low bar squat

[star61]

@james_colbert

ive said this many many times in many many many threads… iso lunges are not isometrics they are extremly extremly extremly extremly slow eccentrics. that is the key. the result is extremly rapid muscular contractions.

Wait a minute…is all this about Super Slow a la Wayne Westcott, Richard Winett and Ken Hutchins?

For those who aren’t familiar with Super Slow, the first study was done in 1993 and repeated in 1999 by Wayne Westcott, fitness research director at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts. The study was seriously flawed (even the authors admitted it was not well controlled).

An opposing, better controlled, study by D. K. Liow and W. G. Hopkins (Journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998) studied thirty-nine experienced male and female kayakers were matched by sex and sprint time and randomly assigned to a slow weight training, explosive weight training, or control (normal training, without weights) group. They trained twice a week for six weeks using unspecified sports-specific weight training exercises.

“The kayakers were tested before and after for time in the 15 meter sprint.
The kayaking study probably produced the results that most exercise physiologists would have predicted. After all, the most time-honored principle in sports science is the specificity principle: specific adaptation to imposed demand (SAID). Dr. Pat O’Shea, who made the case for lifting rapidly in our Lift Slow or Lift Fast article, highlights the importance of specificity in the second edition of his book Quantum Strength. He calls the SAID principle the “guiding force” of strength training. “It explains that physiological, neurological, and psychological adaptation will occur in direct response to the imposed training demands. If, however, these demands are not specific to the performance demands of your sport, no functional adaptation will take place.””

The researchers described the implications: "Slow weight training exercises train one to respond best when moving slow. Fast weight training exercises train athletes to respond best when moving fast. However, both forms of training improved performance better than no weight-training."

Disadvantages: 1) SuperSlow does NOT train the muscles specifically for sprinting or fast movements needed in cycling, dynos in climbing, basketball jumps and the like. It seems to target primarily slow twitch, rather than fast twitch muscles-- more endurance training, rather than. power/speed; 2) This type of training seems to be more effective for people new to lifting (lighter weights), although the article indicated that some athletes use this technique.

[flettotenko]

@star61

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Forget that countless, well controlled studies contradict your statement.

Instead, let me stick to the weight room for a moment, where all of us have at least some experience. Say you’re max squat is 400, and you train dynamically for power at 60%. If you time your reps, in other words, how fast can you explode off a parallel box to do a squat at 240, you will eventually reach a plateau that you can’t move beyond (much). However, if you can bump up your max squat to 500, not only will you be able to squat 240 much faster, you will be able to squat 300 nearly as fast as you could squat 240 before. This is an increase in limit/absolute strength that allows for improvement in explosive strength and power that can then be utilized in athletic events of all kinds.

I have read several things you’ve written alluding to the fact that you believe that improvements in athletic performance is strictly neuralogical. This simply can’t be true. If it were, then there would be no reason that larger athletes could lift more than smaller athletes. The same athlete, if he moves up in body weight, will almost always be able to lift more in the gym. Is this because he “grew” his nervous system or because he developed larger, stronger muscles?

Training the CNS is definitely a must, but improving limit strength, if it doesn’t come with a body weight penalty, does matter, IMHO.

I await your negative rep point.

I think what you’re talking about is what I read about Christine Aaron, top woman sprinter from France. She said couple years back in an article that her and her coach were doing some work during her inseason phase, with the squat, which was go to parallel and pause for around 5 seconds and then explode at command of coach/trainer. It didn’t say if this work was at a submaximal load, but i’m assuming it was since they were able to pause at the bottom, thereby increasing the time under tension, and explode.

Perhaps her or her coach maybe adopted this from John Smith, whom she trained with for some time, who I think had Mo Greene doing same type of squat work during an inseason phase with 400lbs. Same thing, pause at the bottom for some time then explode, similar to Christine Aaron workout. However, John Smith said rather than going for maximal load he said he emphasized the speed the bar was moving. But I also read that Mo Greene squats over 500 lbs. So that 400lb. load with this kind of work is less than his maximal lift in the squat. Depending on whether he can squat 500 lbs. or 550(an ambiguous range for over 500lbs.) as a 3RepMax, which is the least amount of rep Smith had his athletes lift at, this 400 lb. load would fall between 72-80% of his 3repmax. They were highbar squats(hands slightly wider than shoulder width, thus I’m guessing causing the trapezius to scrunch up, with feet positoned shoulder width rather than very wide.

I’m thinking ones technique(sprinting) would become more smooth and fluent while combining this type of work(submaximal maintenance strength) with accel. and max v. runs, so long as one has already went through a period of work(maxstrength) combined with accel. and max v.

I’ve experienced something like this where, when doing accel. and max v. followed by near max strength squats and other lifts 3X a week for around 3 weeks, then deloading the weights, doing the same accel and max v. work followed by lighter load squats and lifts 3X a week, it’s like quicker ground contacts and faster times, during the running workout with the lighter load. Hence, more on track progress(faster times).

[flettotenko]

However, I think also that Charlie in the past coined this type of work as a conversion phase type of work, which he said he dropped this type of work from their program in 1983 with better results all-around(faster times).

Perhaps it plays into John Smith system differently than the Charlie FRancis system, for I’m guessing a number of different variables(weight before speed, speed 2X a week rather than 3X, as well as a whole host of unknown different variables between the 2 systems)

[Charlie_Francis]

@flettotenko

I think what you’re talking about is what I read about Christine Aaron, top woman sprinter from France. She said couple years back in an article that her and her coach were doing some work during her inseason phase, with the squat, which was go to parallel and pause for around 5 seconds and then explode at command of coach/trainer. It didn’t say if this work was at a submaximal load, but i’m assuming it was since they were able to pause at the bottom, thereby increasing the time under tension, and explode.

Perhaps her or her coach maybe adopted this from John Smith, whom she trained with for some time, who I think had Mo Greene doing same type of squat work during an inseason phase with 400lbs. Same thing, pause at the bottom for some time then explode, similar to Christine Aaron workout. However, John Smith said rather than going for maximal load he said he emphasized the speed the bar was moving. But I also read that Mo Greene squats over 500 lbs. So that 400lb. load with this kind of work is less than his maximal lift in the squat. Depending on whether he can squat 500 lbs. or 550(an ambiguous range for over 500lbs.) as a 3RepMax, which is the least amount of rep Smith had his athletes lift at, this 400 lb. load would fall between 72-80% of his 3repmax. They were highbar squats(hands slightly wider than shoulder width, thus I’m guessing causing the trapezius to scrunch up, with feet positoned shoulder width rather than very wide.

I’m thinking ones technique(sprinting) would become more smooth and fluent while combining this type of work(submaximal maintenance strength) with accel. and max v. runs, so long as one has already went through a period of work(maxstrength) combined with accel. and max v.

I’ve experienced something like this where, when doing accel. and max v. followed by near max strength squats and other lifts 3X a week for around 3 weeks, then deloading the weights, doing the same accel and max v. work followed by lighter load squats and lifts 3X a week, it’s like quicker ground contacts and faster times, during the running workout with the lighter load. Hence, more on track progress(faster times).

Christine Arron has been constantly injured, especially when it counts most. Might there be a connection?

[Charlie_Francis]

@star61

Wait a minute…is all this about Super Slow a la Wayne Westcott, Richard Winett and Ken Hutchins?

For those who aren’t familiar with Super Slow, the first study was done in 1993 and repeated in 1999 by Wayne Westcott, fitness research director at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts. The study was seriously flawed (even the authors admitted it was not well controlled).

An opposing, better controlled, study by D. K. Liow and W. G. Hopkins (Journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998) studied thirty-nine experienced male and female kayakers were matched by sex and sprint time and randomly assigned to a slow weight training, explosive weight training, or control (normal training, without weights) group. They trained twice a week for six weeks using unspecified sports-specific weight training exercises.

“The kayakers were tested before and after for time in the 15 meter sprint.
The kayaking study probably produced the results that most exercise physiologists would have predicted. After all, the most time-honored principle in sports science is the specificity principle: specific adaptation to imposed demand (SAID). Dr. Pat O’Shea, who made the case for lifting rapidly in our Lift Slow or Lift Fast article, highlights the importance of specificity in the second edition of his book Quantum Strength. He calls the SAID principle the “guiding force” of strength training. “It explains that physiological, neurological, and psychological adaptation will occur in direct response to the imposed training demands. If, however, these demands are not specific to the performance demands of your sport, no functional adaptation will take place.””

The researchers described the implications: "Slow weight training exercises train one to respond best when moving slow. Fast weight training exercises train athletes to respond best when moving fast. However, both forms of training improved performance better than no weight-training."

Disadvantages: 1) SuperSlow does NOT train the muscles specifically for sprinting or fast movements needed in cycling, dynos in climbing, basketball jumps and the like. It seems to target primarily slow twitch, rather than fast twitch muscles-- more endurance training, rather than. power/speed; 2) This type of training seems to be more effective for people new to lifting (lighter weights), although the article indicated that some athletes use this technique.

Weight training is general, not specific. Also comparing superslow and fast leaves out the middle ground- high load normal speed work, which I’ve found to be more effective then either.

[star61]

@Charlie_Francis

Weight training is general, not specific. Also comparing superslow and fast leaves out the middle ground- high load normal speed work, which I’ve found to be more effective then either.

I completely agree with the high load normal speed, although I do include ballistic/Olympic lifts in the ‘normal’ category.

[james_colbert]

@star61

Wait a minute…is all this about Super Slow a la Wayne Westcott, Richard Winett and Ken Hutchins?

For those who aren’t familiar with Super Slow, the first study was done in 1993 and repeated in 1999 by Wayne Westcott, fitness research director at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts. The study was seriously flawed (even the authors admitted it was not well controlled).

An opposing, better controlled, study by D. K. Liow and W. G. Hopkins (Journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998) studied thirty-nine experienced male and female kayakers were matched by sex and sprint time and randomly assigned to a slow weight training, explosive weight training, or control (normal training, without weights) group. They trained twice a week for six weeks using unspecified sports-specific weight training exercises.

“The kayakers were tested before and after for time in the 15 meter sprint.
The kayaking study probably produced the results that most exercise physiologists would have predicted. After all, the most time-honored principle in sports science is the specificity principle: specific adaptation to imposed demand (SAID). Dr. Pat O’Shea, who made the case for lifting rapidly in our Lift Slow or Lift Fast article, highlights the importance of specificity in the second edition of his book Quantum Strength. He calls the SAID principle the “guiding force” of strength training. “It explains that physiological, neurological, and psychological adaptation will occur in direct response to the imposed training demands. If, however, these demands are not specific to the performance demands of your sport, no functional adaptation will take place.””

The researchers described the implications: "Slow weight training exercises train one to respond best when moving slow. Fast weight training exercises train athletes to respond best when moving fast. However, both forms of training improved performance better than no weight-training."

Disadvantages: 1) SuperSlow does NOT train the muscles specifically for sprinting or fast movements needed in cycling, dynos in climbing, basketball jumps and the like. It seems to target primarily slow twitch, rather than fast twitch muscles-- more endurance training, rather than. power/speed; 2) This type of training seems to be more effective for people new to lifting (lighter weights), although the article indicated that some athletes use this technique.

no that is not what im talking about and its not based off of the study.

[james_colbert]

@Charlie_Francis

Weight training is general, not specific. Also comparing superslow and fast leaves out the middle ground- high load normal speed work, which I’ve found to be more effective then either.

the way you do it (or atleast what i have seen) weight training is general but it in no way needs to be.

[Stevemac24]

@james_colbert

the way you do it (or atleast what i have seen) weight training is general but it in no way needs to be.

And why not - please give examples?

[james_colbert]

@Stevemac24

And why not - please give examples?

no problem. if you just train regularly you lift the weight for how many reps for a certain number of sets ect. that is general because really you are just stressing the system but no necessarily towards the goal of becomeing a better athlete.

but if you combine movement with method you can affect specific neurological change.

for example you can max squat or you can do an altitude drop both are a squat movment but are of different menthods. you can squat maximally or rapidly or even in a rebound fashion. and each one will elicit a specific adaptation.

[Stevemac24]

@james_colbert

no problem. if you just train regularly you lift the weight for how many reps for a certain number of sets ect. that is general because really you are just stressing the system but no necessarily towards the goal of becomeing a better athlete.

Yes you are as you are spreading the work load around as CF has mentioned and each stimulus may have a subsquent impact on other systems i.e., sprinting influences weights and vice versa. Neural cross over effect.

@james_colbert

but if you combine movement with method you can affect specific neurological change.

for example you can max squat or you can do an altitude drop both are a squat movment but are of different menthods. you can squat maximally or rapidly or even in a rebound fashion. and each one will elicit a specific adaptation.

Yes they may elicit specific adaptations but each method will have a benefit to cost (fitness fatigue model) ratio for the other activity dependent on sets, reps, etc

[mreoyn09]

[QUOTE=james colbert]in athletics limit strength shouldnt matter at all. when do you have 3 full seconds to express force against an object or opponent.QUOTE]

James,
Why do you say limit strength doesn’t matter at all? How can you apply a lot of force against an object or opponent in less than .2sec (or whatever) if you don’t have the ability to do that irrespective of time?

[james_colbert]

@Stevemac24

Yes you are as you are spreading the work load around as CF has mentioned and each stimulus may have a subsquent impact on other systems i.e., sprinting influences weights and vice versa. Neural cross over effect.

Yes they may elicit specific adaptations but each method will have a benefit to cost (fitness fatigue model) ratio for the other activity dependent on sets, reps, etc

weight training does not equal faster sprint times. thats why its general but like i said it doesnt have to be. you can spread the work load around all you want but you can also train so everything you do has a specific adaptation. that is why it can be other than general.

your right everything will have a benefit to cost ratio the goal is to maximize the benefit and minimize the cost basically thats training organization.

[james_colbert]

@mreoyn09

[QUOTE=james colbert]in athletics limit strength shouldnt matter at all. when do you have 3 full seconds to express force against an object or opponent.QUOTE]

James,
Why do you say limit strength doesn’t matter at all? How can you apply a lot of force against an object or opponent in less than .2sec (or whatever) if you don’t have the ability to do that irrespective of time?

being able to express force over a finite amount of time (during athletic events) is a completly different motor skill than expressing force over a potentially infinit amount of time (limit strength). so one effects the other but simply being able to lift alot will not make you faster or more explosive atleast not in experience athletes. as iv said b4 you can do just about anything as a novice and improve. so being able to squat alot mean nothing, the actual maximal squat is where the benefit is not the weight lifted.

[mreoyn09]

James,

I’m not saying that being strong will inherently mean you are fast but if you can’t produce X amount of tension in an infinite time period then you can’t produce X amount of tension in a limited time period. Therefore if your ability to produce a large amount of tension is whats holding you back (as opposed to your technique, speed at which you can apply the tension, etc.) then wouldn’t increasing your limit strength provide the potential to produce more tension in a limited amount of time and thus improve performance?

Mind elaborating on “the actual maximal squat is where the benefit is not the weight lifted”?

[rj24]

@mreoyn09

James,

I’m not saying that being strong will inherently mean you are fast but if you can’t produce X amount of tension in an infinite time period then you can’t produce X amount of tension in a limited time period. Therefore if your ability to produce a large amount of tension is whats holding you back (as opposed to your technique, speed at which you can apply the tension, etc.) then wouldn’t increasing your limit strength provide the potential to produce more tension in a limited amount of time and thus improve performance?

Mind elaborating on “the actual maximal squat is where the benefit is not the weight lifted”?

Ian, your example isn’t exactly right. While it is true that the single greatest predictor of power absorbtion ability is maximal strength, you can produce much greater amounts of tension in a short amount of time (0-.2 seconds) than you can in a test of limit strength without time constraints. There is a huge difference between the two, both neurologically and physically.

Personally, I believe the actual benefit to heavy work is not so much the limit strength gains incurred from doing it, but the enhanced rate coding and the decreased neural inhibition. So, it’s not necessarily the greater amount of strength that allows one to absorb a higher drop, but the neural disinhibition that occured from the lifting. A lot of what training does is remove the protective mechanisms our body is born with.

As for James’ quote, I’m not sure I can answer too accurately, but I think he’s trying to say that the intermuscular coordination gains, the rate coding gains, and the decreased neural inhibition are the benefits of the maximal squat. Not the squat itself. The only thing the squat provides directly is increased voluntary concentric strength.

[Charlie_Francis]

@mreoyn09

James,

I’m not saying that being strong will inherently mean you are fast but if you can’t produce X amount of tension in an infinite time period then you can’t produce X amount of tension in a limited time period. Therefore if your ability to produce a large amount of tension is whats holding you back (as opposed to your technique, speed at which you can apply the tension, etc.) then wouldn’t increasing your limit strength provide the potential to produce more tension in a limited amount of time and thus improve performance?

Mind elaborating on “the actual maximal squat is where the benefit is not the weight lifted”?

While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to all of you with limited success for several years now.
This is why strength work IS general, functions as a stimulus, and why strength moves relentlessly upwards with performance even though the corresponding weight work may, at times, appear spotty.
The concept that weights can be made specific and thus be the leading element in the pursuit of higher sprint performance is dangerous. Despite my best efforts, I am constantly lectured on here that I am wrong.
I will, once again, try to make my point through a cautionary tale. The 1980 Olympic women’s sprint champ left her husb/coach and married Yuri Seydich, the Oly Hammer Champ. After having a baby, she started coming back under Yuri’s guidance. He told me: “I went through her weight program and it was a mess! The weights were all over the place, here today, absent tomorrow! The first thing I did was straighten out the weight program!”
I recognized why, as a secondary element, her weights varied, but cringed and said nothing. Predictably, perhaps, he wanted to use his unsurpassed knowledge of weights to help his wife. Equally predictably, she never ran well again.
The operation was a success but the patient died!

[james_colbert]

@rj24

Ian, your example isn’t exactly right. While it is true that the single greatest predictor of power absorbtion ability is maximal strength, you can produce much greater amounts of tension in a short amount of time (0-.2 seconds) than you can in a test of limit strength without time constraints. There is a huge difference between the two, both neurologically and physically.

Personally, I believe the actual benefit to heavy work is not so much the limit strength gains incurred from doing it, but the enhanced rate coding and the decreased neural inhibition. So, it’s not necessarily the greater amount of strength that allows one to absorb a higher drop, but the neural disinhibition that occured from the lifting. A lot of what training does is remove the protective mechanisms our body is born with.

As for James’ quote, I’m not sure I can answer too accurately, but I think he’s trying to say that the intermuscular coordination gains, the rate coding gains, and the decreased neural inhibition are the benefits of the maximal squat. Not the squat itself. The only thing the squat provides directly is increased voluntary concentric strength.

i agree 100% except maximal squats dont increase your ability to absorb forces. it trains neurological factors which are also exhibitied during a altitude drop. the difference is paramount and the reason why weight training does not have to be general.

[james_colbert]

@Charlie_Francis

While being strong will NOT necessarily make you fast, being fast WILL make you strong.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to all of you with limited success for several years now.
This is why strength work IS general, functions as a stimulus, and why strength moves relentlessly upwards with performance even though the corresponding weight work may, at times, appear spotty.
The concept that weights can be made specific and thus be the leading element in the pursuit of higher sprint performance is dangerous. Despite my best efforts, I am constantly lectured on here that I am wrong.
I will, once again, try to make my point through a cautionary tale. The 1980 Olympic women’s sprint champ left her husb/coach and married Yuri Seydich, the Oly Hammer Champ. After having a baby, she started coming back under Yuri’s guidance. He told me: “I went through her weight program and it was a mess! The weights were all over the place, here today, absent tomorrow! The first thing I did was straighten out the weight program!”
I recognized why, as a secondary element, her weights varied, but cringed and said nothing. Predictably, perhaps, he wanted to use his unsurpassed knowledge of weights to help his wife. Equally predictably, she never ran well again.
The operation was a success but the patient died!

yes i believe being strong should be a side effect of training for speed. and your correct the way that most people organize training the resultant is general adaptation but it does not need to be. as yourself what characteristics will make an individual fast. im talking about down to the neurological and physiological factors.

[james_colbert]

@mreoyn09

Mind elaborating on “the actual maximal squat is where the benefit is not the weight lifted”?

the neurological adaptive implications of lifting a maximal weight are more important than the actual wieght lifted. for example an individual may be able to squat 700 lbs but not have achieved the desired adaptation towards greater athleticism. on the other hand an individual who only squats 400 lbs can achieve adaptation towards athletecism because of the way his training was organized. ie the second individual will see better results on the track or feild of play. now im not saying that there is anything wrong with being able to squat alot of weight im saying that how you squat and how you intergrate it into your training is going to have a greater effect on your performance on the field than being able to squat a large weight will.