I used to do split jerks quite often… I got up to 3x5 with 185 lbs. in my senior year… I did notice that it wasnt too difficult to get the weight up because of my leg drive and explosion that I used to get the weight up, but the stress on the shoulders at lockout and eccentric took ALOT out of me! lucky for me I didnt do these during football, I did them in my track off-season, but then I got cut short with a disc herniation (cause is still un-known… had to have been faulty weight lifting mechanics/posture, or an accumulation of stress over time…) I tend to stick to hang cleans for now… I’ve backed off of the split jerk press for a while… Just my input…
I already said that it is not an exercise that i would use in season. On top of that who said you have to use maximal loads to see a benefit of split jerks. yes you can use heavy loads for strength-speed but you can also use lighter loads speed-strength and those loads would not be supramaximal!!!
And the exact postion we are strengthening at lockout, should be ever find oursleves in that compromised position, and on top of that we stregthen legs, erectors, calfs, traps, glutes, hip flexors and just about every other muscle in the body.
I know that we each expressed our different views on this, however, if game tape is analyzed in any contact sport, one will be hard pressed to find an athlete with shoulders fully abducted and externally rotated under load.
Sure athletes will find themselves with their arms outreached overhead, but the chances of an athlete stabilizing a load in this position, in a contact sport, are infintismal.
Frit, we are in agreement that athletes must be prepared for the stresses which will be encountered during practice/competition, however, the line is drawn at cost:benefit.
There is much more of a chance of a contact sport athlete finding their wrists compromised, as a result of striking/pass blocking, then stabilizing a load directly overhead. Yet, I would not advocate that contact sport athletes devote training time to wrist isolation exercises.
We are also in agreement that the split jerk predominantly develops explosive power and core/base stabilization as a result of horsepower provided by the lower extremities. And again, in my view, squats, pulls, gm’s, are much more optimal alternatives which introduce almost zero risk to the shoulder girdle.
I place high priority on cost:benefit, and in my view, with respect to contact sport athletes, split jerks and most other OL derivatives are too expensive.
Sorry James i was just trying to be wise ass last night, just in bad mood(no workouts in few days). Point taken though!!
What do you think of this? now keep and open mind and realize that I have perfected my powerclean form. I posted this on another thread and have had some success with it in the past, just wondering what you think because its sort of westidish!!!
“As an aside I have used the power clean in a workout similar to the way Westside barbell uses the box squat on thier dynamic day with some success. I take 60% of my max deadlift( say 450lbs x .60%= 270). This is my working weight in the powerclean give or take a few pounds. I will then do 8 doubles with 30 sec rest or 12 singles with 30 sec rest between reps. You could also wave it up and down like the westide guys do starting at 50% and go up each week. Doing this style of training my powerclean was at a all time high, as well was my short sprint speed and shot throws and i recieved quit a bit of added muscle mass on my upper back, traps and erectors”.
Well the bottom line is that you developed your clean. So if that was your training goal, then job well done!
A few thoughts: Although a 1RM DL is as Limit as a pull gets, I would not personally select this poundage to be my calculating percentage for clean work. Because for many, the 1RM DL may be WAY more than their 1RM clean, therefore, even using sub max % of DL may be too much to use for the Clean. Additionally, if one is not notably skilled at cleans, then this would not be a wise course of action for developing the clean.
Again, the bottom line is that your target abilities seemed to have significantly developed, and this is the point. And I feel confident in postulating that this is a reflection of your ability to skillfully perform cleans prior to the program. I would just advise others to be mindful of the percentage difference, if in fact they are much more proficient at DLing than cleans.
James,
My training goal at that time to be was not just to develop my clean but to improve my RFD for throwing the shot and running the 55M. I figured at the time( this was in “99”)that If I followed a westide template and still incorporated my OL that I would have a high degree of limit strength and speed-strength to carry over to my events.( it worked) So that’s why i substituted the clean instead of the speed box squat, i then moved the speed squat to ME day and did them before my ME lift for that day(somthing many throwers do). On top of that I knew I could comfortably handle 60%(give or take 5%)of my max deadlift in the powerclean, especially for singles. I realize not everyone would be able to do the clean at the 60% of the deadlift but i would say possible 45%-60% range. This program worked well for me, what im really liked is that i did it all in two workouts a week. Thats left the rest of the time to work on technique, speed, mobility etc.
BTW, although i will argue with you until the end of the earth about OL’s,I truly enjoy your posts and i have just started a james smith file. I have copy and pasted many of your posts onto a nice easy to read file and print. Thanks for you time.
Frit, thanks very much.
Incidentally, I must reiterate my stand on the OL lifts. I feel that they are tremendous for developing various motor abilities. One of the only instances in which I would firmly advise against the utilization of overhead versions is for contact sport athletes. My view on the matter comes as a result of both my past experiences and those of other athletes/coaches whom I have either corresponded with or who’s information I have reviewed.
I myself have begun to incorporate high pulls from the hang into my own training. Twice now I have sprained the ligament which runs along the spinous’ from the L5 region downwards over the sacrum. In regards to my rehab, I have found that placing my spine in a deeply flexed position, obviously, aggrivates the pathology. Thus, I have found high pulls from the hang to be quite beneficial for me to continue to get in some ‘hip extension’ work without aggrivating the sprained ligament.
I must also add that I personally find OL competition and training videos to be some of the most exciting sports to view.
Just going back to this point let’s work with some numbers. Let’s say an athlete has a max military press of 145 and a max split jerk of 225. He decides to work in the 60% range to work on speed-strength and uses a relatively modest workload of 4 sets of 3 @ 135. He is still performing 12 eccentric reps @ well over 90% concentric max. Just another thing to consider in cost:benefit considerations.
Pete,
You should do Clean and split jerks. That way you drop the weight after every rep. no eccentric stress. On top of that eccentric strength is somtimes double an athletes concentric strength, so its not even close to 90%.
Yah, dropping would probably be the best option for athletes using it but then bumper plates are needed.
Note I did say over 90% of concentric max but I think that weight can still be very stressful as an eccentric especially when volume starts accumulating. I’ve never heard double, only up to 150%, and although some athletes might be 200% I think a lot will fall in the 110-150% range and for them a 90% concentric max lowered eccentrically will be very stressful.
Pete,
Ok i agree it can become stressful but with those lifts you should always use low reps. 3 and under.
Pete,
Do you lower your split jerks slowly. Most likely not. It’s not like your doing a slow controlled eccentric. Your body coming up from the split and some force being absorbed by your upper back, make it much less stressful on the shoulder joint than your making it out to be.
I find they have to be lowered slowly to some extent to maintain control because otherwise they fly down in a dangerous manner, although no, not anywhere near the slow speeds of the protocols for the lower end eccentric work. Still, I was just trying to note a wrinkle to the cost:benefit ratio of split jerks, one which for me (possibly because I have a higher than usual lower:upper body strength ratio but I think it still applies to other athletes as well) made the costs outweigh the benefits and actually gave me aching shoulders for a while. Just putting out something that needs to be considered.
I’ve been reading through the posts in this thread and thought I would chime in my two cents. Regarding the safety of any exercise, there really is no such thing as a dangerous exercise per se, only dangerous executions of them. Regarding overhead work, it’s intersting to note that many Olympic lifters seem to enjoy strong, powerful shoulders without any of the alleged “impingements” that some of you have talked about. It seems that some power lifters seem to scough at the Olympic lifts (probably because they can’t really do them) and make up stories about the evils of overhead work. Look, if my body has the range of motion to raise my arms overhead I’m going to use it. Besides, overhead work provides some of the greatest ab stimulation of any types of exercises. I believe that many have not learned properd technique on many of the overhead lifts and therefore cannot give a general critique of the lifts based on their own unfortunate experiece.
In general, if an exercise has an increaed demand (and ability to transform your body!), then there is obviously going to be an increased risk. If you do not challenege you body, then there will be no increase in fitness. If you over-challenge it, then you will get injured. However, if you choose loads that allow for optimal technique and execution then you will improve! Isn’t that what gradual overload is all about? I wrote an article on T-mag last spring about purposely making your exercises more challenging, an idea I got from the late Dr. Mel Siff who wrote extensivley about the dangers of avoiding so-called “dangerous” exercises. Here’s the link for those who are intersted.
Valid points, yet not an entirely global perspective.
In regards to overhead work, by way of the OL lifters with low instance of shoulder pathology analogy, this infact is the most common mistake that strength coaches are currently making…the comparison of OL lifters with other athletes.
There must be a distinction made between the training of athletes of high classification. An elite athlete, witht the possible exception of certain throwers, is not an elite weightlifter nor must his/her training mirror that of a weightlifter. An elite weightlifter, as termed by PASM, alternatively, is in every way an elite athlete.
You must remember that the perfection of sport skill is the underlying theme, in regards to multi-year development, to PASM. Thus, for weightlifters, technique is continually perfected. The perfection of sport skill is also the underlying theme for any other athlete in any other sport, however, the perfection of the classical lifts is not SPP for anyone other than a weightlifter.
Additionally, we must acknowledge the logistics of training athletes, especially team sport athletes, with respect to considering the training means/methods to be employed in an effort to rais GPP (in the weight room), as lifting weights is not SPP for ANY team sport or combat sport athlete.
These types of athletes have a certain amount of time available for the development of certain components of strength along the curve. Considering their training history, the lifts to be employed must score well on a cost:benefit. Furthermore, the stressors of sport/skill practice and competition must be accounted for when quantifying the imposed neuromuscular stress which is sustained by the organism outside of weight room work (see my upcoming article on Organization of Training). Thus, after having considered these variables, and then some, we are left with assessing the training methods/means to be employed in an effort to develop GPP.
Lastly, as anyone will attest to who has knowledge and experience with performing OL lifts; a fairly high level of skill aquisition is necessary to perform OL lift derivatives with any significant load, and this particular skill aquisition is more time consuming to aquire in comparison to the skill aquisition necessary to perform alternative lifts which develop the same motor qualities.
So in the end, with respect to team sport/combat sport athletes, and in the grand scheme, the additional time required to effectivley instruct OL technical mastery would be much more optimally spent developing other components of GPP which are achieved by other lifts or training means whos necessary skill aquisition is much more simplified. Again, remember, lifting weights is NOT SPP for ANY team sport/combat sport athlete.
Consider the following:
required motor skill development for perfecting SPP for sport in question
allotted training volume for developing GPP
training history of athlete (levels of GPP/SPP)
coaching logistics of working with team
Central/Peripheral stress imposed by sport/skill pracitce and competition
Trainability of athletes
Cost:Benefit
Now select your lifts.
I would add two:
-
the extra work that may be needed for a given athlete to do the quick lifts effectively and safely: doing heavy jerks, for example, may overtax a bodypart that is too weak for heavy OLing, but may be fine for their sport.
-
the risk of injury due to said weak link.
James Smith, I see your point and know that this discussion can go around and around with no end in sight. Cost/benefit ratio must be looked at when choosing any exercise for any athlete, but if one looks at how many muscles are activated in the Olympic lifts and their variations it becomes clear that they can be a most economical training tool. The key lies in their execution; if people are not going to learn how to do the correctly (and they are not rocekt science!), then yes, maybe other alternative should be chosen. Also, most athletes who are not pure O-lifters are not going to use loads that are even near what an accomplished lifter would use, so the risks go down anyway.
The major purpose that I see from the O-lifts would be enhanced rate of force development, improvements in speed-strength, exlposive strength, and even flexibility strength. Of course these motor qualities can be acheived without Olympic lifts as modern day power lifters have shown. However, why not use an intelligent blend of power lifts, O-lifts, and supplementary strength training? If I had to choose a few key lifts for most athletes based on effectiveness and training economy I would choose variations of the followng seven:
1.Clean & Jerk
2. Snatch
3. Squat
4. Deadlift
5. Bench press
6. Military Press
7. pulling (vertical and horizontal)
…hard to find many exercises better than these for most athletic pursuits!
Agreed that this debate can go on and on, however, since it is maintaining its integrity…let’s go on.LOL
Acknowledging the implied subjectivity, I think that we are generally in agreement here.
This, however, is not an accurate statement. You must recognize the fact that limit strength is not a motor quality which acts as a universal reference point made by the elite. It is, however, relative to each athlete. Thus, you must not view a relatively lighter load used by a non weightlifter as being a lower risk simply because it is submaximal relative to what an elite weightlifter of the same bodymass is capable of lifting.
+90%1RM for a 100kg 1RM clean for athlete A is just as costly as +90%1RM for a 200kg 1RM clean for athlete B. In that view, you must recognize that limit loads are relative to each lifter, and not to be viewed in comparison to what elite weightlifters are hoisting.
Agree
Agree, however, we are not in agreement with respect to exercise selection. Accordingly, we are inevitably headed towards a debate rooted more heavily in subjectivity.
James, you are right about the subjectivity. Someone always has anecdotal evidence about their way of doing things. The main point I wanted to make regarding the earlier posts (not actually made by you) on split jerks was that they are not the evil impingers that some claim them to be. They’re actually a lot fun to perform, in my opinion of course!
In fact, I find the O-lifts tremendously fun and challenging and wish they could cover all my training needs. Unfortunately, they do not seem to put any appreciable amount of muscle mass (other than my traps) on my frame and therefore I do not use them for that purpose. I know for instance, having read all of Charlie’s books, that Ben Johnson didn’t really perform any O-lifts. He obviously got the job done! That doesn’t mean however, that they can’t be of great use to many different types of athletes that are not pure sprinters. In the end, there are many ways to skin a cat so every method used by some succesful athlete can be argued for or against in a never-ending arguement! If I’m not mistaken, I think Michael Johnson used predominantly Hammer strength machines which would not be my first choice when training any type of sprinting athlete. Hard to argue with his success.