Why do you post such incessant nonsense?
There are so many factual errors in what you just said above… it would take a book to go into detail.
you cannot make a comparison between the two.
I don’t know why a quote ‘so true’, humors me, but it does.
I got my own gym at home. I can do what I want, experiment how I want, and take as much time as I please 
Here we go again fogelson. You really have it in for me don’t you. Have you still not got over that very mild argument we had in another thread several weaks ago? Are you the same person that gave me a negative reputation point for it? Yes, I think you are. Because even now, you are obviously still holding a grudge, that you need to come out and say such things.
Every statemnet I have made can be backed up. The fact is I have read a journal published on a major science website. It showed smith machine squats did not cause as much nervous sytem fatigue as barbell squats.
Now, is your point that there is no such thing as neural fatigue? If that is your point, then you really are one of those overly pedantic dicks that miss the boat entirely (and I’m getting annoyed with you -yes).
I suppose you’re going to lecture me about the nervous system not having substrates or something and that it doesn’t have the fatigue that we associate with muscles.
Well, when the nervous system becomes ‘depressed’ as a way to conserve energy in the future (for several days), a better phrasing than fatigue, would be central nervous system ‘lathargy’, where it atleast acts fatigued. (which if you think about it, is as good as fatigued.) Or I could use the phrase neural depression, but you would probably criticise that aswell.
What’s your f%$cking problem fogelson? That you have to call it nonsense?
If you think you can bully me from thread to thread, you are seriously mistaken.
Edited. Post was moving too far away from original point of thread, because of argument.
Banging out more reps on a machine after barbell fatigue is a no brainer, you can lift more on the machine it self.
So go from the barbell to a lighter weight and you’ve got the same result.
Does more muscle recruitment=greater CNS stress? If so again no brainer between the machine and barbell.
But attributing the CNS stress is relative. Would the machine result in the same magnitude of CNS stress(CNS energy to # of recruitment) ? Would the extra overall CNS stress from barbell to machine weights really affect sprinting that much? Is your goal in the weight room to do as little CNS stress as possible?
I put question marks because I don’t know the answer.
Goose, first off, I cannot even give you negative rep points. If you didn’t realize, you cannot give people negative rep points multiple times. Apparently, people just think that you are saying things that are nonsensical. ‘What you think’ involved saying that I was/am a cunt and nothing more. Glad to hear that is what you think.
Onto why your points are stupid:
-
As Syrus pointed out, you can lift more on the machine, so of course you will be able to do more reps. There are different leverages and the bar does not weigh the same, so there will need to be adjustments. You either don’t understand this or don’t acknowledge it.
-
The reason why there is less soreness and perceived “CNS stress” for some people is because they do not control the eccentric portion of the lift when using these machines. Again, it is the nature of the person using it, not the machine itself. If someone adjusted things, then there would most definitely be equivalent CNS stress once you adjusted the relative loads, TUT, etc. People can do more reps because of the easier leverages and reduced stress from being able to do minimal eccentric action (often bouncing the weights).
-
You have no research studies to indicate that CNS fatigue is the limiting factor from weight training. Most sprinters (in a worldwide sense) in fact are quite lazy in the weight room, despite having great abilities. One needs to look no further than guys who can barely BP more than their bodyweight, if that, to see these guys are not pushing their maximal abilities. We arrive back to the point that any reduced stress from using machines is because people who tend to use machines also tend to not go particularly hard. So you have people that are likely not lifting properly, on machines that give improved leverages for pushing more weight, and giving half-assed efforts. The stabilization bullshit is just that because someone that is stronger on barbell lifts will be stronger on the machine every time. You don’t magically not use your ‘stabilizers’. Most of it just comes from people not controlling the eccentric on the machine and bouncing the weight, which is much more difficult to do with free weights.
Also, Asafa hurt his pec on a supramaximal eccentric bench press (negative). That is hardly relevant to someone doing non-retarded lifting in the weightroom and using much more conservative means, regardless of the lift used.
The goal is not about having as low a c.n.s stress as possible. The goals are different for different athletes. For some one it could be hypertrophy, for some oe else, it could be prehabilitation, for another; rehabilitation, for another it could be strengthening a structural weakness, for another it could be staying out of the pouring rain and getting in some training, for another it could be maximizing c.n.s stress because a niggling injury made them want to avoid the track that day. For another person it could be increasing the over-all work capacity, because they are finding a lot of volume on the track to be risky, for some one else, it could be a tonic to the nervous system which may help their next track session. For another person, it could be exitation for the nervous sytem before they step on to the track after weight session (Marion Jones, also H.S.I sprint club, and Linford Christie). For some one else, it may merely be just a way for them to monitor their strength during a maintanance phase.
There are so many variables. The one thing I can say about weight training is that it is very easy to measure exactly where you are (with the weights) as it is a very measurable tagent - for obvious reasons. You have to decide how to manipulate it, because you have to decide what you need weight training for, and the best way to achieve that. There are many different ways of achieving strength. You don’t have to go all out in the gym to get progression. Pavel Tsatsouline and many other strength coaches emphasize this often. They talk about monitering the bar speed, or atleast being mindfull of it if you don’t have tecnology.
Others, such as Charles Poliquin, prefer that you try to improve each session, (and he recomends changing the exercises now and again, and having less frequant sessions of each area of the body. Like each bodypart trained once every 5 days.) But he is more in to hypertrophy side of weight training for off-season field athletes. Hockey/football.
Thre are many variables so you have to personalize your program, but without over emphazising the weights part of the program. Usain Bolt himself, amongst countless hundreds of other examples, does not over emphasize the weights part of the training. A simple program should be fine, where now and again you can miss the weights session if you really need to. Michael Johnson would do the weights times three days a weak, and some times on alternate days, but sometimes, three days in a row, so long as three sessions were done. (so you see, that is yet another way of personalizing your weights program.) Other people might not feel the need for three whole bopy sessions every weak.
I understand the intricacies of weight training and its complex role in speed training. My questions were more geared towards your explanation as to why Usain Bolt does machine work. Can you justify the role of machine work in his training and its effects on the CNS? Because you say it is less demanding on the CNS, can you explain how this impacts speed?
I know I can’t. Glen’s reasons are his own and we can only guess if we don’t know the true reasoning behind it.
Linford didn’t do it for excitation. The track work afterward was minimal and the weights were very intense while HSI’s were sub maximal and track took precedence. Very different.
I never saw Darren to machine bench. I have seen him bench 135kg though.
Ofcourse I understand and acknowladge the above points, about how machines have different leverage. I never once said you can create more tension on a machine. Please, where did you ever get the idea that I supposedly didn’t realize a machines leverage allows different weights to be handled? (than with a barbell.) For you to just make stuff up about me is stupid of yourself. I have never once said anything for you to presume I didn’t know about the differance in leverage between weights and machines. That was one of the first differances I descovered the very first time I used a machine, about fifteen years ago!
It beggers belief, that you can just make this stuff up about me, and assume that I don’t know these incredibly obvious things. Why do you do that?
When a group of athletes did smith machine squats with 95-100% 0f 1 rep max , for 6 sets x 1 rep per set (of machine 1 rep max) - they had more c.n.s fatigue “symptons” than the other training groups who followed OTHER parameters, with barbells, such as 2 x 5 reps with 75% 1 rep max. But when same parameters are used on machines as with barbells, there is more fatigue from the barbells.
A variable of points here, all I can be bothered to say here is: I don’t think weight training is an excallant training method for a sprinter in anycase. (Yes I know, that will get me in to trouble and argument with some people.) But when you look at the gym results of various athletes, there is very little correlation to their track results. (I know some people will strongly disagree with this. I’ll just have to take the brunt of peoples dissagreement.) But there are many ‘examples’ that could prove either point true.
For example:
Dwain Chambers, improved his squats by 50 kilos, but had no improovement in sprinting speed on the running track.
And just minutes ago, in another thread “Go-FAST” talks about a female athlete he is working with… And Go-fast said (Quote) “…She has gone from never dead lifting to now 130kg at 66kg b/w. Power cleans about 65kg, so solid numbers without anything amazing. Anyway, the point is she hasnt improved anything on the track, as is the case with others, yet other athletes improve and keep on improving…” (Un-quote -)
However;
Ben Johnson was at his fastest when he was at his strongest in the gym. 450 Ib bench press several days before Olympic final.
So the Ben Johnson situation suggests contrary to my point, where as the Dwain Chambers situation and GO-FAST’s post, appear to back up my point.
However, if we consider that Ben Johnsons’s weight room strength in 1988, was the result of so many contributing factors - over time, not just his weight room activity, but also the med ball throws, the sprints, the callasthenics including depletion push ups once a weak, etc, etc… , then I am suggesting there are many training options to improove a persons’ strength.
I know you also realize this. I am also suggesting that some of the other ways of improoving strength, translate as well, or better - over all, than many weight training exercises. Some athletes even feel that going too heavy on the weights can… (quote; “put too much tension in the body” which is not good for track athletes.") That quote was from a top ranked Canadian 400 meter runner. I don’t just pull this stuff out of thin air, as you often imply that I do.
And so there for; Because I don’t rate ANY kind of weight training as being particualary special - just a tool -, that is why I was saying that machine weight training really isn’t such a silly idea. It isn’t better than barbells necesarily, but it can be in the same ball park of effectiveness, which frankly, niether types of weight training are so fantastical, that one type should warrant so much more acclaim than another type of weight training. That is really what I am saying. I expect you’ll dissagree.
Syrus, I realize that you allready know the intricacies of weight training. My answer was based on the idea that you might think I didn’t know.
You guys are over-estimating the ‘strategy’ of the top Olympic athletes.
Look, some teenager in your local gym is lifting weights with the machines. And then, some superstar superman (Usain Bolt) is doing the same exercises on machines at some other gym.
And although Glen Mills would have put more thought behind the program, Usain is still lifting the same wieghts in similar machines to what the teenager down your local club is doing.
The only advanced thing Usain is doing, is everything outside of the gym, because his gym program is simple. Yet some people here, think there has to be some Einstien like theory behind Usain’s unorthadox weight training program. There isn’t. Maybe a 6 foot 5 inch (atleast) Jamaican guy with VERY narrow hips and long leg to torso length ratio (compared to cuacasion of same hieght), would find barbell back squats to be bloody uncomfortable!
There is nothing ‘super special’ about training with a machine. Where did any of you guys get the impression that I thought it was so special. All I said was… “It might not be such a silly idea.”
Usain said the weights give him a little more speed endurance. Atleast that is better than saying it improoves his drive phase. (Becuase if people didn’t know allready, there are better methods than any type of weight training - at improoving the acceleration phases.)
This is tedium. Why do you have to think Usain’s gym program has to be “advanced”? There’s nothing advanced about it at all.
Some coaches and athletes suggest the “quadriceps are the first muscle to fatigue in a sprint”. (That quote came from Linford Christie.) And in the machine squat, you can clearly see that Usain is doing a lot for his quadriceps.
The leg extension may be used for knee stability, it might be because they feel the patella tendon needs a bit of hypertrophy to decrease injury risk. Who knows then, and frankly, who gives a shit, because weights are not the holy grail that some people around this forum allmost seem to alude to now and again.
There’s nothing special about Usains weights program, BECAUSE THERE DOESN’T NEED TO BE!
As Long as it helps just a little by functioning as prehab, giving a little variation to training and stimulation, both psycological and physiological, and strengthens areas such as the shoulders and core, then that’s fine.
Some people hammer it too much with barbells. They get lost to their weight training, and their big dumb ego, and about how much they are lifting compared to other people. They put too much tension in their body, they get depressed and demoralized because of their own high standards on a type of exercise that’s not as important as most of their other training. And a hundred other reasons.
You are SO educated, that you have missed the boat. (Yes, this is a phenomena in the modern world of 1: Sheep society and 2: internet and 3: The talented and gifted and lucky being acclaimed as experts and all those who are associated with them.
I don’t know where to begin, there are so many tangents, I have not got all day to write them. Not being funny, but you allready get tremendous c.n.s stimulation on the running track. Go TOO high in the weight room (with lower body and posterior chain) and you have not enough left for the track. That’s the main point. I’m amazed by how some of the educated people miss the boat so spectacularly.
I’m tired of this friggin thread. I’m out of here. My next comment I’m gonna use just to wind people up, if that’s what they deserve, yet to hit a point home for people who prefer to read between the lines.
Question: Who do the people on this thread think is faster? The Incredible Hulk or the Silver Surfer? Ha-ha. (Ofcourse none of you will understand what I meant by that. And Fogelson probably thinks I believe the characters actually exist or something.) I can’t be arsed with this for much longer.
Answer; Usain Bolt (The silver surfer) is as smooth as silk in many different ways that some of you would never understand. I notice EVERYTHING.
Here’s one: You know when Usain Bold rubs his head before his sprint races? You think he’s just posing? Well actually, he’s using a technique that goes back to the ancient Samuria and Bhuddist monks, and is probably known by most mammals (but few people know). When you rub your head, your “Chi” energy lowers down your body and you attain a little more self control and you don’t get over-exited.
You know when he does the “superman pose”? Really, he knew that he was giving his spine a final stretch before the final. He realizes to allow gravity to help rotate the leg forwards (when you are in anterior pelvic tilt.) Ofcourse the gravity pulls down, but when there is musculoskeletal stiffness in the leg, gravity with rotate you forwards (if you are in anterior pelvic tilt with slight forwards lean) where there is space. So by the way, sprint technique is more to do with spinal posture than ‘technique drills’ where un-informed sprinters only concentrate on their arms and legs. So Usain Bolt does the superman pose before the race to give himself a quick neural reminder to achiving optimun anterior pelvic tilt moments later in the actuall race. Yes the hips rotate away from it back to neutral and back again to anterior, if you think I didn’t know - dah. Yes, even Usain Bolts ‘poses’ for his dumb fans, back up what I said in another thread about gravity and sprinting. But this is beyond the scope of some of you guys who have lost your observation skills, because you only get your information from peoples mouths and books.
Usain Bolt does all THAT particular stuff naturally, but I could write big thick books on the subject of what you could do to improove yourself as an athlete. YES, I even notice the LITTLE things, bet none of you “EXPERTS” knew that did you? And that little trivial - triffle - piece of information I just gave, which is barely worth pennies, is absolutely NOTHING compared to stuff I could say, that I would never tell anybody. I mean there are guys getting paid for information. I only give away the most basic and trivial of my information for free (such as above). The good stuff I’ll keep to myself.
syrus2001, my last paragraphy was not not directed at you “personally”, but at peeps in general. I know you are very educated.
I’m slighlty embarrassed, I know I’m being perhaps overly defensive, but with all the negative rep points I’ve recieved lately, I feel I’ve been backed in to a corner, and my instinct is to come out fighting and I do mean everything I say, even if I’m being overly defensive. I know I’m not perfect, and have some flaws of my own.
You said that machine weights offered a lower CNS stress as compared to barbell weights.
Since this thread is about Usain Bolt’s strength training, this is obviously related to speed training as well.
You further related the lower CNS stress in the weight room to Usain’s abilities to crank out high CNS track workouts and the need to preserve this output and not to go overboard.
No need for paragraphs upon paragraphs of info to hit that point. And I think most would agree with these statements. The move from general to specific and back to general. We are all familiar with it I’m sure.
Perhaps Usain has reached a higher CNS output than anyone else and as a result needs to be even more general or to the right of the force-velocity curve in order to preserve the left and maintain the right. With that being said, there are definitely other methods of reaching this goal of general lifting besides machines and of course barbells can definitely be used.
Your message can be lost in the quantity of information you provide in your posts and a little in the defensiveness. But after all this is only a forum, and it is difficult to not take things personally at times. I usually find that the best thing to do is agree to disagree with people and before you know it, its on to another thread.
If you cut down 90% of what you said (most of which is simply repeating yourself and being extremely defensive to any criticism, however valid), it might be easier to see the points you are attempting to make.
Why is there such a discussion on this seemingly false weight training program. Does someone have proof that this is what he actually does?
Why does everyone assume the lifting program is false? Just because it doesn’t line up with your particular training paradigm?
Who cares if you don’t like it or it violates your thinking on the matter. It just underscores the fact that weights are general and secondary.
I guess his primary strength training may come from sled dragging but just looking at the article and the way it goes into such detail on the reps and sets it’s like something someone just made up
I’ve heard that before, seems to me a way to explain something you don’t understand.
When Nanny69 got Charlie to Aust he rang and asked if I would go, I said I would love to but I had to understand what I was doing first. When Bolt won in Beiging I got a visit from an athlete I used to coach, he laughed, I won’t go into what he said. A lady I once coached was told the same about the sled, she slowed down by about 1.2".
I don’t know what is in the program nor want to see it, I suggest the first thing to do is to try and understand why.
Hey goose I felt that way 10 years ago, you eventually get over it, also had an athlete that used the chinese touch, still not convinced though.
Bingo! We have a winner.