that is most likely the case, i haven’t seen the video in months, so that is probably it… funny tho, i’ve incorporated bands into some of schroeder’s exercises and have experienced some amazing results with my hybird workout
Some more fuel for the fire,
BURN BABY BURN!
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showpost.php?p=83356&postcount=3
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showpost.php?p=83377&postcount=5
we didn’t start the fire…it was always burning since the world’s been turning!!! Dude I am gonna have to freakin copy a lot of you posts print em and study them (seriously) they are really good and when I finally uncover some of the stuff you dudes on here are talking about it is pretty cool!!! 
*** Fine, except for the very important point that maximum force or torque is
not produced at the end of range but characteristically somewhere between
90-110 degrees of joint angle. This implies that the joint will be
excessively loaded during the last phase of the exercise.
The tough part of Dr. Siff’s answer to this is question, while absolutley correct, doesn’t apply to this forum directly…save for the acceleration phase. Only during this phase is there a 90-110 degree bend in the knee joint…and this is really only during the first ten yards or so depending on the level of the athlete.
After that, force must be applied in an increasingly shorter range of motion to the point on nearly straight legged with only the extensor muscles truly providing any power, with all others holding isometrically and functioning reactively.
This is why I have high jumpers who can quarter squat as much as linebackers, yet they would falter in the hole if they tried to do the weight of the linebacker.
Eventually force must be applied at the point of toe-off. This thread is really about muscle firing patterns anyway…isn’t it?
The problem with straight weight is that the muscle firing pattern decreases…whereas with bands or chains it continues to increase (or decrease less) through the body’s mechanically advantageous range (near toe-off). Does this mean that the bar accelerates during this phase? No. It just keeps getting heavier, so the firing pattern must continue to climb.
So, it means the muscle firing pattern doesn’t drop off as much…very different from bar acceleration. The idea that joint integrity will be compromised isn’t an issue here and frankly is off topic. The point is to try and force the muscles to fire throughout the range of motion…no?
If we wanted to accelerate through the whole range, we would be talking about jump squats and other ballistics, … but that isn’t accomodating resistance. Then Dr. Siff’s comments would be directly on point, and absolutely correct.
The idea that the joint would be excessively loaded makes me wonder what Dr. Siff is talking about. I know many, many coaches who do multiple sets to make up for this mechanical advantage. Instead of using accomodating resistance for 10 sets, they prefer to do 5 sets of full squats, and 5 sets of quarter squats to produce the same effect (not the same, but close)…with the quarter squats obviously having considerably higher weight. According to Dr. Siff’s logic, this would be overloading the joint?
Huh?
I may have to disagree with this assessment, no matter how blasphemous it seems to every other trainer out there.
Think about it in this way. Go teach a kid how to do a vertical test. You rise up on your toes to accentuate the loading phase, then snap down to where the hips are at approximately 90-110 degrees, but the knee angle is only at 135 degrees…amazing… I guess we should be teaching our athletes a deeper knee bend according to the logic above…
But, we all know that maximum force isn’t created at 90-110 degrees at the velocity we move at when unloaded… rather it is created at near toe-off. Otherwise we would probably see more push runners winning races, as opposed to reactive pull runners, and we would be having our athletes deep knee bend when we vertical test…
But we don’t see these things…we see force applied in sports at toe off… exactly David’s point all throughout this thread… and I concur… I may not agree with his assessment of accomodating resistance, but I do feel that this must be the primary focus of all training… to maximize usable force at toe-off…
No?
Kelly, Super, and Davis, please smash my teeth in here…
It is the only way we learn.
What about the whole improvement of efficiency v. improvement of proficiency? WSB does improve efficiency via gains in strength, but how can it improve proficiency? The only mode of training they do that improves proficiency are the dynamic methods. Methods of improving proficiency include:Plyometric’s, sprinting, high rfd exercises(DE method and oly’s), and eccentrics with 100% or greater of concentric load. Is there a program out there that has utilized these methods with success? I contend if structured properly this would be a great general mode of improving sport performance. Because obviously you cannot handle a load equal to or greater than 100% concentric maximum three times a week, this would be saved for the last training day of the week, so the athlete would have a recovery workout based day and a day off to recover fully from this stress.
Totally forgot about you and ColCool…
Yes, I agree. I actually never use accomodating Resistance save for a strength emphasis block. And even then, I usually only use them for a single wave or so… depending on whether the athlete is able to handle a longer strength block (spots he/she participates in).
Usually I only use bands for reactive work, such as reactive squats… to move an athlete towards handling the absorption of force better… Most of the athletes I work with end up needing force absorption training as much as anything… but, this quality seems to improve fairly quickly if done in conjunction with stick type hops, and/or altitude drops…
so yes, there are systems out there, but just not published…
Good to see you are still here honing your knowledge…
Still waiting for the hammer to drop from the other big hitters here.
Talk more soon…
Coach JR
This is assuming that the WSB template is being advocated for athletes other than PL’s. I know Louie Simmons acts like he would know how to coach OLifters, sprinters, etc, but I don’t think he would train them the same as PL’s. Any solid track program should have the elements you described. CFTS is probably the best example of this (heavy weights, sprinting, plyos, RFD- explosive medballs and power cleans with some athletes)
i realize this. my question was about maximal strength training. maximal weights improve efficiency, not proficiency, so eccentrics with 100% or greater load would have to b used for proficiency improvements. However, one could argue that maximal weights are the optimal means of training for force, as they improve recruitment ability(i dont know if max ecc do this, although iw ould guess they do) without the fatigue of the eccentrics, and as well training for proficiency is not needed as even with just sprinting there is a tendancy of shifting away from type 2 b as they actually contract too fast, and with typ 2 a there are more, with the same contractile force abilities and contract fast enough for neural capabilities. But one must wonder, if type 2 a is good, why isnt type 2 b better?
SVS, it seems like you are almost unconsciously likening the reason for CF’s exclusion of intermediate speed work to the absence of submaximal/dynamic weights like OL’s and dynamic squats. I am NOT at all saying that Ben Johnson would have been faster had he included these. I’m not a moron! I’m just saying the reason they weren’t included is not because they give a poor training effect like intermediate speed work, but because there really wasn’t a need for this type of work and Ben had bad form. Ben already had enough RFD or Dynamic Effort work (as defined by Zatsiorsky) in his training, anymore would have been redundant. Just because Ben’s training was mostly on the ends of the FV curve does not mean that training nearer the middle of it with OL’s, ballistic weights, dynamic squats, (even medball throws-which Ben did) are not valuable training tools. They are not used for conversion of strength to speed, but are for developing power and recruiting MU’s that are not recruited in Max Effort lifts. When lifting near TFmm you will reach fatigue before certain ST MU’s are exhausted, which means certian other FT MU’s won’t be recruited. (This is one reason why a short rest time is employed on DE days at WSB)
It is very hard to recruit your FT fibers their threshhold is so high. Type IIb more so than type IIa. But other than this they act very similarly. So which would would you rather have more of fibers that may contract slightly faster but are much more difficult to recruit under normal circumstances to recruit or ones that may contract slightly slower but you can recruit?
BTW you may want to respond more kindly to others posts than essentially saying “I alreay knew that”
haha i wasnt responding that way at all, just trying to clarify my question a bit more.
I am not unconsciously likening the reason I am consciously likening it! I can’t see using Bands for the entire year; however, I can see it being used for 1-2 mesocycles or 8 weeks total throughout the entire year. Also OL’s are not submaximal! Wait a minute, I have a 600lb deadlift and a 600lb squat then doesn’t that mean that my 300lb clean is submaximal? Duh No! The clean is not submaximal if you are doing 90-100% of your clean (yes I know techinally anything less then 100% is submaximal but lets get around the semantics shall we?). F=MA, In the clean you have a big F as a result of a big M and a big A. The mass is big bc it is between 70-100% of 1RM and the acceleration is big bc olympic lifters move this mass in less than one second! I don’t compare OL to DE days at WSBC. Also the power clean improves intermuscular coordination better than any other exercise and it relates to sprinting perfectly bc the same muscles are activated in the same sequence! Don’t believe me? Then check out pg 34 of Arthur Bailey’s, “Complete Conditioning for Football” where he states, “Notice the similarities between acceleration phase of running the 40-yard dash and the powerclean”!
Most PL’s on the WSBC from what I understand don’t sprint or do plyos or explosive med ball throws! That is why DE days work for PL’s bc DE days with bands work the (F=Ma) acceleration part on the force-velocity curve albeit less then plyos and med ball throws! So we know that an increase in “a” will shift the entire force-velocity curve up or at least in the force part and a little in the velocity part! Again I don’t see where this fits in with sprinters who do, EXPLOSIVE JUMPS, HOPS, & SKIPS, EXPLOSIVE MEDICINE BALL THROWS.
What about EMS. Also regarding your statement abouve, if that’s the case then why not do Shroeder’s methods instead? Which is better for athletes WSBC or Shroeder’s methods? And in any case where does either of there methods take place in sprinting?
It is possible that this topic has been covered many times on CF.com. My question is how many high end (sub 10.15) 100m sprinters use the oly’s on a regular basis. I do think that bar speed in the squat, as I use with basketball and football players, is slightly more beneficial than the oly’s. Pick a depth, reps, time, and away you go. The bar speed is crudely simple to teach. How many oly lifters use med balls for that matter? Some, but not all. I think part of the argument is the Powerlifting versus Olympic Lifting thing. They are both good when used properly for the sport in question. I read some time ago where Roger Kingdom did some training with Louis Simmons. Sounds like an unusual combo, but apparently it benefitted both. Ethan Reeve had a strength conference at Wake Forest and apparently Gayle Hatch and Louie Simmons had good points for each viewpoint and common grounds of agreement.
Super,
I believe one of the author’s of the Nebraska Strength and conditioning book, Bryan L. Baliey, was just hired at USC. A nice steal for USC. I wasn’t a big fan of that book, because of the dumb weight training examples in the back. If I can quote an insider “Maybe Mohammed is coming down from the mountain”. The poor nebraska program.
I am not unconsciously likening the reason I am consciously likening it! I can’t see using Bands for the entire year; however, I can see it being used for 1-2 mesocycles or 8 weeks total throughout the entire year. Also OL’s are not submaximal! Wait a minute, I have a 600lb deadlift and a 600lb squat then doesn’t that mean that my 300lb clean is submaximal? Duh No! The clean is not submaximal if you are doing 90-100% of your clean (yes I know techinally anything less then 100% is submaximal but lets get around the semantics shall we?). F=MA, In the clean you have a big F as a result of a big M and a big A. The mass is big bc it is between 70-100% of 1RM and the acceleration is big bc olympic lifters move this mass in less than one second! I don’t compare OL to DE days at WSBC. Also the power clean improves intermuscular coordination better than any other exercise and it relates to sprinting perfectly bc the same muscles are activated in the same sequence! Don’t believe me? Then check out pg 34 of Arthur Bailey’s, “Complete Conditioning for Football” where he states, “Notice the similarities between acceleration phase of running the 40-yard dash and the powerclean”!
On page 42 of Science and Practice of Strength Training Zatsiorsky states: “Maximal mechanical power is a chieved in the intermediate range of force and velocity…Efficiency achieves its greatest values when speed is about 20% of Vmm, with mechanical power greatest at speeds of 1/3 of maximum”
Also re-read about Explosive Strength Deficit.
You do not have time to apply maximal in a powerclean.
I don’t care if you compare OL’s with dynamics quats, you are not an authority on the subject by any means. If an equal load is used and is moved the same distance, at the same velocity-than power will be deveoped equally. It is hilarious that you would sooner compare OL’s to sprinting than DE squats.
Which would you expect to see more positive correlation: Clean !RM to squat 1RM or Clean 1RM to 100m performance. LOL!
The OL’s are not similar to sprinting. This has been debunked so many times- OL’ers are able to accelerate quickly in the first 10m because of their power/bodyweight ratio, starting strength, and RFD, not because the lifts are similar to sprinting. BTW I am not an opponent of OL’s, in fact quite the opposite. They are a great way to develop explosive strength in the extensor chain but other exercises are capable of accomplishing this like dynmaicbox squats with 50-60%.
Most PL’s on the WSBC from what I understand don’t sprint or do plyos or explosive med ball throws! That is why DE days work for PL’s bc DE days with bands work the (F=Ma) acceleration part on the force-velocity curve albeit less then plyos and med ball throws! So we know that an increase in “a” will shift the entire force-velocity curve up or at least in the force part and a little in the velocity part! Again I don’t see where this fits in with sprinters who do, EXPLOSIVE JUMPS, HOPS, & SKIPS, EXPLOSIVE MEDICINE BALL THROWS.
Why would a PL do sprints. It in no way relates to the demand of their sport, and there are better ways for 300 lb men to rasie their GPP. Also many PL’s do jumping exercises. I believe many at WSB do box jumps twice a week!
It’s simple if you are plateauing in work on either side of the FV curve, than you may need to try something different-towards the middle of the curve, that allows you to combine high amounts of force with an intermediate velocity (not fastcompared to sprinting, throwing, etc., but faster than traditional strength exercises) This could be OL’s or DE squats.
Also DE squats with bands have a very high training economy factor, that you have to take into account. As silverback pointed out somewhere on this thread, many people combine half squats and full squats in a workout, with accomodating resistance this is not necessary. The bands also provide an accelerated/accentuated eccentric which allows for a faster concentric. As James Smith pointed out, squats with 50-60% bar weight and bands are faster than squats with the bar weight alone. Also you do not need to do nearly as much volume with bands.
David W believes that dynamic squats with bands are near maximal near the top. This can be the case- I read an article about Westside squatting with 500 lbs of bar weight and 500 lbs of band tension at the top. I believe this was during their circa-max phase, and not a DE day. I never use this high a percentage of band tension, in fact I sometimes just use mini-bands, either doubled over or with a wide base (so I can full squat, without the bands losing tension). This way I can get what I want from them: stopping the bar from jumping onto my neck, accentuated/accelerated eccentric (which leads to a faster concentric) without greatly affecting my velocity in the end of the ROM. I believe David W's comment of them being maximal near the top was concerning if band were used to prevent any perceived deceleration, this is not really the goal of DE squats. The goal is to move a weight that's about half of your max squat as fast as you possibly can.
What about EMS. Also regarding your statement abouve, if that’s the case then why not do Shroeder’s methods instead? Which is better for athletes WSBC or Shroeder’s methods? And in any case where does either of there methods take place in sprinting?
EMS bypasses the CNS. While we all know that EMS calls on the FT fibers first it is not known how much this will improve recruitment of the fibers under normal circumstances, when the impulse must be sent by the CNS.
Why is Schroeder’s system superior at recruiting the FT MU’s, compared to other systems? I am not adequately experienced in Schroeder’s system to answer your questions. I am however more experienced with DB’s system and can say that training to improve your neural weakness is effective and smart.
However this has been known by good coaches for years. If you can bench 500lbs and only throw the shot 40 feet, improving your bench to 600 lbs won’t help your shot put performance. If you are just weak than traditional strength work is what is required to get the full benefit of “power” training like OL’s or ballistic or DE squats.
As far as what would be better for a sprinter I would say that CFTS would be the way to go,but that’s just me.
I have too much fucking time on my hands. Don’t get used to these gems, I get my license back soon which means I may start having a life
I’m losing patience like Kevorkian.
I believe bands are used in the WSBC and there followers bc most those powerlifters use bench suits and squat suits. The suits do a majority of the work at the bottom so the athlete’s main limitation now happens at the middle-later points on the concentric contraction; hence, the usage of bands to work the muscles more (then they were worked with free wts) at the later stages. So for powerlifters who use suits I see that bands can be a more productive and time efficient way to train the muscles at the later stages.
As for Raw lifters I still don’t see how bands can help them bc once your past the sticking point you don’t need the bands to lockout. If your having problems locking out then you can work on the locking out only portion of the lift instead of using bands (there are some protocols for this in the WSBC Template). You can see this protocol as the Peak-Contraction Principle (Zatsiosrky pg. 146) which is defined as, “to focus efforts on increasing muscle strength primarily at the weakest points of the human strength curve” (or in the raw powerlifters case where he has his sticking points).
My stance on using them for sprinting remains the same (no use of bands bc of fucked up motor control).
I dont knwo if you are refering to Dynamic Box Squats with bands or regular squats with bands. As far as dynamic box squats with bands The bands create a great amount of stored elastic energy at the bottom which helps train explosive strength. This in turn also helps you train the lockout since you already have more speed to power through your sticking point at the top. There is tension at the top as well. As far as messing up motor patterns can you please explain?
The motor patterns of regualr squatting is not specific to sprinting reguardless of the use of bands or not.
Maybe so but nonetheless, there exists a strong correlation between squatting (with heavy loads) and sprinting (10m). The correlation coefficient in the study below is 0.94, keep in mind that a correlation coefficient is considered to be a strong one at 0.70, 0.94 is almost gives you a 1 to 1 relationship which cannot be argued IMHO. The correlation coefficient of the squat and 30m is less so but still strong at 0.71; however, since its obvious that the 10m time in this 30m race is going to be increased bc of the strong correlation between the squat and the 10m, it can then be argued that the remaining 20m of the 30m race can be better increased through other means such as Plyometrics and OL. Anyway you look at it, 10m in any race upto 100m is a big factor and in most olympic class races whoever is ahead by the 10m mark usually wins the race but in any case, sports like football,baseball, soccer the athlete sprints 90% of the time in distances shorter then 40m and in less then 1% of the time do these athletes ever venture past 60m.
BTW, there are probably numerous similar studies like this out there but it would be just a waste of time for me bc I know that squatting and sprinting are highly correlated; therefore, I don’t go out actively looking for these studies.
Here’s a question I would pose to Band users, “How come I haven’t seen 1 study that uses bands that has been shown to increase the sprint times (10-60m) of any sport?”
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?p=101625#post101625
You really just don’t get it. Strength training is general, not specific. That’s all: read it, process it, understand it, rememeber it. Once you understand this I will tell you more.