410 lb squat equally 565 lbs of leg tension. My bad. I was trying to get the post written before leaving work, but I'm stuck here a little while longer anyways.
-
Steven, have you any idea the extreme depth of expertise of the expert elite coach super iso extreme master of sport inno sport guru whom you are debating? allow myself to cue you in sir:
RJ Quotes
"I've read the works of the heavyweights in the field and I see gaps in even their thinking, understanding, and organization. They may have more experience than me, but I wouldn't say they know more. Coaches can only apply so many different physiological stimuli in so many patterns and I can outline the effects of most down to a cellular level. As far as we, as coaches, are concerned, the rabbit hole only needs to go so deep."
"And I know a grasp on science alone isn't enough to be a coach. One of the biggest things I've learned over the past couple years is how practice rarely mirrors theory. However, with a good psychology background and people skills (for understanding the athlete), scientific knowledge, a bit of intuition, and the understanding that perfect is often the enemy of great, it's a piece of cake.
"While I'm obviously still not at the pinnacle of my writing/sports science career, skill acquisition is asymptotal and, at least in areas concerning training, I'm near the asymptote. I've put in an ungodly amount of time and I believe I have plenty to show for it. I can compare my works to those of Bompa, Verkhoshansky, and Zatsiorsky and I don't find myself lacking. In areas of specific study, I don't know as much about nervous system function as Enoka, or as much about tendon and fascicle function as Kubo, but I can take their ideas and findings and integrate them into a complete training plan without difficulty. In areas like nutrition and biochemistry, I still have A LOT to learn and I'm working on it."
^^ yea, pretty good if you ask me. he also ranned a 11. something second 100m which is a decent time for a low level high school sprinter so if i were u i wouldnt argue with rj, he is expert. also he held iso lunge iso extreme for long ass time, way longer than u can and look at his results, he could beat about 50% of high school sprinters. realize that steven.
-
And that's why I left the internet...
-
I'm an idiot because I disagree with you?
Your strength may have increased a bit over the years due to you getting out of shape and gaining weight (I'd like to see your 400+ olympic squat however), but you haven't made significant improvements in jumping or sprinting. Maybe that's why you change your mind about what is optimal every 3 seconds. I guarantee you don't talk about "shrimps" in your engineering the athlete book that was supposedly backed by science.
I disagree with Andrew and Steven, the shrimp is the backbone of my lower body training right now. Provided one is coordinated enough, they should actually be seeing higher levels of muscular tension in the shrimp than in the back squat due to the bilateral deficit. Lack of balance is an individual issue.
That having been said, unweighted shrimps are damn near useless. I'm using 110 lbs on my shoulders for reps at a BW of 225, so the exercise is a bit different the way I do it.
You state something as if it were fact, and then you incorrectly try and prove it using numbers that you completely messed up with. That's why I came down hard on you. You've been doing the same shit for years and I'm sick of people being mislead because you talk using big words that the average vert bro doesn't understand.
-
Steven, if 155 lbs of bodyweight were lifted in the squat then it would be subtracted from the 600, not added to the 410. It would look like this:
(190 + 110) + (190 + 110) = 600 lbs total tension on the legs
600 - 155 = 445 lbs squat
I intentionally fudge the numbers so my estimates come out on the low side when I compare my "squat" to other movements. Realistically though, you're right, a 110 lb pistol or shrimp at my weight has similar leg/hip loading to a 445 lb back squat.
I agree with that. I just added the 155 lbs to the 410 lbs to show that 565 lbs is not the same as 600 lbs which means the loads are not equal. No big deal about fudging on the conservative side, it was just confusing to read initially.
As for my tone being condescending, I'm sorry. Training boards are full of idiots (The Situation) and I originally left the internet for a reason. I couldn't deal with the jackasses. Sorry, I was on the defensive and called you out unnecessarily. The number comparison was given for a similar reason. You discredited the lift and poked fun at the fact that I was using 110 lbs for a lower body strength movement, which makes no sense. As stated, the load is irrelevant.
Not a problem at all, I am glad we can have a civilized conversation about this.
I think this is somewhat important because there are a lot of things people think they need to do nowadays. Becoming stronger by training on unstable surfaces under load is an example of that. Therefore I think my critique of the movement is making a lot of sense. Load is not entirely irrelevant either because it can be an indicator of the potential the lift has for optimal expression of muscular strength. The squat is a better exercise at expressing strength. For this reason it enables a better increase in strength as well. The lift is not limited by the instability of having to stand on one leg.
There was a ridiculous study a while ago in I believe the NSCA journal about how people can bench more on a solid bench compared to a bosu ball. Big surprise? I don't think so.
Further, I provided my numbers because they are a testament to the usefulness of the shrimp. Yes, a back squat could allow me to accomplish the same feats, but the shrimp is an equally valid lift, more so for someone who has recurring SI joint problems when heavily loading the lower back for long stretches of time. I stand by my case that it is a useful lift, perhaps more so than the squat if one does not need an overly developed lower back.
Your numbers are a testament to your good genetics compared with your dedication to train. I do not think the shrimp has a lot to do with that other than being a poor squat substitute. I can relate to you having SI joint problems, I had those as well on and off. Getting a stronger back helps with that. Squats help with getting a stronger back.
And regarding your own numbers, Steven, they're impressive. Keep up the good work.
Thanks. I can return that compliment.
-
Situation, you're an idiot because you rarely add anything to discussions and mostly just diss/sidetrack people. And I don't know why you think I haven't made progress over the years. I haven't been indecisive or wishy-washy in regards to training for years now, and I'm better all around than ever. Since I was last online seriously (early 2010), I've somehow taken my SLJ from 10'2" to 10'6" while gaining 20 lbs. I would say that constitutes jumping progress.
Steven, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because there is nothing inherent in the squat that makes it a better lift for displaying strength provided one has proficiency in both movements. You say the stability allows for better loading, but in my experience, no, it doesn't. I can't back squat 455 lbs for reps, but I can do pistols and shrimps with 110 for reps, resulting in the same amount of load on the legs, so for me, the shrimp provides superior loading. I've seen similar things from many other athletes.
-
I believe I'm adding plenty to the discussion.
Were "shrimps" talked about in your Engineering the Athlete book that was backed by science and can be compared to the works of Verkhoshansky ? If the answer is no, I think everyone can see why nobody should listen to a word you say.
-
Steven, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because there is nothing inherent in the squat that makes it a better lift for displaying strength provided one has proficiency in both movements. You say the stability allows for better loading, but in my experience, no, it doesn't. I can't back squat 455 lbs for reps, but I can do pistols and shrimps with 110 for reps, resulting in the same amount of load on the legs, so for me, the shrimp provides superior loading. I've seen similar things from many other athletes.
We already figured out why you cannot squat 455 lbs for reps, didn't we? Those 110 lbs do not load the rest of your body in a proportional manner to the leg you are performing the movement with. I do not think this has much to do with stability not contributing to the ability to lift more weight. It certainly does contribute and this is quite logical and intuitive. It might just be that in certain athletes weak links prevent this connection to show.
-
the shrimp fails to address this one important issue:
the ability to overcome more resistance for a given ROM than other exercises with that same ROM
so, for same ROM, bss/lunge allows you to overload far more than 'the shrimp'.. this is obviously due to the coordination factor involved with 'the shrimp'. some people might say, well that coordination issue yields more improvements in 'athletic ability' than less coordinated movements such as bss/lunge, i disagree.. the most simple multijoint movements are far more important imo.. it doesn't get any more simple than squat, lunge, bss, calve raise etc.. those are the purest forms of overloading those roms, which should allow for the greatest gains in hypertrophy/strength/various cns adaptations..
someone could say, 'well the shrimp utilizes stabilization to a higher degree, and thus has more transfer to sport'.. i would say, that stabilization is almost useless, as high speed movements work in much shorter time frames that would not stabilize the joints in that manner.. furthermore, if stabilization mattered, while lifting, we'd see much more improvements in athleticism from "the functional crowd".. weighted swiss ball pushups would be somehow utilized by shotput throwers eventually.. never going to happen.
training solely with 'weighted shrimp' would fail to improve barbell squat much more so than training solely with 'weighted bss/lunge'.. that's my opinion.. again, more overload can be utilized in a simpler movement.. so loading up 100 lb total of db's on your shoulders in a shrimp, does not compare AT ALL to loading up 225 lb on your shoulders during a bss.. i'd imagine 100 lb total during a shrimp to be 'as difficult' as 225 lb on a barbell for a bss, as an example, but that's due to the coordination factor and overall difficulty/time to complete the exercise...
^^ people might say, well who cares about squat.. but most people's goals on this site center around squat.. even short sprints.. squat is insanely beneficial for short sprints, and of course jumps of all kinds (obviously bilateral), including single leg jumps.. a heavy, bilateral barbell squat (half or quarter) is an incredible tool to highly arouse the CNS for single leg jumps, a day or two after.
the arousal needed to complete very heavy simple barbell lifts is very different than the arousal needed to complete a 'highly coordinated' weighted exercise like the shrimp.. the arousal experienced by the former, seems to be one of the most beneficial aspects of training.
my 2 cents, now im off to sleep can barely keep eyes open.
pc
I believe I'm adding plenty to the discussion.
Were "shrimps" talked about in your Engineering the Athlete book that was backed by science and can be compared to the works of Verkhoshansky ? If the answer is no, I think everyone can see why nobody should listen to a word you say.
would he include them exclusively now? it sounds like he'd use them exclusively, i mean that's the vibe i get from some of his posts.. exclusively for bilateral jumpers? or just sprinters? what about short accell?
I don't see how 'the shrimp' could improve broad jump more than a "p-chain based barbell squat".. i mean if it did, throw specificity right out of the window..
pc
-
Hopefully he doesn't ignore that post like he ignored all my other points.
And we all know your 230 snatch is bullshit RJ. It's using a 25 pound bar, and even if it was 45 pounds, which it's not, the plates don't add up to 230. Stop e-statting
-
What if we go the other way around? Say, with an easier exercise like the leg press vs the squat? The leg press doesn't require any stabilization that you require in the squat just as the BSS or lunge requires less stabilization vs the shrimp.
So far, less need for stabilization was actually better.
-
What if we go the other way around? Say, with an easier exercise like the leg press vs the squat? The leg press doesn't require any stabilization that you require in the squat just as the BSS or lunge requires less stabilization vs the shrimp.
So far, less need for stabilization was actually better.
well i mentioned specificity, that solves this argument immediately... leg press has far less specificity than squat, so regardless of how simple an exercise is, to get the most out of your improvements in max strength, the exercise needs to allow you to move the most load possible in a movement pattern most similar to the ones you are trying to improve.. now someone is going to say this "well why not just use jump squats instead of squat"... the key is "moving the most load possible", so jump squat is out of the conversation.. jump squat would be relevant to an explosive strength conversation.. a better argument would be jump squat vs ballistic leg press to improve explosive strength, etc..
we've had these conversations before raptor, and it always ends up with someone trying to become ultra-specific.. for example, to improve jumping, why dont we just do jump squats at 30%? but why 30%, why not 0% since 0% is most specific? that reasoning goes nowhere.. the key is overload.. jump squats have been studied to be most effective at improving vertical jump @ loads of 30%, so we use 30%.. but this is to close a gap between explosive strength & max strength, which IS NOT the issue of this thread.
the issue in this thread is coming up with yet another alternative exercise which is supposed to compete with the basic lifts (squat/lunge/bss/calf raise/ghr).
my legs never wobble when im SLRVJ'n or DLRVJ'n, or sprinting for that matter.. so the increase stabilization argument of the shrimp seems pointless to me.. the increased 'difficulty' of the exercise seems completely pointless to me.. it's cool as an assistance exercise, or just to have fun with, but to replace the basic lifts with? IMO, no way..
lastly, let's not forget that sickenin wasn't even speaking about weighted shrimps like RJ, he was talking about bodyweight shrimps, which should clue you in to his ineffective ideas about training.. he's the same guy who would want to put christmas ornaments dangling from a barbell and forcefully twisted as you squat, so to improve your body's ability to COIL DA ACTIN/MYOSIN HELIX. people should read what he says carefully, and then use it to reinforce their belief in the time tested basics of simple progressive overload with the key exercises (squat, lunge/bss, ghr, calf raise, pullups, dips etc), reactive work (low level through high level), and some explosive work (oly variants or swings), and that's it.
people who are constantly looking for secrets, will never find the answer.
bbl dangling christmas ornaments and christmas lights from my barbell for my twisting lunges session & runup deadlifts :F
-
What about BSS vs Squat for one leg jumpers? You can say BSS is more specific, but uses less total weight. However, is the total weight important? Or is what important the amount of load per leg?
For example:
What would be more difficult (let's pretend the guy doing this has no issues with balancing):
5 reps with 80 kg on the BSS
OR
5 reps with 160 kg on the squat.
How do you define "difficult"? How do you define the training effect that happens after doing this ^^^? What is more important - the amount of tension that occurs in the leg in the BSS or the amount of overall "body" tension that occurs during the squat? What if you use say 130 kg on the squat? What then? Can you say that a BSS makes you aware and able to concentrate all your might (nervous energy if you will) on one limb better than a squat would do?
Obviously the thing is, in training, consistency. That's what's important. But we talk about stuff like this because we (at least I do) like the challenge of deciphering all these "enigmas" (for some, others have a strong belief in one method or another).
I think Pavel Tsatsouline said that what's most important is the amount of tension in a muscle more than anything, it doesn't matter through what methods - traditional, iso, eccentric, whatever.
-
Raptor , the 'double weight' rule you are using is not correct.
You must caclulate the equal weight for each load , and it depends on the lifter's bodyweight.
Supposing that both in the squat and in BSS you have to lift the same percentage of your weight ( which is ~0.85 ) the formula is:
Bilateral weight = ( ( uniratelal weight lifted + 0.85* bodyweight ) * 2 ) - 0.85*bodyweight.
So 80kgs of BSS would equal to:
228kg squat for someone 80kg.
237kg squat for someone 90kg.
etc
Still the analogy is bad , it has to be the same exercise to 'compare' them , so i'd choose pistol squats.
As for the general discussion , i think it's quite simple , already stated too:
- The leg muscles overloading is probably the same , say in the above example with 80kg pistol squat and 228kg squat.
- 228kg on your back obviously not the same with 80 , stabilizing , controlling and reversing that weight involves much more muscles that makes the squat a more useful combound movement[1].
[1] : broscience bottomless pit of quotes.
-
What about BSS vs Squat for one leg jumpers? You can say BSS is more specific, but uses less total weight. However, is the total weight important? Or is what important the amount of load per leg?
The BSS has much less of an instability component compared to the 'shrimp'. I would say that it is a better assistance exercise, but I would still prefer barbell lunges in most situations. The squat is the best strength builder either way. I think as single leg jumper you should use both, the squat as well as a weighted unilateral, according to their role as main and assistance exercises.
-
Guys, I'm done here. No, the shrimp should not be used exclusively. I use it because it's convenient for me, setup-wise. Squats would work great, lunges would work great, BSS would work great, snatch-grip DLs would work great, but they're all less convenient for me, and so, I don't use them.
You're all welcome to continue doing what you want. I'm gone.
-
It's always the people who don't get results that want to change the basics, thinking they are different. How about you increase your relative strength in the squat and stay active by jumping a lot and then see if you jump higher
Of course you're done RJ. You're mad because nobody is kissing your ass here like they used to on dbhammer. It's different on this site. We're sick of people talking as if they were gurus yet haven't done anything themselves or trained anyone. Your strength levels may be impressive compared to people on here, but let's not forget you have pretty good genetics for strength. I believe you said you bench pressed 300+ when you were 17 after only a few months of training. That's a feat that takes most people years, and probably a feat you're bs-ing just like your power snatches.
It's different here than on dbhammer. People actually get results here (for the most part). They get these results by sticking to the basics. There's no room here for "gurus" such as yourself who change their mind about what is optimal every week, and claim it's backed by science yet haven't actually seen it work themselves. People like you (and the rest of the guys from dbhammer) try to over complicate everything and that's why you get nowhere.
And of course you ignore all my posts again.
-
Guys, I'm done here. No, the shrimp should not be used exclusively. I use it because it's convenient for me, setup-wise. Squats would work great, lunges would work great, BSS would work great, snatch-grip DLs would work great, but they're all less convenient for me, and so, I don't use them.
You're all welcome to continue doing what you want. I'm gone.
good riddance.
-
It's always the people who don't get results that want to change the basics, thinking they are different. How about you increase your relative strength in the squat and stay active by jumping a lot and then see if you jump higher
Of course you're done RJ. You're mad because nobody is kissing your ass here like they used to on dbhammer. It's different on this site. We're sick of people talking as if they were gurus yet haven't done anything themselves or trained anyone. Your strength levels may be impressive compared to people on here, but let's not forget you have pretty good genetics for strength. I believe you said you bench pressed 300+ when you were 17 after only a few months of training. That's a feat that takes most people years, and probably a feat you're bs-ing just like your power snatches.
It's different here than on dbhammer. People actually get results here (for the most part). They get these results by sticking to the basics. There's no room here for "gurus" such as yourself who change their mind about what is optimal every week, and claim it's backed by science yet haven't actually seen it work themselves. People like you (and the rest of the guys from dbhammer) try to over complicate everything and that's why you get nowhere.
And of course you ignore all my posts again.
people from dbhammer don't last very long here... if dbhammer forum was still alive, sickenin vendetta would be a respected guru on that forum, he'd be having the time of his life posting there.
lmfao
-
No room for weak people here. When fair questions are asked and fair points are brought up and you just leave instead of answering them, don't expect any respect.
-
No room for weak people here. When fair questions are asked and fair points are brought up and you just leave instead of answering them, don't expect any respect.
^^, agreed.. was a valid question (regarding the book).
edit:
also, RJ was real snappy at steven-miller... i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is, but if he snaps on people like that, I don't see how he'd expect someone like jcsbck not to have a go at him..
jfyi, steven-miller knows his sh*t, helps alot of people, and works his ass off.... his transformation has been & continues to be very impressive.
-
What about BSS vs Squat for one leg jumpers? You can say BSS is more specific, but uses less total weight. However, is the total weight important? Or is what important the amount of load per leg?
For example:
What would be more difficult (let's pretend the guy doing this has no issues with balancing):
5 reps with 80 kg on the BSS
OR
5 reps with 160 kg on the squat.
How do you define "difficult"? How do you define the training effect that happens after doing this ^^^? What is more important - the amount of tension that occurs in the leg in the BSS or the amount of overall "body" tension that occurs during the squat? What if you use say 130 kg on the squat? What then? Can you say that a BSS makes you aware and able to concentrate all your might (nervous energy if you will) on one limb better than a squat would do?
Obviously the thing is, in training, consistency. That's what's important. But we talk about stuff like this because we (at least I do) like the challenge of deciphering all these "enigmas" (for some, others have a strong belief in one method or another).
I think Pavel Tsatsouline said that what's most important is the amount of tension in a muscle more than anything, it doesn't matter through what methods - traditional, iso, eccentric, whatever.
The best argument I've read on this topic is that bilateral lifts simply produce more power than single leg lifts. So if your training goal is power related, it just makes sense to focus on increasing resistance and power production through a bilateral lift like the squat- simply because the potential to apply force is greater than with a single leg lift. You have to think that power is very specific to training itself.
Max power output is the most specific work that I focus on in the gym because I can't apply the force necessary to reach my goals yet. But single leg lifts can definitely help a lot as accessory. I have seen my single leg jump really improve after mixing in step ups and some other single leg lifts, but they weren't heavy at all. I don't see why you would want to replace squats with bss as your main lift. It would probably work a lot better if you do heavy squats first then do bss with lighter weight and move them fast. You'd get the best of both worlds.
-
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
-
also, RJ was real snappy at steven-miller... i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is, but if he snaps on people like that, I don't see how he'd expect someone like jcsbck not to have a go at him..
jfyi, steven-miller knows his sh*t, helps alot of people, and works his ass off.... his transformation has been & continues to be very impressive.
Thanks man, appreciate the comment! But to be honest I did not really mind RJ's snappiness, he even apologized for it afterwards. I might not agree with this shrimp idea and probably a lot of other things as well. But the guy is still no slouch and I disagree with the claim that he did not progress. Sure, he had and seemingly still has a tendency to focus on (imo) irrelevant stuff and could be much more advanced considering his obvious talent, but his stats are not bad at all if they are true. And I will not make accusations that they are not. The thing is that RJ at least has videos that show his ability. A guy like $ick3nin.v3nd3tta on the other hand just talks nonsense without anything to back it up. As far as I am concerned the guy probably does not even train.
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
Explain yourself please, this is a bit confusing. What are you talking about?
-
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
Explain yourself please, this is a bit confusing. What are you talking about?
Well Andrew hinted that people (RJ) should not "snap" at you just because you squat a lot you're a special person than someone else or something. Like RJ could snap at another guy but not at you since you work and squat a lot and help people around. Like, who cares? We're pretty much the same around here, we all work our butts off, I know I am for 10 years, so - who cares?
It was a matter of RJ's opinion vs yours and nothing more.
-
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
Explain yourself please, this is a bit confusing. What are you talking about?
Well Andrew hinted that people (RJ) should not "snap" at you just because you squat a lot you're a special person than someone else or something. Like RJ could snap at another guy but not at you since you work and squat a lot and help people around. Like, who cares? We're pretty much the same around here, we all work our butts off, I know I am for 10 years, so - who cares?
It was a matter of RJ's opinion vs yours and nothing more.
uh what a dumb fucking post, you couldn't have missed the boat any more than you did.
here let me clarify myself: if RJ wants to act tough against any member of this forum then he should be prepared to get his ass blasted by people like jdub/jcsbck for example.
how the god damn fuck did you misinterpret what i said, to that degree of fucktardedness? i am completely shocked.
-
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
Explain yourself please, this is a bit confusing. What are you talking about?
Well Andrew hinted that people (RJ) should not "snap" at you just because you squat a lot you're a special person than someone else or something. Like RJ could snap at another guy but not at you since you work and squat a lot and help people around. Like, who cares? We're pretty much the same around here, we all work our butts off, I know I am for 10 years, so - who cares?
It was a matter of RJ's opinion vs yours and nothing more.
uh what a dumb fucking post, you couldn't have missed the boat any more than you did.
here let me clarify myself: if RJ wants to act tough against any member of this forum then he should be prepared to get his ass blasted by people like jdub/jcsbck for example.
how the god damn fuck did you misinterpret what i said, to that degree of fucktardedness? i am completely shocked.
Well you put it like if RJ has an opinion against a guy like steven miller (who I respect by the way) then somehow that's unacceptable since steven has "rep" vs other people around here that don't. Like his big squat somehow gives him more "power" in his opinion than someone else's. I still think that's what you meant.
Saying this:
i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is
and this:
jfyi, steven-miller knows his sh*t, helps alot of people, and works his ass off.... his transformation has been & continues to be very impressive.
makes me think that.
-
RJ was acting like steven-miller was an idiot. Nobody thinks Squatdr is an idiot; he's just a liar.
-
Squat DR helped a lot of people. He had a big squat as well. Does that make him not "attackable"?
Explain yourself please, this is a bit confusing. What are you talking about?
Well Andrew hinted that people (RJ) should not "snap" at you just because you squat a lot you're a special person than someone else or something. Like RJ could snap at another guy but not at you since you work and squat a lot and help people around. Like, who cares? We're pretty much the same around here, we all work our butts off, I know I am for 10 years, so - who cares?
It was a matter of RJ's opinion vs yours and nothing more.
uh what a dumb fucking post, you couldn't have missed the boat any more than you did.
here let me clarify myself: if RJ wants to act tough against any member of this forum then he should be prepared to get his ass blasted by people like jdub/jcsbck for example.
how the god damn fuck did you misinterpret what i said, to that degree of fucktardedness? i am completely shocked.
Well you put it like if RJ has an opinion against a guy like steven miller (who I respect by the way) then somehow that's unacceptable since steven has "rep" vs other people around here that don't. Like his big squat somehow gives him more "power" in his opinion than someone else's. I still think that's what you meant.
you misunderstood "like that"..
"also, RJ was real snappy at steven-miller... i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is, but if he snaps on people like that, I don't see how he'd expect someone like jcsbck not to have a go at him.."
=>
"also, RJ was real snappy at steven-miller... i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is, but if he snaps on people like that THE WAY HE DID, I don't see how he'd expect someone like jcsbck not to have a go at him.."
Saying this:
i understand RJ may not know who steven-miller is
and this:
jfyi, steven-miller knows his sh*t, helps alot of people, and works his ass off.... his transformation has been & continues to be very impressive.
makes me think that.
that was a separate comment.
-
(http://www.operatorchan.org/r/src/r10466_fuck%20this%20thread%20outta%20here.jpg)
-
(http://www.operatorchan.org/r/src/r10466_fuck%20this%20thread%20outta%20here.jpg)
cool, now you can spend time answering questions in your q&a in the hole :D
peace
-
(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9766864.jpg)