So, I guess these brings up a question that I have wondered for some time, and I am sure it has been covered on this forum before (and maybe this is an inappropriate place for this discussion…I’m sure I’ll find out from the responses I receive). Whatever the case, I ask that everyone bear with me as I am not as familiar with this forum’s etiquette and am still learning; I mainly read posts and absorb the valuable information available as opposed to posting replies in threads.
The heart of this discussion in my opinion boils down to how important technique is in the overall development of the athlete. This is very relevant to me in particular being that I train at a local gym in Austin, TX and regularly squat to parallel using 315 lbs (3 sets of 5) and then 1/2 squat using 405 lbs (2 sets of 5) @ 5’10 175 lbs. Nevertheless, in the back of mind, I always tell myself that my inability to perform 405 lbs past the 1/2 squat position is a limiting factor in my sprint times and overall athletic performance. I always believed that athletic performance reaches its height when the weightlifting portion of one’s regimen is done at high intensity (great loads of resistance relative to one’s body mass) and with great technique in practice. The technique being so important in my opinion because it reinforces the overall efficiency of bodily movements and the proper biomechanics (esp in any and all scenarios be it testing or practice). So the questions beckons…is this belief wrong and should I and others who are sprinters focus strictly on lifting heavier weight for low reps (under 5) irregardless of one’s breakdown in form?