www.inno-sport.net/You%20don’t%20know%20squat.htm
I enjoyed this article a lot. It is one of the best I have read from their site. Nothing groundbreaking, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Some comments about that article…
From the same article,
“However, as stated above, without an accompanied load release at the end of the movement you will incorrectly program the nervous system to de-emphasize agonist action at the end of a movement, and actually increase antagonist activation, which creates a faulty pattern of activation, which causes a BIG PROBLEM…I know that many athletes and coaches have had success using CAT techniques but given the research above, it makes me wonder if their results would have been even greater if they implemented their acceleration training in a slightly different manner”
If you use CAT then you know that once the bar gets past the intermediete section then does it really effect your bench press (in current and subsequent sessions) if you decelerate the movement at the top?
I will put it to you this way,
Deceleration doesn’t mean that all of sudden you stop using all motor units and fibres to stop the acceleration of the bar! You stop using some fibres and units bc you no longer need them to finish the lift plus you are saving your energy for later lifts! Also bc you stop using some MU and fibres to stop accelerating the bar doesn’t mean you start using your atagonists! This sounds like ludicris to me unless you actually try to hold onto the bar after doing an explosive bench press at 50% 1RM! In lifting greater than 80% the bar doesn’t pull you off of the bench when using CAT! This is all bogus! We all know that when training for strength the entire force-velocity curve does not shift upwards, only the parts related to strength/strength-speed/speed-strength! So it would be ludicris to think that I am going to beat Ben Johnson bc I have a bigger bench and squat then he does! We all also know that the only way to increase the velocity part of the force-velocity curve is to have only a slight increase in resistance of 10% which will lead to a shift in the entire force-velocity curve!
Would people quit talking about apples and oranges! The reason CF’s approach produced the world’s fastest man is bc he work both ends of the Force-Velocity curve! To think and compare working one part to another is just plain ignorant! CF vertical integration tackles both ends of the spectrum and combines them so that the conversion from strength to speed is being utilized all of the time and hence there is no need for a traditional conversion phase! It ticks me off when people use examples like this to justify using nautilus cam and other contraptions instead of focusing on the problem at hand!
There is nothing wrong with deceleration in strength training! Ideally you want little deceleration as possible and people familiar with CAT know when the proper time to start delecerating a bar! Whenever you are doing MAXIMUM STRENGTH you all know that deceleration of the bar is going to happen what some people don’t know is that you want the deceleration to be minimal and for me personally that usually occurs at the very top not the intermediete range!
In conclusion, quit worrying about deceleration in strength training and focus on acceleration on plyo’s and explosive med ball throws! I would include something like the plyo/ballistic bench press as an example of speed-strength not strength so don’t compare apples to oranges!
P.S. Even if I’m wrong about antagonist activation then it doesn’t matter bc the CNS is a complex system and doing plyos and strength together will solve any so called “faulty pattern of activation”!
It’s funny that you put “faulty pattern of activation” in quotations. You seem to propose the same argument against the use of accomodating resistance. I agree somewhat with your assesment in this situation, and as James Smith says weightlifting is General Preparation for everyone but lifters. And as you said the CNS is complex and we cannot assume that a specific shortcoming (in the eyes of the beholder) with general training will significantly affect the specific event. Is it valid for you to make this argument, while posing the same stance you’re arguing against of another training method? I don’t think it is.
And with your hypothetical situation of holding onto the bar with a %1rm you could do bench throws or jump squats with- some people are out there doing that as we speak. They hear that they should lift 30-60& of their max to increase power -using CAT improperly imo, but as the article said they’re doing more harm than good. In this situation they ARE teaching improper firing patterns, that WILL carryover to explosive movements like a VJ for example.
Also from an antectodal standpoint, I have found (as have many other people I’ve talked to) that my vert is decreased significantly for a couple days after “PIM” squats, but after doing jumpsquats, OL’s, and squats with Accomodating Resistance it is higher than normal.
That’s more then likely because of the neuromuscular fatigue and central fatigue brought on by the inherently heavier and more damaging PIM work which takes your system a couple of days to recover from.
Here’s a bunch of information on the topic from Siff’s supertraining site. The *** denotes Siff’s replies to an article. Pay particular attention to what’s in bold.
Introduction
<Although free weights are generally considered superior to weight machines
when training for strength, researchers and practitioners have for some time
recognized an inherent problem when using traditional free weight exercises
like the parallel squat and bench press. (5,13,16,17,37,43,44). For example,
Elliot et al. revealed that during 1-RM bench press, the bar decelerates for
the final 24% of the range of motion (10). At 81% of 1-RM, the bar
deceleration occurs during the final 52% of the range of motion. The
accompanying deceleration phases results in significantly decreased motor
unit recruitment, velocity of movement, power production and compromises the
effectiveness of the exercise. Essentially, strength and power are
accentuated at the beginning of the movement, but not through the entire
range of motion (28).>
*** Amazing! ALL human movement involves phases of acceleration and
deceleration. That is the nature of safe, efficient movement and a
consequence of movement having to obey the laws of physics. I would like
those authors to tell us what would happen if there were NO deceleration
phases in all movements. Strength and power are NOT necessarily accentuated
at the beginning of the movement, as has been revealed by force plate and
high speed video analysis. I am surprised that this information apparently
came from an article by the very competent Dr Newton - possibly it was
misinterpreted.
<Partial solutions to the aforementioned problem have included the use of
plyometric exercises, as well as Olympic style weightlifting and their
variations (9, 24). Plyometrics are considered to have an important
advantage over free weights, because the mass (i.e. body mass, medicine
ball) is accelerated throughout the range of motion. >
*** This remark is incorrect and shows a misapplication of biomechanics. For
the load to experience continued acceleration, the joints involved must never
slow down, even during the end of range, something that would seriously
damage the joints. As I commented earlier, all movement involves
acceleration and deceleration. During plyos, the mass is NOT accelerated
throughout the range of movement. During the eccentric or amortisation
phase, the mass is decelerated, just as is the case with free weights and a
varying degree of acceleration of the propulsive limbs takes place during the
concentric phase - also just as is the case with free weights. The only
difference is that the value of deceleration and acceleration (which depends
on the load being used and the manner of exercising) is different in each
case, with plyometric action altering the resulting force-time curves by
involvement of stored elastic energy and stronger myotatic stretch reflex.
<Likewise, Olympic-style weightlifting movements, because of their high
velocity characteristics and subsequent high power outputs, are also used to
train for explosive strength and to evaluate explosive strength in many
programs (1,2,6,8,13,14,26). Another possible method is free
weights-variable resistance training. For our purposes we will define
variable resistance as resistance that increases through the lifting phase
of an exercise and free weight-variable resistance as the two methods in
combination.>
*** No! “Variable resistance” simply means that the resistance VARIES, not
necessarily increases through the lifting phase. This choice of definition
is not acceptable, because the ability of a limb to exert torque/force
increases and decreases throughout the range of joint motion. One also has
to be cautious to distinguish between “high velocity” in lifting exercises
and “high velocity” in other sporting movements, a point that I raised in a
recent letter. What is high velocity in lifting is not even vaguely high
velocity in many unloaded or lightly movements such as throwing and hitting.
Far too often, it is implied that explosive strength exercises are sport
specific or functional because they are similar in to various sporting
movements in terms of velocity and explosiveness. This is misleading, for
the reasons I have just stated.
<Methods of Variable Resistance
Over the years, various solutions have been proposed to compensate for the
deceleration phase of strength training exercises. These methods include
variable resistance and accommodating leverage machines, iso-inertial
machines, as well as combinations of free weights and hydraulics, elastic
latex tubing or bands and large chains. Three very distinct free
weight-variable resistance methods will be covered here.
Free Weights-Elastic Resistance
Behm hypothesized that free weights together with the elastic resistance
provided by surgical tubing, would overcome the inherent shortcomings of
each, by complementing one another (5). According to Behm, the resistance in
elastic tubing will not provide an overload to the muscle at the beginning
of a movement, although it does provide increasing or variable resistance
throughout the movement. >
*** Fine, except for the very important point that maximum force or torque is
not produced at the end of range but characteristically somewhere between
90-110 degrees of joint angle. This implies that the joint will be
excessively loaded during the last phase of the exercise.
<Conversely, free weights provide resistance and an overload to the muscle
at the beginning of a movement, but not later in the movement because of
momentum and the corresponding need to slow the weight before coming to the
end of the movement. >
*** [b]This is the same old myth that momentum will simply carry the limbs way
beyond the range of muscular effort, much like a rocket being propelled from
its launching pad. While this may be the case with light loads, this
certainly not true with heavier loads. It is high time that this myth were
laid to rest, since it continues to rear its ugly head far too often in the
strength world. .
Even if this momentum effect happens to become noticeable, in order to launch
a load like this requires the generation of a high level of muscle tension in
the early stages of the movement - after all, to develop adequate momentum
one doesn’t simply push a load casually or gently. And if muscle tension is
developed, strength, power and hypertrophy will result, depending on one’s
chosen use of load, reps and sets. [/b]
The weight room is probably not the best of places when speed qualities are being developed. Not to trash the article – it’s a good article after all – but the message kind of becomes obsolete if you already have incorporated jumps, plyos, olys, and sprinting into your program (and as Supervenom already pointed out). However, if weights are the only thing you do, you might consider substituting those “fast-pumping” exercises with some ballistic ones, if explosiveness is desired (as the article correcty points out).
This discussion kind of overlaps some other areas already “dissected” in the forum:
a) going for proper sprint form when doing tempo; when ‘just running’ might serve you better (Charlie etc.);
b) doing endurance work in the gym (ultra long repetitions); when endurance could better be developed elsewhere (David W etc.).
Choosing the right tools for the job is paramount, everything else is passé. Of course, and somewhat contradictory, jump squats have served me well, albeit better when fine tuning than as a basic building blocks (for “building blocks” I always choose bounding and other jumping).
Holdin it down for the CHI in the 05
*** Amazing! ALL human movement involves phases of acceleration and
deceleration. That is the nature of safe, efficient movement and a
consequence of movement having to obey the laws of physics. I would like
those authors to tell us what would happen if there were NO deceleration
phases in all movements. Strength and power are NOT necessarily accentuated
at the beginning of the movement, as has been revealed by force plate and
high speed video analysis. I am surprised that this information apparently
came from an article by the very competent Dr Newton - possibly it was
misinterpreted.
Obviously deceleration is a natural part of human movement. But, one cannot infer that since deceleration is a natural occurrence, (especially with a loaded barbell on your back-which btw in itself doesn’t seem all that “natural” to me) that it is the optimal way to program your body to move. It is practical that with a heavier load there will not be any voluntary deceleration, but such a load would be so heavy that to get the lift started back on the way up one would either need to get a bounce off the chest or bounce out of the hole. This essentially lightens the load in the beginning of the movement.
*** No! “Variable resistance” simply means that the resistance VARIES, not
necessarily increases through the lifting phase. This choice of definition
is not acceptable, because the ability of a limb to exert torque/force
increases and decreases throughout the range of joint motion. One also has
to be cautious to distinguish between “high velocity” in lifting exercises
and “high velocity” in other sporting movements, a point that I raised in a
recent letter. What is high velocity in lifting is not even vaguely high
velocity in many unloaded or lightly movements such as throwing and hitting.
Far too often, it is implied that explosive strength exercises are sport
specific or functional because they are similar in to various sporting
movements in terms of velocity and explosiveness. This is misleading, for
the reasons I have just stated.
Again it’s obvious that one cannot recreate the type of speed seen in movements like sprinting, hitting, throwing in the weight room, but that doesn’t mean that “high-velocity” lifts can’t possess a distinguishable advantage in the development of certain aspects of power.
*** Fine, except for the very important point that maximum force or torque is
not produced at the end of range but characteristically somewhere between
90-110 degrees of joint angle. This implies that the joint will be
excessively loaded during the last phase of the exercise.
Zatsiorsky states on pg 27: “F(mm) is achieved when the position of the leg is near full extension. This is in agreement with everyday observation-the heaviest weight can be lifted in semisquatting, not deepsqatting movements”
Judging solely by the preceding statement it would be implied that I should be able to lift more in a squat, in a squat I would go down to parallel and come up to 120 degrees than I would a conventional quarter squat.That is just not the case. I think it is more appropriate to determine strength in a particular ROM by actually performing a test than going by what is characteristically “…”. Anyways this fact would be more applicable if you were trying to enhance quadricep strength but, that’s not what I’m after, I’'d much rather have a higher squat and vertical jump.
Even if this momentum effect happens to become noticeable, in order to launch
a load like this requires the generation of a high level of muscle tension in
the early stages of the movement - after all, to develop adequate momentum
one doesn’t simply push a load casually or gently. And if muscle tension is
developed, strength, power and hypertrophy will result, depending on one’s
chosen use of load, reps and sets.
Why not continue to keep maximum muscle tension throughout the ENTIRE movement? This should lead to even better gains of strength, power and hypertrophy.
This is written with due respect to the late Dr. Siff. I am stating my stance on what was written. I quoted his responses in my post just for convenience and clarity. I am simply responding to what was written and mean no offense, though if you find it inappropriate for me to present my argument in such a manner please let me know.
Bottom line from what I gather the article is in a roundabout way telling people not to squat. The arguments are over-rated as Siff demonstrated in the academic world, and as anybody with 2 eyes can see in the real world if you just look around. It’s funny the 2 people I know of who’ve made noteworthy gains using db’s system both squat around 400 lbs at around 160 lbs BW.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they qualified their recommendations. Squats may not be the best way to train for who?? Jump squats are great “if”?? Sure jump squats are useful, except I know the average punk reading and taking that crap to heart weighs about 120 lbs and would be lucky to squat 90. They read that and then they’re scared to squat. I know that cause they’re the ones that email me saying “I read this” “I read that” etc. Alright, so then it wastes my time because I have to sort all the bull**** out. Just to prove my point I actually have a reward out right now for the first person that can show me someone with a legitimate 35 inch VJ leap who can’t squat at least 1.5 times bodyweight…I’m sure I could easily go up to 2 times.
Oh yes, you’re totally correct. I assumed that we were talking about athletes with an adequate level of strength. I feel that getting to a 1.5-2x BW squat should be the number one priority. Luckily for me, I was able to reach this within a few months of actual training. This is not say I am not in the process of getting stronger, just that there are different avenues I’m taking. I still do heavy squatting, usually with a small amount of band tension (10-15%) added.
So it would be best to build up strength first (with squats). But then when there is enough strength, other methods should be used?
Also, with loads close to the 1 rep max, isn’t the deceleration minimized because you have to keep accelerating through the lift so you make the lift?
Is there a way a high/low principle could be applied to squats (similar to CFTS). With low weight, you can do jump squats, so there is no accel/decel issue. With high weight, you are forced to accelerate. But in between, if you are doing normal reps, then deceleration could become an issue.
You can still train for power before you bring your squat up to par, but should seek other means like medballs, olympic lifts, etc. Yes you are correct the deceleration is much less prevalent in lifts near your 1RM.
I don't know if I could draw a comparison between high/low intensity and high/low loading. The jump squats can be almost as taxing on your CNS as the heavy squats.
A better comparison would be weighted squats vs. bodyweight squats. The bodyweight squats would allow for recovery and would not tax the CNS. The heavy squats would bring about increased strength and intramuscular coordination. Lifts in the intermediate range (submaximal or repitition method) would not benefit strength as much as heavier lifts and would not allow for adequate recovery. Med/Low intensity would not really be much of a problem, but High/Med certainly would.( I believe CF has expressed a similar thought regarding running).
However just like in intermediate speeds in running a few negative effects are seen with the submaximal or repetition method. If the lifts are intentionally done slowly the body will learn to contract the antagonists throughout the movement, and if the lifts are done quickly there will be significant deceleration and antagonist involvement near the end of the movement.
I hope this makes sense
No I wasn’t trying to compare the intensity of high and low loading to the high and low intensity used in CFTS. (I wasn’t referring to the CNS demands). I just meant that just as intermediate work is not optimal for sprinting, intermediate probably isn’t optimal for strength work like squats. Thanks for the help though.
So are you saying that an athlete must have a 1.5x’s bodyweight to have a 35 inch vert? Or are you saying that an athlete must squat period to get his vert to 35 inches? There are many athletes that have amazing verticles that do not squat. Sure they could probably squat 1.5 x’s bdwt if they tried, but they don’t. In a round about way this reminds me of something I read a while back where CP tested male gymnists bench press strength. In this “study” CP had some (i don’t know the number) elite level male gymnists, whom had never bench pressed before, bench press for a 1RM Max. If I recall correctly, these guys averaged 315lbs. on their max, and it was the first time they ever bench pressed! Going by what was stated above, are we then to infer that if we want to become elite level gynmists that we must first be able to bench press 315lbs.?
I’m saying I haven’t seen a guy yet with a 35 inch vert who couldn’t squat 1.5 x BW either through training or naturally. Hell, actually I haven’t seen a guy with a legitimate 35 inch vert squat less then 2 x BW but just to be conservative I’m saying 1.5 x. But who knows. Maybe there out there but I don’t see them. I’m waiting.
You cannot stay close to 1x100% all the time; the majority of lifts must therefore be done at 75-90%. With ’normal’ squats you gain in strength and they give you a reason to try 100% once in a while. The consequences from better strength are far superior to any doubtfully negative issues with deceleration.
yes, but you have to recognize the difference between your 1RM and your 1RM on the given training day.
I’m not sure I’m following you? Do you mean that the lower intensity percentages should not be calculated beforehand, but the weights should be set according to how you feel the given training day? If so, I agree; feeling is better than computation! The other option would be to test your daily standard, although hardly a practical option.
I usually don’t calculate the percentages that much, they appear in my previous post just for illumination; the 75–90% range is just a matter of fact, if you decide to calculate the intensities in relation to your previous max. – a helpful tool when analyzing past training routines and planning new ones.
Mostly, I just kind of feel what weights are reasonable for the given day (keeping the overall progression in mind of course). Although, 1x100% is never spontaneous, weights close to 100% (“attack days”) are always strictly scheduled to fit the overall training regime in the meso- and macrocycle.