First the erector spinae are activated, then the hamstrings then calves to some degres, hmmm…kinda of like the sprinting motion?
Charlie any thoughts?
The first part of the continous GHR lift, its the third diagram in the row, http://www.newyorkbarbells.tv/82626.html
The second part of the continous GHR lift, second diagram down where it says Poor Man’s Glute Ham, http://www.westside-barbell.com/louies_equipment_line.htm
What’s going on in picture #4 from the first link?
Not a God damn Clue? 
Buddy thinks he’s Superman!
I think there trying to demonstrate that you can’t slip off the GHR bench?
he’s demonstrating that he’s a GHRsexual.
I can’t do a GHR without crushing my balls into my stomach. I know I am not doing something right. We have the basick GHR from elite. Any idea what I am doing wrong?
Sounds like you have your hips too close to the pad. You might try to move the foot plate up closer to the pad you lay across. You should really feel more direct pressure on your thighs than around the pelvis.
I think the GHR is a general strength means and is not intended to duplicate the sprinting motion. However since it is general (as most strength training with weights or machines) it could have positive impact on sprinting by way of injury prevention due to the eccentric component of the exercise.
Thanks, I’ll give that a try again. I have read that you should put your knee about 2 inches behind the bottom of the pad when your legs are exteded.
I did experiment with closer to the pad, but it seemed like I wasn’t getting enough glute activation, just lower hamstring.
Note that the pressure on the thighs can be kind of extreme for some-for some kids we would even double/triple up a towel between them and the pad for some extra cushioning. Good luck.
BTW, how’s your program coming along-wts. etc.? Have you been able to make adjustments based upon your kid’s needs and sport practice requirements?
thats funny in the first link there isnt one pic/animation showing him doing the excercise correctly.
Thanks for asking. We are getting better, but there is still a lot of work to do. The weights PE class that I teach is the only one I can really speak about since someone else just uses my program for the other two classes, but he is not very educated and does a lot of different stuff. Early in the year, the kids said they maxed out every two weeks and we actually included true ME lifts in the program.
Non-in-season-athletes in the class will do a ME lower, RE upper, light to heavy lower (depending on their status), and ME upper lift. These non-athletes have made nice progress, but they haven’t really set themselves apart from the ones that are in season all year.
In season athletes in the class will do a ME lower (not usually a true ME day, maybe 3-4 sets of 2 with their 5 rm on back squat or front squat), a ME upper (same), a RE upper day or DE / light upper day, and either a light lower lift or just a flexibility day.
Kids not in the class that lift before school with me will lift 2 or 3 times a week and do two of the 4 workouts a week. These kids usually go a little heavier on the light days.
The 8th graders that come in do all body weight and DB exercises.
Anyway, in my weights class the other day, we tested bench and weighted chinup. I don’t have the data with me at home, but I think the average ratio of bench to body weight with males was probably 1.15 or 1.2.
I believe every person in the class could chin more than they could bench. Maybe that means we just need to cut down pressing volume (like chins) and strength levels will go up?
Any critiques are welcome.
I respect that you are trying to continue to improve on your program. Just a few points.
1)if you don’t feel, after some time with your current set-up, that you are achieving the type of results you think you should be, you might want to consider switching to something a bit more linear. With that, let me point out that a truly well designed linear progression is not really all that strictly linear. There is another thread(probably a number of them actually) on site about that very topic. These programs usually feature fewer weeks in any one phase than most define linear periodiazation as having. Of course with the younger kids, you need to, early on, stay a bit longer in phases. Over time the phases actually shorten before moving into a different phase-ex. hypertrophy into basic strength.
People who have employed such methods include Charlie himself, Dr. Mike Stone, Bompa, and others. If you do switch, you are not married to that method- you can always switch back after giving either method a decent amount of time to work-probably a minimum of about 8 wks. I’ve actually done this in the past with my own training. Alternating training phases with conjugate to linear(undulating-actually non-linear but most call it linear). The advantage to the linear method for younger kids is they tend to do very well with multiple reps which, if executed well, can serve as a good teaching/learning tool.
I’m not down on the conjugate method, I just think each method, if well planned and executed, can achieve great results. Each method can provide a bit of variety that the other might be somewhat lacking in.
Chins, push-ups done in a variety of ways, and a number of other exercises are very good, as you mention, for developing relative body strength-according to some a key to sprint and jump performances. I 'd keep busting out the chins but maybe switch them up a bit at times for variety-different variations-chin ups, pull ups, grip widths, etc. If you don’t already, I’d include some days of rowing exercises as well so the middle back muscles get a bit more work as well-barbell, dumbbell rows. I’m really liking a variety of push-ups right now-band push-ups, incline push-ups, various hand widths, contrasting sets of band push-ups with unresisted push-ups, hip thrusts, squat thrusts, hip bridges, lunges etc.
The point of bringing up #2 is just to emphasize how valuable I believe such exercises to be for the development of all athletes. Though they are especially good for the young kids in your program, they can also have significant value to your older kids. Of course they would be included at a reduced volume to account for the relatively higher amounts of weight training engaged in by the older kids.
Thanks for the suggestions. I am actually trying a linear program with my 8th graders right now. I like it, but I started out and kept sets of 15 for too long.
We do include pushup variations and chinup variations, as well as bent over row - both DB and BB - every day we bench right now.
What do you think are reasonable body weight to strength ratios should be for bench, chinup, and front squat? Mike Boyle suggests 1.25 to 1.5, 1.25 to 1.5, and 1.5 to 1.75.
What do you think about such ratios for HS kids, both boys and girls, as well as post high school high level athletes.
Staying too long with a particular rep number tends to be one of the most common mistakes people make with the undulating periodization method-I’ve done it myself numerous times. For younger kids, though, it’s not such a big deal. For an advanced athlete it can be a much more significant problem. A certain degree of detraining can occur when staying too long at one rep number/range, especially if it is in a AA phase or hypertrophy phase.
Emphasis on the technical quality of each and every rep the kids do can go a long way towards ensuring they recieve a great deal of benefit from the program.
I like your inclusion of the push-up/chin up and row variations.
To be honest, I’ve not really explored the ratios you mention previously. My experience with ratios in designing programs has been more to help estimate starting points for bringing in exercises that have either never been in their programs-or at least a long lay off. Example:incline press will be about 75-85% of flat bench performance(similar for front squat to back squat) depending somewhat upon an athlete’s experience with a particular exercise. Power cleans at 50-60% of back squat etc. Some of these are rough estimates merely for starting points.
I dont think glute hams offer much resistance unless you add weights. Or unless to drop down and react back up.
Back to the original form mentioned…
How many people start out with a back extension as opposed to starting with your entire body parallel to the ground? This seems like it might isolate the hamstrings and glutes more by eliminating momentum and cheating?
I always started from a upright position then went as far down as possible and came up, is this wrong? This is how I was tought how do others perform it?
Not saying right or wrong, but we were taught to start with your feet hooked in, knees bent and jutting into the pads, and upper body straight up. Then, lower to parallel and back up without going down further into the “back extension” start position.
The reasoning given was to keep constant tension on the hamstrings, and going below parallel takes that tension off somewhat.
I must say that I do like the feeling of the lower back stretch when going past parallel sometimes, even if it isn’t as technically as strict.
I think both ways are effective, that movement is tough!
According to Dave Tate, you start in the horizontal position and then go up pushing your toes into the plate. It’s listed under calisthenics at elitefts.com- on the left side of the home page. Pretty thorough description there.