I’m posting this topic here because I could not find my answer through the search function, however I would imagine the topic has already been discussed?
Could someone tell me whether light load explosive weight training (30-60% max volume) should be used as a consistent part of a weight training program. I know submaximal weights are used in numerous training programs, and the research behind its use seems pretty well documented. However from personal experience of dabbling with it in my training program off and on not lasting for more than 2 months or so I have seen no added benefit of it being in my program and sometimes it has even hindered it, it almost seems like it makes the weight feel heavier on my heavy days by using light weight on other days, and if the gains are negligable in terms of their contribution to my heavy days are these explosive days even worth my while?
Even at the faster rates the crossover effect to performance should be IMO far less than say doing more sprint specific plyos. Do I have this right or am I missing something or not giving the explosive lifts enough time to work their magic? How important is Rate of Force Development?
You’re right! This has been discussed numerous times before and there is no need for a sprinter to be doing jump squats etc. for explosive strength. Sprinting is plyometric, not ballistic. Use weights between about 85-100% of your max in the gym and do sprinting and plyos to improve rate of force delivery. No use for the middle man here
Correction, sprinting is sub-ballistic in terms of the movement of the limbs through the air and the landing of the foot. Jump squats are now the ubiquitous exercise when people talk about ballistic training but in fact, it is a poor strength training exercise for sprinting. You get much better results seperating weights from plyometrics.
Depending on your school of thought you either lift in the 80-100% range or you lift in the 30-60% range. This is not because you are trying to generate more speed/velocity but more to do with more power.
On exercises like the power clean and snatch you MUST lift 80-95% to generate maximal power. But on an exercise like the squat and bench, working in the 30-70% range produces maximal power and strength. It all depends on the exercise and the leverage. The speed-power curves of certain exercises produce different outcomes. You will also find that the jump squat is the bench mark because it can be done on a smith machine with the landing controlled by decelerators so that you don’t waste away your knees and spine, and it is an easy exercise to reproduce in the lab, thats why researchers like newton et al like it so much.
So, it is fair to say that SOME exercises are more beneficial when training in the 30-70% range because they allow strength and power to be optimal whilst the olympic lifts are invariably best utilised when training in the 80-95% range. In saying that some individuals will have different strength profiles.
You can only be certain about what to do if you have an experienced coach or you use something like a fitrodyne to work out your strength profiles
Martn76, bench press is not sprinting specific and with the studies still being mixed about the benefits of explosive submaximal weight training would it not be more beneficial to stay at the 80-95% range and attempt to move the whole curve.
Also using the 30-70% range and assuming you incorporate body weight into your measurements like I do that leaves you with very little weight if any at the lower end of the percentage scale, and with squat being less specific in terms of crossover than plyos, why not just use plyos and again keep the 80-95% squat?
I understand that the swing mechanics are not plyometric, but I was referring to the force delivery into the ground which is the determining factor of faster running as you probably agree.
Check out Supertraining by mel Siff, alternativley wait till I get home tonight then i will give you are proper definition so that there is no confusion. Hip flexor strength is also a determining factor and when strengthened can in fact affect ground contact time. So can greater hamstring strength acquired through co-ordination training (drills bounding) and explosive exercises. So it is still important to realise that ground contact time can be decreased indirectly by training prime movers explosively using weights or drills.
Weights can never be SPECIFIC, so lets not talk in terms of specificity rather in terms of generating power and the rate of recruitment of muscle fibers and the effects of weights on nervous system and fiber composition.
Why are you incorporating bodyweight into the percentages? Once you start taking off the ground with weights you bring into action the elastic components of muscle, tendons and ligaments. You are then missing the point of training muscular explosive strength. Also the strength curve changes in respect to power generated and load. You are better off training plyometrics and strength separately.
Perhaps I am missing the point here, or just do not have an accurate grasp of the concepts of using submaximal weights as I am very new to the concept and terminology. I am not trying to argue against you on these points, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind them because I have fairly limited knowledge on the subject.
I use body weight in my calculations because doing the same lifts without weight still takes energy, you still have to lift a portion of your body weight. I dont use my full weight just a portion depending on the lift.
However back to the main focus of this discussion I understand the goal of sprinting is not maximum strength alone, but a combination of producing high amounts of strength in a short amount of time.
My view and I must stress after some limited research and not quite grasping the big picture is that maximum strength is best produced by heavy weight training. Also I have read that maximum strength begins to decrease if no work is done at 75% or higher. So isn’t it wise to keep lifts of over 75% in the weight session as to keep maximum strength at a high level?
Also I agree that most studies show that submaximal lifts do improve RFD, but what are we trying to produce a quick RFD for? sprinting, so why would it not be better to do things that will improve RFD and be specific to sprinting such as plyos or weighted jumps?
Once again I know that my knowledge on this subject is anything but complete so please tell me where I am going wrong with this logic.
RFD with plyometrics affects elastic and muscular components whilst strength training with weights affects muscular contraction.
Switching between maximal strength training and submax prevents negative CNS adaptations that occur with max strength for most individuals who are not elite. Just three sessions of max strength training can lead to fast fiber taking on the characterstics of slower fibers. As we know the CNS innervates muscle and so controls fiber make-up. Contrary to what is believed by most, max strength can and does improve RFD but only for heavier loads. Max strength should not be used as a tool for improving RFD but as a means of innervating as much muscle fiber as possible. Submax CAN and DOES improve max strength but obviously not at the same rates as heavier weights.
Lifting submax in an exercise like the squat CAN improve RFD and max strength, BUT lifting submax with olympic lifts will lead to nothing much.
Tidow has demonstrated that max stremgth training leads to a decrease of fast fiber in muscle but explosive strength training leads to a return and even an OVERSHOOT after approx 3-4 sessions… Max strength can not be discarded and I am not advocating that BUT do not underestimate the importance of submax weights.
Also JUST doing sub-max on its own will not work it must be preceeded by a phase of hypertrophy training OR max strength for 6-8 weeks. I would not go lower than 50% of max maybe 40% from time to time…
What is your reasoning for not going below 50% of the max? I know there are still discrepencies about what percentages produce peak power, I have read anywhere from 10-75%, however I believe most literature suggests between 25-40% results in peak power output especially exercises recruiting the larger muscles and/or multiple joints.
Read carefully it recruits ALL muscle fibers BUT after a period of time the fastr fibers take on the characteristics of slower fiber. Thats why you MUST limit max strength to short periods of 6-8 weeks. I am very sure…
Personal experience in the field. 50-70% seems to allow you to still develop strength and power in tandem. Also we do phases where we concentrate on EACH individual rep so we have a rest between each rep of about 5 secs this seems to improve explosiveness even more do not worry about the strange looks you get from others in the gym orthodoxy is not always the right way.
So you are referring to a conversion phase as in Bompa’s periodisation model. Am I right?
I still do think that sprinters don’t have to use such a phase as doing your strength training in the 85-100% range, plyos and high intensity sprinting concurrently is going to take care of all the (high intensity) requirements. The weight liftling volumes needed are not high enough to cause any significant fiber type changes or adverse effects on speed.
Regarding hip flexor strength and explosive training for the prime movers, I do not fully agree. As you probably have noticed, recent studies have shown that paw back doesn’t exist, only the ground contact matters and that the ground contact is too short for any volitional production of force at top speed, so you are dependent on muscle stiffness and elastic properties etc. for force production. Knee lift isn’t solely dependent on hip flexor strength either as the ground reaction force is what enables you to do it. If you are not applying enough force into the ground in a short enough period of time don’t even dream about getting a good knee lift. So it’s the GRF that causes the knee lift not the other way round.
Of course your acceleration ability might benefit from some ballistic work such as explosive medicine ball throws or olympic lifts, but there is still no need to mix in the 50-70% weights. They simply don’t offer anything that isn’t already taken care of by the other high intensity components.
Re: sub-ballistic, couldn’t find it in Supertraining and can’t remember ever hearing about it. So could you look up the definition for us. Thanks.
Experience and what I have observed and the results I am getting with my athlete suggest that ground contact time can be improved by hip flexor/extensor strength. If you can not position your body in the right way and improve timing of movement through explosive ballistic movements then you may as well forget even thinking of improving ground contact time…
You need strength and co-ordination to position yourself in the correct alignments to apply force to the ground. I
Sprinting is sub-ballistic because the initial actions require a steep rise in muscle tension but at the same time the action is characterised by a cyclical action of the legs and arms which is classified as cyclical speed hence sub-ballistic. The ground contact at the start of the 100m sprint is classified as muscular explosive strength whlist at top speed it is characterised by explosive reactive ballistic actions. Muscle actions ARE important regardless of the spring mass model, if you are explosive then it is easier to maintian the correct technique in order to align the body to reduce ground contact time.
A ballistic action can not be corrected after it has been initiated it is almost automatic in action. SPRINTING IS SUB-BALLISTIC because once you have initiated hip extension or flexion you can not correct the movement without disruption to sprint mechanics.
Why are you so fixated with the idea that 50-70% does not work? It depends on the exercise. Olympic lifts DO NOT benefit from working in such a range BUT the squat and bench do.
Call it conversion or what ever but alot of athletes do benefit from switching between hypertrophy max strength and explosive strength training.
The effects of maximal strength training are SO profound that its benefits and disadvantages can be masked by some types of supplements and so the whole strength curve is affected, when in reality this would not be the norm. Maximal strength training in the 80-100% phase leads to contraction times of 2-6 secs. Fast fibers usually contract for 80-120ms . This contraction time leads to fast fibers taking on the characteristics of slow fiber over a relativley short period. Regardless of speed work on the track. Regardless of plyometrics.
Resistance training seems to affect light chains in muscle and the CNS more profoundly than other forms of power speed training.
Maximal strength training is and must be done but on some occasions using 50-70% in SOME exercises can augment its advantages.
Thanks for the clarification. Anyway, I’m not going into this any further as it was debated more than thoroughly in the Barry Ross on Ben and Maurice! thread. Anyone interested can find the two different views in there.
I might as well ask, why you are fixated that 50-70% work is needed Agreed on the olympic lifts though.
According to traditional periodisation this is the case, but my view is that hypertrophy training is to be avoided in most cases.
Again this is true if the training is done according to the traditional periodisation plan with high volumes of weight lifting in the maximum strenght phase then explosive lifting to counteract the negatives.
If we keep lifting volumes low and intensity high (85-100%) it can be done year round and coupled with plyos and high intesity sprinting there is no need for the explosive squats. This doesn’t mean that you couldn’t use them or that you couldn’t get results with your way of organizing the training components. It all depends on how you view the needs of the event (ballistic or plyometric/reactive) and your periodisation model.
A small volume of max strength still causes changes. Max strength training is low volume any way, you can not lift max strength weigths with high volume and if you do you soon find out any way.
Tidow and schmidtbleicher have shown that fiber conversion can not occur (slow isoforms converted back to faster isoforms) when plyo max strength and speed are done at the same time. Only when the training empasis changes to either speed work or plyometrics do we see muscle overshoot in favour of fast fiber OR decreased volume of training.
I may add that this is my personal experience with and observations as well as science. But above all its what you experienced not what anyone tells you. If what you have written above is producing the goods then all power to you… if not then consider all avenues.
My fixation with 50-70% is based on testing with sports diagnostic equipment. Do you do any sports testing? If not how do you know that what you are doing or have been told is correct for you or your athletes. It is fascinating how much of an eye opener sports testing can be.
Do a search for “chronojump”, I assume you are a jumper. It may come in useful.
Agreed on the olympic lifts though.