The answer in Ben’s case is I don’t know.
The natural progression would be from simple to complex (more motor units) closer to meets BUT the problem would become when would the shift of the weights closer on the F:V curve become an issue in regards to CNS competition relating to sprint peaking. Assumedly, power snatch numbers would be less (and would have to be) close in, although I’d think the lift days could remain the same. What would be the effect on the bench numbers in the taper period?
Looking at the CFTS, correct me if I am wrong but these are the inputs of the system.
Extensive tempo and core work: Affect on system output (output is healthy athlete capable of high sprinting speed) holistically positive because it provides recovery and structural support (capillarization recovery). Relativley constant in volume and intensity through out.
Strength training: Max strength and cross-sectional work variable according to principle input (speed).
Strength II: Med ball work, variable in intensity in relation to speed and organism status.
Strength III: Plyo work, variable in intensity in relation to speed and organism status.
Speed endurance: Relatively constant secondary to speed but conditionally in relation to the status of the athlete and years of training.
Speed: Variable in volume according to training status of athlete.
ALL RUN CONCURRENTLY AND ORGANISED VERTICALLY ON THE SAME TRAINING DAY FOR SIMILAR INPUTS. IE SPEED PLYO, MED BALL WEIGHTS
Also because variation is allowed in other inputs in terms of intensity there is less likely to be stagnation.
This is just rough but a very very crude comprehension on my part for the inputs for the CFTS. Now if you look there is enough scope in the system for improving speed but not too many inputs competing for the organisms adaptation processes?
Variation is allowed in enough of the different strength training input methods IN RELATION TO SPEED STATUS (example no improvement in speed lower weights if they are retarding development) to allow for using different strength exercises to achieve for example max strength?
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?
If the train of thought is followed through, then the athlete would start to adapt JUST as competition and maintenance of organism becomes the focus, because in the classical periodization system speed is trained JUST before competition, but too late because the majority of time was spent doing generalist work loads meaning that the volume of speed is in adequate.[/QUOTE]
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?
No you would not if similar high intensity inputs are trained on the same day.
[QUOTE]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?
Yes, if you did for example heavy weights monday track tuesday, weights wednesday and so on the classic weekly organisation of loads in the classical periodization system.
Sounds like my arguement for vertical integration vs classical periodization.
Thoughts?
Are you sure?
I worked some things out.
Athlete A
Overhead backward medball throw starting from near floor full extension of arms prior to release.
70Kg (body mass)
10 KG (med ball)
2.7m (height of release)
.25 sec. (time to execute lift)
Work=force x distance
where:
force=mass thrown
Distance=Gravity x height of release
Gravity=9.8 m/s2
work done= (10Kg)(9.8m/s2)(2.7m)
work=264.6(N.m)
Power=work/time to execute
Power=264.6(N.m)/0.2 secs
Power=1323 watts/70kg=18.9 watts/kg body mass
To achieve the equivalent or approx in clean…
70Kg (body mass)
150 KG (mass lifted)
.80m(height of pull)
.90 sec. (time to execute lift)
Work=force x distance
where:
force=mass thrown
Distance=Gravity x height of release
Gravity=9.8 m/s2
work done= (150Kg)(9.8m/s2)(.80m)
work=1176(N.m)
Power=work/time to execute
Power=1176(N.m)/.9 secs
Power=1306.6 watts/70kg=18.66 watts/kg body mass
I think you can see where med ball becomes useful and why I admire world class OLs. I think that very very few athletes would be capable of achieving such power levels in the clean, squat or snatch.
Obviously OLs offer other things, but maybe they are not the be all of power training.
That would be exactly my concern, and even more so with the snatch. On the other hand, perhaps extremely low volumes could be used as an efficient means of stimulating many motor units for a speed-power athlete near competition? Of course I guess that is the point of the actual sprinting.
Assumedly, power snatch numbers would be less (and would have to be) close in, although I’d think the lift days could remain the same. What would be the effect on the bench numbers in the taper period?
I would think that the bench would have less effect with respect to competition relating to sprint peaking. Different and fewer motor units activated. Perhaps there would be more interaction between the bench and snatch (is that what you mean?)
yes it would, but i thought the purpose of using the bench to peak is it doesnt deplete specific muscle fibres, but hits the most motor units minus this. So how would the snatch not deplete the specific fibres?
The bench is used close to the meet to re-stimulate to optimal CNS excitation as the lower lifts would have to be done farther away from the comp to achieve this for muscle freshness reasons. As the numbers in the snatch go down relative to the squat, what then must be done in the bench to achieve the same re-stimulation? Do they remain constant or do they go up or down? That would have to be figured out over time.
The bar deccelerates at the end, that doesn’t mean the lifter is slowing or even decreasing his force production.
The lifter’s goal during an OL is to pull as hard and as fast as possible for as long as possible (within the constraints of biomechanics/the movement).
This is to get the bar as high as possible. When the bar height peaks (b/c gravity is pulling it down), they go under the bar.
At no point does the lifter deccelerate during the movement (this is in contrast to most traditional lifts).
Lyle
Yes you are rigth…but I have 2 more articles by vittori, of the mid 90s, with the O lifts as a warm up.I agree that he liked most the half squat ( in a multipower…
)but he left the weights really early during the season, mantaining really high volumes of jumps…and no wonder why in italy we have all the best performance at the beginning of the season…
Totally agree, but would you not agree that the content or inputs of Vittori’s training is much like the CFTS; BUT the MAJOR difference being the implementation of vertical intergration by Charlie?
You have to decelerate to rack the bar. In the clean the first pull is concentric with upward acceleration, so is the second pull as the bar passes the knees, then as shoulder rotation (racking) aoccurs you dip/go under the bar, you change direction in order to change direction you decelerate and bring in a knee and hip bending movement which is eccentric, you change direction of your acceleration but the bar still accelerates upwards. In med ball throws you can fully accelerate the ball and yourself in the same direction. There is no deceleration so the whole movement is fully concentric with no deceleration, perfect for developing concentric (explosive strength) for the acceleration also.
Acceleration and Deceleration Phases in the Pull
By the time you are going under the bar, you have completed your pulls (i.e. the point of the movement) with no decceleration phase.
So during the hip/body extension concentric phase, the entire movement is accelerative.
focusing on the catch is missing the point of the exercise.
In med ball throws you can fully accelerate the ball and yourself in the same direction. There is no deceleration so the whole movement is fully concentric with no deceleration, perfect for developing concentric (explosive strength) for the acceleration also.
If you look at the equivalent parts of the movement (the full body extension) for OL vs. medicine ball throw (forget the dip under the bar in the OL), they are both accelerative throughout the range.
The difference is that the OL has an additional movement where you go under the bar.
Lyle
I don’t think they are similar.other than being long to shrt, vittori emphasize huge volumes of spped endurance, like 5x5x60 at 95 % or more,believes in stopping weigth training altogether during comp seson, and in many jumping exercises, specific to the sprint.
Also, most of his recent work deal with the rithmic aspect of 100 200 400 m,with many rith exercitations, like 100m short stepping, 100 long stepping and so on… and the training of the sprinter, is always that of a 100 200 meters guy.
The implement is both cases (the bar or the med ball) decelerates as soon as you stop applying force. The effect is more noticable in the case of the bar because the weight is higher. Also in both cases, the athlete is never trying to decelerate the implement. The pull is explosive and the attempt is to lauch the bar into the air. The weight makes this impossible, of course. However, even in the case of the med ball, the limbs themselves must decelerate otherwise they would also go flying into the air (not a pretty picture!)
It must be noted that, when a cost benefit analysis is performed between cleans/snatches and med ball throws/pull variations, med ball work/pulls are far less risk (on wrists, shoulders [labrum]) with all the rewards of true triple extension. This is to be taken with the idea of training athletes who are not OL’s.
Granted, med balls are limited in load (150lbs is the heaviest I have seen), however, lifting a 150lb ball and attempting to throw it backwards over head presents a much greater mechanical challenge than cleaning/snatching a barbell of comparable weight.
As lyle mentioned, catching the barbell is not the point, pulling it to a certain height as fast as possible is the point. This is exactly the arguement that I use in stating that pull variations are much more useful for non OL’s than clean or snatch variations.
Far too many athletes who employ cleans/snatches are guilty of sacrificing full triple extension in favor of squatting under the bar to ensure a clean or snatch. This unfortunate circumstance may be nullified through the use of med ball work and pull variations. In these two cases the implement is either released upon extension, or dropped/recovered. In either instance, triple extension is always undeniably achieved prior to the completition of the lift.
An arguement may also be made for ballistic snatch-throws. obviously this would call for the use of sacrificial equipment. By releasing the barbell, upon completing the snatch, the trauma experienced by the shoulder complex is greatly reduced.
James
Are you sure?
I worked some things out.
Athlete A
Overhead backward medball throw full extension of arms prior to release.
70Kg (body mass)
10 KG (med ball)
2.7m(height of release)
.25 sec. (time to execute lift)
Work=force x distance
where:
force=mass lifted
Distance=Gravity x height of release
Gravity=9.8 m/s2
work done= (10Kg)(9.8m/s2)(2.7m)
work=264.6(N.m)
Power=work/time to execute
Power=264.6(N.m)/0.2 secs
Power=1323 watts/70kg=18.9 watts/kg body mass
To achieve the equivalent or approx in clean…
70Kg (body mass)
150 KG (mass lifted)
.80m(height of pull)
.90 sec. (time to execute lift)
Work=force x distance
where:
force=mass thrown
Distance=Gravity x height of release
Gravity=9.8 m/s2
work done= (150Kg)(9.8m/s2)(.80m)
work=1176(N.m)
Power=work/time to execute
Power=1176(N.m)/.9 secs
Power=1306.6 watts/70kg=18.66 watts/kg body mass
I think you can see where med ball becomes useful and why I admire world class OLs. I think that very very few athletes would be capable of achieving such power levels in the clean, squat or snatch.
Obviously OLs offer other things, but maybe they are not the be all of power training.
Starting figuring out: by the same reasoning and according to Charlie’s % MU Involvement Charts,bench numbers (total number of reps performed ) should go up.
But while all this is great to quantify and regulate the degree of stimulation,how would this interplay with height and breadth dimensions of stimulation?
For example:
Exercise used: Squat
MU Involvement =65%
Height= 80%
Breadth = 6 reps (3x2)
Now,to achieve the approximately same degree of MU stimulation using the bench and some approx math we should have:
Exercise used: Bench Press
MU Involvement =35%
Height= 80%
Breadth = 9reps (3x3)
Is all this correct or at least in the proper direction of thought?
If so,back to my original question, how do % of MU Involvement,height,and breadth of stimulation interplay?
Thank You.
[QUOTE=martn76]Are you sure?[QUOTE]
I’m sure
[QUOTE=David W][QUOTE=martn76]Are you sure?
I’m sure
I saw that coming a mile away.
[QUOTE=David W][QUOTE=martn76]Are you sure?
I’m sure
Ok you are sure, no problem
I might not have made this clear. we’re not looking for an equivalent stimulation here- just a re-stimulation to optimal excitation close to the competition using muscles less important to the event itself.