Usain’s Strength Training

[Goose232]

@fogelson

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:

1. 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. .

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?

@fogelson

2. 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).
   .

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.

@fogelson

3. 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.

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.