Just another point to remember is motor neuron control. This means that a massive bodybuilder can have 200lbs of muscle but cannot use it all efficiently. An oly lifter for example, could have 100lb of muscle but his motor neuron system is so efficient that he has a greater rate and volume of muscular fibre recruitment thus lifting more weight
This means that although you have put on 5kg of muscle, you must also have made the necessary CNS adaptions to allow it to be fully used
Lets clarify the mechanisms that permit increased strength without increased body mass:
I contend that in JE’s case he was able to improve his P.Clean via adaptations specific to the exercise (3,4 and 5), not via general adaptations that would cross over to his jumping.
Yes, neural adaptations typically decrease with lifting experience. Any increase in mass must however be functional and lead to an increase in power to weight ratio.
I think the above gets a lot of people in trouble(it got be last year). People think as long as they keep their strength to weight ratio or improve on it their increase in mass is okay. In sprinting this is not true.
Athlete A, squats 450lb at a bodyweight of 150lb
Athlete B, squats 600lb at a bodyweight of 200lb
Note both athletes have a strength to weight ratio of 3:1. However, all things being equal, athlete A has a huge advantage over athlete B.
The One: What do you mean by all things being equal? In a relative sense or absolute sense? I can´t see the two having the same height, for example.
I think we have to remember that there are always examples that seem to fall outside of the `average population´ of the sample (in this case sprinters). Chambers seems to be a guy who would fall into the area which I THINK you mean. But increased size and strength has aided many sprinters, as mentioned above.
Dave in your opinion taking into account the power/RFD work sprinters perform on the track and through plyos what would be the best rep range and percentage of 1RM for main exercises. (squats, deads, bench, standing shoulder press/push press, Powerclean)
3 sets per exercise at 80% 1RM for 3-5 reps? Concentrating on good bar speed and explosiveness?
thanks!
Chris
ps- Also what are your thoughts on working on low volume eccentric contraction specific work for support phase and injury prevention?
Chris see my articles: [b]Optimum Repetition Selection and Buffering[b]
Lets make it easy, lets use the same athlete. Being 150lb and squating 450lb he is for the better, than being 166lb and squating 500lb (3:1 vs 3.01:1).
Dave can you post a link. I did a search and found an article referencing that one but not the specific article.
thanks,
Chris
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=3468
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=3470
Re-read my post: …POWER to weight ratio! The squat is a test of strength not power. My athletes perform a vertical or broad jump test.
I saw what you wrote. Most people however, read it as strength to weight. It’s hard to measure power output, so the majority use their weightroom numbers as an indicator of power capacity. Furthermore, a broad jump is little more than a test of relative strength.
So maximum force is attained in a broad jump? 
No, the broad jump is a recognised test for ‘relative’ power.
Additionally, it is very possible for strength to increase and power to DECREASE. See what happens when you omit RFD components and perform only limit strength exercises for 4 weeks…
Potato patato
How many cm per lb is functional, how do you quantify this.
eh? A broad jump cannot be a test of strength because, due to the explosive strength defecit, maximum force cannot be produced.
If an athlete improved strength but performance in the broad jump declined, my conclusion would be:
David W.
I am glad to hear that you recommend a standing long jump (or vertical) as a good test of power to weight ratio. A lot of people get stronger in the gym, but fail to show any improvement in such a test. I believe that is a key indication of an athlete’s strength progress. One 10.4 h runner I knew got about 10% stronger in his olympic lifts, but never did a pb in the standing long or 100m ever again. He simply improved his techique at lifting weights.
A good test for pure power is the overhead shot, which like the standing long, is relatively easy to master. Timmerman, the champion shot putter, has thrown over 24 metres.
Perhaps testing both on the same day would provide a coach with a more accurate indication of power progress in gross and relative terms.
Gambit said: all things being equal, strength is directionally proportional to cross sectional area and volume of the muscles involved…i’m afraid it doesn’t get any more complicated than that…
###Ofcourse not… but anytime you say that all things are equal and allow one variable that can be the ONLY thing that affects something as it is the only variable… How often are two peoples CNS drive and tendon attachments exactly the same?
One could also say all things being equal (same degree of hypertrophy, and same tendon attachments etc) strength is directly proportional to NS recruitment.
Or all things being equal (CNS and hypertrophy) strength is directly proportional to tendon attachment…
Basically a statement like that has no value whatsoever – all things being equal of course….
The one said: I think the above gets a lot of people in trouble(it got be last year). People think as long as they keep their strength to weight ratio or improve on it their increase in mass is okay. In sprinting this is not true.
Athlete A, squats 450lb at a bodyweight of 150lb
Athlete B, squats 600lb at a bodyweight of 200lb
Note both athletes have a strength to weight ratio of 3:1. However, all things being equal, athlete A has a huge advantage over athlete B.
what about the proportional contribution each variable makes as strenght gains are actively sought, or to put it another way:
of the variables listed which can the athlete change positively and over an extended period of time so that a significant, continuing increases in strength results–certainly not tendon attachments, what about cns? is there a limit to cns recruitment, to hypertrophy and if so, which limit is achieved sooner?
and you’re quite right…it should read 'Increases in strenght are directly proportional to Increases in cross section etc…
well dont you hate it when you have a nice big reply and it doesnt go through…
ummm… okay… this will be a much shorter version
which will reach its limit sooner… i do not have enough experience to say what i have seen in practice… Many strength coaches say however that after a certain point in training it is very difficult to gain strength without gaining bodyweight, so i guess they are saying that neural adapations will slow sooner then hypertrophic ones…
it does however depend on the athletes training history
if an athlete has been doing alot of bodybuilding style training they will likely meet there hypertrophy limit before there neural limit
conversely
if an athlete has been focussing on very high intensity and low reps they will likely meet there neural limit before there hypertrophy limit…
I was thinking that an athlete that had been training with high intensities and low volume could very realistically lose strength BUT gain muscle mass if they were to take up a lower intensity high volume style of training ie GVT or something similar…
okay im sorry if this post is retarded i am very annoyed that the last post did not go through
Gambit and the ONE
this is an exert from an article at drsquat.com… thought both of you might like it…
it argues the ones point
and also has something in there about hypertrophy being an unavoidable side effect of strength after a certain point
FACTOR SIX: The Relationship Between Limit Strength and Fmax
In any sports movement, Tmax is so short that it’s not possible to get all of your motor units turned on. Not even close! Only powerlifting tests one’s limit strength. NO other sport does because of the time constraint.
Former Soviet scientists worshipped the relationship between limit strength and Fmax. And for good cause. They believed that NOTHING should EVER be done to cause an increase in the distance between Fmax and limit strength. They believed that the DEFINITION of a great athlete was one whose Fmax came close to his/her limit strength. They believed that, in all the world of sport, SPEED is king!
LIMIT STRENGTH AND F-MAX RELATIONSHIP (ILLUSTRATION #5)
Limit Strength
______________________________________________________________
This area (between your Fmax and Limit Strength level is called the “gap.”
KEEP IT SMALL! If you don’t you are NOT training correctly!
I<---------------------> Fmax
F I Tmax * *
O I * *
R I * *
C I *
E I *
I I *
I I *
I I *
* I I *
* I I *
* I I *
* * *
T I M E (in milliseconds)
This is a phenomenal concept, folks! Understand that simply working limit strength is NOT the way for an athlete to become great! In fact it’d slow you down if carried to the extreme. The coaches of yesteryear were right when they wouldn’t allow their players to lift for fear that doing so would foul up their “touch” (skill), make ‘em muscle-bound or slow them down. They were right. The reason is that continually hammering limit strength – your 1-RM (which was pretty much all that the early ironheads knew how to do) – will eventually result in muscle being synthesized beyond the point where one’s strength-to-weight ratio is greatest. Added strength, when carried to this extreme, almost invariably means added weight, slower movement speed, inability to achieve positive acceleration or a steep “Q” angle, let alone greater explosive strength.
So, this being the case, we must give consideration to the concept of “functional strength,” or the amount of limit strength necessary to maximize Fmax without causing an increase in the difference between Fmax and limit strength. Simply put, one’s strength-to-weight ratio is very similar to one’s functional strength requirements, and it is generally different from sport-to-sport because the demands of each sport are different.
Before you jump all over me for making such a brash statement, let me modify it a bit and acknowledge that in sports such as archery, bowling, curling and other similar activities, the concept of strength-to-weight ratio has far less relevance than it does for (say) shot putters or high jumpers. Or bodybuilders, for that matter, whose chief competition objective is to get massive muscle irrespective of movement efficiency.
An expansion of my earlier post on neural adaptations:
a. The strength deficit is defined as the difference between the force produced in a muscle by maximal voluntary contraction and the force produced by electro-stimulation of a muscle’s nerve cells. Training decreases the strength deficit by increasing the ability of an individual to recruit fast twitch motor units. Fast twitch motor units have high threshold neurones, axons with high conduction velocities and fibres with large cross sectional areas. The shortening velocity of a fast twitch fibre can be up to four times faster than a slow twitch fibre and hence, if recruited, will significantly increase RFD.
b. Typically, motor units are recruited in order of size; hence the largest and fastest units are recruited last. Recent research (Scmidtbleicher, 1996) however, suggests training may permit preferential recruitment of high threshold fast twitch motor units earlier in the recruitment order.
c. The Golgi tendon organs, arranged in series with the muscle, respond to increased tension by inhibiting maximum force development. Exposure to high forces decreases the sensitivity of the Golgi tendon and hence also decreases inhibition.
a. Strength, in a specific movement, is increased by a more efficient interaction of the muscles involved in the movement. Intermuscular coordination becomes more significant with increased movement complexity. The Olympic lifts, for example, require greater coordination than a single joint ‘isolation’ exercise.
b. An unskilled athlete has higher net resistance at a given load since the agonists must overcome both the load and the force produced by the antagonists.
c. Training reduces ‘reciprocal’ inhibition, i.e. activation of antagonists in response to high forces.
d. Increasing the strength of stabilising muscles improves the efficiency of force transmission. For example in the clean, the spinal erectors, abdominal and obliques co-contract to increase the stiffness of the spine such that force generated in the knee and hip extensors can be transmitted to the upper body.
Intramuscular Coordination