The mechanism might be the same, but the end result’s differ significantly. Not to mention the inherent differences between regular loading and accomodating resistance. Try it, Lyle. Bands are cheap and fun.
Numba 56: Schroeder’s throwing up a smokescreen.
the bands actually try to launch the weight downwards. I think of it like this. If you drop a marble from a height, then get a smaller marble under tension of a rubber band(of course the weight is equal for the smaller marble with the band tension) the rubber band will launch the marble down at a higher rate than one that just falls.
shaf, so you suggest that Archuletta really does run? His 40 was electronic at the combine…
numba-The shorter the race, the less need for track work, right? I guess Schroeder believes you can train reactivity and strength in the weight room, and technique issues don’t matter so much with the 40 other than the start. There was a thread on t-mag about this you might not have seen.
This thread is about arguments against and for, so Im asking if Archuletta had that success with focus in the weight, on he field I mean, is there a need for sprint training in football, or can it all be taken care of in the weight room? I would think this would differ from situation to situation, but still…and also remember David W ran a 6.92 60m electronic with no sprint training(this isnt to say I am advocating a no sprinting regime, just showing what can be done). As well distances run in football are normally not over 20, 25 yards…
Not only the shorter the race… the shorter the prep time available, and the longer the season, where the running is added back in.
Thanks, I must have forgot what this thread is about…
Of course if you don’t have major technical issues and REALLY know what you are doing in the weight room, you wouldn’t have to do much work on the field with respect to sprinting. Of course reading a bunch of articles on the internet doesn’t make you a true expert, so a more well rounded approach would be better. Seems like everyone wants a minimalist approach…taking training economy to the extreme. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, isn’t a middle ground almost always better?
The middle ground better than extremes? Absolutely.
yes I know, Im asking where that middle ground is. How do you know where to regulate the volume? How much sprinting? How much weight training? Thats what I am asking, how do you divy up the focus from athlete to athlete within this kind of template?
you have to work on a case by case basis, determined by strengths and needs
I think that is where years and years of experience is essential - if you know what to do with it.
I believe that is why you need/must be an experienced, and wise coach to get to the top (The very top, in this day in age).
I think the best approach is - just do your best, and don’t be afraid of making small mistakes along the way, and learn from them. And enjoy it!
Isn’t part of the goal of accomodating resistance to allow you to push maximally/explosively through full ROM, since the load increases as mechanical advantage is increasing. Which, as you point out, can’t be accomplished with normal weight exercises unless you release the bar. Correct.
What if the athlete tries to move the weight+bar combo as fast as possible?
Why isn’t that going to stimulate RFD?
Lyle
hes said this so many times, because comp acc cant be permitted in a squat without leaving the ground, the body deaccelerates the weight to save the joints…i dont have the scientific answer or whatever to that, but look at westside if you could just stimulate RFD by just trying to push as hard as you could what would be the purpose of having Dynamic days or plyometrics? I remember seeing in an article that in the soviet union they concluded that expression of max strength was in no way associated with expression of RFD…
Right. But primarily because increasing mechanical advantage makes the lift easier, necessitating an increased decceleration phase. With the bands at least, since they are increasing resistance at the top of the movement, the decceleration phase will be decreased (it will never be removed because any traditional weight training exercise requires an initial and final velocity of zero which means, by deifnition, you can’t accelerate all the way through). At the very least this should improve RFD during part of the ROM.
And I certainly don’t disagree that ballstics are probably better overall for this as one can accelerate through full ROM. I’m s imply not sure I agree that accomodating resistance, wehre the athlete attempts to move as quickly as possible are useless for improving RFD (see study below).
i dont have the scientific answer or whatever to that, but look at westside if you could just stimulate RFD by just trying to push as hard as you could what would be the purpose of having Dynamic days or plyometrics? I remember seeing in an article that in the soviet union they concluded that expression of max strength was in no way associated with expression of RFD…
Yet see below. If the actual speed of movement is so key to improving RFD, how can we explain the results of this study?
Lyle
J Appl Physiol. 1993 Jan;74(1):359-68.
Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific
training response.
Behm DG, Sale DG.
Department of Physical Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.
Eight men and eight women trained 3 days/wk for 16 wk by doing attempted
ballistic unilateral ankle dorsiflexions against resistance that either rendered
the resultant contractions isometric (one limb) or allowed a relatively
high-velocity (5.23 rad/s on an isokinetic dynamometer) movement (other limb).
Training sessions consisted of five sets of 10 contractions of each type.
Training produced the same high-velocity-specific training response in both
limbs (P < 0.001). Peak torque increased most at 5.23 rad/s (38%) in comparison
to lower velocities (0, 0.26, 0.52, 1.04, 1.55, 3.02, and 4.19 rad/s). Both
limbs also showed similar increases in voluntary isometric rate of torque
development (26%) and relaxation (47%) and in evoked tetanus rate of torque
development (14%). A similar decrease in evoked twitch time to peak torque (6%)
and half-relaxation time (11%) was also observed. Thus, all of these training
responses, previously associated specifically with high-velocity resistance
training, were produced by a training regimen that prevented an actual rapid
movement through a range of movement. The results suggest that the principal
stimuli for the high-velocity training response are the repeated attempts to
perform ballistic contractions and the high rate of force development of the
ensuing contraction. The type of muscle action (isometric or concentric) appears
to be of lesser importance.
Were these 8 men and 8 women athletes? I don’t disagree that RFD can be improved significantly by lifting heavy weights withh the intent to contract fast because I’ve experienced it myself. The only explanation I can think of is that these athletes might naturally be more explosive to begin with. From observation lifting heavy loads and improving RFD does seem to occur to a greater extent in athletes who are already fairly explosive and fast, while slower guys need more specific work.
ok then go tell the guys squatting 800lbs and above that really there is no need for their DE days, or Louis Simmons that his training methodology for the last 20 sum odd years has had two useless days in it…and maybe i read the study wrong but it says they trained one lime RFD and one Limit, umm there is a limb cross over effect…so i dont see how that could seperate it…
Ankle dorsiflexion, what the? Who would research anterior tibialis for RFD? That’s research by david behm, you gotta be kidding me?
No clue.
I don’t disagree that RFD can be improved significantly by lifting heavy weights withh the intent to contract fast because I’ve experienced it myself. The only explanation I can think of is that these athletes might naturally be more explosive to begin with. From observation lifting heavy loads and improving RFD does seem to occur to a greater extent in athletes who are already fairly explosive and fast, while slower guys need more specific work.
Fair enough.
Lyle
Blah, blah, blah, same old shit from almost all of you guys. First you ask for science, when someone presents something you don’t like, you fall back on lame-assed, “Go tell that to the athletes” bullshit. And lest we forget, Ed Coan squatted over a grand without DE days and without the goofy gear/equipment that the WSB guys have access to. How do you explain that?
or Louis Simmons that his training methodology for the last 20 sum odd years has had two useless days in it
Where did you learn to read? I never said that DE days were useless and you can’t show me where I did. I’m simply pointing out that DE days are not (according to this piece oofresearch anyhow) the only way to build RFD. Then you got your panties in a twist and read about a dozen more things into that.
Frankly, I think they are mostly for technique integration of the (relatively) non-specific ME days. Considering that the WSB don’t practice the competition lifts for the most part, they need some work on technique in the program and I see DE fitting the bill. Simmons and Tate have both written about this commenting that box squats are the best way to learn a competition squat, I don’t see why the same wouldn’t apply to bench.
And since two heavy days could possibly overtrain or injure the athlete, making the second day a ‘light/speed’ day makes perfect sense. Simmons constantly points out that true force production is very high on DE day b/c of the acceleration (F=ma) so it’s another way of building strength, isn’t it.
And if David W is correct and you can’t build RFD unless you let go of the bar, then the idea that DE are for RFD has a problem, doesn’t it? At best DE days build RFD at the very start of the movement. Since that’s where the gear helps in the first place (I’m watching the Bench Secrets Video now and Simmons even mentions that shirts make the start of the movment almost an irrelevancy: heavy shirts will allow you to start any weight you can touch and go in the gym), I’m not sure I see the point in trying to develop RFD in that range.
…and maybe i read the study wrong but it says they trained one lime RFD and one Limit, umm there is a limb cross over effect…so i dont see how that could seperate it…
The only reasonable point you made in your entire response and I don’t disagree.
Lyle