For our training, the eccentric portion of the lift is not as important because it will not closely relate to the goal of the concentric contraction. We do want eccentric contractions as part of the workout, but in the form of a plyometric exercise in order to increase rate of release of stored potential elastic energy. The change from eccentric to concentric contraction in the squat is too slow, causing to much potential energy to dissapate as heat. The dead lift is moving in the wrong direction so it is less effective then the squat for production and use of EE. Since we include depth and box jumps as part of each set, we get a faster and safer effect along with supercompensation. Makes the whole thing much more efficient and effective, while reducing weight room time.
Great post, thanks! 
The only real difference between Squat’s additional eccentric part is the total time under tension and TUT can be compensated for by rep adjustments.
One point I’d like to bring up again involves the attempt for specificity in the weight room. Some coaches picked the dead over the squat, instructing athletes to eliminate any sort of eccentric action in the dead as well as in certain jumps, hoping for a carry over to the start, where “winding up” is deadly.
I could never master this as an athlete, yet I never had a problem with rocking back at the start, so I abandoned the concept as a coach.
Bear,
Do you ever incorporate the use of chains and do you use different variations of the deadlift?
A few thoughts on the above, if I may.
I suppose the risk/benefit ratio is an issue with the OLs vs. the Deadlift and I wouldn’t recommend to anyone going there, if they can’t teach an acceptable level of technique as a minimum. However, Bear and in the context of the alternatives proposed, why are the depth jumps “safer”? And do they worth your preference vs. the eccentric component of the Squat keeping in mind that none of them closely approaches/simulates the sprinting action? Of course, I understand the faster eccentric phase involved in plyometrics.
Also, with the above mentioned requirement in place (i.e., technique) I’d prefer to keep my options open and use each of them accordingly with regards to stimulus (e.g., as Charlie suggested, %MUs and intensity -for “effectiveness” and “efficiency”, as you say, as this option would cut down training time as well). Of course, when talking about large® groups of athletes Deadlift and Squat may be preferred for didactics, I understand that.
But, Bear, if I am not mistaken you don’t worry about this kind of thinking before competitions, or at any other time for that matter, as you don’t seem to have a “structured” weight programme in the more traditional sense, if you want, but guided more by the feeling of the athlete, no? It would be interesting to hear, however, how this works with your athletes before races; is there an element that varies in your programme (e.g., nature/volume/intensity of jumps, etc)? And how?
Thanks!
No respose? 
I know this isn’t specifically for me, but I might jump in and ask about the depth jumps as well. Must they specifically be depth jumps or might other plyo work as well? What differentiation would you make by age, training age, and performance level?
I might comment on the “structured” weights as well. I worry that a reactive approach to weights, based on speed work realities (as I also use) might be viewed as structureless.
While in isolation, it may seem so, viewed in conjunction with the speed demands, the progression of general organism strength is orderly.
Thanks for this, Charlie! No, it wasn’t targeted to you, but it’s good to keep it going, I think.
Re depth jumps and apart from your points, I was more concerned with their “risk factor” vs. other alternatives proposed as either less productive, or safe (e.g., Squat, OLs, etc). I ended with more questions on this, but let’s start at least with something…
Re the apparently non-structured weight schedules, I understand what you are saying and I agree. Even this way of thinking, however, does not seem to agree with the point I made about Bear’s approach, i.e., literally no structure and almost independently of other training elements, races, etc. At least this is my understanding from his writings.
Hence, my unanswered thus far last post!
Thanks!
A few questions if I may,
-
Where does Tudor write about this arguement? I hope to speak to him later this year so this would be something I am intersted in as most people think I am nuts when I suggest a similar approach.
-
Why the middle stage of the taper period? Can you expand on how I could use this as I currently have 2 athletes who can lift pretty well…
Cheers,
TC
Don’t know where he wrote about it but I’ve talked to him many times on this and other issues.
In the middle stages you’re looking to minimise the number of lifts to get the required amt of stimulus, but in my system, the bench press is the last thing done and this wouldn’t be possible in an Oly lift only program
Wait to draw conclusions till you get an answer.
So perhaps a good thing to do would be to drop Squats a short way into the start of the maintenance phase and continue using cleans and bench press as the primary lifts. Then i can still use Bench for the last little bit going right up to the final taper? Perhaps even a split routine with Bench one day Cleans the next as you have suggested before?
Of course!
The above are not Bear’s opinion, just my understanding of his approach; hence my questions!
Bear’s approach on similar issues is as follows:
attack the 100% (in the exercise used in his programme) often, but not in a linear fashion and vary the workout sessions in no particular pattern. The focus should be on what happened in the previous 2-3 sessions. According to an example given the athlete was not in a competition period, “but it would not have mattered if the athlete was”.
Hence my questions of what happens during this period with any of the training parameters used! No changes at all?
And elsewhere again he claims that this approach is used “even during the most competitive part of the season”. Alyson Felix is given as another example saying that her fastest 200 m was two days after a high intensity max. “If you are concerned that performance will not be at peak strength on the day of the season’s most important meet or game, don’t be”.
Lastly, I don’t think Bear thinks that his approach affects CNS much, or if you want, we don’t have enough information for such a claim (i.e., how the CNS is affected overall).
I won’t continue this until Bear decides to come back on this, it’s only fair, I think.
Looking forward to his responses though!
Because they are not loaded from the outside, only by the effects of gravity. It’s hard to lose grip on gravity. They don’t require spotters.
And do they worth your preference vs. the eccentric component of the Squat keeping in mind that none of them closely approaches/simulates the sprinting action? Of course, I understand the faster eccentric phase involved in plyometrics.
Jumps do match the requirements of sprinting. They allow a loaded rapid change from eccentric to concentric contraction (with a following jump) which does match the requirements of sprinting. They create and store large amounts of potential elastic energy that can be realized as impulse energy–exactly what is required by runners. The eccentric portion of the squat matches none of the criteria.
Also, with the above mentioned requirement in place (i.e., technique) I’d prefer to keep my options open and use each of them accordingly with regards to stimulus (e.g., as Charlie suggested, %MUs and intensity -for “effectiveness” and “efficiency”, as you say, as this option would cut down training time as well). Of course, when talking about large® groups of athletes Deadlift and Squat may be preferred for didactics, I understand that.
Not the same. Not even close.
But, Bear, if I am not mistaken you don’t worry about this kind of thinking before competitions, or at any other time for that matter, as you don’t seem to have a “structured” weight programme in the more traditional sense, if you want, but guided more by the feeling of the athlete, no?
In a word…no
I’m not a touchy-feely quy in the weightroom. A lift falls into 3 categories: easy, good or missed. Easy is, well … easy. Good is a made lift in which the weight does not maintain a steady upward progress, regardless of speed. There is should be no hesitation once the bar begins to move. Missed is self-explanatory. The feeling of the athlete is not a consideration. If they had a good lift or a missed lift because of some mental or physical problem, I might take that into consideration when designing the next session.
It would be interesting to hear, however, how this works with your athletes before races; is there an element that varies in your programme (e.g., nature/volume/intensity of jumps, etc)? And how?
Thanks!
Only on the final goal meet of the season. They might get a break from scheduled lifting and stop as much as 3 days before the meet. 
yes, no.
Lastly, I don’t think Bear thinks that his approach affects CNS much, or if you want, we don’t have enough information for such a claim (i.e., how the CNS is affected overall).
I don’t think is does, and I have not found a single shred of evidence from any current studies that would make me believe differently (including studies published in the last couple of months). I certainly haven’t seen it cause any problems with my athletes.
Since our weightroom routine does not vary other than weight, and there is significantly less exercises and significantly more rest time than all of the other protocols i’ve used or seen or read about over the last 30 years, I don’t expect it to cause any problems.
and the more recent: Jumps do match the requirements of sprinting. They allow a loaded rapid change from eccentric to concentric contraction (with a following jump) which does match the requirements of sprinting. They create and store large amounts of potential elastic energy that can be realized as impulse energy–exactly what is required by runners. The eccentric portion of the squat matches none of the criteria.
While I accept that there is a training value to depth jumps and box jumps and I also understand how you explain your choice of them over Squats, I do not believe that plyometrics = the contraction and switching rates found in event performance. This as well as depth/box jumps being usually performed as two footed landings where as event performance is not. Can you explain further on this?
My thinking is that the progression is first in teaching them to be better absorbers of force.
When that quality is developed, then I’d look to improve switching times though benefit from the prior work has begun to address this.
Even though they may be better than what occurs during forms of squatting, depth/box jumps do not provide a “match” to sprinting.
A better match than squats perhaps, but the best match of the plyometric effects of sprinting is found in…sprinting.
I did not say that they would match the switching rates, only that they would allow a loaded rapid change–the rate of change would not be equal to sprinting but would far exceed the squat. The fact that they are two footed landing does not change their value in providing the dual benefit of supercompensation training as well as training storage and release of elastic energy. They should not, and cannot, replace fast running as the better plyometric exercise.
My thinking is that the progression is first in teaching them to be better absorbers of force.
When that quality is developed, then I’d look to improve switching times though benefit from the prior work has begun to address this.
If you do not agree with the spring-mass model that would make sense, but in the spring-mass model, force absorbtion is the exact opposite of what you want to do when running. Maximising the use of ground reaction force creates faster running.
depth/box jumps do not provide a “match” to sprinting.
A better match than squats perhaps, but the best match of the plyometric effects of sprinting is found in…sprinting.
The do provide a match, though not a perfect match, for the reasons I’ve stated above, but certainly we are in perfect agreement with your last statement!!
Bear argues that lifting doesn’t affect the CNS but the intensity x the number of lifts will determine that.
With Bear’s system, I’m sure he’s right, but what about a more comprehensive lifting program?
The CNS demand of sprinting will, at times, affect the lifting ability if it’s done afterwards as you are “fishing in the same CNS pond”.
Limiting lifts in that circumstance regulates the CNS demand in the way that least affects your primary objective. Additionally, if the CNS is relatively intact after sprinting, you may be able to carry the strengthening farther, as you’ve maximized the recovery time before the next sprint session.
Conversely, if comprehensive lifting preceeds the sprinting and/or is a set factor in training over a long period, you may not be able to determine the effect on the sprint workouts unless you drop lifting long enough that you may suffer some re-adaptation stiffness when you resume.
Consider each method in its entirety.
If you do not agree with the spring-mass model that would make sense, but in the spring-mass model, force absorption is the exact opposite of what you want to do when running. Maximizing the use of ground reaction force creates faster running…
I disagree. The progression at foot strike is force absorption, stabilization, reaction.
This progression has more than a little in common with another progression:
Eccentric, Isometric, Concentric.
If the contraction is to occur, there needs to be a stimulus. The amplitude of the following event is slaved to that which proceeded it. One does not get to “Maximizing the use of GRF…” without the prior events of force application, absorption, stabilization, et al…
One need not agree or disagree with the Spring Mass Model. One only has to agree on the function of a spring. Apply kinetic energy to a spring and you compress it. The energy applied is not lost but stored. I’d call that absorption. If you accept that energy is not lost in the universe than you also accept that energy converts, say from kinetic to stored or “potential”. In an earlier post, you said, “They create and store large amounts of potential elastic energy that can be realized as impulse energy”
From Schweigert’s siting of Siff & Verkhoshansky’s 5 phases of a plyometric event:
“…The third phase is the amortization phase when the kinetic energy produces a powerful myolatic stretch that leads to eccentric muscle action accompanied by explosive isometric contractions and stretching of the series elastic component. Forth is the rebound phase that involves the relaese of elastic energy from the SEC together with the involuntary concentric muscle action evoked by the myolactic stretch reflex.”
Muscle/tendon stiffness along with tendon length, during the eccentric phase of a ground contact (be it running foot strike or drop from height) begets eccentric RFD and on to dictating GRF which ultimately determines Ground Contact Time. Tendon stiffness minimizes coupling time and as well as minimizing energy loss. I dont see any of this as counter to the Spring Mass Model nor do I find the concept of absorption to be counter, either.
powerful myolatic stretch that leads
Powerful myotatic stretch reflex that leads
to eccentric muscle action accompanied by explosive isometric contractions and stretching of the series elastic component (SEC).
I have some doubts regarding this sequence.