MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Truth About Fast/Slow-Twitch Muscle
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

tubeway

spud wrote:
tubeway wrote:
If lifting weights in an accelerated manner, and note I don't say ballistic or rapid, is considered risky then you might as well stop everyone from performing any and everyday task such as ther recreational sports I mention above.

There aren't many everyday tasks that are performed with large amounts of weight. Yes there are risks in everyday life. Why make weight training any more risky than you have to?


Many of us don't lift large amounts of weight in everyday life, but you don't have to be lifting any weight at all to put body under greater stress than you do in the gym. The forces involved with such activities and sports as running, soccer, tennis, baseball, squash and many others is extremely high due to the accelerate and decelerative forces involved.

I don't consider lifting weights quickly to be unduly risky, provided it is done so with sound technique.

tubeway wrote:
"The instruction to always lift a load smoothly may not invariably result in the least risk of injury. The longer a muscle stays under tension the greater the risk that it'll deform.

How will the muscle deform? What will happen to it?

What length of time must a muscle stay under tension in order to deform? What kind of loads are we talking about?

tubeway wrote:
In fact, your muscles and connective tissues have a property called visoelasticity, which allows them to perform a fast movement without injury. But the same movement peformed slowly might cause a strain or tear, since the muscles and connective tissues have more chance to deform."

What kind of movements are we talking about? Weight training movements?


Regarding the questions you raise in reponse to the quote I made from the work of Dr. Stuart McGill, I actually don't know the answers.

My guess is that in everyday life, and sport, I cannot think of any occassion where the goal would be to lift a weight slowly. To preserve strength, to promote efficient lifting, to prevent injury and undue stress, instinct tells us to lift a weight quickly. Not that I am saying that periods of slower lifting are not beneficial, I'm merely summising that McGill is indicating that prolonged periods of slow lifting would have an adverse effect on the integrity of muscles and other soft tissues.

Spud wrote:
This is what I thought:

Olympic Lifts teach muscles and motor units to be activated and recruited in order to perform the Olympic Lifts. They do not teach the muscles and motor units how to be activated and recruited in order to shoot a basketball or swing a baseball bat.

If you want to become more coordinated at shooting a basketball then shoot a basketball. Olympic Lifting will not teach you other unrelated sporting skills.

So I agree with you when you say sport specific training is required. But not Olympic Lifting.


I tend to view the work done in the gym as an accessory to what the athlete, or lumberjack in this case, does in their chosen field of recreation. The athletes sport, or the everyday's guys' job, is not the main concern. Instead I would be looking at movement patterns, joint actions, muscle involement and so on.

If a lumberjack came to me and said he was currently chopping one tree and hour and needed help to raise this to two trees some of my thinking would be something like this:
He'll be raising the axe in a forceful, accelerate manner before bringining it to a controlled stop with an immediate return to chopping the tree. For example, I can see that this involves many muscle actions and movements and my task would be to see how I can improve the stength of the external rotators of the upper arm due to the high level of force at the top of the back swing. For this might consider the cuban press, or cable extrenal rotations to stengthen the external rotators of the rotator cuff. If you saw the lumberjack performing these exercises you might wonder how this will help him chopping wood, but then I am not always trying to mimic everyday job or sporting activity in the gym.

Spud wrote:
Right. The lumberjack need not be concerned with how to apply force to stop the axe. The tree or log will stop it for him. So he is free to swing away as fast as he likes. Like you said, he needs to swing the axe fast.


As I hope I've pointed out above, the main issue for me is how to prevent injury during the swinging up of the axe in preparation for the chop and how best to utilise the stored energy to produce more force for the downswing. What I mean here is that I wouldn't advise a prolonged pause at the top of the back swing as this will diminisht the amount of force I could generate in the downswing. Kind of like performing a vertical jump without bending at the knees first.

tubeway wrote:
If the lumberjack has exposed his muscles and joints to Olympic lifts then this would seem to have a good carryover to his everyday job.

Why?

He will build the necessary strength, technique, coordination and balance he needs to swing and axe by swinging the axe.


See my responses above.

Spud write:
Olympic Lifts will not teach him to swing the axe.


That's right, but hat isn't why Olymipc lifts are used.

Spud wrote:
The motor unit recruitment patterns for swinging an axe aren't the same as those that occur when performing a snatch.


I think the actions and motor unit recruitment are similar but again I want to stress that my main focus in the gym is injury prevention and movement enhancement. I don't always want to replicate sporting actions.

I hope all of this made some sense. I am kind of winging it here and look forward to any further feedback from others.

Open User Options Menu

tylerg

Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

Tobes

When it comes to this subject, I'm definitely a layman. I don't have anywhere near the technical knowledge most of you have, but I'd still like to throw in my two cents if that's OK.
Obviously teams and athletes have achieved high levels of success using Olympic lifts and other teams and athletes have achieved high levels of success using HIT or other non-explosive techniques.
I tend to think the reason Nebraska football is what it is more because of its ability to recruit top athletes and the quality of its coaching staff. The same holds true for Michigan or Penn State.
My general impression of the Olympic lifts (and the reason why I've always shied away from them) Is that they're fairly complex techniques that require expert professional instruction to learn safely.
Yes, there are nuances to the typical HIT exercises, but they strike me as being much easier to learn.
I also feel that if I were a coach, I'd rather have my athletes spend more time learning how to perform the skills required in their sport than trying to learn complex, explosive strength training techniques.
Open User Options Menu

chris mason

Virginia, USA

tylerg wrote:
Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler


Who defines correct form? Why is their definition correct?

Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Weight Lifting for Sports Specific Benefits
Clive Brewer, Mike Favre and Linda Low


Top-level sports performance is based upon the need to develop power (the product of force x velocity). The basis for power generation in many sporting contexts is the stretch-shortening cycle (or plyometric response). In order to train the recruitment of maximum numbers of motor units (a motor unit is a motor nerve and all of the fibres innovated by that nerve), multi-joint, multi-muscle exercises that allow maximum force generation in minimal time have formed the cornerstone of training exercises for sports performers. The snatch and clean weightlifting movements and derivatives of these exercises, are the major resistance training exercises for developing power in sports performers. If there is to be an effective transfer of training effect between sports performance and training action, these movements need to facilitate a plyometric action: This can be done if the strength and conditioning coach teaches his/ her athletes to perform a double-knee bend (DKB) action within the training movement for both the snatch and clean lifts. The DKB allows a greater force to be transmitted more effectively, greater transfer of training effects to other sports and also it is a safer lift with less potential risk to the back.

This article explores the importance of explosive weight training to the sports performer and illustrates the action of the DKB and explains its importance in both power generation and transfer of training effects. The paper also expands upon the first pull phase of these lifts: If this stage of the lift is completed appropriately, the DKB is more likely to happen.

Why should explosive lifting be done with sports performers?
Effective strength training for sports performers begins with a working knowledge of basic movement mechanics. Kinesiological (the study of joint and muscle actions in movement) analysis of any sporting movement will indicate that the primary basis of strength-power training exercises for an athlete in most sports should be closed-kinetic-chain exercises that allow maximum force in gross muscle structure (especially around the legs, hips and trunk) to be reached in minimum time (Wilk & Reinold, 2001).
Fig. 1 illustrates an example of kinesiological analysis in action, identifying the nature of joint and muscle action required in sports performance (and conversely the training methodologies for that sport): Video 1 also demonstrates the push-start action for the bobsleigh. Look closely at the nature of the ankle-knee-hip actions during the exercise to obtain a further picture of the nature of training modalities that might be needed for this athlete: Relate the actions here to those that can be seen in later video of the weightlifting movements.

Force Production
It is well documented that strength (the ability to produce force) and power (the product of force x velocity) gain is specific to the angle of the joint at which training occurs (Durstine & Davis, 2001), and therefore training actions should be utilised that reflect the total dynamic range of movement that an athlete might require in sports performance. Consequently, exercises such as squat, snatch and the squat clean (and derivatives of these exercises) should form the cornerstone of the resistance training routines for sports performers . Indeed, there is considerable evidence indicating a high degree of efficacy of using these movement specific training exercises in order to produce superior performance gains in strength / power oriented sports (Stone, 1990, Stone et al. 2002b). These exercises (weightlifting movements and jumps) also facilitate the incorporation of the triple extension of the ankles, hips and knees, counter movements in both relatively slow (squat) and very explosive (power clean, snatch) movements, and also dead-stop start accelerations. These characteristics have a large potential to transfer into improved neuromuscular efficiency which, in turn, have been demonstrated as being exceptionally beneficial to performance in biomechanically similar movements (Brewer, 2003a).

Not only does this type of movement reflect the joint / muscular recruitment patterns imposed during skill performance, but the requirements for strength, power and force development for such exercises are similar to those required in sports. For example: because technique is dependent upon appropriate force production, training the athlete’s ability to generate force is arguably the biggest training priority (factors that primarily influence winning and losing) for the strength & conditioning coach. The importance of force generation is illustrated by Newtons 2nd law (Force = Mass x acceleration). Acceleration is important as this results in a velocity: velocity is a vital component of power and is often a determining factor in superior performance.

Rate of Force Development
Another important characteristic that accompanies force generation is rate of force development (RFD). What is also very important to realise is that RFD can be associated with acceleration capabilities in athletes (Schmidtbleicher, 1992), and this can also be a determining factor in generating superior athletic performance. Most critical aspects of sports performance occur in very short time-frames (<250ms): If athletes can be trained to produce greater forces within that time frame, then greater accelerations, and therefore velocities, can be achieved. Therefore, the ability to produce force (strength) and its related component RFD, is an integral part of power production and therefore may be a key component in determining athletic success ( Schmidtbleicher, 1992, Stone et al. 2002a).

The importance of the stretch-shortening cycle in sports specific training
The need to incorporate speed-strength exercises (such as the snatch, clean, jerk and derivatives of these exercises), and to perform these at high power outputs and velocities has been well documented for power-based sports (Stone, 2004). Similarly, when considering pre-habilitation of injuries, we need to ensure that the neuromuscular system is adequately trained to tolerate the imposed strains during functional tasks (Brewer, 2003b). Many explosive movements in sport (such as running, kicking or throwing) involve the reflex/elastic properties of the muscle-tendon complex and are ballistic in nature, even when initiated from a static position. These elastic properties allow a stretch-shortening cycle to occur: This is where a muscle is forcibly and rapidly lengthened by a stretch or countermovement, then stretch receptors (muscle spindle fibres, golgi tendon organs) sends signals to the central nervous system, stimulating concentric contraction of the involved muscles which then contract forcefully as elastic energy is released from the muscle fibres and connective tissue. This process is commonly referred to as a myotatic reflex, which forms the basis for all plyometric-training actions.

Training for maximum strength alone will not adequately develop these elastic properties within a muscle, therefore training for sports should not only encourage the inclusion of rapid stretch-shortening (plyometric) methods, but it should also incorporate stretch-shortening cycles into training movements often to enable the athlete to produce maximal forces in training movements. Typically, amortisation or reactive phases of the stretch-shortening cycle (the transition phase between eccentric lengthening and concentric shortening) should be as short / rapid as possible: this is trainable within athletes who are subject to the correct coaching and training methods.
A stretch-shortening cycle can be observed in experienced lifters performing both the snatch and clean lifts, and it is this action that needs to be developed in athletes if the maximum benefits of the lift are to be carried over to sports performance (Garhammer, 1980). This stretch-shortening cycle occurs during the transition phase immediately following the first pull, and is often referred to as the double-knee bend (dkb).


Summary: Key points
Rate of force development is a crucial factor in force generation and can be a determining characteristic in generating superior athletic performance. Most crucial aspects of sports performance occur in time frames that are less than 250ms.
Achieving greater forces in the shortest possible time frame can produce greater accelerations, and therefore greater velocities.
Training to improve sports performance should encourage the incorporation of rapid stretch-shortening cycles into training movements to enable the athlete to produce maximal forces. This occurs in plyometric actions, where the amortisation phase needs to be as rapid as possible.
The snatch and clean lifts are multi-joint, multi-muscle movements that allow maximum force to be generated in minimal time. These movements typically form the cornerstone of sports training programmes designed to improve performance.
For maximum training benefits to be taken transferred into performance, a stretch-shortening (plyometric) movement is incorporated into the lifting action. This is achieved using a double-knee bend lifting technique, which should be taught by all coaches.



References:
Bartonietz, K.E. (1996) Biomechanics of the snatch: towards a higher training efficiency Strength & conditioning 18
Brewer, C & Jevon, M (2003a) Breaking the gain line: The role of interdisciplinary sports science in elite rugby union Keynote presentation: First International conference of science and coaching in rugby Brisbane, Australia Oct 2003
Brewer, C. (2003b) Functional training for elite sports performers UKSport world class coaching conference, Belfrey: November 2003
Brewer, C (under review) Fitness for games players Coachwise publications, Leeds, UK
Durstine, J.L. & Davis, P. G. (2001) Specificity of Exercise training & Testing in ACSM Resource Manual for guidelines for Exercise Testing & Prescription (4th ed) New York: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Favre, M.W. (2003) The first pull: Technique considerations sportscotland National strength and conditioning conference, Inverclyde National sports Centre, May 2004
Favre, M.W. (2004) The first pull in weightlifting movements International society for Biomenchanics in sport: sports science coaches information service available: http://www.coachesinfo.com/...onditioning/322
Garhammer, J.J. (1980) Power production by Olympic weightlifters Medicine & Science in Sports 12 54-60
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1993) Training for power events in P.V. Komi (ed) Strength and power in sport London: Blackwell Scientific Publishers 381 –395
Stone, M.H. (1990) Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries Medicine & science in sport & Exercise 22(4) 457-462
Stone, M.H. (2000) Explosive exercise & training Position paper: National Strength & Conditioning Association
Stone, M.H. (2004) Training principles & theory sportscotland National strength and conditioning conference, Inverclyde National sports Centre, May 2004
Stone, M.H., Moir, G., Glaister, M and Sanders, R. (2002a) How much strength is necessary? Physical Therapy in Sport 3: 88-96
Stone, M.H., Plisk, S. and Collins, D. (2002b) Training Principles: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training – a coaching perspective. Sport Biomechanics 1(1): 79-104,
Wilk, K.E. & Reinold, M.M. (2001) Closed-kinetic-chain exercises and Plyometric activities in W.D. Bandy, & B. Sanders, (Eds.) Therapeutic exercise: Techniques for intervention Baltimore, USA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Winchester, J.B., Erickson, T.M., Black, J.B. and McBride, J.M. (2005) Changes in bar-path kinematics and kinetics after power-clean training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19:177-182
Author profiles:
Clive Brewer:
A Director of the British Strength & Conditioning Association and in charge of sportscotland's athlete development programme, Clive is registered as a British Olympic Association strength & Conditioning specialist & BASES (British Association of Sport & Exercise Sciences) sports scientist, and has worked with International performers from a diverse range of sports including rugby, tennis and bobsleigh. Clive is a widely published author, has presented at conferences worldwide and has just completed his first book on training methods for games players.

Mike Favre:
The Coordinator of Strength & Conditioning at the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and formerly a Scottish Institute Strength & Conditioning coach. Mike has coached athletes at the collegiate, professional & elite international levels over a diverse range of sports including American football, wrestling, judo, baseball, rugby, badminton and athletics.

Linda Low:
Linda Low is the coaching (Education and quality delivery) programme manager for Developing Potential in sportscotland. She is a former International athlete (Javelin & hammer), and plays an active role in delivering strength & conditioning coach education for a number of National Governing bodies. She has also worked with performers in rugby, athletics and swimming.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

tylerg

chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler


Who defines correct form? Why is their definition correct?

Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.



First of all, YOU should elaborate on the comment. Are you talking about lifting form? Because I am not. I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to the comment, and I quote, "Form for the movement goes in the crapper." This is referring specifically to sport specific movement.

That being the case, let me answer simply:

I, the coach, define and insist upon correct form. I am not talking about lifting form, I am talking about sport specific form.

Why is my definition correct? Because I say so. If you want to play for me, deal with it. Also because years of experience and research have dictated specific movement in sport.

In this specific instance, the movement referred to is jumping. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask.

Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

tylerg wrote:
Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler


Tyler

No. Nor did I aim to publish my original thoughts in this thread.

Do you have any original thoughts? If so, please share these. I have not heard anything remarkable about weightlifting in a long time.

Have a nice day
Marc


Open User Options Menu

RUGGED_INTELLECT

Fight, fight, fight!
Open User Options Menu

tylerg

marcrph wrote:
tylerg wrote:
Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler

Tyler

No. Nor did I aim to publish my original thoughts in this thread.

Do you have any original thoughts? If so, please share these. I have not heard anything remarkable about weightlifting in a long time.

Have a nice day
Marc




No. Nor did I aim to publish my original thoughts in this thread.

That is unfortunate, because I am sure you have something valid to contribute, despite which side of the fence you are on. Personally, I have read all those studies and you are right: there isn't a whole lot of remarkable stuff coming out. I like Staley's stuff, I like Darden's stuff, I like Drew's stuff, you get the point.

Do you have any original thoughts? If so, please share these.

I have been. I rarely, if ever, quote anyone. I generally give past personal experiences and current experiences I have with my athletes.

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

RUGGED_INTELLECT wrote:
Fight, fight, fight!


Not Hardly!

Many years ago, Bob Hoffman of York barbell fame, championed Olympic Lifting. He was opposed by a young upstart Joe Weider, who championed bodybuilding.
During Bob Hoffman's heyday, America was a force to be dealt with in Olympic weightlifting. Bodybuilding and powerlifting made tremendous inroads into the Olympic weightlifting during the 50's and 60's, much to Bob Hoffman's dismay. Then, along came Arnold and America was hooked on bodybuilding, much to Joe Weider's delight. Make no mistake about it, Arthur Jones was influenced by bodybuilding. Also, Ellington Darden has written many books on bodybuilding, but not Olympic weightlifting.

I wonder if there could be any middle ground for HIT and OL. I think HIT & OL have many compatibilities, and could easily coexist. Personally, I would like to see a Modern HiTTer trounce the Iranian Heavyweight gold medalist in the next Olympics.
I do not think bodybuilding is the best way to train for sports. I know bodybuilding will not make one a great Olympic lifter.
In the end, I choose not to continue this historical pushing between OL and bodybuilding. I will discuss the subject. And I realize this is a simplistic idea, and many variables are involved.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

tylerg

marcrph wrote:
RUGGED_INTELLECT wrote:
Fight, fight, fight!

Not Hardly!

Many years ago, Bob Hoffman of York barbell fame, championed Olympic Lifting. He was opposed by a young upstart Joe Weider, who championed bodybuilding.

During Bob Hoffman's heyday, America was a force to be dealt with in Olympic weightlifting. Bodybuilding and powerlifting made tremendous inroads into the Olympic weightlifting during the 50's and 60's, much to Bob Hoffman's dismay.

Then, along came Arnold and America was hooked on bodybuilding, much to Joe Weider's delight. Make no mistake about it, Arthur Jones was influenced by bodybuilding. Also, Ellington Darden has written many books on bodybuilding, but not Olympic weightlifting.

I wonder if there could be any middle ground for HIT and OL. I think HIT & OL have many compatibilities, and could easily coexist. Personally, I would like to see a Modern HiTTer trounce the Iranian Heavyweight gold medalist in the next Olympics.

I do not think bodybuilding is the best way to train for sports. I know bodybuilding will not make one a great Olympic lifter.

In the end, I choose not to continue this historical pushing between OL and bodybuilding. I will discuss the subject. And I realize this is a simplistic idea, and many variables are involved.

Have a nice day
Marc


Marc, I understand fully what you are saying. Although this is predominantly a bodybuilding site, at least I think it is, strength training is my main focus, specifically for athletic competition.

As I mentioned before, I cannot legitimately comment of OL because I have never done it. In my jump program, I recommend HIT over explosive/ballistic (EB)lifting and, of course, HVT.

Why? Because the general populace would not be able to handle OL, or EB. I do, however, add a proviso that states if the athlete is on a team that is using Oly or EB lifts and their coach wants them to continue, then fine.

I also mention that those type of lifts can be dangerous if not properly trained in them. I further mention that many athletes get good results using them.

For the purpose of my program (and mass marketing), I found it prudent to not include any instruction whatsoever into those types of lifts. To much room for error and liability.

Regards,

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Try this:

Pick up something heavy from the floor.

In every instance, a person will dip/squat a little below the starting pull to give it a go.

No one can just gradually pull a
maximum weight. It does not feel right and the body does not work this way.

Human nature over many years teaches us subconsciously to use our elastic properties of our muscles. Even young children do this instinctly.

I remember when it was stated that SuperSlow was the greatest advancement in weightlifting. No one is saying that now. No one in the real athletic world is bemoaning the loss of the old Nautilus machines.

Yet world records are still are going up. The lifters in other countries have to meet weight requirements. So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training.

The Russians somewhat copied the techniques of our lifting champions of the 40's and 50's, notably Paul Anderson. The Russians learned well, and further complimented these methods with their own techniques and variations. Have you ever heard of anything original coming from Russia? America even started the steriod revolution (dianabol).

Original ideas come from people with the freedom and time to think. We have had the freedom to come up with more original ideas on weightlifting, but have we? The coaches today are just teaching what the old-timers already knew, just a fancy name (explosive lifting). Arthur Saxon at 5'10" and 204 lbs bent pressed 370 lbs.

I bet only a very few strongmen could duplicate that today, certainly no Modern HiTTer! I bet AS did not gradually raise these weights.

To lift big weights, there is no doubt you have to lift explosively! Big weights = big hard muscles that are functional. Intentionally slow bodybuilding movements does not deliver this.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

marcrph wrote:
...So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training....

Marc,

with all due respect, you just pointed out yourself with that paragraph that OL isn't suited for Hypertrophy!
And exactly that's the point!
Like Tyler said, we're a BB board here, which means we seek hypertrophy before anything else.
And this as injury-free as possible.
BTW, this "instinct"(I rather think it's not an instinct but learned behaviour from copying how others do it) to lift weights quickly is exactly responsible that people get injured in everyday life so often.

Regards,

Franco

Open User Options Menu

chris mason

Virginia, USA

tylerg wrote:
chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler


Who defines correct form? Why is their definition correct?

Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.



First of all, YOU should elaborate on the comment. Are you talking about lifting form? Because I am not. I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to the comment, and I quote, "Form for the movement goes in the crapper." This is referring specifically to sport specific movement.

That being the case, let me answer simply:

I, the coach, define and insist upon correct form. I am not talking about lifting form, I am talking about sport specific form.

Why is my definition correct? Because I say so. If you want to play for me, deal with it. Also because years of experience and research have dictated specific movement in sport.

In this specific instance, the movement referred to is jumping. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask.

Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler



Hmmm, I think we have gotten a bit off track. I was speaking about how one should train in terms of the "form". Why is slow better than fast? Are you sure of your answer?

I was trying to get you to think outside of your ingrained beliefs, nothing more.

Open User Options Menu

JBRINK

Marc,
I am not much to speak often on this forum but you almost challenged everyone to find a good athlete that is a HIT advocate. I am a PT and S&C coach that uses HIT with a little bit of plyometric work and speed training(sprinting); at 30 years old I am 5-8 195 lbs. and on any given day I can bench press 400 lbs, I run a 4.35 40 and I have a 35 inch verticle. I have traind my whole life with slow, controlled lifts + speed/agility work. I have not slowed down since I began HIT training. Nor did I get faster during my time as a minor league football player using olympic lifts. I became faster as an athlete by totally working the muscle fiber to failure letting my body recover and practice being fast and explosive.

You have some very well thought out points but to say that there are no "strong" HIT athletes out there is just not true.
As you noticed I wrote that I do plyos that are often frowned upon among HIT advocates but I keep them to one day a week and very sport specific, I practice being better at jumping, landing(most impotrtant) and sprinting as I would in sport.

Thank You for keeping everyone on their toes.
Josh
Open User Options Menu

chris mason

Virginia, USA

JBRINK wrote:
Marc,
I am not much to speak often on this forum but you almost challenged everyone to find a good athlete that is a HIT advocate. I am a PT and S&C coach that uses HIT with a little bit of plyometric work and speed training(sprinting); at 30 years old I am 5-8 195 lbs. and on any given day I can bench press 400 lbs, I run a 4.35 40 and I have a 35 inch verticle. I have traind my whole life with slow, controlled lifts + speed/agility work. I have not slowed down since I began HIT training. Nor did I get faster during my time as a minor league football player using olympic lifts. I became faster as an athlete by totally working the muscle fiber to failure letting my body recover and practice being fast and explosive.

You have some very well thought out points but to say that there are no "strong" HIT athletes out there is just not true.
As you noticed I wrote that I do plyos that are often frowned upon among HIT advocates but I keep them to one day a week and very sport specific, I practice being better at jumping, landing(most impotrtant) and sprinting as I would in sport.

Thank You for keeping everyone on their toes.
Josh


Do you have a video of your "400 at any time" bench? Is it RAW with a pause? Anyway, I would love to see it.

Open User Options Menu

tylerg

chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler


Who defines correct form? Why is their definition correct?

Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.



First of all, YOU should elaborate on the comment. Are you talking about lifting form? Because I am not. I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to the comment, and I quote, "Form for the movement goes in the crapper." This is referring specifically to sport specific movement.

That being the case, let me answer simply:

I, the coach, define and insist upon correct form. I am not talking about lifting form, I am talking about sport specific form.

Why is my definition correct? Because I say so. If you want to play for me, deal with it. Also because years of experience and research have dictated specific movement in sport.

In this specific instance, the movement referred to is jumping. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask.

Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler


Hmmm, I think we have gotten a bit off track. I was speaking about how one should train in terms of the "form". Why is slow better than fast? Are you sure of your answer?

I was trying to get you to think outside of your ingrained beliefs, nothing more.



I think we are talking about two different things here as it relates to "form". I was referring to athletic, sport specific movement as practiced on the field/court. I was not referring to lifting form at all.

As for my original answer, yes I am sure of it: the use of resistance will develop strength, whether used in a "fast" or "slow" fashion. (see the second point of my post that you have quoted)

As for the rest of it, I wouldn't have written it if I wasn't sure (despite other posts to the contrary that I have made :\ )

Let me ask you this: Which ingrained beliefs are you referring to specifically?

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
...So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training....

Marc,

with all due respect, you just pointed out yourself with that paragraph that OL isn't suited for Hypertrophy!
And exactly that's the point!
Like Tyler said, we're a BB board here, which means we seek hypertrophy before anything else.
And this as injury-free as possible.
BTW, this "instinct"(I rather think it's not an instinct but learned behaviour from copying how others do it) to lift weights quickly is exactly responsible that people get injured in everyday life so often.

Regards,

Franco



Franco

If you are in a certain weight class, you would not want to build any more mass, for fear you have to compete in a higher weight class. This has nothing to do with the lack of OL being non-suited for hypertrophy. By the way, there are some BIG muscular OL's. I'm sure these OL's are doing HIT in their spare time to get BIG and muscular.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this site is about HIT. The T stands for training, not bodybuilding. If you want to bodybuild that is ok, but not everyone is just into bodybuilding. From Tyler's comments, he seems to be into lots of athletic endeavors, not just bodybuilding. Furthermore, hypertrophy for hypertrophy sake alone, seems so limiting, and unrewarding.

Have a nice day
Marc









c
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

JBRINK wrote:
Marc,
I am not much to speak often on this forum but you almost challenged everyone to find a good athlete that is a HIT advocate. I am a PT and S&C coach that uses HIT with a little bit of plyometric work and speed training(sprinting); at 30 years old I am 5-8 195 lbs. and on any given day I can bench press 400 lbs, I run a 4.35 40 and I have a 35 inch verticle. I have traind my whole life with slow, controlled lifts + speed/agility work. I have not slowed down since I began HIT training. Nor did I get faster during my time as a minor league football player using olympic lifts. I became faster as an athlete by totally working the muscle fiber to failure letting my body recover and practice being fast and explosive.

You have some very well thought out points but to say that there are no "strong" HIT athletes out there is just not true.
As you noticed I wrote that I do plyos that are often frowned upon among HIT advocates but I keep them to one day a week and very sport specific, I practice being better at jumping, landing(most impotrtant) and sprinting as I would in sport.

Thank You for keeping everyone on their toes.
Josh


Josh

Thanks for your reply!

How does it feel to be scorned by Modern HiTTers for doing pylometrics?

Also, do you "fire out" in the bottom position on the 400 lb BP?

I feel the C&J help me come out of the blocks sprinting, but I have no way of proving this, as the Modern Hitter will so quickly point out.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

JBRINK

Marc,
I am very technically challenged so I will see what I can do about the video and bench press, also give me a month or so I am dieting down for a boxing tourney, I have lost a little strength but I won't forget, I promise. Yes it is raw I suck benching with bench shirt, pause..we will see. Do I fire out of the bottom of the bench? Of course I try to when lifting for one rep max my control (negative) is still very slow, however being a one rep max it does not move to quickly on the way up either I believe more in the intent of it moving quickly than the actual explosion.

Being ridiculed for doing plyos by fellow HITers, I don't care what anyone thinks, there is some truth/benefit in many modern training philosophies, I am only looking (and hopefully practicing) the most efficient and safe way to train myself and more importantly our young athletes.

I am an athlete, I can take my shirt off in the summer time and feel confident, I "enjoy" bodybuilding, I am a walking billboard for my PT studio, but most of all I am an athlete hell-bent on being the best at what I do and an ispiration to our hero-less generation of kids. I love the efficiancy of HIT and the safty, but it is only apart of creating the great athlete, it starts with soul and builds from there. Regardless of anyone's "rules".

Thanks
Josh
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Josh

You sound like a real throwback!
You are NO Modern HiTTer, that's for sure, but the real thing! I like your attitude. Keep up the good work with the younger generations.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

From The Desk Of Clarence Bass


Lift Slow or Say No?

We thought we were done discussing slow motion lifting, but no such luck. The flurry of hits on our Lift Slow or Lift Fast article (# 34), which we believe was generated by the "Going Super Slow" piece in Newsweek (Feb. 5, 2001) and a segment on NBC?s "Today" show, and some emails taking us to task for not coming down four-square in favor of slow reps have persuaded us that more comment is warranted.

People are clearly excited about slow reps. Ken Hutchins, the Florida-based trainer who founded the Super Slow movement more than a decade ago and trademarked the name, has started something that has legs.

It?s time for another effort to cut through the hype and try to understand what slow-rep lifting will do and, perhaps more importantly, what it won?t do. Let?s start with two recent studies, one suggesting the promise of slow reps, and the other raising some doubts about the scope of the benefits. Maybe we can help people decide whether to "go slow" ? or just say no.

Slow Group Gained 50 Percent More Strength

The first study was done in 1993 and repeated in 1999 by Wayne Westcott, fitness research director at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts. The study was described in Newsweek and will soon be published in the Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness. The study was also presented in March, 2000, by Richard Winett, Ph.D., one of the authors of the report, at the annual meeting of the Society for Behavioral Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

In both studies, Westcott assigned untrained volunteers (men and women, mean age 54) to one of two regimens. Both groups trained 2 or 3 times per week for eight to ten weeks. They performed one set of 13 exercises on a standard Nautilus circuit. The key difference between the two groups was rep speed.

One group did 10 to 12 regular-speed reps (7 seconds: 2 seconds lifting, 1 second pause, 4 second lowering). The other used a Super Slow training protocol calling for 4 to 6 reps of 14 seconds each (10 seconds lifting, 4 seconds lowering). All participants were tested at the beginning and the end of the study. Significantly, the slow lifters gained more strength than the regular-speed lifters -- by 50 percent!

Super Slow advocates would say the impressive difference was because going slow takes the momentum out of lifting and exhausts more muscle fibers. While the total time under load was essentially the same for both groups (84 seconds), the more stressful lifting phase was more than twice as long for the slow-rep group (60 seconds versus 24).

Most accounts of the Westcott study stop at this point. Remember, the report of the study is still in press; it has not been published. The finer details of the study are not widely known. One important detail is that the slow lifters were tested using the slow 14-second cadence, and the regular-speed group was tested using the regular 7-second cadence. There was no comparison using a common cadence.

For example, the two groups could have been tested using an intermediate 4 or 5 second lifting phase, but that was not done. Each group was tested using only the reps and rep speed they used in training.

The authors of the report acknowledge that the absence of a common testing protocol was a possible flaw; it may cast doubt on the validity of their findings. In effect, they compared apples and oranges. One can?t help but wonder what the result would have been had they tested for 8-rep maximum, allowing the participants to use whenever rep speed they chose. In other words, what would the result have been in a real-world strength comparison. Keep in mind that the winner in a powerlifting or Olympic lifting contest is determined on the basis of who lifts the most weight. Lifting speed is not restricted.

Speed of Lifting Improves Performance at Similar Speeds

Our second study, performed by D. K. Liow and W. G. Hopkins (1998) and reported in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, shows why using an apples-to-apples measure of performance is so important. Thirty-nine experienced male and female kayakers were matched by sex and sprint time and randomly assigned to a slow weight training, explosive weight training, or control (normal training, without weights) group. They trained twice a week for six weeks using unspecified sports-specific weight training exercises. The kayakers were tested before and after for time in the 15 meter sprint.

At the very start of the sprint, when rowing movements are of necessity slow, the slow-training group improved most (6.9 %), the fast group next (3.2%), and the control group least (1.4%). Over the last 3.75 meters, when rowing is fast, the fast training group improved most (3.0%), the slow group next (2.1%), and the control least (minus 0.8%).

The researchers described the implications: "Slow weight training exercises train one to respond best when moving slow. Fast weight training exercises train athletes to respond best when moving fast. However, both forms of training improved performance better than no weight-training."

That says it all, doesn?t it? Lifts slow if you want to improve your performance at doing things slowly, and lift fast if you want to get better and stronger at moving fast. Kayakers training for sprints would probably be best advised to do both.

The kayaking study probably produced the results that most exercise physiologists would have predicted. After all, the most time-honored principle in sports science is the specificity principle: specific adaptation to imposed demand (SAID). Dr. Pat O?Shea, who made the case for lifting rapidly in our Lift Slow or Lift Fast article, highlights the importance of specificity in the second edition of his book Quantum Strength.

He calls the SAID principle the "guiding force" of strength training. "It explains that physiological, neurological, and psychological adaptation will occur in direct response to the imposed training demands. If, however, these demands are not specific to the performance demands of your sport, no functional adaptation will take place."

The Only Exercise You?ll Ever Need?

As reported in Newsweek, some Super Slow proponents claim that slow lifting is the whole key to fitness. They say it?s the only exercise you?ll ever need: It builds strength, larger muscles and even aerobics fitness. This group actually discourages aerobic exercise, saying it compromises muscle and strengthen gains, and isn?t necessary for health and total fitness. That?s the extreme view. Only "true believers" such as Ken Hutchins ? a small but vocal minority -- go that far.

Slow reps improve proficiency at lifting slowly, but agreement stops there. There?s even some question about the ability of slow lifting to produce increases in muscle mass (hypertrophy). A very smart friend of mine, who has been doing slow reps exclusively for several years, tells me that he has gotten substantially stronger at moving weights slowly, but that he lost muscle mass. It?s only conjecture at this point, of course, but he believes that slow lifting may in some way retard muscle growth, perhaps by restricting the flow of blood and oxygen to the working muscles.

He speculates that there may be something about "the fatigue mechanism with slow reps that doesn?t quite provide the right signal for hypertrophy." That remains to be seen, of course, but it?s something to watch as more people experiment with slow reps.

On the issue of aerobic conditioning, Dr. Steven Keteyian, a clinical exercise physiologists at the Henry Ford Heart and Vascular Institute in Detroit, in his online health column for the Detroit News, recommends a well-rounded program that combines both resistance and aerobic training. "There?s no research supporting the use of [Super Slow lifting] to improve cardiorespiratory or aerobics fitness," Dr.Keteyian writes. I believe that?s the current consensus of informed opinion.

The Washington Post health section reported just last week (2-20-01) that sports medicine experts say, "There?s little evidence that slow lifting beats standard weight training for building endurance or strength ? and absolutely none that it eliminates the need for aerobic exercise."

The Post also reported a little-known aftermath of Wayne Westcott?s slow lift studies. "The bad news," Westcott told The Post, "is that when I finished both studies, only one of the 147 people involved... wanted to continue the training. We feel it?s a little too tedious, too tough for the average person."

Now, it?s up to you to decide what?s best -- for you.


Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

chris mason

Virginia, USA

tylerg wrote:
chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
chris mason wrote:
tylerg wrote:
Let's get to the bottom line, if that is possible.

First, as it relates to athletics, I will state again that strength training is SUPPLEMENTAL to the sport itself.

Second, resistance strength training, in whatever form, be it Oly lifts or slower lifting, will develop strength.

Third, there is precious little transference in strength training to sport specific training. What do I mean by that? Simply, if I want to jump higher, jumping with weights will more than likely do more harm than good. Why? The ground reaction force will be enormous, for one thing (the average male lands with up to 2.5 times his body weight in ground reaction force, and the average female with up to 5 times her body weight), the stress on the connective tissues, ligaments, tendons and muscles will be huge. Over the course of a season, the risk of injury will go up substantially due to the shear stress on the joints etc.

Further to that, jumping with weights, or any other skill that uses resistance to mimic a particular movement, causes the body to move in an unnatural manner to compensate for the added resistance. Form for the movement goes in the crapper. The skill has to (almost) be relearned in proper form. The time used to "re-educate" the neuromuscular system is counter productive to training.

Fourth, either method, done improperly, will increase the likelihood of injury. The more technical the lift (power clean, snatch, etc.), the more educated in that lift the athlete needs to be. The simpler the movement, the "easier" it is to perform by the general populace.

By the same token, either method done correctly will produce results. I have seen these results using the standard 2/4 cadence, but, admittedly, I can not speak to the efficacy of the Oly lift as I do not perform them or train others to perform them (this being a neutral statement).

Tyler


Who defines correct form? Why is their definition correct?

Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.



First of all, YOU should elaborate on the comment. Are you talking about lifting form? Because I am not. I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to the comment, and I quote, "Form for the movement goes in the crapper." This is referring specifically to sport specific movement.

That being the case, let me answer simply:

I, the coach, define and insist upon correct form. I am not talking about lifting form, I am talking about sport specific form.

Why is my definition correct? Because I say so. If you want to play for me, deal with it. Also because years of experience and research have dictated specific movement in sport.

In this specific instance, the movement referred to is jumping. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask.

Marc, do you have an original thought in there somewhere?

Tyler


Hmmm, I think we have gotten a bit off track. I was speaking about how one should train in terms of the "form". Why is slow better than fast? Are you sure of your answer?

I was trying to get you to think outside of your ingrained beliefs, nothing more.



I think we are talking about two different things here as it relates to "form". I was referring to athletic, sport specific movement as practiced on the field/court. I was not referring to lifting form at all.

As for my original answer, yes I am sure of it: the use of resistance will develop strength, whether used in a "fast" or "slow" fashion. (see the second point of my post that you have quoted)

As for the rest of it, I wouldn't have written it if I wasn't sure (despite other posts to the contrary that I have made :\ )

Let me ask you this: Which ingrained beliefs are you referring to specifically?

Tyler




Lol, I can't remember anymore!

Anyway, I will take a look back through the plethora of words on this page and try to remember what I was arguing about sometime this weekend when I can make the time.

Chris
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

marcrph wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
...So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training....

Marc,

with all due respect, you just pointed out yourself with that paragraph that OL isn't suited for Hypertrophy!
And exactly that's the point!
Like Tyler said, we're a BB board here, which means we seek hypertrophy before anything else.
And this as injury-free as possible.
BTW, this "instinct"(I rather think it's not an instinct but learned behaviour from copying how others do it) to lift weights quickly is exactly responsible that people get injured in everyday life so often.

Regards,

Franco



Franco

If you are in a certain weight class, you would not want to build any more mass, for fear you have to compete in a higher weight class. This has nothing to do with the lack of OL being non-suited for hypertrophy. By the way, there are some BIG muscular OL's. I'm sure these OL's are doing HIT in their spare time to get BIG and muscular.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this site is about HIT. The T stands for training, not bodybuilding. If you want to bodybuild that is ok, but not everyone is just into bodybuilding. From Tyler's comments, he seems to be into lots of athletic endeavors, not just bodybuilding. Furthermore, hypertrophy for hypertrophy sake alone, seems so limiting, and unrewarding.

Have a nice day
Marc
c


Sure, I like to correct you:)
This is Dr.Darden's forum (who was a bodybuilder himself and worked with many of them - see his books) and was brought into live to support his latest book "The NEW HIT", subtitle "The best muscle building system you never tried" and the remark "advanced bodybuilding routines" on the left side of the cover. Furthermore his new book will be about "advanced bodybuilding" per se.
So if you like it or not this is a bodybuilding site.
And to your notion about hypertrophy for the sake of hypertrophy alone, I can say only that most of the trainees are here for that very reason. Either because their underweight and want a muscular body or because their overweight and want to show their muscles covered up to now by the fat and a few really big and muscular guys trying to push their genetics to the limit.
In any case an increased strength, stamina and health will come along with the training and is sufficiant for the average to be more functional in everyday life and recreational sports.
Plus, not everybody is build anatomically to break records in strength demonstrations or to become extraordinary strong in general.

So, if you like to demonstrate strength, workout with plyometrics, fast and heavy singles and whatever then do it.
But don't sell it as a better way to improve the body/performance/health for the average (or below average).
Because that's just not true!

Franco


Open User Options Menu

chris mason

Virginia, USA

Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
...So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training....

Marc,

with all due respect, you just pointed out yourself with that paragraph that OL isn't suited for Hypertrophy!
And exactly that's the point!
Like Tyler said, we're a BB board here, which means we seek hypertrophy before anything else.
And this as injury-free as possible.
BTW, this "instinct"(I rather think it's not an instinct but learned behaviour from copying how others do it) to lift weights quickly is exactly responsible that people get injured in everyday life so often.

Regards,

Franco



Franco

If you are in a certain weight class, you would not want to build any more mass, for fear you have to compete in a higher weight class. This has nothing to do with the lack of OL being non-suited for hypertrophy. By the way, there are some BIG muscular OL's. I'm sure these OL's are doing HIT in their spare time to get BIG and muscular.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this site is about HIT. The T stands for training, not bodybuilding. If you want to bodybuild that is ok, but not everyone is just into bodybuilding. From Tyler's comments, he seems to be into lots of athletic endeavors, not just bodybuilding. Furthermore, hypertrophy for hypertrophy sake alone, seems so limiting, and unrewarding.

Have a nice day
Marc
c

Sure, I like to correct you:)
This is Dr.Darden's forum (who was a bodybuilder himself and worked with many of them - see his books) and was brought into live to support his latest book "The NEW HIT", subtitle "The best muscle building system you never tried" and the remark "advanced bodybuilding routines" on the left side of the cover. Furthermore his new book will be about "advanced bodybuilding" per se.
So if you like it or not this is a bodybuilding site.

And to your notion about hypertrophy for the sake of hypertrophy alone, I can say only that most of the trainees are here for that very reason. Either because their underweight and want a muscular body or because their overweight and want to show their muscles covered up to now by the fat and a few really big and muscular guys trying to push their genetics to the limit.

In any case an increased strength, stamina and health will come along with the training and is sufficiant for the average to be more functional in everyday life and recreational sports.

Plus, not everybody is build anatomically to break records in strength demonstrations or to become extraordinary strong in general.

So, if you like to demonstrate strength, workout with plyometrics, fast and heavy singles and whatever then do it.
But don't sell it as a better way to improve the body/performance/health for the average (or below average).
Because that's just not true!

Franco




Ok, that is your opinion. What is your proof?

Chris

Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy