And of course, an athlete’s response even if all factors could be kept constant is non-linear so that makes it even more complicated.
I don’t know exactly what the argument for accomodating resistance is.
I’ve heard a lot of explanations, but one that makes a lot of sense to me is that it helps to train the portions of the lift that need help in the presence of powerlifting suits/knee wraps/etc.
My logic is that in order to develop a component of strength we must inroduce resistance that must be overcome in order to heighten the level of strength. Thus, one method of increasing reactive strength/ minimize coupling time is to employ means which make it more difficult to minimize coupling time, hence increase the resisitance.
For example: in order to develop reactive strength on the strength side of the rate-strength spectrum the athlete must add load (squat) thereby increasing the resistance, thereby demanding that the athlete generate greater reversal strength in order to overcome the yielding/amortization phases. To take this a step further, we introduce box squatting, now not only must the load be overcome dynamically, but statically, thus demanding greater reactive/reversal, and starting strength.
We all know that an athlete, having been equally trained at both, will always squat more weight free squatting then box squatting.
Based on this observation we may conclude that he who can box squat a greater load possesses greater reactive strength (to the left of the F:V curve)
We may go on to conclude that this heighted reactive stength (albeit to the left) will absolutely carry over to sport performance, as this developed ability, although is to the left of the curve, still develops the curve as a whole.
My point is that, of many tools, box squatting is a very valid one to employ in athletic training, not only powerlifting.
xlr8, you are correct, in that you did not referenct the OL’s with respect to the reactive strength arguement. I seemed to have suggest that idea as I was typing on a “stream of consciousness” level. LOL My bad.
James
Actually, just the opposite. You want them close together so that you give your CNS maximum time to recover between speed sessions. Remember however that the focus is on getting high quality sprinting. Strength work is in support of that over-arching goal.
Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you are getting at. (I still don’t agree, but that’s ok 
We all know that an athlete, having been equally trained at both, will always squat more weight free squatting then box squatting.
I’m not sure that this is true, unless you are talking about parallel squatting with a wide stance (WSB style).
Based on this observation we may conclude that he who can box squat a greater load possesses greater reactive strength (to the left of the F:V curve)
Yes, but is this simply because overall strength is greater or has the training modality specifically (bad word but I’ll leave it) addressed this quality? In other words, would simply training for strength (without box squats) have done as good or better (assuming equal gains in MxS)?
We may go on to conclude that this heighted reactive stength (albeit to the left) will absolutely carry over to sport performance, as this developed ability, although is to the left of the curve, still develops the curve as a whole.
My point is that, of many tools, box squatting is a very valid one to employ in athletic training, not only powerlifting.
Agree, I just haven’t found a way that it makes sense for me to work into my program. If you have, then more power to you. I already have too many tools…I’m trying to figure out how to reduce them
xlr8, you are correct, in that you did not referenct the OL’s with respect to the reactive strength arguement. I seemed to have suggest that idea as I was typing on a “stream of consciousness” level. LOL My bad.
No problem. I’m enjoying this discussion let’s keep at it!
Death To All Who Oppose Westside! LOL
LOL. Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to meet them in a dark alley…of course, they would have to catch me first
Not that I oppose Westside…no, no, no I’m not saying that at all.
if you’re referring to ME bench and squat, i would say no. if your referring to DE, i would say maybe. i’m just not sure traditional westside DE days are necessary for a sprinter, at least not most of the time.
David, first what is a CMJ? (performed in your ongoing study)
Second, your stated: “Accomodated resistance (AR) limits bar speed. In the outer range AR is a max force stimulus NOT an RFD stimulus. Dynamic squatting with AR is therefore not an effective RFD stimulus for anything but powerlifting.”
Let me see if I can ask this clearly…In the outer range of the movement (~ the top 1/4 of the squat), could limiting the bar speed actually be more effective in stimulating RFD? As in, the bands keep enough resistance on the top of the movement so that you stay within a range that develops the RFD (I don’t know if the appropriate weight in that range for RFD purposes might work out to be 40-60% of your quarter squat). In the free squat, the work gets easier at the top where there is too little resistance to further stimulate RFD. It appears to me that the appropriate band resistance in the outer ranges would only amplify how much of the movement targets RFD. Wouldn’t the band resistance in the outer range have to be of maximal resistance to stimulate max force? Or do I misunderstand the term? Thanks
CMJ = Counter Movement Jump I believe.
Maximum power ouput in the squat occurs when loads are 50-60% of maximum. HOWEVER, adding bands means the resistance in the outer range is 90 -100% (If it’s not the bar must be decelerated). THEREFORE, in the outer range, dynamic squatting with accomodated resistance stimulates maximum force NOT rate of force development. i.e. Unlike OLs or med ball throws, ‘compensatory acceleration’ does not occur. Therefore as a dynamic stimulus for sprinting they are a poor choice.
I would advocate the use of bands in the traditional range: 80 -90% (but NOT in the full squat where the greater ROM means the bottom will not be sufficiently loaded…)
more later.
[QUOTE=David W]Maximum power ouput in the squat occurs when loads are 50-60% of maximum. HOWEVER, adding bands means the resistance in the outer range is 90 -100% (If it’s not the bar must be decelerated). THEREFORE (how many times?!):
In the outer range, dynamic squatting with accomodated resistance stimulates maximum force NOT rate of force development.
i.e. Unlike during OLs or med ball throws, ‘compensatory acceleration’ does not occur. Therefore as a dynamic stimulus for sprinting it is a poor choice. [QUOTE]
I’m confused; ‘compensatory acceleration’ does not occur? If you use bands or chains you can increase acceleration?
If so called ‘AR’ stimulates force NOT RFD why does mean and peak force occur throughout the range of motion?
The main differences between this combined method and free weight training were (‘clean the exercise to do,’ post):
[quote]1. A greater mean and peak force were produced throughout the range of movement
2. The descent onto the box tended to be accelerated above the normal gravitational rate of 9.8m/sec squared, so that greater eccentric force had to be generated to control the downward motion
3. The stronger eccentric loading and the brief transition period involved while sitting before exploding upwards provided neuromuscular stimulation which approximates that usually encountered in popular plyometric training.
4. The force generated during the later stages increased, in strong contrast to the situation of normal squatting in which force production tends to decrease significantly.[quote]
Compensatory acceleration is an increase in angular velocity possible due to improved mechanical advantage during extension. Olympic lifts permit compensatory acceleration because the weight is ‘thrown’. When squatting with bands, during extension, angular velocity decreases (but force increases).
One last time, say it with me folks:
In the outer range, dynamic squatting with accomodated resistance stimulates maximum force NOT rate of force development.
Good post…well in…
It some circumstances Louie does throw the weight (bench press).
Based on the results I’ve seen from plyometric accenuated (dive bomb type) squats, I would think bands would be more effective for improving reactive strength and RFD in lifters or in athletes, if used without the box.
Also what David says makes perfect sense considering that maximal velocity in sport occurs at toe off.
With ballistic and high velocity methods you get into shaky ground, i.e. can the athlete tolerate the inherent levels of joint stress. Is the perceived cost-benefit ratio worth it? Some athletes have more robust joints than others, for sure, but one simple mis-step and the forces involved cause injury, not a training effect.
From personal experience, working a movement with bands will make that movement faster when the bands are removed. This can be seen almost immediately. Do a few benches with doubled mini-bands, then remove the bands and POW. This effect is readily noticable. So, while David W might be right in saying “In the outer range, dynamic squatting with accomodated resistance stimulates maximum force NOT rate of force development.” the work done in this fashion may well affect the rate of force development in the movement trained when the accomodating resistance is removed.
“In the outer range, dynamic squatting with accomodated resistance stimulates maximum force NOT rate of force development.”
I’ve heard of studies showing that power clean increases don’t significantly improve vertical jump height, but DO significantly improve a vertical jump with a light load. I wonder if what Shaf is talking about could show a comparable effect with AR lifting, in that it has a more noticeable improvement on loaded movements.
Just give me the goddamn times…