Are dynamic squats with accomodated resistance (DS) the only exercise used in your athlete’s training? Have you held all other variables constant and investigated the effects of DS? Would the rate of increase have been greater if another mode of ‘power’ training (weighted jumps, OLs, med ball throws etc) had been substituted? Did the incorporation of DS alter the volume of work versus that prior to their introduction? Should I go on?
Remember, steady runs can improve sprint performance (in overweight individuals)…
There are problems with Simmons’ above use of evidence, and the way he uses it to set up his argument. E.g one athlete on one occasion to support his training methods for sprinters - weak evidence. This would not be taken very seriously by academics.
He also seems makes an unfair generalisation about athletes training like bodybuilders with weights.
There are also unsupported statements such as ‘If you are going to be involved in an explosive strength sport even the weights have to be explosive if you do your weight training it has to be explosive’
I think the analysis of the WSB method should primarily focus on the science they use to claim their method is the best.
I am not prepared to accept what they (or anyone else) say(s) is the truth just because they say it is so. I don’t think anyone should. Just because someone uses a study it does not necessarily make what they are saying true, or valid (although it could well be!). In fact good arguments should discuss the limitations with the studies they cite. Similarly, just because someone doesn’t use a study it doesn’t mean what they are saying is untrue, or invalid. Rigorous use of studies is sadly rare on the internet from what I have seen.
I would appreciate links to their articles where they really get to the core of their training system, and support their methods with reference to the studies and/or science. (I know there are some because I have read them before, but I can’t easily find them again).
The reason that WSB gives for breaking the eccentric, concentric chain is that it causes some muscles to relax. Therefore, the weight is static, and has to be overcome by dynamic effort.
But, some muscles are still loaded, and remain stretched…the posterior chain. Since the stretch reflex has been shown to diminish over a period of 2-4 seconds, then the break should not totally diminish the stretch reflex.
The application for sports is simple, although I am not sure if box squats are the best way: every single play from the line of scrimmage in football, a sprinter’s start, a swimmers start, a stationary baseball player starting after a ball… all examples of a static weight being overcome by a dynamic force.
I really use snatch grip deads and trap bar deads more for this, but it is the reasoning given by Louie…
Asking what Westsiders do the 100m in is like asking what a CFTS sprinter can squat in a squat suit. This shouldn’t even come into the discussion. The CFTS is an exceptional starting point for sprint training, and the WBC template is an exceptional starting point for strength training. These are not mutually exclusive here, and guys like Coach X, the Parisi Speed School trainers, and Joe Defranco seem to have successfully combined elements from each, because they’ve kept an open mind.
David W seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder regarding Louie Simmons and his Westside Barbell Club, and it doesn’t really become him, being such a high profile, super-successful, olympic lifting coach.
Love him or hate him, Louie Simmons is a man who loves strength, and someone who gives freely of his time for anyone who takes the effort to call him. He is constantly experimenting and trying new things, discarding the stuff that doesn’t work, and promoting the stuff that does. If his stuff isn’t working, he’ll try to come up with something that will. He’s not married to any one theory, and you could hardly consider him dogmatic.
The character and generosity of Simmons is also a side issue to whether he is right, and has not been challenged.
Attacking or promoting the character of anyone to attempt to tarnish or support what they are saying is so common (especially by politicians, lawyers, and children in the playground) there is even a name for it in the study of logic. I hope we can get away from it here.
I was of the impression that there are some theoretical principles to which Louie is strongly in favour of (married to would be an exagerration).
I would like to see these named, and discussed, ideally with reference to his articles. I could do this, but it would take a while, as it has been a quite a long time since I read through all their articles.
I think the geist of the matter is that nowhere, since the sport science programs behind the Iron Curtain, do scientists get the chance to experiment with high level strength and power athletes, or to even gather legitimate data about their training programs.
Simmons uses the Westside lifters to prove or disprove his theories. He doesn’t care if some study shows he’s wrong, he knows otherwise.
Especially in the US where there are sports scientists who have spent their whole career working on the validation of HIT style training methods. When some study comes out that says accomodating resistance doesn’t enhance strength or aid with hypertrophy, do you think people are going to take it as gospel, especially when there is so much anecdotal evidence that is is effective for those purposes?
Coaching has always been an art based on science. I am sure there are countless examples of non-scientific things that coaches have done that have improved their athlete’s performance.
I’ve already mentioned the limitations of sports science (and science in general) before, which I am aware of.
Simmons uses scientific studies to support principles behind his program, I don’t believe that is to doubt. I think some of the principles (by application) can be challenged, especially if he (or others) is (are) claiming their training is better than others (I’m not even sure if he claims that himself, but I believe others do).
He has conclusively shown that he has trained very successful lifters using these methods, which is beyond doubt. That doesn’t mean it is the best way to train, if best is measured in terms of absolute performance level. It doesn’t necessarily follow.
I’ve made a similar point that coaching is part science part art in a thread before, as well. I don’t believe I have implied anything different here. OK, I’m off to read some WSBC articles before I go on and on and on.
All other variables constant-No (only in my imagination. LOL)
Would rate of increase have been greater…-Possibly
Was volume of work altered…-Yes
This actually is point of fact of the referrence I made in an earlier post about the lack of actual and throrough testing measures that exist/have been documented.
So my takeaway from this is that doing ‘classic WSB’ box squats accentuates the starting strength component of the movement as opposed to the reactive component. However, it seems to me that most sports are more based on reactive strength. That is, most movements require a deceleration (eccentric) component closely coupled with an explosive acceleration (concentric) portion. I think you have pointed out the notable exceptions above, but if we look at virtually all ‘skill’ positions in football, , soccer, basketball, etc, etc basically any movements after the initial step, then improving the eccentric-concentric chain is most important. As a matter of fact, most athletes will attempt to ‘wind up’ before doing a power movement precisely so that they can take advantage of the stretch shortening reflex. This is counter productive for a sprint start (and is a very hard habit to break!) but is useful and necessary in many other situations.
Even olympic lifters will try to take advantage of the SSC at the start of the initial pull by quickly lowering their body and then lifting the bar. So I guess my question is: why try to limit the reactive component in training for sports performance when it is so important to athletic success? BTW, I’m not trying to make you defend something you don’t believe in (since you seemed to indicate you weren’t sure this was the best way anyhow) but I’m intersted in learning what other’s thoughts are.
xlr8, I encourage you to look at DE box squats through another perspective.
Knowing that reactive strength charcterizes the ability to minimize coupling time/amortization phase, why then, not introduce a training means which provides resistance to minimizing coupling time (i.e., breaking the yielding/overcoming phase by box squatting).
Point being, if we are to develop reactive strength, must not we then construct means of increasing resistance for developing that specific motor ability.
Coupling time in the pull phases of the OL’s, aside from the minor transition from the first to second pull, is minimal and arguable negledgeable. So cannot we then argue that there are far greater means for developing reactive ability (i.e., jumps and plyos on the rate end and box squatting on the strength end)
With respect to the specific ability- reactive strength, would you or David or anyone else be willing to explain your logic of why reactive strength is developed by a lift (clean pull, snatch pull, etc.)in which very little, if any, reversal strength is required to execute the lift.
There are a number of neural components involved in reactive strength: specific (e.g. PMS, tendon stiffness) and general (e.g. RFD, GT inhibition). An exercise does not have to be reactive in nature to improve reactive strength!
As we have discussed in the past, I actually advocate a plyometric version of the snatch (the ‘Hip’ snatch) which I find very effective for improving CMJ performance. (Also the jerk is a pure SSC)
Different OL derivatives lie at various points along the F:V curve and can therefore be used to fulfil different objectives. I frequently use Hip snatches with my rugby players because of the absence of a consistent high intensity RFD/reactive stimulus. With my sprinters I tend to opt for clean derivatives to develop maximum force. With some athletes I will not use OLs at all…
“Remember that, when discussing different successful training programs, there is no right or wrong. This is a history lesson- not a debate. Any change to a successful program carries with it the risk of introducing undesireable side effects.” - Charlie Francis, Jan 2003
Jimbo, I appreciate where you are coming from, but I think the problem may be intractable. As you stated earlier, studies need large numbers of participants to have any chance of validating a hypothesis, and even then it is subject to bad design and other factors that may obscure the true meaning. In addition, getting a large number of elite athletes may be an oxymoron…the definition of elite means that there aren’t a large number! In addition, these people are outliers from the normal distribution, so extrapolating anything you find into those who are sub-elite would be an unsupported jump anyway.
That said, I still think that looking for patterns and underlying priciples of successful programs is important (after all, what’s our alternative? Looking at UNsuccessfull programs And of course, the fact that they have worked for at least one athlete is better validation than it working for no athletes.
My characterization of Simmons of studies is that he uses them to provide ideas for things to try in his training programs and that he validates their usefullness by seeing their effect on his lifters. If its good, then he keeps it, if not he doesn’t. This doesn’t mean that the program is optimal, but there is something Darwinian about the method and over enough time, it should lead to at least a local optimum.
As a matter of fact, you could probably make this argument about training programs in general…assuming that coaches actually do try new things and do a good job of throwing away the useless and retaining the useful. Ok, ok, maybe not such a reasonable assumption
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Could you clarify? Are you saying that breaking the e-c chain minimizes coupling time or somehow trains the body to minimize coupling time? I don’t follow the logic there.
Coupling time in the pull phases of the OL’s, aside from the minor transition from the first to second pull, is minimal and arguable negledgeable.
Small coupling times are a good thing, right? That’s what we want to train, no?
Actually, I would not argue that OL are optimal for this type of training. Somehow, we have gotten far away from talking about training for speed/athleticm. I only brought up the break in the e-c chain because it seemed to me to be something that was removed from box squats that would be detrimental for an athlete but perhaps beneficial for a power lifter.
So cannot we then argue that there are far greater means for developing reactive ability (i.e., jumps and plyos on the rate end and box squatting on the strength end)
I would use jumps/plyos before OL for developing reactivity (but if my goal was speed, then I would use sprints first). As I said above, I don’t understand how box squatting contributes to reactivity. It seems to me that regular squats (speed squats perhaps?) would do a better job since they DON’T break the e-c chain.
With respect to the specific ability- reactive strength, would you or David or anyone else be willing to explain your logic of why reactive strength is developed by a lift (clean pull, snatch pull, etc.)in which very little, if any, reversal strength is required to execute the lift.
I’ll let David answer this one, but I don’t think that I advocated the OLs for reactive strength.
Thanks for clarifying this, it sounds more reasonable. I think that is what all athletes and coaches should aim for, but obviously the complexity of variables on training and performance makes this very difficult. To see if one variable is causing an effect on performance (say choice of exercise), a coach should try to hold everything else near constant (then diet, sleep, volume, intensity, stress of athlete, recovery, variation of volume and intensity, arousal, effort, etc etc). This difficulty may explain why there is variation in programmes - different coaches make differing attributions (identify differing causes) about why their athletes succeed.
Of course if there was only one best way to train with specific rules, and the approach above (*) was a sure way to find it, then we would all be training exactly the same way, with those same rules.
Drechsler suggests using Mill’s method of [Agreement and] Difference (this is what the above is), but Mill’s ideas are subject to limitations as well (which I was reading about last night). Science partially overcomes this by using statistics, but we are left with the problem of sampling and generalisation, as said.
So I believe there are limitations whatever we do, however we try to figure out what the best way to train is. The definitive, complete answer to how to train, is not out there, which is a shame. I think we can get close to the perfect set of rules underlying our training programs.
I’ll try to move on now to discussing the rules of WSBC method, if there are any definitive ones. CFTS certainly seems to have rules that should not be broken, does WSBC? Shall we discuss them?
I’ll put down what I think are some rules and philosophies of their program, tell me if I’m right.
Don’t use maximum effort and dynamic effort on the same day.
Strength is best developed by keeping intensity high, and this necessitates varying the exercises frequently to avoid accomodation.
‘Strength speed’ (at least for powerlifting) is best developed using 50-60% of 1RM.
Maximum and dynamic effort training sessions are best arranged in a four-workout cycle, one of each for both upper and lower body. This is the best arrangement of these kinds of training sessions.
You should target weak body parts with assistance exercises, and by doing this will progress faster than someone who does not do this.
You should target weak parts of the range of motion in the competitive lifts, and by doing this you will progress faster than someone who does not do this.
I don’t know exactly what the argument for accomodating resistance is.
I enjoy you making me think about why I am doing what I have come to over the years…
The truth is that I agree with you completely. This is why I really employ touch-and-go’s myself. Starting strength for me comes from doing trap deads, snatch grip deads, racked squats (conecentric only), and pause squats (5 seconds in the hole…these suck). I usually rotate these, but
They are not really what I emphasize in my programs for athletes.
I do use bands and chains with box squats, but that really has more to do with strength I suppose.
But, a mainstay of what we do is high pulls, hang cleans and snatches.
So although I give David a rough time, I truly do agree with him… I just think he is too smart to seem so closed to new ideas.
just something i found interesting in a post by Jim Wendler…
On Saturday I saw Kevin Deweese do a full back flip at 250lbs. Not bad for a guy that does not; run, practice jumping or do anything “athletic”. (Jim forgot to say that Kevin just squatted 900 pounds in a meet at 242 -DT) I’d like to see how other athletes at that bodyweight would do. Oh and if you are one of those coaches that says this about our training system; “They are powerlifters; we have to run, etc.” How come you test on the bench and squat? And why can’t you run while doing this type of training? And what really needs to change for an athlete? Ask yourself what a powerlifter needs from their work in the weight room.
Strong hips, hamstrings, abs, low back (posterior chaing) and strong upper body.
Now what does an athlete need?
It’s similar isn’t it?
Add in some agility, mobility and speed work and you will have quite a combo. Unfortunately everyone seems to think that some radical changes need to happen to the system in order to address the athlete.
Thought for the day;
Weight rooms have quickly become Maintaining Rooms.
David W, what are your thoughts on why Americans are hardly even competitive in the Olympics? I think the argument of strength for our super heavyweight is a mute one as he has that “basis” of strength that many claim americans lack(375kg atg stop squat for a double, no no no!!!) What do you think needs to be done to improve?
As for the WSB methods, agree. Train qualities seperately and in a specific manner. RFD specifically is trained for sprinters via sprinting, DE days were made to specifically train RFD specifically for the lifts. As xlr8 said, I think the idea of Max Effort days is a good one, and xlr8 if you look they dont normally even get too close to their real max numbers in training, but realtively to the exercise. For ex, I can close grip bench 245, but I can bench 275, thats a 30lb or 11% kind of buffer(David).
And for my last part about the applicability of “WSB” I refer you to the Jim Wendler piece. Is liftin the end all be all to sport training? No, but application of the methods is a good one, RFD and Max Strength Day…Sprinting/Plyo/Oly and Max Strength work in the weight room is seperated, and the split can be adjusted however it fits you best…
This is one where I’m not convinced (the need for separation part). This seems to contradict information about weightlifters’ training, and CFTS. I don’t follow it (this doesn’t mean I can claim to prove it’s not true).
In which way do you consider it important training should be specific? Specific to weaknesses in terms of body parts? Specific to weak part range of motion, or both, or another way?
Ok let me rephrase that…not necessarily seperately, but I believe Charlie did advocate an extended break between the track and weightroom session…But more train what will be beneficial to your specific sport? Again referring back to DE squats for RFD development, these specifically develop RFD for squatting, while sprinting specifically develops RFD for sprinting and oly lifts specifically build RFD for oly lifts, so I think RFD is a more specific training means(not to say other things wont have a positive transfer), whereas since max strength training is limited, and non specific, general guidelines can apply(multi joint, low rep, high weight, low volume, etc…)
This has been very interesting to read. With respect to the separating qualities, it seems from past examples that one can get results with training different qualities in the same session (Sprint [Rate], Heavy lifting [Magnitude]) or CT’s CAD system, but DB Hammer, the guys from elitefts, and recently CT have said that it might be more optimal to separate them. Refer to the thread that was cited in the beginning of this thread or the latest DB Q&A for more info.
ok i c, I skimmed your last post too quickly, and missed that about the specifity bit. I agree with your last post. I should also rephrase, I’m not convinced for the need to separate Limit/RFD so that you are performing them on different days, this contradicts the training of world class weightlifters and world class sprinters using CFTS, so would be very hard to show. (still doesn’t mean it’s not true)
And of course, the fact that they have worked for at least one athlete is better validation than it working for no athletes.