Science and pracitce of strength training by zatsiorky for this part… Ie increasing strength from a bw squat to a 2xbw squat = big improvements in vert. but from 2xbw squat to 3xbw sq doesnt wont do much because strength is no longer the limiting factor and RFD is
Strength isn’t the be all and end of of power. First you have to absorb and react out before you can apply power. Yes it can help, but only to point.
Someone at my level isn’t going to gain much on his VJ by upping the squat from where its at now.
This part is a bit airy fairy but makes sense
Especially a running jump. And I’m not exactly a slow person.
Anecdote no references needed
Working on strength speed increases my strength faster than plain old heavy weights and reps. Mag work gives you best bang for the buck, you get both stronger and faster - at least for me. Which is where the individual specific training comes in
Where can i read about isometrics affecting strength in relation to eccentrics?
Also what about the position of the isometric? in the stretch position is supposed to have a high carryover to the full ROM.
In the weak position depending on the speed of movement improvements there (if the week point is your limiting factor) could theoretically have a 100% carryover… Ie if the weakpoint is holding you back and you improve your strength in that position by 5kgs it may (if that position is what is holding you back) increase the entire lift by 5 kgs… This is obviously over simplified as momentum etc will cover weak points…
Supertraining andThibaudeaus new book have a lot of good info on isometrics, to name a couple.
Isometric lifts tend to only yield a strength increase at that specific joint angle plus or minus a few degrees of joint motion. The key to strengthen the overall lift is to strengthen the lift through its entire range of motion (eg a big quarter squat does not make for a big full squat, however, a big full squat makes for an even bigger quarter squat)
All this talk regarding the manipulation of isometric work is well founded, however, to reiterate that which tends to get overlooked in lieu of the current training trends of the day, most athletes will benefit quite some time from simply loading the bar and lifting it.
If your fast and weak, then prioritize max strength work. If your strong and slow, prioritize RFD work.
Most athletes, specifically young/novice, will benefit greatly from developing a sound base of general physical preparedness before they begin to consider advanced training methods.
Yeah I was refering specifically to the eccentrics have a greater impact on strength than isos and any studies comparing the two…
Also the isos generally only yield a strength increase at that specific angle… but isos in the stretch position definetly have a better carryover (that isos in other positions), and i believe some carryover to the whole ROM…
Isometric lifts tend to only yield a strength increase at that specific joint angle plus or minus a few degrees of joint motion.
This is not true. Isometrics performed in the stretched position tend to have a greater carryover to other joint angles. This is also stated by Vorobyev who reported in his training text a study performed in the '70s. Mel Siff was too conservative on this point and a lot of coaches are taking as gold what he said, missing an important tool in athlete’s development.
Greater than what other joint angle. I’ve seen research that goes both ways. Some research says isometrics increase strength at 15-degrees higher and lower than the position, and some research says there is no transfer. I don’t think it’s a question of isometrics being a valuable tool, but what role they play in the athletes development and if a better tool can do a better job. James makes a very good and easy to use statement regarding max strength and rfd (and extremely practical and understandable to the athletes themselves).
I don’t think we are splitting hairs. Mel Siff stated that by performing isometrics with a specific joint angle we have a limited carryover to other joint angles, but it is not true, at least it is not true in general. In fact, as I stated in my previous post, performing isometrics in the stretched position (for example bench press with the barbell distant a inch or two from the chest, or squat with parallel position of thighs) give important gains for all the other joint positions (as stated by Vorobyev and from personal experience). So, considering the BP, isometrics in the stretched position will help also with the lock-out. I’m not saying that an athlete has to perform only iso work, but this kind of work (isometrics in the stretched position) has been strongly used also by Schroeder, who, accordingly to his bio, studied a lot of Russian texts on training. It could be that we read the same texts.
I think your position misses a very important rule of biomechanics which states the joint’s position dictates recruitment. If someone uses isometrics will they get stronger in all joint angles, yes but that’s relative and not equal through the ROM.
Speedkills,
I didn’t state the carryover would be the same through the ROM and I’m not stating that iso work is the best means for strength development. I’m stating that performing iso in the stretched position gives more gains through the complete range of movemet with respect to performing iso in other positions (when we have the plus or minus some degree rule proposed by Mel Siff).
Kruger, read through Supertraining’s chapters on isometrics and eccentric action.
Isometrics do tend to be very specific to joint angles, though that is marginally improved if the isometric is performed in a position of stretch.
There’s also something I remember about having a very limited time of applicability…after short blocks of training, they become essentially ineffective at increasing max strength.
Eccentric strength, on the other hand…if I’m remembering right (I don’t have the book right here) it shows fairly dramatic increases in strength and over longer periods of time.
In this thread I was specifically referring to more direct carryover, though…since eccentric strength by definition increases the amount of force the connective tissues can absorb, it’d be far more likely to have an acute carryover to reactive strength, as opposed to isometrics which don’t involve the elastic storage or reversal of energy at all (barring explosive-isometric or oscillating-isometric training).
simonevincenzi, what I like is that you stated that you have personally found success by performing iso’s in stretched position and I presume that they benefited the entire lift. Personally, I have only used overcoming iso’s, which in my view, and obviously, are a great stimulus for developing starting and explosive strength.
What else were you doing at the time which you were performing iso’s in stretch position? I ask so as to rule out the posibiliy of another training stimulus yielding you the gains that you may have believed to been caused by the iso work.
Any day of the week I will go off of practical experience over what I have read.
James,
I was performing iso’s in the stretched position some months ago and I had very good gains in the bench press and in the one-legged squat. After some weeks, if I remember well, I had to stop performing them because I had to train alone and without a power rack. I performed iso’s as the main lift for upper body (as a substitute for BP in the 3-5 reps range) and as supplementary lift for the lower body. I found gains through all the ROM and particularly in the stretched position (of course). After that period I performed for some time Oscillatory isometrics as suggested by Siff and DB in chin-up and one-legged squat and I found them very useful for waking-up the reactive capacity. So I’m strongly in favour of iso’s in the stretched poistion and oscillatoy isometrics. Obviously, what can be a useful tool for intermediate athletes (for ex.OI for waking-up reactive abilities) could be a total waste of time for upper-level or elite athletes.
James,
if I remember well I was alternating between days with 30 secs-75% (3-5 sets) and 5-10secs - 95-100% (5-6 sets). For OI I was using 6-8 reps for 3-5 sets with a weight allowing me to be reactive (very general statement).
So with the stretch iso’s were you performing singles for those time intervals?
Yes, considering them in terms of time under tension they would compare to a 1-3 reps (5-10 secs) and to a 6-8 reps (30 secs). I read an interesting point by Vorobyev about the optimal number of series of iso’s (I will report it).