5 sets of 10 with 90%?
No use 90% of 1rm to figure out your workout sets. 1rm 100lbs use 90lbs for your max
I agree with RB34 in the suggestion that a good strength program is a good strength program. Volumes and, during certain training phases, intensity might need to be adjusted so as not to conflict with sprint training demands, especially during later phases of the year, but that needs to be done with any plan.
Lyle, eat a donut and relax.
So what you are suggesting is that a good strength program for football is a good strength program for soccer, a good strength program for bobsled and a good strength program for a 100m sprinter?
I would have to seriously disagree based on my experience. I would even disagree on the basis of individual differences in athletes within the same sport/event. And, the higher the level of athlete, more individualization and customization will be required.
What ends up happening is that coaches try to mix and match weight programs based on success in other experiences with different sports and athletes. I would suggest that you do not do this, and spend more time trying to understand the needs of your athlete(s) and the requirements of their sport.
I work closely with an Olympic lifting coach that I allow to use my facility. He has very good success with his athletes in Olympic lifting competition. I’ve had good experience with my sprinters. Our training programs don’t look anything alike, and we agree wholeheartedly on why there are differences and why these differences must exist.
Charlie has a good explanation of why you cannot fall into the trap of the “a good strength program is a good strength program” thinking. I will try to get that video clip up to show you what he had to say.
As he would often comment in his seminars, “The operation was a success, but the patient died.” …meaning, just because you have improvements in the weight room, it doesn’t matter. What are your improvements on the track? Lifting is simply a means to an end - unless you are a competition lifter.
And - a note to all of you - be careful with the personal attacks. I do not want this discussion to degrade - but rather, I would like to see good reasons for why you think a given lifting program is appropriate. Honestly, I still haven’t heard a good reason for why the original program was appropriate for sprinters. “Good for sprinters” is a blanket statement. I need to see the details of the sprinting program before I can even comment on the suitability of a given lifting program and associated plyo program.
It’s good enough for me, I don’t care about running at this time. BTW, my clients are having great success in the weightroom and on the field.
I believe you stated that the above weight lifting program was good for sprinters. I’m just trying to expand the discussion to determine why it would be good for sprinters.
I think passing it off as “it’s good enough for me” doesn’t help us understand your reasoning for its use by sprinters.
I’m not picking on you… I just want to understand your reasoning. I think it’s important for people to support their assertions with good logic and solid examples of where their philosophy has worked so that the rest of the forum members can get a deeper understanding of how to make good choices for their training and their athlete’s training.
What I am worried about is that someone will take your post and simply start using that approach because you said it was good. I would rather they understand why it may or may not be good, and then make an educated decision on whether or not to apply it with their training.
I’m still of the strongly held belief that RB34 (whatever) is just a really lame troll. Someone told me he’s supposedly a strength coach somewhere; if so you think he wouldn’t be quite this damn ignorant.
No problem.
Wow - I must be on your mind - go get laid and get off my jock. Pencil neck, I’m still waiting for you to answer my question?? Btw, does the “mcd” in your name stand for " male crossdresser"?
I love this line. So many times people will tell you all about the work that they’re doing, the total meters, the gains in the weight room, but when you finally get down to what the end result was, they don’t have much to say. One of the most common responses will fall along the lines of, “Yeah well, we had some bad luck with injuries near the end, so he never got to really show what he could do.” Bad luck always seems to be the culprit when it comes to injuries; it never could be training.
Seriously guys. Cut the crap and talk about the programme. I don’t care who started it.
A throws coach that helped me had a programme of the following
10 14 12
8 12 10
6 10 8
5 8 6
4 6 5
3 5 4
Each line represented 3 sessions a week and covered 4 weeks (the programme was 24 weeks), sets were 3-5 sets. Did people improve on the programme, yes - did there performance improve - yes. Did I ever do the programme - no as it seemed to take away from my running training and being 3-4 inches shorter and 20-40kg lighter I needed to work on my speed and tehcnique, which seemed to suffer most under the above.
Similar to what we know about the negative implications of linear periodization, in addition to how Charlie described the pitfalls of it in the context of running volumes(ergo high volume low intensity progressing to low volume high intensity), the work capacity developed early begins to diminish as the intensity rises.
So, as time moves forward, the strength reached towards the end of the cycle is accompanied by a loss in work capacity and the lack of supportive foundational qualities may lead to muscular/connective tissue problems.
Now, the multi-faceted nature of training for speed presents enough variables to off-set this circumstance due to the supportive foundational work capacity elements that can be found elsewhere; however, my feeling is that such a definitive linear strength program 14 weeks in duration is too long.
I’m all for following a minimum effective dose philosophy; however, the Coan program would have to be, in my view, adjusted for a sprinter. The length of it and the implied very high intensities towards the end would be the likely culprit for problems in my opinion.
I think elements of the Coan program can be successfully integrated into a sprint program but performing it as written would be a mistake.
Regarding the problems with copying and pasting programs designed for one population and using them, as is, on another- this brings to mind what led Ben Johnson to hit his enormous bench press the days prior to Seoul. Charlie always stated how the weight program alone couldn’t have possible explained the weight he lifted that day. It was the interrelation of all high intensity elements.
Likewise, if a national level powerlifter were to follow the weight program that Ben used the weeks/months prior to that day I suspect the lifter would find himself doing anything but improving his contest results due to the lack of continuity and insufficient volume where needed.
We live in a cut and paste generation. I implore coaches to “think” about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Don’t just copy blindly. Use your brain, observe the results, make adjustments and move forward. This is how you learn. You will make mistakes. If you are not making mistakes, you are too stupid to notice and/or too proud to admit as such.
But if you don’t put the work behind your plans and learn in an organic process, you will be doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. Everyone thinks they are smarter because they have collected more and more information. It is like drilling for oil and not having the knowledge or means to refine it and bring it to the marketplace. Use your brain, apply your thoughts in a logical manner and gain wisdom.
Anyone who has spent any useful length of time with Charlie will know that “this” is what he wanted to convey the most - the quest for wisdom, not information. Find out what is useful and discard all that is not useful. In the final analysis, are your athletes improving?
Never enough said,N2. I miss some good ol’ times discussion here. Nor stimuli for such a discussion seem to have created the desired response lately. More attacks,and words vainly taken and spent personally,no real discussion. Surely not what Charlie expected from all of us.
Oh boy, when I posted the sample Ed Coan’s program - I listed some of the issues I had with it. I am in tune with my body and know what works for me; I wouldn’t have any issues with the program if there was built in deload weeks etc.
When my max strength numbers are high I usually run well for my ability level, I have responded great to heavier amounts of 90%+ training esp when the volume is low. I have a tougher time recovering from mod vol, reps, and weights vs. low volume heavy weights 2x2x95%.
BTW, earlier last fall when my lifting intensity and volume was higher I saw improvements in sprint times weekly while using timing gates.
My “former boss” had tons of success with lifting lots of heavy weights and getting guys in shape, something that most people on here would frown on.
I’m at my best when I leave all the “science” shit at the door and go back to my roots…
I love this site and everything it has taught me as a coach/athlete, one of major issues I have with the site is many of the members’ only view training from one side. If it doesn’t fit CFTS concepts then it’s wrong. We have members’ calling successful coaches - Dan Pfaff stupid because he does single leg jumps or Seagrave because of all the various drills he comes up with. Why not have an open mind – like we all wanted others to view Charlie. It pisses me off when I speak to other coaches and they discredit Charlie training methods because they refer to him as a “drug coach”.
I agree RB. Charlie has taught everything to me.I applied the CFTS training principles to many programs of athletes I worked with,from many different sports. Am I still applying them? To a degree. But they are always very valuable principles as such,and always an extraordinary lens through which look at any training regime,analyze it,and build upon the gathered observations. How can we ever observe something if we have no point (or an ever changing point) of observation?
I think this is the key here. Your speed level and response to weights is specific to you. You responding well to the heavier weights makes sense because you, with all due respect, aren’t fast enough/capable of generating the power output on the track to cause conflicting problems. Same goes for most collegiate non-track athletes which is why, and I don’t agree with it, most collegiate S&C coaches can get away with over volumized high intensity strength training. This would specifically apply to back/hip/knee extension high intensity lifts.
I see that you are currently not feeling the “science”; however, understanding the scientific foundations/adaptation process, and so on, is what allows one to make well thought out training adjustments for different populations.
If that’s the case; then 95% of athletes aren’t fast enough/capable of generating the power output on the track to cause conflicting problems? There are only a handful of athletes that are capable of running 9.7-10.0… If we want to talk about team sports then the number would increase to 98% - I’m faster then most of the athletes I coach. Knowing what we know, shouldn’t we modify the training of these lower level athletes and not follow a pure s2l or cfts system - maybe these athletes would be better off pushing more weights/plyos etc?..
I should have also added that the overwhelming majority of collegiate programs do not perform true alactic speed work and the ‘faster running’ that is performed is of very short distance so between those two factors the only conflicting demands are that most coaches don’t understand stress response, workload vs recovery, high vs low CNS stress, and so on.
As to whether it would be more beneficial for the majority of collegiate athletes to perform more relative higher intensity lifting due to lesser power output capabilities, I would still advise against this in favor of monitoring what’s of the most importance and for most, not all, it’s speed: power abilities. So my thought process is rooted in more intelligent training monitoring (ergo who cares what they squat, bench, power clean, etcetera) and make use of the available diagnostic machinery (GPS, time:motion, and so on) to assess special physical preparatory increases. This is something I went into great detail on in lecture at South Alabama.
So, by all means, if more weights lifted serves to improve the most relevant SPP markers then have at it. It just so happens, in my experience, that it’s a very mixed bag which is why each situation and individual must be treated with the deserved attention.