Verkhoshanky books?

I was just wondering if anyone has any of the Verkhoshanky books? i.e., Programming & Organization of Training / Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport. If so, what are your thoughts on them?
Are they worth purchasing or is much of the material in Supertraining?

There is material covered in Verhoshansky’s books that are not covered in Supertraining-

Both of the books mentioned are a good compliment to Supertraining.

I have the programming one. The material is good but the translation makes for a tough read.

quoting kenny Croxdale

I am a bit anal on training…storing information. Here is some of the information I fond enlightening in Fundamentals…a preview of it for you.

Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sports/Verkhoshansky

Page 56 The EXPLOSIVE-ISOMETRIC type of muscular tension is inherent to movements in which significant resistance is overcome (for example, snatch or jerking…throwing a heavy projectile). A basic peculiarity of these movements is the necessity to develop a significant working-force: the MAXIMAL is achieved, advantageously, AT THE END OF THE MOVEMENT.

The EXPLOSIVE-BALLISTIC type of muscular tension is characteristic of movements in which maximal force is applied to a relatively small resistance (for example, the shot put, javelin…). Here the motive force reaches maximum quickly AT THE BEGINNING and MIDDLE ranges of the movement, then begins to diminish. …As the resistance increases, this type of muscular tension switches to EXPLOSIVE-Ballistic.

The EXPLOSIVE-REATIVE-BALLISTIC type of muscular tension has the same peculiarities as the EXPLOSIVE-BALLISTIC type except for the regime of muscular work. Here the preliminary stretch phase is sharp and clear-cut, after which there is an immediate switch to overcoming work.

Page 61 It is not difficult to conclude that during dynamic-explosive-force with 20-40% of PO, the F (t) curve is characteristically determined entirely by the starting-strength of the muscles. With a resistance of 60-80% of PO their functional characteristics are changed. As it was in the previous instance, the beginning of the F (t) curve is determined by starting-strength, however, further on it is increasingly connected with the muscles’ ability to quickly display the maximum possible strength, i.e., the acceleration-strength of muscle.

Page 62 Thus, the working-effect of an athletic movement, executed with maximal volitional tension, is determined to a greater or a lesser degree by the four qualitative special-strength abilities: absolute-strength (PO), starting-strength (Q), acceleration-strength (G) and the absolute speed of muscle contraction (Vo).

Page 65 Starting-strength (Q) and acceleration-strength (G) are weakly dependent upon each other. The general abilities to display explosive-strength (I) and acceleration-strength (G) are to a significant degree determined by an aggregate of causes. Starting-strength (Q) and the general ability to display explosive force (I) have little in common.

Page 65 …the lesser the external resistance of the movement (consequently, the faster and briefer its execution) the larger the role of such abilities as absolute speed: and especially, starting-strength. And, vice-versa, the larger the external resistance the greater the importance of acceleration and absolute-strength. In accordance with these criteria of componential abilities (which secure the working-effect of explosive force), one can arrange the following series: Vo-Q-G-PO; which can correlate concretely with the external resistance of the movement, as depicted on the abscissa in figure 30.

Page 66 It is obvious that when overcoming insignificant external resistance (20-40% of PO) man is simply unable to display his strength potential. In this instance, the impulse force producing the movement is developed chiefly by starting-strength. With a large resistance (more than 60% of PO) the impulse force securing the working movement is developed primarily by acceleration and absolute-strength. Starting-strength plays an assistive role here. Thus, in order for the working tension to reach a certain level as quickly as possible, starting-strength is the underlying mechanism crucial for the display of acceleration-strength. First, it follows that with an external resistance, starting-strength is displayed under isometric conditions of muscular tension (the greater the external resistance the larger it is expressed); and acceleration-strength is displayed in the dynamic regime; second, the higher the level to which starting-strength is developed, the faster the acceleration-strength can be realized. The latter circumstance should unconditionally be emphasized considering the limited time for the execution of a speed-strength movement in athletics.

Page 69 The regime, in which and external resistance is actively overcome after being preceded by a sharp preliminary muscular stretch, is the most effective for training explosive-strength.

Page 69-70/Bench Press Throws…I co-wrote this article prior to reading Fundamentals. Verkhoshansky figured it out 25 years ahead of me…lol. Plyometric Bench Press Training

Page 78/Effector vs Afferent Impulse

Page 90-91/Complex Training…same thing here…Verkhoshansky was 24 year ahead of me on this… Building Strength and Power with Complex Training

Regarding the plyometric bench press article;

What have the Westsider’s said about the argument that you have to decelerate at the end of the bench press when using loads in the range of 55% 1RM, and this therefore limits the effectiveness of the exercise? Surely they do not agree.

The equation to work out the height of the ball for the power drop is nice, but how would you ensure it is dropped from the precise height accurately and consistently. Here surely just dropping from the hands of a partner is not adequate.

Originally posted by JimboUKdec
Regarding the plyometric bench press article;

What have the Westsider’s said about the argument that you have to decelerate at the end of the bench press when using loads in the range of 55% 1RM, and this therefore limits the effectiveness of the exercise? Surely they do not agree.

Well if you have done any sort of speed benching then you will find that you do have to brake hard at the halfway point. But adding bands to damp the movement negates this to some extent.

I have even braked a bench abruptly enough for my whole body to go airbourne :slight_smile:

Speed benching without bands vs plyo pushups for explosiveness, the later wins, since you are able to “release the load” by propelling yourself into the air.

In other words shutting off the power at the end of the move teaches bad nueral patterns. This isn’t a problem for powerlifting which WSB is directed at, but for explosive accleration training not so good.

So the Westside BBC use bands for their speed bench workouts? If this is the case, I apologise for the question- it was because of my poor memory of westside methods. I have tried using such loads and have not felt the need to ‘put the brakes on’ at any point in the movement. I just let my head, shoulders, and upper back come off the bench, and then stop the barbell with the help of the spotter when it comes down from the top of the movement. I could imagine that it might be more problematic for, say 700lb bench pressers doing 385lb speed benches, but then wouldn’t it be alright with 3 spotters?

Alright I may have missed the point. Yes there must be deceleration at the end of the bench press motion, but does that mean that teaches deceleration? At the end of any movement there is deceleration isn’t there?

wasn’t trying to be rude - sorry if it came across as such :slight_smile:

Westside do use bands on both max effort and dynamic benching.

that’s can’t be good for your shoulders the way your doing them. Anyway unless you release the load there is still some decceleration. Notice how your back gets a good workout as well? Mine sure did when I used to bench like that, lats got pumped :slight_smile:

Yes, after the load has been released in a normal movement, to protect the joints, but when your benching this happens before full extension has been reached.
Unless your intent was to throw the barbell to the ceiling.

A subtle, yet significant difference

What are the references for the supporting studies that using loads about 55% of 1rm teaches decleration/bad neural patterns or however they worded it? This topic interests me enough to actually go look up the details of the studies.

I didn’t say anything about 55%, this would apply to any sort of explosive training with the right loads for that type of training. Obviously one doesn’t train for speed strength with the bench at 90% loads.

found this on the above site - don’t know how valid it is


Mike Berry, Tom Matic and Scott Lassa

Milwaukee Safety Academy

Milwaukee, WI 53209


The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of dynamic accentuated resistance training using free weights combined with latex rubber cords (DART) and free weight compensatory acceleration training (CAT) on the strength and power of Fire Cadets following traditional training methods. After twelve workouts using machines and traditional training the subjects were divided into two groups of equal strength abilities based on their pre-test 1-RM squat and 1-RM bench press total (n = 10). One subject was subsequently dropped from the study after suffering an illness and a non-training related injury. Groups were randomly designated either as Group 1 or Group 2. There were no significant group differences on any tests or measures. Lower-body strength and power were tested three times (pre, mid, post) with a 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) (n = 9) and with a counter-movement vertical jump (n = 9). Upper-body strength and power were tested with a (1-RM) (n = 9) and a seated medicine ball throw (n = 9). All subjects were on an identical weight training program. Group 1 trained for twelve workouts using DART followed by twelve workout using CAT. Group 2 trained for twelve workouts using CAT followed by twelve workouts using DART. Group 1 (n = 4) (DART/CAT) and Group 2 (n = 5) (CAT/DART) performed the concentric phase of each repetition of the squat and bench press as rapidly as possible. With one exception, both groups strength and power measures increased over the 24 workouts. Significant training effects for squat strength were found for Group 1 (p < .05) and Group 2 (p < .01). Group 1 increased their squat 55 lbs. (+26%) and Group 2 by 84 lbs. (+41%). Group 1 (non-sig.) increased their vertical jump by 1.5 inches and lower-body mechanical power output by 45.1 watts (+15%) and Group 2 (non-sig.) increased their vertical jump by 1.1 inches and lower-body mechanical power output by 58.9 watts (+19%). Group 1 (non-sig.) increased their bench press 10 lbs. (+7%) and Group 2 (p < .148) by 28 lbs. (+17%). Group 1 increased their upper-body power on the medicine ball throw by 8 inches after DART training, but lost 10 inches after CAT training, for a net loss of 2 inches. Group 2 (p < .05) had significant training effects in upper-body power on the medicine ball throw with a total increase of 17.4 inches (+11%), 15.4 inches of that coming after DART training (p < .05). The results of this study suggest a hierarchical order of more effective training methods, beginning with traditional training, followed by compensatory acceleration training and ending with dynamic accentuated resistance training.

Abstract - Summary of Findings

Item Group 1 - DART/CAT Group 2 - CAT/DART
Squat +55 lbs.** +84 lbs.*
VJ Power +45.1 watts +58.9 watts
Bench +10 lbs. +28 lbs.
MB Power -2.0" +17.4"**
Statistically significant at the *.01 level (p<.01) or the **.05 level (p<.05).

I would like to see more detail about the training and testing methods for this experiment. Why is the med ball throw the only test where results are mentioned after each stage? The testing method would be interesting for the med ball because of the higher technical variability. (e.g throwing angle, use of the rest of the body to aid the throw). The results could be explained by superior training methods used while doing DART than than CAT. Just asking questions again.

that’s all there is

I was just skimming the Weightlifting encyclopedia, and stopped to read the section ‘Faulty Interpretations of Practical Experience and Scientific Research’ (pages 148-150) . Dreschler only mentions two examples. Periodisation, and Verkoshansky. Verkoshansky is criticised because the only studies that were mentioned in detail were flawed, and not sufficient to draw the conclusions that were made. His advice is to regard YV’s conclusions as educated speculation and not knowledge. I can mention more detail about the books/studies he is talking about if you want, without plagiarising.

To me it is common sense not to take the finding of any one piece of research as proof, but rather speculation, especially without seeing the study in the greatest possible detail. Conclusions from such studies (in the strength and conditioning field) are not themselves proof of something, they are rather not disproving an idea. (The same point is stressed in theWE, I didn’t want to copy the exact words)

I like your last post, JimboUKdec. Good points.

But - isn´t the earth flat and a 10 kg shot falls 10X faster than a 1 kg shot? :devil:

I think I know what you mean but i’m not sure. I did stress in the strength and conditioning field , because it is far less of an absolute science than physics/chem/biology etc., so it is different. The hastiness of conclusions from research, and generalisation of the applicability of training tools is resposible for many of the fads in the fitness (and other) industries, IMO (of course I can’t prove this, but I can offer some speculative examples).