Goose2:
Think of the force curve and where each element hits the curve. Does the element have to generate the most watts to have the most effect or is it a combination of the watts AND the state the body is left in to take advantage of the stimulation at the next planned opportunity that counts? Think of the bench press as an example- perhaps less watts to the right of the curve to allow for more watts on the left [sprinting], as you state in your last sentence.
This is an important concept. If all one did was sprint, then after some finite period of time (usually less than 12 weeks) performance would plateau and may even begin to regress. The same goes for lifting or plyos. You will see large improvements at the start of the training cycle and then improvements will asymptotically taper off as time goes on.
So if you focus on sprint training, what do you do at the end of the 8 or 12 weeks when your performance ceases to improve? Vertical integration says that you change the focus and emphasize a different training modality while doing a level sufficient for maintenance work with the first modality. So for example, you could start to focus on max strength through lifting (you are stil sprinting during this cycle!) After some weeks, this will taper off and you will need to cycle in a new modality (or cut back the volume in order to peak for competitions!)
The cool thing is that when you repeat these training ‘waves’ back to back, each one can build on the gains made in the previous one - even though you may not have been focusing on that particular component. (Note that with vertical integration, you don’t completely stop performing any element - you cycle the intensities and volumes but have all elements present throughout the training cycle)
For example, if you just completed a speed cycle, you were probably only doing maintenance work in the weight room. Your absolute strength levels will probably be somewhat lower. However, the speed work you have done has probably positively enhanced your RFD and (if you did things right) your strength levels have not regressed back to the level you were at before you started the previous max strength cycle. So you are now starting at a higher level than the previous cycle started at and you have the ability to make gains again based on the next capabilties you added in your speed training and the break you took during the maintenance cycle. This is better than simply cycling one element on and off because the speed training has a positive impact on strength training and strength training has a positive impact on speed training.
Question: Since all of the training modalities work along the force velocity curve - speed work, plyos, med ball, olympic lifts, limit lifts - what is the best way to evaluate and manage the effects of all of these elements in the overall training program?
Are plyos too close to sprinting (on the FV curve) that I can’t emphasize them right after a speed cycle? Is it better to alternate opposite ends of the curve sequentially?
How does a weightlifter manage this (since there are less training modalities available to him?)
O.k, now I get it. So I’m finally satisfied that my strength work is worthwhile.
Plyos are closest to sprinting on the left on the curve but there is a substantial difference in contact times and this allows for an easier integration of plyos than might seem possible at first glance. While it is true that it’s easiest to balance training from the opposite ends of the curve, just remember, moderation in all things and use the speed and speed endurance training results as your principle guide.
Even an elite sprinter can get faster because the stronger he is the faster he will be in the start where the foot even for an elite sprinter is on the ground pretty long compared to later on in the race.
Maybe it’s a stupid “could-would-should have” question, but Charlie - in Speed Trap you say that Ben did only Bench, Squats and Lat-Pulls.
Do you you think Ben’ first 30 could have improved by implementing lifts like cleans - without 1) harming his top speed, 2) increasing the risk of injury?
You wrote about how other members of the Optimists Group (Desai if I remember right) did cleans and were quite good in it. Maybe Ben did them too - in his earlier training years - you described that his training changed a lot during the years.
Or was there another good reason for not letting Ben do Oly lifts? Thx.
His form was poor and it would not have been an efficient use of time to improve it.
Training with weights has always been a complex issue with me and I was not lucky to track down my diary when I was weigt training like hell. I’ll never know the real effect of each type of work I did. I just know that I have improved so much after a couple of years. But how and when exactly?? I just don’t have the written stuff. Strangely I can derive a lot of things out of my diary nowadays. But when it comes to weight training I don’t know what was best and what was worst for me. So can we just put a summary with some main points about weight training?? I wish someone could put that on. I see A LOT of arguements about weight training everytime it shows up in a discussion. Can’t we just come to one conclusion or so??
I think that cleans, squats, and snatch are relatively similar. They produce the same morphological effects on the body. What is important is the intensity, density and load. NOT necessarily which of the three exercises you do. Athletes like Ben Johnson and Pietro Minnea did not do olympic lifts but squats and derivatives of squats and STILL managed to run sub 10 or sub 20 respectively. Weights become general I think once an athlete reaches a high level of proficiency. Johnny Edwards is an excellent example. He managed to be very explosive by concentrating mainly on cleans and snatches, no squat. Ben on squats, bench and lats, Minnea on squats and jump squats. Carl on God knows!!! Very sissy weights in comparison. The point is you want to improve rate coding, synchronisation, RFD, selective hypertrophy to name a few of the benefits. To your body a heavy explosive weight or a light explosive weight lifted with a hip extension component is GENERALLY the same, whether done using the clean, squat of the snatch after a certain point is reached. Hence the different exercises favoured by the elite athletes above yet generally the same outcome. High quality world class performances.
sorry but, mennea, thogh not an avid OL, performed them as a warm up, especially the power clean.Vittori states that they are of the utmost importance, before the squats and so on…I have a video with mennea performing Pc( not a good form) and a female sprinter snatching ( split snatching)
As far as I know this was very very late on in his career. The twilight years. In his bread and butter years no cleans, in fact they are no mentioned much at all. A warm up exercise from the info I have as well but not his “bread and butter” lifts. Also I have about five to six referenced papers and articles published by Vittori et al. Did you know that Vittori also trained jumps ? In all of these articles the power clean is not EVEN mentioned as important it is classifyed as a warm-up exercise. Vittori was very systematic in his training means (tests for all main exercises non for the clean) and I am sorry but the clean was not considered that highly as the squat, squat jump and fast high rep calf raises. Five or more detailed papers can not be compared to a fitness video.
I have read one article by Minnea himself and in that he predicted that by 2000 an athlete would run 19.6 secs. He regretted not doing more general weights specifically the squat during his career. The article was written in 1987-88. I will provide the references.
The point I am making is general strength training properly sequenced is more important than which specific leg exercises you choose. I may be wrong but this is what I have observed.
I think that cleans, squats, and snatch are relatively similar. They produce the same morphological effects on the body. What is important is the intensity, density and load. NOT necessarily which of the three exercises you do.
Martin
Snatches, cleans and squats, due to their respective positions on the F:V curve, stimulate different strength qualities.
Remember, squats are a limit strength exercise, OLs (due to ESD) are not …
I know what you are saying David, but how do we explain the fact that some athletes have managed to be very successful without touching them? They have managed to achieve world class results without training both ends of the F:V curve in the weights room?
I love my cleans and snatches but how does it all fit together if you are not training both together (OLs and power lifts)?
Could it be that cleans which have strength-speed qualities and squats which have strength qualities can be paired with other forms of training to make up the whole but do not have to be done together?
If you pair squats with med ball throws and or light weighted jump squats do you not take care of what the cleans may have offered?
If you pair cleans with multi jumps that express explosive strength (triples, pentas, decas, box drills) do you not take care of what you may have missed out on the squat?
I am not sure. What I have observed is the fact that it seems possible to concentrate on either and still manage to be successful on track.
I wasn’t making an arguement for or against weights but simply stressing that your statement that the three exercises have the same effects is inaccurate.
Why do you have to train both ends of the F:V curve in the weightroom? What about the training elsewhere, some of which you describe?
Ok I will try to make myself clearer. In mechanical power and biomechanical terms, yes they are different, on a biochemical level NO. Which is more important ? I do not know. Elite OLs generate 20-30w/kg of mechnical power in cleans and snatches to 5-10w/kg of mechanical power for the squat. BUT on a physiological biomechanical level they produce the same affects. Increased muscle size, nervous system stimulation, improved rate coding, targetting of high threshold muscle fibers held in biological reserve for adverse situations, hypertophy of muscle, glycolytic enzyme increases, to name a few. Yes, biomechanically dissimilar but physiologically and biochemically close enough to be catergorised together.
I do not believe that you have to train both parts of the F-V curve in the weights room. I think training becomes one dimensional with very few degrees of freedom if you do this, leading to the body’s adaptation mechanism stagnating because every thing becomes deterministic and predictable to it.
Med ball work I think is far more superior (THIS IS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE) to doing cleans, its not sub ballistic like the clean or snatch where you hold onto the bar even at the end of the movement, it is pure ballistic work the unloading at the end of the movement is an excellent stimulus for the body. Med ball work with a relatively heavy ball can generate 30-40w/kg of mechanical power, but the power has a larger speed component, probably even more power for very strong athletes.
This leads to another area of dscussion:
“Adaptation stagnation because everything becomes deterministic and predictable to it.”
1: Is this even possible when other high-intensity activities are taking place, as the varying intensity outputs elsewhere in training affect the character and intensity output of the same activity in the weight room for each session?
2: If we view a classical periodization model, high-intensity work would NOT be present elsewhere early on, in which case adaptation stagnation would be very possible. Up to what point in the season?
3: Even if other high-intensity activities are present, what if ALL are approached in the same way- ie all-out, all the time? Wouldn’t you then face the stagnation issue, as the variability of pre-training physical status becomes much less?
4: If too much emphasis is placed on alternation and variability of physical loading to avoid stagnation, don’t you then risk stiffness and injury?
Sounds like my arguement for vertical integration vs classical periodization.
Thoughts?
Are there even any top level sprinters using classical periodization anymore? Seems to me that model is broken.
On another line of questions: with respect to training economy and the need to reduce elements as performance levels and therefore CNS stress increases…
Charlie you had previously talked about how Ben did deadlifts and squats early on, but then dropped the deadlifts to spare CNS energy. You have also previously stated that he was hopeless with power cleans. However, given adequate ability to perform power cleans or perhaps even power snatches, how would you organize / prioritize the addition and dropping of lifts?
For example a beginner presumably would use squats and deadlifts perhaps working to power cleans and dropping deadlifts at some stage. At that point, assuming we needed to economize even more, would you drop the squats or the cleans? I find that cleans have a greater effect on the CNS but that may be because they are more effecient (in that they stimulate more motor units.)
Could an elite sprinter get away with basically power cleans and benching? Or is squat / bench a better combo? I would be concerned that exclusively using power cleans would compromise max strength levels over the long term. On the other hand, they have an explosive /accelerative component that is not present in squats but is arguably more applicable for the sprinter. (Even though weight training is general!)
Thoughts?
Martin
I would disagree. They induce different neural adaptations. Squats, for example, are more effective in reducing Golgi tendon inhibition whilst snatches are more effective in increasing rate coding.
Due to TUT, tempo and eccentric loading the effect on muscle hypertrophy will also be different. OLs are more likely to induce preferential recruitment of FTFs.
Med ball work I think is far more superior (THIS IS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE) to doing cleans, its not sub ballistic like the clean or snatch where you hold onto the bar even at the end of the movement, it is pure ballistic work the unloading at the end of the movement is an excellent stimulus for the body. Med ball work with a relatively heavy ball can generate 30-40w/kg of mechanical power, but the power has a larger speed component, probably even more power for very strong athletes.
Sub balistic?! You don’t decelerate the concentric in OLs… Why is unloading at the end of the movement ‘an excellent stimulus for the body’? Isn’t the eccentric loading of the ‘catch’ a better stimulus?!
Superior? Power outputs in OLs far outstrip those in medicine ball throws.