Stripping Away All that is Useless

I agree, the redundancy is something I see all too frequently as well. Too many presses for sure are common but I have also seen programs where three different squats were done in the same session. I think at times it is simply a lack of not only knowledge but also confidence that one major exercise for a compound movement might just be enough for the athlete-enough to do the trick. Instead there is overkill.

Last year I saw a program for an SEC school’s baseball program and in it there were four exercises that hit the hams/glutes/lower back pretty significantly in one single session. It had good mornings, glute ham raises, RDL, and reverse hypers. While, relatively speaking, those areas were probably undertrained by many athletes over the years, how many exercises should one do in a single session? Certainly those exercises don’t provide identical stress to those muscle groups but why not wait for a later block or phase to incorporate some of those exercises rather than doing them all at one time?

In the program with good mornings, glute hams, etc. there were a total of about 12 exercises in the session though even for major exercises like back squats, no warm-ups were indicated. Why that many exercises in a single session?

I agreee Pioneer. I just don’t see how these guys justify all the redundant volume. It borders on overkill. I try to make sure that nothing is getting to far out of balance. I was working with one of my guys who plays with 49ers and noticed he was developing an alarming degree of internal rotation. I showed him how this altered his arm swing in sprints. He is a 4.35 guy, so his game is speed. I will get to do quite a bit to fix that as it looks like CBA is going to expire. No team contact for a while so I can help him get straight.

What I was alluding to is very little in the form of exercise selection is that specific when it comes to weight training. To me organism strength is not specific. It needs to be honed into specific qualities through plyos, speed work, skill work, etc. Just being strong to me isn’t a direct effect on performance. I have played with guys weak as kittens who were absolute beasts on the field. I have seen many a weight room hero who played like a zero. I just think that you will always end up disappointed if you are looking for an exercise in the weight room that has a direct and specific translation to the sport. Thats just my feeling. Sport is played at such a higher speed than any lift.

The growth hormone output is pretty low and in my opinion sometimes the squat can actually impair a good stabilization (it heppened to me, for some reason poor glute medius “activation” --> poor pelvic stability). I know you were talking in general, of course, and in general I agree.

Kelly Johnson who built the plane in my avatar (SR-71) had the same philosophy. He said he tried to find the most simple solution to a problem.

Skunk works…:slight_smile:

Hell yea. I got to book and read it. It was a fascinating read. From my understanding it’s a must read for CEO’s, entry CIA agents and business tycoons.

At the same time it’s a sad read because I don’t believe that America will ever be as technology advanced as it was during the 1950/60’s.

Anyhow back on topic… sorry for the detour.

At the small skill positions, maybe. Speed is definitely king there. But the strength used to hold a block or push through a block or tackle, are much longer than GCT in a sprint. And this doesn’t even touch on the development of body mass. Bigger, stronger and faster, not just faster,is what wins football games. Our high school (Coppell, TX) lost one game this year, late in the playoffs. We lost to the #1 team in the nation, Euless Trinity, by one point. They were not more skilled, we were. They were not quicker or faster, we were. They did not have a better game plan, we did. They beat us by pushing our butts down the field old school, overpowering our line and running over our linebackers. Size and strength matters, and you can definitely improve both in the weight room.

I agree whole heartedly. Trust me, my kids are big and strong and I don’t just worry about speed. I think it is a collision sport and strength helps as much as speed. What I was saying was in response to saying squat doesn’t have a direct translation to ability to run, etc. It to me is an indirect relationship. Just because one squats more doesn’t necessarily translate into more speed. It builds strength, hypertrophy, MUA, etc. Unless these are honed, just being strong alone doesn’t make one good. I was just commenting to the post saying very little you do in the weight room is going to translate directly to sport as it pertains to the movement alone. The qualities developed certainly transfer, if they are transferred to the sports requirements. Obviously, at some point getting stronger or more powerful is going to give diminishing returns on investment, as increasing strength may only deliver a tiny gain in on field ability. Then it isn’t worth the effort to develop that characteristic any further.

Transfer of Training by Dr. Anatoliy Bondarchuk.

Free Download:

Thanks RR. I managed to find a copy already. Looks like an interesting

Fair enough. However I definitely feel that a combination of resistance work, sleds, hills, and plyos do a lot to improve the first 20-30m of an athlete’s sprint. Maybe not Max V, but improving speed in the first 20-30m is very significant in football.

Star, this is what I was commenting on. I was saying that anything we do in the weight room such as below is going to leave a coach or athlete wanting more if they are looking for some direct transfer from either squat or jump squat. They do not in my estimation transfer directly to sport but rather indirectly. Nothing in a squat is a motion I have athletes repeat on the field. The knee angle is never as deep as a squat otherwise you would get destroyed. So why not just have kids squat down to about 45 degree angle on femur. That would be a power position in football.

Not so much, very poor and not detailed statistical analysis. Really it confuses more than clarifies. One thing, the more an exercise resembles the competition, the more is correlated. Pretty intuitive, tough.

I don’t think it is indirect, it is only loosely correlated.

Because quarter squats are not nearly as effective at building strength and mass as half squats. It doesn’t matter if that position is rarely repeated on the field. Being specific just to be specific in your exercise selection is silly if a non-specific exercise produces superior results in the desired attributes (i.e. strength, power or hypertrophy).

Define strength here? Because the last time I looked it was position specific. Quarter squats will build mor strength in the top position than half squats (which limit poundages), no?

And why won’t they build as much mass?

You realize that posting this is:
a. a copyright violation
b. Puts the forum at risk

Stop being such a fucking dipshit.

Transfer of Training vol 1 is nearly useless. Totally unreadable and just doesn’t say anything.

Volume 2 is far far far better. His charts showing the different styles of periodization (described only in text in Vol 1) make sense.

Again, I am agreeing. I don’t get what your point is? I honestly have my guys squat to parallel or just above unless they go deeper without issue. I have seen far too many strength s&c coaches try pounding evryone through a cookie cutter squat technique. Its the old if you ass isn’t leaving pucker marks, your not a man. It is just an exercise to develop qualities to make you play a game better, not adhere to someones preconceived idea that all should fit their criteria.To another point, an Olympic sprinter I trained just did massively explosive quarter squats at high load. Are you saying that was useless? He already had achieved a tone of strength and perhaps too much hypertrophy for his own good. It was not my idea, but I see why he preferred that as his specific need was about being explosive at roughly 45 degree exit angle form blocks. In my years doing this, I never say things don’t have efficacy. I have seen too many things that contradict many things I held as gospel.