Productive Discussions-Explosive Exercise is pointless

[Guest guest]

Finally, a breath of fresh air mixed with some common sense!

Thanks Rob.

Some of us are still waiting to see the peer reviewed studies that

refute Bruce_Low and s contention that peer-reviewed studies do

not support explosive exercises as being more effective than

traditional slow and heavy weight training for enhancement of power

and athletic performance.

I'm especially interested because I've worked both sides of the

street, finding no difference in performance from my athletes when

the explosive routines were eliminated.

After using Olympic lifts from 1967 to 2003, I can attest to the

difficulty of removing some of these iconic lifts!

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, USA

>

> Hello Group,

>

> I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /

> Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus

> of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining

> under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some

questions

> to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to

> question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with

> the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I

hold

> no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,

> productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the

> needs and goals of the individual(s).

>

> With that said:

> How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick

> Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs

> of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of " HIT? "

> More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I

> have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming

> more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The

> group does not care about examining all aspects of training and

> seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely

> proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite

> anything that differs from their views?

>

> Casler writes:

>

> The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse will have

> significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can

create

> force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle

> action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in

> sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.

> The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,

> blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to

> load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,

> ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed

> and dynamic effectiveness.

>

> Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT

> philosophy is that it ignores the " realities of the above, " and that

> HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves

stronger

> will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that

> HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to

> fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but

> you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If

> this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that

> many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the

> proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too

> risky and unsupervised to be used.

>

> I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts

> but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who

sees

> the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

>

> Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities

> with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the

> roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and

> 30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine

a

> professional discussion forum would share information not drive

> opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the

> novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they

> are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them

> off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts

> like this it makes one say " well then who cares? " This stumps the

> learning process early on.

>

> With that said:

> Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:

> Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard

> training as a methodology:

> 1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile

> structures?

> 2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed

> development?

>

> Thank you,

> Rob Barrese

> Pennsylvania, USA

>

[Guest guest]

IMO the best model for increasing athletic performance was presented by Bill

Kraemer and Rober Newton (Developing explosive muscular power: implications for

a mixed methods training strategy, Strength and Conditioning Journal, 1994, 10,

16, 20-31)

There model was that an athletic strength training program should address:

1.high velocity-low load (Olympic lifts, jump squats, bench throws etc.)

2.low velocity-high load (heavy squats, bench press etc.)

3.intramuscular coordination (multi-joint exercises)

4.rate of force development (developed by explosive training and focusing on

accelerating the weight as fast as possible in heavy resistance training)

5.stretch shortening cycle (developed by explosive plyometric training)

I was at the gym today with a friend of mine who took up Olympic weightlifting

last year after many years as a body builder. I remember his first ever session

of weightlifting and box jumps were part of his warm-up. He had trouble jumping

onto a 30cm box. Today, just over a year later, we were jumping onto box that

was 110cm. Most weightlifting programs will address all of the factors in

Kraemer and Newton's model.

Explosive training does not have to equal cleans, jerks and snatches though.

I have had a lot succes training athletes with weighted squat jumps (barbells

and dumbells) and bench throws.

The neuromuscular specificity of explosive training was established by several

classic studies from Finland (Hakkinen, Komi, Mero etc.) during the 1980s. I

have listed a few of them below.

Here are a list of studies that support explosive training (barbell or

plyometric) because they:

1. showed an increase in performance (speed or vertical jump) from using

explosive training

2. displayed the neuromuscular specificity of heavy and explosive training

through specifc EMG and force-time adaptations that were unique to each style of

training.

3.showed a correlation between performance (speed and vertical jump) and

explosive exercises (power cleans, weighted squat jumps, drop jumps etc.)

, M., The relationship between muscle strength and sprint kinematics

in elite sprinters., Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 14, 3, 148-157.

Baker, D., The relation between running speed and measures of strength and

power in professional rugby league players. 1999, Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 8,13, 230-235.

Blazevich and ., Effect of movement speed of resistance training

exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training in elite

junior sprinters. Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 12, 2002.

Bret et al. Leg strength and stiffness as ability factors in 100m sprinting.

Journal of Sports Medicine and Physcial Fitness, 42, 3, 2002.

Cronin and Hansen, Strength and Power Predictors of Speed. Journal of Strength

and Conditioning Research, 19,2, 349-357.

Gehri et al., A comparison of plyometric training techniques for improving

vertical jump ability and energy production. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research. 1998.

Fry et al. The effects of an off-season strength and conditioning program on

starters and non-starters in women's intercollegiate volleyball. 1991, Journal

of Strength and Conditioning Research.

Kraemer, W. A series of studies - the physiological basis for strength

training in American football: fact over philosophy, (1997) Journal of Strength

and Conditioning Research, 8, 11, 131-142.

Hakkinen and Komi, Training induced changes in neuromuscular performance under

voluntary and reflex conditions. European Journal of Applied Physiology &

Occupational Physiology. 1986, 55, 2, 147-155.

Hakkinen and Komi, Alterations of mechanical characteristics of human skeletal

muscle during strength training. 1983, European Journal of Applied Physiology &

Occupational Physiology. 50, 2, 161-172.

Hakkinen, K., Alen, M & Komi, P.V. Changes in isometric force and relaxation

time, electromyorgarphic and muscle fiber characteristics of human skeletal

muscle during strength training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia, 125, 573-585.

Hakkinen, K. Komi, P.V. & Alen, M. (1988) Neuromuscular and hormonal

adaptations in elite athletes to strength training in two years. Journal of

Applied Physiology, 65, 2406-2412.

Kyrolainen, H., Komi, P. and Hakkinen, K. & Kim, D.H., 1988, Effects of

power-training with stretch-shortening cycle exercises of upper limbs in

females, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12, 248-252.

Kotzamandis et al. The effect of a combined high-intensity strength and speed

training program on the running and jumping ability of soccer players, Journal

of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19,2.

Kyrolainen, Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular

performance, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,

2005.15,1,2005

Lyttle et al., Enhancing performance: maximal power versus combined weights

and plyometrics training, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1996,

10,3.

Malisoux et al. Stretch-shortening cycle exercises: an effective training

paradigm to enhance power output of human single muscle fibers, Journal of

Applied Physiology, 2006, 100, 3.

Markovic, G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump height? A

meta-analytic review, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2007

Mauldet et al. Jump Kinetic Determinants of Sprint Acceleration Performance

From Starting Blocks in Male Sprinters. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine,

2006, 5, 2.

Mero et al. Relationship between the maximal running velocity, muscle fibre

characteristics, force production and force relaxation of sprinters.,

Scandinavian Journal of Sport Sciences, 1981, 3, 1.

Mero. Relationships between the muscle fiber characteristics, sprinting and

jumping of sprinters, Biology of Sport, 1985, 2,3, 155-162.

Mero and Komi., EMG, Force, and Power Analysis of Sprint Specific Strength

Exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics., 1994, 10,1-13

Moir, G. The effect of periodized resistance training on accelerative sprint

performance. Sport Biomechanics, 2007, 6, 3, 285.

Newton et al. Four Weeks of Optimal Load Ballistic Resistance Training at the

End of Season Attenuates Declining Jump Performance of Women Volleyball Players.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 11, 20.

Ratamess et al. The effects of ten weeks of resistance and combined

plyometric/sprint training with the Meridian Elyte athletic shoe on muscular

performance in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21,

3, 882-887.

Schmidtbleicher et al. Effects of stretch-shortening typed training on the

performance capability and innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles.

Biomechanics XI, 185-189.

Tuomi et al. Muscle plasticity after weight and combined (weight + jump)

training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise., 2004, 36, 9.

Tricoli et al. Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development:

weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs, Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 2005, 19, 2, 433-437.

et al. Weight and plyometric training: effects on eccentric and

concentric force production, Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology., 1996, 21,

301-315.

Young et al. Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting

performance, Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 1995, 1,3,13-19.

Young et al. Relationship between strength qualities and performance in

standing and run-up vertical jumps Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical

Fitness, 39, 4, 285-293.

Young et al. A comparison of drop jump training methods: effects of leg

extensor strength qualities and jumping performance. International Journal of

Sports Medicine, 1999, 20, 5, 295-303.

cheers

Matt Barr

London, Ontario, Canada

===============================

thefattys wrote:

Finally, a breath of fresh air mixed with some common sense!

Thanks Rob.

Some of us are still waiting to see the peer reviewed studies that

refute Bruce_Low and s contention that peer-reviewed studies do

not support explosive exercises as being more effective than

traditional slow and heavy weight training for enhancement of power

and athletic performance.

I'm especially interested because I've worked both sides of the

street, finding no difference in performance from my athletes when

the explosive routines were eliminated.

After using Olympic lifts from 1967 to 2003, I can attest to the

difficulty of removing some of these iconic lifts!

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, USA

>

> Hello Group,

>

> I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /

> Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus

> of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining

> under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some

questions

> to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to

> question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with

> the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I

hold

> no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,

> productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the

> needs and goals of the individual(s).

>

> With that said:

> How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick

> Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs

> of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of " HIT? "

> More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I

> have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming

> more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The

> group does not care about examining all aspects of training and

> seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely

> proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite

> anything that differs from their views?

>

> Casler writes:

>

> The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse will have

> significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can

create

> force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle

> action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in

> sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.

> The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,

> blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to

> load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,

> ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed

> and dynamic effectiveness.

>

> Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT

> philosophy is that it ignores the " realities of the above, " and that

> HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves

stronger

> will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that

> HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to

> fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but

> you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If

> this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that

> many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the

> proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too

> risky and unsupervised to be used.

>

> I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts

> but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who

sees

> the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

>

> Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities

> with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the

> roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and

> 30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine

a

> professional discussion forum would share information not drive

> opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the

> novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they

> are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them

> off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts

> like this it makes one say " well then who cares? " This stumps the

> learning process early on.

>

> With that said:

> Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:

> Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard

> training as a methodology:

> 1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile

> structures?

> 2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed

> development?

>

> Thank you,

> Rob Barrese

> Pennsylvania, USA

>

[Guest guest]

It is weird that most of members of this list , when talking about

" explosive exercises " only refer to OL. Is this characteristic of USA

? Do you guys prescribe OL for everything , and believe in a universal

transfer of training from them to any sport whatsoever ?

OL are just a small part of " explosive " exercises, and while awesome

lifts, they are not justified to be blindly added to an exercise

program. There are just so many other options, many time better than then.

Barry, I think CF hit the nail in one of his articles. He said, go try

HIT with high level sprinters , and you'll see pretty fast the " results " .

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> >

> > Hello Group,

> >

> > I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /

> > Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus

> > of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining

> > under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some

> questions

> > to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to

> > question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with

> > the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I

> hold

> > no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,

> > productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the

> > needs and goals of the individual(s).

> >

> > With that said:

> > How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick

> > Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs

> > of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of " HIT? "

> > More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I

> > have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming

> > more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The

> > group does not care about examining all aspects of training and

> > seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely

> > proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite

> > anything that differs from their views?

> >

> > Casler writes:

> >

> > The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse will have

> > significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can

> create

> > force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle

> > action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in

> > sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.

> > The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,

> > blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to

> > load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,

> > ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed

> > and dynamic effectiveness.

> >

> > Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT

> > philosophy is that it ignores the " realities of the above, " and that

> > HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves

> stronger

> > will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that

> > HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to

> > fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but

> > you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If

> > this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that

> > many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the

> > proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too

> > risky and unsupervised to be used.

> >

> > I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts

> > but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who

> sees

> > the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

> >

> > Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities

> > with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the

> > roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and

> > 30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine

> a

> > professional discussion forum would share information not drive

> > opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the

> > novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they

> > are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them

> > off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts

> > like this it makes one say " well then who cares? " This stumps the

> > learning process early on.

> >

> > With that said:

> > Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:

> > Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard

> > training as a methodology:

> > 1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile

> > structures?

> > 2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed

> > development?

> >

> > Thank you,

> > Rob Barrese

> > Pennsylvania, USA

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Use google scholar , and search for research of Hainaut, Duchateau ,

Enoka, Hakinnen, Komi.

Probably will cast your doubts aside faster then " waiting " for

somebody else to do it.

No offense, but why wait for us organize the research we are aware of

in this domain, and expect knowledge readily synthesized ? Educational

processes always required some effort. All those names where already

mentioned in this thread. All you have to do is now study their work.

The pointers were given. Waiting wont cast aside your doubts.

Start by buying " Strength and power and sport " edited by Komi, then

work your way up to " peer reviewed " studies, by above authors. You'll

have enough material to study for a couple of months.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, ROmania

> >

> > Hello Group,

> >

> > I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /

> > Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus

> > of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining

> > under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some

> questions

> > to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to

> > question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with

> > the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I

> hold

> > no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,

> > productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the

> > needs and goals of the individual(s).

> >

> > With that said:

> > How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick

> > Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs

> > of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of " HIT? "

> > More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I

> > have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming

> > more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The

> > group does not care about examining all aspects of training and

> > seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely

> > proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite

> > anything that differs from their views?

> >

> > Casler writes:

> >

> > The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse will have

> > significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can

> create

> > force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle

> > action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in

> > sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.

> > The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,

> > blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to

> > load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,

> > ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed

> > and dynamic effectiveness.

> >

> > Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT

> > philosophy is that it ignores the " realities of the above, " and that

> > HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves

> stronger

> > will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that

> > HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to

> > fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but

> > you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If

> > this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that

> > many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the

> > proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too

> > risky and unsupervised to be used.

> >

> > I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts

> > but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who

> sees

> > the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

> >

> > Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities

> > with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the

> > roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and

> > 30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine

> a

> > professional discussion forum would share information not drive

> > opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the

> > novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they

> > are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them

> > off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts

> > like this it makes one say " well then who cares? " This stumps the

> > learning process early on.

> >

> > With that said:

> > Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:

> > Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard

> > training as a methodology:

> > 1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile

> > structures?

> > 2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed

> > development?

> >

> > Thank you,

> > Rob Barrese

> > Pennsylvania, USA

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Finally, a breath of fresh air mixed with some common sense!

Thanks Rob.

Some of us are still waiting to see the peer reviewed studies that

refute Bruce_Low and s contention that peer-reviewed studies do

not support explosive exercises as being more effective than

traditional slow and heavy weight training for enhancement of power

and athletic performance.

I'm especially interested because I've worked both sides of the

street, finding no difference in performance from my athletes when

the explosive routines were eliminated.

After using Olympic lifts from 1967 to 2003, I can attest to the

difficulty of removing some of these iconic lifts!

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, USA

Casler writes:

Hi Barry,

You might want to re-read the " contentions " again. The bias and conclusions

of that paper are beyond questionable.

They are " not " supportive of " slow " training speeds for explosive and speed

sports.

You mention your experience with " athletes " . What specific experience did

you find relevant? How did you conclude that using one over the other was

more successful?

What athletes and sports were these " case studies " in?

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Finally, a breath of fresh air mixed with some common sense!

Thanks Rob.

Some of us are still waiting to see the peer reviewed studies that

refute Bruce_Low and s contention that peer-reviewed studies do

not support explosive exercises as being more effective than

traditional slow and heavy weight training for enhancement of power

and athletic performance.

I'm especially interested because I've worked both sides of the

street, finding no difference in performance from my athletes when

the explosive routines were eliminated.

After using Olympic lifts from 1967 to 2003, I can attest to the

difficulty of removing some of these iconic lifts!

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, USA

Casler writes:

Hi Barry,

You might want to re-read the " contentions " again. The bias and conclusions

of that paper are beyond questionable.

They are " not " supportive of " slow " training speeds for explosive and speed

sports.

You mention your experience with " athletes " . What specific experience did

you find relevant? How did you conclude that using one over the other was

more successful?

What athletes and sports were these " case studies " in?

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

I remember an old " Odd Couple " show when Flex gets out of

trouble by explaing how assume make an ASS out of U and ME. In this

case, my assumptions of powerlifting (I am not a powerlifter) made an

ass out of me. While I have worked with a few powerlifters who

incorporated some Westside elements in their training, it was wrong

of me to assume that most powerlifters train the same way.

My point was to show how explosive lifts could be helpful in a

variety of sports other than Olympic Weightlifting. To be a good

coach or trainer, it is helpful to: keep an open mind (do not let old

beliefs prevent you from considering new ideas), remember education

is a life long process, admit and learn from your mistakes.

I will learn from this and work on keeping assumptions out of my

posts.

Tom Rankin

Mt View, CA

USA

>

> I will agree with generally saying the bar is slow on the way UP

with a true maximal attempt in powerlifting....

>

> But it's stupid practice to take the bar DOWN very slowly, for

that's more effort than to descend with control but more speedily.

That's the case in both the bench and the squat. Long ago, my first

coach quite seriously chided me for " standing under the weight too

long " . The objective is to get your weight out of the rack, set up,

get your commands, get it down and up, and RACKED before you get

tired under it! Wasting energy under an attempt is a way to make

sure you won't get your lifts later in the meet...just like standing

or pacing around in between attempts is as well...

>

> In the deadlift, you need bar SPEED to achieve your lockout.

Therefore that lift has more of a speed requirement from the very

start to achieve the end result. There is no " descent " phase with

the weight added to load a spring in a single.....and I work bar

SPEED a great deal, to make sure the bar is leaving the floor quickly

enough, even with a max lift for me. You might argue the person is

loading a spring like phase, but it's not the same as bench or squat

where there's an arguable weight added rebound happening....

>

> If the bar leaves the floor too slowly, generally you cannot even

grind it out. You'll be in a lousy position and the recovery is

miserable at best and usually doesn't happen lol. Dave and Louie did

very little to improve deadlift training overall. They were much

more interested in the lifts of squat and bench press and selected

the majority of their people for that short, round build that tends

to excel in the first two lifts. They also did not hash around that

they trained using drugs and built a program it takes such aids to

survive, with up to 9 short maximal effort workouts a week....

>

> I'd also disagree with the load you suggest, half my time is not

spent with half my 1 rep max doing bench or squat (that is

unproductive weight loads even 8-10 reps usually unless you've been

off from meets for quite some time..). I've discarded both " speed

workouts " on those exercises as being too rough on joints for a drug

free athlete with fairly long arms in bench in particular....it's

more productive for me to do the lifts once a week, with a possible

DL partial thrown in with squat for assist work. I also DL every

week, not intermittently as many who follow Dave and Louie do. I

don't do box squats either....I consider the risk far more present

than a reward for me. I don't spend any time at all on a half my max

DL by the way lol. I start higher than that and grind out 5 sets of

10 at the start of my programs.... for me, the lift that carries the

other two is my deadlift. I train THAT lift hard and to overloads,

and back the other two off to form work if need be to avoi

> d the dreaded overtraining. I've found if I don't overtrain I'm

still gaining on my strength even after a full decade on the

platform...in the lift that gets the least assist from even single

ply poly lol.

>

> I can't think of anybody who uses half their max for half the

program actually.... PL tend to work with higher levels of weight

over longer times than I think most people are aware of... we're just

used to the work capacity I guess over the years. If I had to guess,

I've seen a lot of work in that 70% 1 rpm range consistently...

veterans being the gauge, as newbies don't really HAVE 1 rep maxes

for some time after they start!

>

> The Phantom

> aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing lifetime drug free

powerlifter

> Denver, Colorado, USA

>

> -------------- Original message --------------

>

> Anyone who has attended a powerlifting meet knows that most of the

time

> the bar moves slowly. Yet many powerlifters spend part of their

time

> training the squat and bench explosively (lifting about half their

1 RM

> as explosively as possible). To learn more about explosive lifting

for

> powerlifting read the work of Louie and Dave Tate.

>

> While HIT has been popular with athletes in the past(any type of

> strength training is better than no strength training), it's

primary

> focus is building muscle mass not increasing athletic performance.

> Most of HIT famous spokesmen were bodybuilders not athletes. Limit

> yourself to just one training dogma and you will limit your

results.

> Everything (even superslow) has its time and its place. It's not

about

> what's best, but what is most appropiate at the time.

>

> Tom Rankin

> MT View, CA

> USA

>

> ====================================

>

[Guest guest]

Well said Tom. I would add that if a powerlifter is attempting his/her max lift

then how could the bar possibly move quickly? It cannot. But the individual

trains to enhance that skill development in that specific skill, action or

moment. I would argue that this is the premise of HIT training. At the end of

a particular set when the individual is fatigued and going seems tough the coach

or teammate encourages that individual to think " explosively. " I do not recall

the individual who coined the phrase " controlled chaos. " Even Mike Mazzarato,

professional body builder, stated " it is not the first two reps that count, but

the last two. "

A second thought on the HIT comment towards athletics... Why is it that over

a dozen NFL teams and D1 college programs are still using it provided it is such

a fallacy as described in this forum? When I first saw the comments on

Siff/Mannie I thought it was funny people were still digging up this argument.

What is Mannie in his 10th or 11th season at MSU? Clearly he is not having

difficulty getting and keeping a job regardless of comments of this group!

Critical thinking... its a S.O.B.

Rob Barrese

PA, USA

[Guest guest]

***************************

A second thought on the HIT comment towards athletics... Why is it

that over a dozen NFL teams and D1 college programs are still using

it provided it is such a fallacy as described in this forum?

***************************

The fact that some NFL teams and D1 programs use HIT is not evidence

that single sets are just as effective as multiple sets. In fact,

the number of teams using any type of training system is irrelevant.

A training program's popularity is not, by itself, evidence of its

effectiveness. To claim otherwise is to commit the argumentum ad

populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy.

Krieger, M.S., M.S.

Research Associate

20/20 Lifestyles

http://www.2020lifestyles.com

Bellevue, WA

Editor, Journal of Pure Power

http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

Rob Barrese wrote:

Well said Tom. I would add that if a powerlifter is attempting his/her max

lift then how could the bar possibly move quickly? It cannot.

Casler writes:

Hi Rob, this is the fatal perceptive flaw to understanding the physiology

and physics of lifting and how it relates to rep speed.

ALL loads and the speed at which they move is relative and dependant on the

load.

Lifting a 700# deadlift " FAST " does not mean it moves at the same " speed " as

135#, it means it moves fast relative to its mass, and the ability/strength

of the lifter.

Grasping this simple concept is a key element to understanding training load

and speed relationships.

Rob Barrese wrote:

Critical thinking... its a S.O.B.

Casler writes:

I would disagree.

Critical thinking is impeded, by not continually questioning each and

everything you have placed in your awareness.

It is only an SOB, if you refuse to allow those challenges that have

significant points to consider. But be aware that in order to " receive "

insight, you must have created a structure of " understanding " and not hang

tight to supports that have questionable foundation.

Your knowledge expands exponentially since each new addition creates a

larger surface area to your awareness. If you do not send out queries to

those boundaries, you will not receive the supporting information, nor the

additional input to expand your thinking even further.

While you made the comment that others might be stuck in discussions from

long ago, it would appear an update may be nessessary to your own paradigm.

This very list can offer such stimuli.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

thank you, , for putting it another way from the way I put it but the same

thing, yes! (I too would welcome a chance to read Krieger's study when

it's available).

What perhaps makes more a point is this - if I can maintain the same apparent

speed from the floor on a MAX pull that I have on an " easy opener " for me, this

will result in the best opportunity to LOCK OUT the max deadlift. A review of

my last meet's video shows I've found a good way to do this in my training and I

plan to keep working using the same overloads. My goal and thinking on form

anyway has always been to " make the reps look the same " . This includes warmups

which should also LOOK VERY FAST leaving the floor. Explosive, not SLOW. (one

note: some lifters, who sumo and are far more dependent on equipment help, tend

to warm up with a lot less bar speed and I have wondered for some time if this

doesn't mask it when a sumo puller is " off " and likely to fail their opener and

bomb out...! I mean, I KNOW if my pull is " ON " after my first warmup set....but

I've seen several sumo pullers bomb out without their coach or their realization

they were " opening too high " on that da

y?)

I also would like to throw in a comment that people sometimes make a habit of

" dropping " the dl bar in between reps, thinking the full rep down and up in a

set is not productive. I argue that it IS productive to control the bar

downward as well as explode it upward. that dropping a DL bar and then

regripping it, to avoid the " work " of lowering the bar is not conducive to

building a good form pattern AND might lead to an inadvertent " drop " on the

platform, losing the lift and possibly being thrown out of the meet! the

continuity and feeling of " relaxing into the set " are important to get all the

reps in my experience...and it's getting all the reps with smooth and proper

form that adds up in the end. I think it also aids patterning for muscles

FIRING properly too.

Lastly, my dearest wish right now is my closest competition would take up HIT

and just HIT lol. Followed perhaps by a wish they'd do SUPERSLOW

exclusively....and a few other choice fads? Alas, they appear focused on

lifting heavy and doing multiple sets.....darn!

What's next, trying to talk me out of my chalk? lol...

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter, drug free for LIFE!

Denver, Colorado, USA

-------------- Original message --------------

Rob Barrese wrote:

Well said Tom. I would add that if a powerlifter is attempting his/her max

lift then how could the bar possibly move quickly? It cannot.

Casler writes:

Hi Rob, this is the fatal perceptive flaw to understanding the physiology

and physics of lifting and how it relates to rep speed.

ALL loads and the speed at which they move is relative and dependant on the

load.

Lifting a 700# deadlift " FAST " does not mean it moves at the same " speed " as

135#, it means it moves fast relative to its mass, and the ability/strength

of the lifter.

Grasping this simple concept is a key element to understanding training load

and speed relationships.

Rob Barrese wrote:

Critical thinking... its a S.O.B.

Casler writes:

I would disagree.

Critical thinking is impeded, by not continually questioning each and

everything you have placed in your awareness.

It is only an SOB, if you refuse to allow those challenges that have

significant points to consider. But be aware that in order to " receive "

insight, you must have created a structure of " understanding " and not hang

tight to supports that have questionable foundation.

Your knowledge expands exponentially since each new addition creates a

larger surface area to your awareness. If you do not send out queries to

those boundaries, you will not receive the supporting information, nor the

additional input to expand your thinking even further.

While you made the comment that others might be stuck in discussions from

long ago, it would appear an update may be nessessary to your own paradigm.

This very list can offer such stimuli.

=================================

[Guest guest]

In Cordelia Fine's excellent book, " A Mind of It's Own: How Your

Brain Distorts and Deceives " , chapter 4 is entitled The Deluded

Brain: A slapdash approach to the truth. Fine explore how the brain

carefully selects information to uphold its beliefs rather than

search objectively for information. We all have this trait wired

within us. This has a great effect on how many of us post

(particularly those with non-scientific backgrounds) on forums.

If someone disagrees with what I have posted, my first instinct is to

prove them wrong. In the past I have spent a lot of time and effort

supporting my posted beliefs. After reading Fine's book, I have

developed a new approach. I will suppress the urge to attack and

careful read the post. I will also read the research that the person

or another member on this site has provided. If I do not understand

it, then I will ask questions.

Often I gain new insights and am able to change an old outdated

belief. Sometimes I feel it is appropriate to stick to my guns. In

that case, I will do what the best debaters do: make sure I could

argue the opposing point as well as my own.

We all see the world through different rose colored glasses. But if

we try someone else's on for a while, we may find the different view

enables us to learn and grow.

Let us all continue to learn and teach each other in 2008.

Tom Rankin

Mt View, CA

USA

[Guest guest]

I would like to apologize for my last post. I should have just given

the group the name and information about the book. It was wrong to

lecture Supertraining members on how to reply to posts. I am sorry

if anyone was offended and will do my best not to make the same

mistake.

Sincerely,

Tom Rankin

Mt. View, CA

USA

>

> In Cordelia Fine's excellent book, " A Mind of It's Own: How Your

> Brain Distorts and Deceives " , chapter 4 is entitled The Deluded

> Brain: A slapdash approach to the truth. Fine explore how the

brain

> carefully selects information to uphold its beliefs rather than

> search objectively for information. We all have this trait wired

> within us. This has a great effect on how many of us post

> (particularly those with non-scientific backgrounds) on forums.

>

> If someone disagrees with what I have posted, my first instinct is

to

> prove them wrong. In the past I have spent a lot of time and

effort

> supporting my posted beliefs. After reading Fine's book, I have

> developed a new approach. I will suppress the urge to attack and

> careful read the post. I will also read the research that the

person

> or another member on this site has provided. If I do not

understand

> it, then I will ask questions.

>

> Often I gain new insights and am able to change an old outdated

> belief. Sometimes I feel it is appropriate to stick to my guns.

In

> that case, I will do what the best debaters do: make sure I could

> argue the opposing point as well as my own.

>

> We all see the world through different rose colored glasses. But

if

> we try someone else's on for a while, we may find the different

view

> enables us to learn and grow.

>

> Let us all continue to learn and teach each other in 2008.

>

> Tom Rankin

> Mt View, CA

> USA

>

[Guest guest]

Tom,

You have nothing to apologize for a far as I'm concerned. I thought

your post quite perceptive. It's easy to get emotionally vested in

one's position. Objectivity is very difficult, even though that's what

science is supposed to be about, it's still not difficult to skew data

to fit our preconceived perceptions, particularly when the data

doesn't jive with our experience. I'm looking forward to reading the

book. I just wish I didn't have such an already lengthy reading list.

Thanks for your input,

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego CA

> >

> > In Cordelia Fine's excellent book, " A Mind of It's Own: How Your

> > Brain Distorts and Deceives " , chapter 4 is entitled The Deluded

> > Brain: A slapdash approach to the truth. Fine explore how the

> brain

> > carefully selects information to uphold its beliefs rather than

> > search objectively for information. We all have this trait wired

> > within us. This has a great effect on how many of us post

> > (particularly those with non-scientific backgrounds) on forums.

> >

> > If someone disagrees with what I have posted, my first instinct is

> to

> > prove them wrong. In the past I have spent a lot of time and

> effort

> > supporting my posted beliefs. After reading Fine's book, I have

> > developed a new approach. I will suppress the urge to attack and

> > careful read the post. I will also read the research that the

> person

> > or another member on this site has provided. If I do not

> understand

> > it, then I will ask questions.

> >

> > Often I gain new insights and am able to change an old outdated

> > belief. Sometimes I feel it is appropriate to stick to my guns.

> In

> > that case, I will do what the best debaters do: make sure I could

> > argue the opposing point as well as my own.

> >

> > We all see the world through different rose colored glasses. But

> if

> > we try someone else's on for a while, we may find the different

> view

> > enables us to learn and grow.

> >

> > Let us all continue to learn and teach each other in 2008.

> >

> > Tom Rankin

> > Mt View, CA

> > USA

> >

>