Are you talking about a jerk press, or a true overhead press? I don’t believe the standard overhead press not recruits more mu than the bench.
Two different answers here.
The advantage of the bench in Charlie’s system is that it does not use MUs that you use on the track. That means you can use a heavy bench close to comp to get CNS stimulus while sparing the legs. A standing overhead press does not offer the same advantage of sparing the legs.
The other answer has to do with shoulder development. John Smith believes strongly in this, so there is not just flat bench, but also incline and decline versions. Personally, I use the flat bench and (seated) DB shoulder press for shoulder development, both of which have the effect of sparing sprinting MUs.
Nik not to hijack the thread, but this topic came up another way in a different thread. The topic was does bench press impact the CNS enough that you need to consider it when programming a Hi/Low type system. Most posters said emphatically no, there is no impact. In other words, you could in fact bench on a Low day as it does not impact the CNS much if any. If the bench press does not impact the CNS, how can it provide a significant stimulus? I think it does impact the CNS, by the way.
I was talking about the actual overhead press not the jerk press. I thought it would recruit more muscle due to the fact that the legs and torso are both used to stablize the weight, but if you say that it doesn’t then I guess replacing the bench with the overhead press doesn’t make much sense.
I agree that the bench can be utilized well as a stimulus tool.
So in the long run it would still be best to keep the bench as the main focus and work other parts of the upperbody in an auxillary manner?(I’m guessing that’s why you use dumbells lkh)
What do most people do for their back to keep it in proportion then when the primary lift works solely the anterior side?
It might not impact the CNS if it’s done in a bodybuilding type of way, but if you’re doing sets of 3-5 with 300-400 pounds, I would think that it would. Do you know which thread it was?
It was in the “Weights for Speed” thread.
Star, I think you are misinterpreting what people have said.
The majority of people, including myself, have argued that bench placed on a lower intensity day does not provide such and extreme stimulus as to hurt training. In fact, most people have talked about incorporating it with a day off after, for example:
1-Speed / lower lifts
2- tempo / upper lifts
3- tempo or rest
4- repeat
The point being that you can spread out the stimulus and then eventually use it later, especially at higher intensities, to provide necessary stimulus near a meet.
It goes without saying that numerous elite programs alternate speed with weights anyway and still have great success. It comes down to how things are programmed either way and even in some of CF’s plans (ie GPP plan) there is some form of high intensity work DAILY (except rest on Sunday).
To extend on this, it should also be clarified what was said in that thread–
The loads lifted by lower to intermediate athletes (say athletes with BP 1rm of 315 and below) is fairly low. I have a 1rm of 325 and the majority of my workouts are nowhere near 300lbs. Most of my work is in the 70-85% area even into SPP, which is going to be much different from when I am tapering and will do a heavy double or a couple heavy singles.
If you are benching in the 300s for your workouts and have a 1rm in excess of 400lbs, sure–every workout is incredibly intense. If you are not that level, it is doubtful it will have that kind of impact until you approach your 1rm.
Chin Ups and all sorts of rows. As the back to its whole is used on a number of lifts vs. your chest perhaps, I wouldn’t necessarily try to figure out a way for a 1:1 ratio.
That’s true, the back is used a lot more on all of the other main lifts. I hadn’t thought of that, thanks.
I do have a raw 1RM in the 400’s. I never have a ME bench session that I don’t perform doubles/triples in the >85%. My athletes, whose max bench range from from low 200s (16yo raw) to 738 (21y., bench shirt) also lift at least once per week with reps in the >85% range. Of course they are football players/powerlifters and their goals are different than a sprinter’s.
As far as intensity, I understand that heavier loads bring about greater intensity, but for smaller athletes who are lifting near the limits of their genetic potential, I think all lifts >85% are higher intensity lifts, even if less than 400lbs. Furthermore, I think if Max Strength is what one is looking for, lifting in the >85% range must be included to optimize training towards that end. I also believe that these days should be considered when programming a very CNS intensive program, and may not belong on a Low CNS/Extensive Tempo day. That’s just my opinion, however, and I respect the opinions of those that disagree.
I agree with the the notion that a strict High/Low may not apply to all athletes, especially to those of ‘lower qualification’. I think that is the basis for all planning and periodization…to allow for a frequency of high intensity workouts that could not be maintained in a non-periodized strategy.
Yes but star, you think there is some weird bifurcation of training intensities where there is only high intensity or only low intensity where there is quite a large spectrum. Doing 20x100m @ 75% with 1000 reps of abs after is much higher intensity than a day off. Likewise, 10x10m from blocks with 3x6 squats after is much different from 4x30m blocks, 4x60m blocks, 4x8 hurdle hops, 10x2 powercleans, 2x6 squats, 3x8 lunges, and finishing off with 20 medball throws.
The fact that people do some upper lifting on a day with tempo does not make the day a “high intensity” day necessarily or even comparable to a sprint session. It may be higher intensity than a day off, but it is much lower than a sprint with lower body weights day. And in the examples provided, where there is a DAY OFF, after the tempo+upper weights, it becomes a wash entirely. I don’t understand how you can’t get that.
I don’t know why you are bringing this up. I didn’t question your bench abilities or anyone else. This is related to sprint training and the day where the majority of elite sprinters have benches >350 and when the majority of even intermediate level sprinters (10.4-10.7) have benches in excess off 300lbs, you’ll have a point here. This isn’t related to what we were discussing AT ALL, but thanks.
As far as intensity, I understand that heavier loads bring about greater intensity, but for smaller athletes who are lifting near the limits of their genetic potential, I think all lifts >85% are higher intensity lifts, even if less than 400lbs. Furthermore, I think if Max Strength is what one is looking for, lifting in the >85% range must be included to optimize training towards that end. I also believe that these days should be considered when programming a very CNS intensive program, and may not belong on a Low CNS/Extensive Tempo day. That’s just my opinion, however, and I respect the opinions of those that disagree.
Yes, but not everyone does the majority of their lifting in excess over 85%. Even Charlie said that his squats never went above 2x6 during the max strength phase. You can imagine the majority of the year being substantially lower. Your arguments about lifting >85% being a must have been rehashed several times and do not need further comment as it has been discussed numerous times. The fact is, many people have run successful programs where weights are just supplemental to their sprinting/jumping and a large portion of their training year was spent training <85% of their max.
I do get it. I understand the the intensity spectrum. It is irrelevant to your assertions in the past that heavy bench press isnt a concern. If an athlete IS doing a Hi/Low, six days per week, heavy bench press may not belong on the Low day. That’s all I’ve ever said. You don’t know what I think, and evidently you have a hard time understanding what I’m writting.
I brought it up because you mentioned your lifts and why you’re not concerned…and I mentioned our lifts and why we are.
Yes, but not everyone does the majority of their lifting in excess over 85%.
First, I have never advocated that most lifts should be in excess of 85%. I do believe that if you’re not including >85% lifts, you are not optimally training for strength. Second, the majority of most sprinters track work milage is performed at less than 75% as well, but that doesn’t make their sprint training low intensity.
Your arguments about lifting >85% being a must have been rehashed several times and do not need further comment as it has been discussed numerous times.
First, the fact that you, and a few others, believe that lifting in the 70-80% range and only rarely, if ever, venturing above 85%, is a very effective way of building strength, doesn’t make it so. And, not everyone on this board is a sprinter. And some of the younger sprinters are considering hypertrophy or max strength phases, and their training, during those periods, may look more like a footballer’s instead of a sprinters. I simply think it would be more effecient to use optimal strength and mass work during those phases so gains can be more substantial and come quicker. Why do things less effeciently?
“Heavy” bench is relative and I already clarified numerous times that the intensities used are not even close to that used in the powerlifting programs you promote, with the vast majority of lifts and lifting sessions not exceeding 85%. You don’t get it because you say that people (like myself) don’t believe it has an impact when we use it on lowER intensity days when you just said yourself there is a spectrum.
Yep and you are talking about non-sprinters, completely different issue!
First, I have never advocated that most lifts should be in excess of 85%. I do believe that if you’re not including >85% lifts, you are not optimally training for strength. Second, the majority of most sprinters track work milage is performed at less than 75% as well, but that doesn’t make their sprint training low intensity. First, the fact that you, and a few others, believe that lifting in the 70-80% range and only rarely, if ever, venturing above 85%, is a very effective way of building strength, doesn’t make it so. And, not everyone on this board is a sprinter. And some of the younger sprinters are considering hypertrophy or max strength phases, and their training, during those periods, may look more like a footballer’s instead of a sprinters. I simply think it would be more effecient to use optimal strength and mass work during those phases so gains can be more substantial and come quicker. Why do things less effeciently?
I am not talking just about the number of lifts, but the number of sessions. Few sessions hit intensities of greater than 85% for my uppers lifts and that of most other sprint programs. I am not just counting warm-ups and stuff like that, but full workouts. You are trying to tag along the fact you do warm-ups are lower weights to the fact the majority of the sessions you have posted before have training intensities well in excess of 85%, not common among most athletes in this sport.
Again, lifting lower weights for the majority of training has been proven. Even Charlie’s “max strength phase” on squats doesn’t include workouts in excess of a 6RM with most being significantly below. Outside of the short max strength phases (when you’re talking significantly less than 1/2 the year being in max strength, it is short), lifts are substantially lower intensity wise than that. Your methods have yet to be proven or utilized in highly effective programs for sprinters. Saying they are not efficient or not optimal is from a different perspective and likely not one of trying to maximize sprint performance, but lifting performance.
I have never said either of those things, and I say again to you specifically for at least the third time, most of our reps are UNDER 85%, and I’m not talking about warmups. Even on the Max Effort day, only the last 3-4 sets are >85-90%. What I am saying, and what I have said in this and the other thread where we butted heads, is that AT LEAST SOME of your reps need to be in the >85% range, and preferably in the >90% range. I’m not setting a specific number or percentage, but a rough estimate would be that at least 10%, and as much as 20%, of reps should be in the >85% range if optimizing strength development is a primary goal. Lifting in the 70-80% range without EVER going into the >85% is not the optimum method for improving max strength…which is what some have implied, and you seem to be defending.
In my experience I have found that when trying to emphasize speed and power, continually using loads in the 90% range is not nearly as effective as working in the 70-80% range. I have found that both speed and strength can rise harmoniously if you reduce the load in the weight room to a supplementary status, ie something like 2-3x5-6 75% on squats. Also I have found that doing upper weights on tempo/low intensity days allows for a better distribution of work throughout the training week.