i dont think ben was an intermediate trainee.
The best quote yet on this, I’m only just slightly grasping the concept. Some questions I should have known to ask years ago;
- Are you saying sprinting builds more additional strength for sprinting than what lifting does?
- Is the stimulas effect of lifting really all that important? If the lifting is done after speed, why would you need to lift for a stimulus effect seeing as the track work has allready stimulated your nervous system? Wy the need for a c.n.s “tonic”? Is the tonic to help the next sprint session? Could that not be easier to achieve witout going to the gym?
I’m not seeing many strong points for lifting, if you’re suggesting the strength comes better from the sprinting.
I believe what he meant was that speed work is a strong stimulous, so sprinters can get away with a less elaborate and/or extensive weightlifting program than say, a thrower could. Not that weights did not help the sprinter to get stronger.
Very, very true. I was makeing a general response to your comment regarding sets of six not being heavy enough to stimulate strength gains. I too rarely exceed sets of three in my squat/deadlift training.
Re 1: past a certain point I’d say that it does. What is a more specific stimulus for sprinting than sprinting? I’ve seen many unscheduled PB’s (and/or the capacity for PB’s) in the weights during intensification of the track. The irony is: you need to have various strength qualities in place before you can sprint at a level where the sprinting preceeds the weights.
Re 2: Yes it’s important. Essential? Debatable. What is, apart from sprinting? You may be after a specific cns exposure leading into competition; there may be technical deterioration on the track and further training stimulus is desired; increased workload/capacity/stimulus in preparation for progressive intensification on the track; the list goes on (and I’m getting really tired): it is just one of many training tools.
There are principles and individuals. When strength levels reach a certain point, when do you decide that lower rep numbers that would require a higher weight to get the same stimulus is getting out of hand?
Same reason we dropped the deads in 1985- already getting out of hand.
1: Yes for both sprinting AND lifting.
2: Yes, the lifting stimulus remains important because the stimulus can come from farther to the rigt of the F/T curve, so less competition for CNS resourses, even if slight, and the general strengthening allows the stimulus to come from lifts that are not so directly involved in the sprint action, such as the Bench Press.
For further clarification on this, refer to the final taper graph that will be included in the new E-book to be released in a few days.
Charlie,
What type of load and/or RM is the 2x6 performed at? (8RM, 10RM)
Submax training at higher loads seems “safer” to me as due to low reps, you aren’t grinding a set out for a lengthy amount of time. Though, if this 2x6 is well buffered then it could be just as safe. 8RM would seem too light a load, but: Undertraining > Overtraining, especially when sprinting is in the equation as explained in this thread.
I thought the 2 x 6 was a good compromise for the lower body though we went to lower rep numbers with the bench.
Noted, but I was wanting to know whether these sets were of “heavy sixes” (6RM circa 80%ish) or “light sixes” (8-10RM circa 70%ish).
thet were heavy. In fact we just arbitrarily cut the weight off there and never even tested higher because I felt it was getting risky.
Charlie, this goes all the way back to how to quantify the load on the track,and the gym.
Watts are the common denominator of course,although they are the most fogotten and ignored dimension in training,and they might not be of prompt usage.
Also,which are the implications of all this for sports where watts in the gym (or on dyland for water sports for example) easily exceed the numbers expressed in the specific sport action?
Sprint work has watt outputs higher than in the gym, though many other sports would be lower.
Additionally you can look at peak watts, watts/sec, and sessional watts output.
If you think of a total, you can divide it between the sprints (in our case) and the weights to follow on the same day.
You are likeliest to hit a predictable total watts target if you can be ‘elastic’ between the two sessions (slower or curtailed sprints and more weights, or higher quality sprints than expected with less or no weights)
Very clear explanation of how crucial is the direction towards we are moving the bar on the stimulus continuum,at least as crucial as the so much more considered and discussed “totals”…
Squatting heavy 2-3 x per/wk? :eek:
What kind of volume per sessions are we talking about?
(2-3 p/wk seems like an aweful lot to me)
Charlie, how long did it take for your athletes to reach the level where it was unsafe to lift triples and doubles? When did they make the biggest gains in strength? Was is noticeable immediately or after unloading weeks?
I made an arbitrary decision to cut off any further movement up, leaving a higher rep number as the only way to maintain stimulus. The strength gains were steady as they followed a pre-made planning decision for the most part (the exception being Ben’s BP. Whether they were fully challanged is therefore moot.
In any event, because of the elastic nature of work, the biggest lifting gains will coincide with an injury period, forcing the transferrance of alrady gained capacities from a shared scenario to one almost exclusively directed to the weights.
WELCOME TO MY WORLD.
Refer back to my earlier post. what about an equivalent no of weekly reps spread over three sessions instead of one or two?
do u mean:
example 1: total reps 30, athlete would perform 30reps each training session.
example 2: total reps 30 per week, athlete would perform 10reps each training session.