Nasgaweb Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home » Nasgaweb Forums » Articles & Significant Threads
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Hatfield - A Fresh Look at Strength
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Database

scottishheavyphotographs.com Old Celt Equipment

Hatfield - A Fresh Look at Strength

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Pingleton View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic

Highland Games' virtually straight legs

Joined: 11/28/06
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2747
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pingleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hatfield - A Fresh Look at Strength
    Posted: 1/14/08 at 8:19am

A FRESH LOOK AT STRENGTH

Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D., MSS

Much is written about strength. But, save for all too few research documents, little of it goes beyond musings about how to acquire more than the norm. While this utilitarian approach to understanding strength is laudable, too few athletes, bodybuilders and coaches have ever taken the time to pull the concept of strength apart to a thoroughly finite level in order to discern its essence.
I submit that it is there that you will gain understanding of strength far beyond your current level. I submit that once having done so you will be able to take your level of strength far beyond its current level. And I further submit that its simplicity will startle you. Let’s have a look.

WHAT STRENGTH LOOKS LIKE

Breathe in and out. Your heart beats. Rear back and throw. Squat down and stand back up. Your foot hits the ground and your knee bends in preparation for the next push-off in running or walking. This is movement, and we define it by the amount of force produced. Producing force requires strength. When you put movement -- any movement -- on a piece of paper, it’ll look something like this:


  STRENGTH CURVE  (ILLUSTRATION #1)



				Limit Strength  (6)

	____________________________________________________ __________



			I<----------------------->  Fmax (5)

    F			I	Tmax		  *  *

    O			I	 (4)	       *	 *  

    R			I		    *		   *

    C			I		  *

    E			I	        *		

		I	I	      *

		I	I	    *

		I	I         *

	  *	I	I       *     (3)

       (1)  *	I   (2)	I     *

	      *	I    	I   *

		*    *	*

_____________________________________________________ ___________

			T   I   M   E  (in milliseconds)


This, fellow iron freaks, is what life is all about on earth. We do nothing else with our musculoskeletal selves. We can DO nothing else. It’s called the strength curve, and it is virtually ubiquitous. So it seems reasonable that we should know it. To a thoroughly finite level.
1. This is the beginning of your movement. Rear back to throw, foot hits the ground and your knee bends, or squat down to jump. All involve "eccentric" strength.
2. You make the transition from backward to forward, from down to up. "Static" strength is required. This is called the “amortization phase” of a movement.
3. Force is applied in hitting, throwing, jumping or the push-off in each running step. This is called "concentric" strength.
4. It takes a fraction of a second usually to exert any given amount of force in any given movement. In sports, the only exception is powerlifting, where a movement may take a full second or longer to complete. This is your Tmax (maximum time).
5. This is the maximum amount of force you impart in your movement (Fmax).
6. This line represents your limit strength -- your 1- rep max. You never quite equal your "limit" or "absolute" strength levels in sports movements (except powerlifting) because the movements are over with so quickly.

Let’s pull this strength curve apart bit by bit. You’re gonna be amazed at what you learn from this little exercise. For me, doing so proved to be the ultimate KEY to getting strong enough to break world records. It allowed me to systematically focus on each of the finite variables involved in producing force.

FACTOR ONE: The Angle of “Q”

Draw a straight line tangent to the upward curve (concentric strength). Measure the angle. This is called the “Q” angle, and it is the definition of starting strength. The steeper the line the greater the number of muscle fibers you’ve simultaneously recruited in the movement.

ANGLE Q (ILLUSTRATION #2)





			

    F			I    /        		

    O		I	I   /	*

    R		I	I  /   *

    C		I	  /   *

    E	 *	I	 /   *   

           *	I    	/   *

	      *	       /   *

		 *  * / *

       ______________/_________________________________

		T   I   M   E  (in milliseconds)

FACTOR TWO: The Angle of “A”

Now draw several tangent lines along the length of the upward curve. Measure the angle of each tangent, and compare each angle to the preceding one. There are three possibilities:
1. Each subsequent angle gets smaller
2. Each subsequent angle stays the same
3. Each subsequent angle gets bigger

Clearly, in the example below, each subsequent angle becomes more and more acute.

 ANGLE A (ILLUSTRATION #3)

 



			I<-----------------------------> Fmax

    F			I			          *  *

    O			I		  -----------*---------An   

    R			I		 -------*-----------A5	

    C			I	       -------*----------A4

    E			I	    ------*---------- A3   

		I	I	  -----*-----------A2

		I	I	----*---------- Angle A1

		I	I          *

	*	I	I       *

	  *	I	I     *

	      *	I    	I   *

		*    *	*

_____________________________________________________ ___________

			T   I   M   E  (in milliseconds)

 


If the angle of each successive tangent becomes greater and greater, you’re going faster and faster in your application of greater and greater force. If each angle stays the same, this means that your speed is increasing linearly as you apply greater and greater force. If the angles diminish from one angle to the next, your rate of speed is diminishing as you approach your maximum force output.
In sport, the only acceptable technique is to attempt to make each subsequent angle bigger. I call this technique “compensatory acceleration. This sort of positive acceleration while increasing force output is functionally impossible to attain in the final third of the movement while lifting weights in a traditional fashion. This is because you must slow the weight down in anticipation of lockout. But you nonetheless try in the interest of 1) improving the quality of your overload stress, and 2) increasing the time under maximum tension (TTI -- Time/Tension Index). Notice I said MAXIMUM tension. Moving the weight slowly means you’re not MAXIMIZING the tension developed by your muscles, and therefore the quality of overload it receives is commensurably lessened.


FACTOR THREE: Force

What’s the maximum amount of force output you produced during any given movement. This is called Fmax. I think it’s fairly obvious that in most sports endeavors you’d like your force output to be as high as possible. Of course, this doesn’t hold true when you’re trying to do a delicate movement like a jump shot or a putt.

 TIME AND FORCE (ILLUSTRATION #4)



			Limit  Strength

________________________________________________ ______________



			I<----------------------->  MAXIMUM FORCE

    F			I	Tmax		 *  *

    O			I	   	      *	      *  

    R			I		   *		*

    C			I		 *

    E			I	       *		

		I	I	     *

		I	I	   *

		I	I        *

	*	I	I      *

              *	I   	I    *

	      *	I  	I  *

		*    *	*

_____________________________________________________ ___________

			T   I   M   E  (in milliseconds)

FACTOR FOUR: Time

Measure how long it takes from the beginning of upwards (concentric) movement to exert maximum force (Fmax). This is called Tmax, and usually it’s appropriate to make Tmax as short as possible. Again, jump shots and putts withstanding.

FACTOR FIVE: The Relationship Between Time and Force

Now, remember back to high school science class when your teacher told you that p = fd / t (Power is equal to force times distance per unit of time).
In similar fashion, Fmax divided by Tmax is the definition of explosive strength. If starting strength (the “Q” angle) is your ability to turn on as many motor units a possible instantaneously, then explosive strength is your ability to LEAVE then turned on! The two are NOT the same! And the training required to maximize each is not the same either. Collectively they’re referred to as “speed-strength.”

FACTOR SIX: The Relationship Between Limit Strength and Fmax

In any sports movement, Tmax is so short that it’s not possible to get all of your motor units turned on. Not even close! Only powerlifting tests one’s limit strength. NO other sport does because of the time constraint.
Former Soviet scientists worshipped the relationship between limit strength and Fmax. And for good cause. They believed that NOTHING should EVER be done to cause an increase in the distance between Fmax and limit strength. They believed that the DEFINITION of a great athlete was one whose Fmax came close to his/her limit strength. They believed that, in all the world of sport, SPEED is king!

LIMIT STRENGTH AND F-MAX RELATIONSHIP (ILLUSTRATION #5)



	Limit  Strength

	_______________________________________________ _______________



This area (between your Fmax and Limit Strength level is called the “gap.”  

KEEP IT SMALL!  If you don’t you are NOT training correctly!



			I<---------------------> Fmax

F			I	Tmax		 *  *

O			I	   	      *	      *  

R			I		    *		*

C			I		  *

E			I	        *		

		I	I	      *

		I	I	    *

		I	I         *

	*	I	I       *     

             *	I   	I     *

	      *	I    	I   *

		*    *	*

_____________________________________________________ ___________

			T   I   M   E  (in milliseconds)


This is a phenomenal concept, folks! Understand that simply working limit strength is NOT the way for an athlete to become great! In fact it’d slow you down if carried to the extreme. The coaches of yesteryear were right when they wouldn’t allow their players to lift for fear that doing so would foul up their “touch” (skill), make ‘em muscle-bound or slow them down. They were right. The reason is that continually hammering limit strength -- your 1-RM (which was pretty much all that the early ironheads knew how to do) -- will eventually result in muscle being synthesized beyond the point where one’s strength-to-weight ratio is greatest. Added strength, when carried to this extreme, almost invariably means added weight, slower movement speed, inability to achieve positive acceleration or a steep “Q” angle, let alone greater explosive strength.
So, this being the case, we must give consideration to the concept of “functional strength,” or the amount of limit strength necessary to maximize Fmax without causing an increase in the difference between Fmax and limit strength. Simply put, one’s strength-to-weight ratio is very similar to one’s functional strength requirements, and it is generally different from sport-to-sport because the demands of each sport are different.
Before you jump all over me for making such a brash statement, let me modify it a bit and acknowledge that in sports such as archery, bowling, curling and other similar activities, the concept of strength-to-weight ratio has far less relevance than it does for (say) shot putters or high jumpers. Or bodybuilders, for that matter, whose chief competition objective is to get massive muscle irrespective of movement efficiency.

FACTOR SEVEN: The Amortization Phase

Picture this: A pitcher throwing a 100 mph fast ball by rearing back with his arm, holding the position until all of his inner forces are summoned, and with great Herculean effort hurls the ball. Will it go 100 mph? Not a chance! The total body movement that’s involved in pitching that fast requires heavy reliance on stretch reflex and tissue viscoelasticity in one’s shoulder muscles adding to the speed of the push off the rubber and the violent twisting of the body all sequentially performed such that the force imparted to the ball comes from a “summation of forces.”

AMORTIZATION (ILLUSTRATION #6)



			I<-----------------------> Fmax 

    F			I	Tmax		 *  *

    O			I	   	      *	       *  

    R			I		   *		 *

    C			I		 *

    E			I	       *			    *

		I	I	     *				   *

		I	I	   *			It should look like THIS!

		I	I        *				 *

	   *	I	I      * 			        *

       (1)  *	I   	I    *				  *    *

	      *	I    	I  *				   *  *

		*   *	*				     *

	       Amortization

	   (Transition Phase)

So, it is critical in most sports that you work hard to 1) make it possible to maximize the sum of all forces involved in producing maximum force output, while 2) keeping yourself uninjured! The very thought of turning the amortization into a checkmark-sharp direction change is enough to make one cringe! It is the culprit that’s responsible for many a sports career being ended. It’s called (shudder) “ballistic” stress!
Doesn’t scare me! Not me! I sometimes feel like sneering in the faces of the folk who warn against producing ballistic stresses in training. All LIFE is ballistic! Sport is VERY ballistic, and if you’re to sum the forces successfully without getting injured, you’d better learn how to TRAIN ballistically! It’ll prepare you to sum the forces and it’ll prepare you to accept them as well! There are many safe and productive techniques to accomplish this, not the least of which are plyometric training of various sorts.

THE SEVEN FACTORS

There you have it folks. The seven ways of improving your strength. THERE ARE NO OTHER WAYS! There are no other ways of augmenting the strength curve. This is all there IS to the strength curve. As I told you in the beginning of this article, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE POSSIBLE. If you do things right, your strength curve will go from this:

		I	I	    *			

		I	I         *			

	*	I	I       * 			

           *	I   	I     *		

	      *	I    	I   *	

		*   *	*		





...to this		    *

	       I  I	  *

	*      I  I     *

	  *    I  I   *

	    *  I  I *

	       *  *

			 *

...to this.             *

		       *

		*     *

		 *   *

		  * *

		   *

This is the DEFINITION of a great athlete. It is the SIGNATURE of a great athlete. And this is the point toward which anyone aspiring to athletic greatness MUST train. On the other hand, I acknowledge that a highly conditioned non-athlete can indeed do likewise. But not to the extent of an elite athlete, and certainly not while operating under the metabolic circumstances inherent in elite-level sport, whether it's ATP/CP, glycolytic or oxidatively driven.

A word of Further Explanation:

There are many other components to being an elite athlete, such as passion, skill, strategy, genetics, etc. Nonetheless, one can become an elite athlete WITHOUT burning passion, WITHOUT super-high skill levels, and WITHOUT genetics one may regard as a "gift from God." While the many other components must be present to varying degrees, the one ubiquitous characteristic of an elite athlete in a marathon run or a shot put -- and all the sports in between -- is that person's ability to quickly generate great force while operating within the metabolic environment inherent in his/her sport context. Of course, one's limit strength must be within the parameters allowing for such force development during the conduct of a sports movement too. So, for endurance athletes (Type I fiber), they must STILL must generate a high Fmax footfall- per-footfall in their endurance event in order to win. Even though you cannot sprint a marathon, you must still try to come as close to a sprint as humanly possible (that's Fmax footfall-per-footfall).

Let me put it into a simple formula for you. It’s easy. When you walk into a gym, have a PLAN well established long beforehand, but keep it flexible (stuff happens). This PLAN is called your WORKOUT CYCLE. Since you must build a foundation of functional strength in all your muscles before you try to make them work ballistically, or before you punish them against the anaerobic threshold, it should be a PERIODIZED program. One which PRIORITIZES your training objectives from the ones of immediate concern to the ones that’ll win you championhsips -- and everything in between. Overall, you’ll discern that you must progress from high volume/lower intensity toward low volume/higher intensity to make it all work. You’ll find that you will progress from general movements for greater limit strength toward more refined, specific movements for sports excellence. You’ll note too that the seven laws of training are automatically factored into your training periodicity.
· The Law of Individual Differences: We all have different abilities, bodies and weaknesses, and we all respond differently (to a degree) to any given system of training. These differences should be taken into consideration when designing your training program.
· The Overcompensation Principle: Mother Nature overcompensates for training stress by giving you bigger and stronger muscles.
· The Overload Principle: To make Mother Nature overcompensate, you must stress your muscles beyond what they’re already used to.
· The SAID Principle: The acronym for "Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands.” Each organ and organelle responds to a different form of stress.
· The Use/Disuse Principle: “Use it or lose it” means that your muscles hypertrophy with use and atrophy with disuse.
· The GAS Principle: The acronym for General Adaptation Syndrome, this law states that there must be a period of low intensity training or complete rest following periods of high intensity training.
· The Specificity Principle: You’ll get stronger at squats by doing squats as opposed to leg presses, and you’ll get greater endurance for the marathon by running long distances than you will by (say) cycling long distances.

(See “Systems of Training article on my home page for an elaboration of these principles.) And you will note that there’s nothing new under the sun...this is all old hat and it was explained years ago, in myriad ways, in most of what’s been written about training.

Back to Top
Pingleton View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic

Highland Games' virtually straight legs

Joined: 11/28/06
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2747
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pingleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:04am

Dave,

Does it really say that???  Anyway, you might be right, but I thought this was a valuable article with an absolutely key message for throwers, namely that the important thing is not how strong you are but the level of strength you can display in less than a second, and eventually a thrower's training needs to reflect that fact.  If, as a thrower, you can squat 600+ pounds but cannot jump onto a 42" high box, your training could probably use some rethinking. You are probably an excellent example of this difference (in a good way).  I thought about adding a summary noting this at the start, but was reluctant to do so in this case. 

You are right that Hatfield wasn't a thrower or a throws coach, but he is very knowledgeable and many of his ideas are quite applicable to throwers.  Hatfield's thoughts and findings are certainly at least as worthy of consideration as Louie Simmons', which I have also included. 

BTW, Hatfield supposedly had a 38" vertical jump weighing somewhere between 220 and 240, so (genetics etc. aside) the way he was lifting might have some applicability to throwing.  Of course, when your official powerlifting squat is over 1000 pounds at 240, a great verticle jump should be a given!

 

Back to Top
Mr. Natural View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic
Avatar
Top 10 in the USA - '02-'08

Joined: 7/24/07
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 1169
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr. Natural Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:09am
Sorry, deleted my post 'cuz formatting is weird. Here's what i said:

Thanks for posting this Peter, but do we REALLY need all these loooong articles about different "overcompensation training amortization protocols"? How far did "Dr. Squat" throw, anyway?

My point is basically, how relevant is this advanced training stuff to 90% of the throwers (or readers) out there? It might be interesting for us armchair quarterbacks and coaches, but I doubt even the pros read most of these. My $0.02.
Back to Top
C. Smith View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 8/30/04
Location: Antarctica
Status: Offline
Points: 6661443
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote C. Smith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:33am

I can actaully relate to Dave's point here, and ill be honest i haven't read any of them cause they are too long and are without cliff notes. 

Anyhoo, I think damn near everyone tries to over-science training.  It's not hard, there is no magic exercise, etc....  The funny thing is that we are all proof that a million different things work.  Maybe, just maybe, our throwing isn't as dependant on the type of training as we think, but rather just training in general?

Back to Top
Pingleton View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic

Highland Games' virtually straight legs

Joined: 11/28/06
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2747
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pingleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:55am

Originally posted by C. Smith C. Smith wrote:

  Maybe, just maybe, our throwing isn't as dependant on the type of training as we think, but rather just training in general? 

Craig,

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Taking your comment as it is written (and I fully understand you might not have meant this exactly) you are suggesting that ANY type of training might be as effective as another, which is simply wrong.  Training for triathlons is not going to help your throwing at all, and lifting like a bodybuilder is also going to yield very subpar results compared to a lifting program designed specifically for throwers. 

Now, such a program will vary to some extent from athlete to athlete and from month to month and from year to year as one's specific needs change, but it will almost always be easy to distinguish a thrower's program from a bodybuilder's, and usually from a powerlifter's too.  Issues such as cleans vs. pulls, back squats vs. front squats (or even box squats), and push presses vs. jerks are relatively trivial and might not make any difference at all even for a given athlete, much less different athletes.  However, perhaps excepting 3-6 weeks at the very beginning of the training year (if ever), doing 20 rep sets of squats, 10 sets of 10 superslow bench presses, or spending more time on arms than legs is definitely NOT the way any thrower should be training.

You and Dave are at the stage where you are probably going to do what you do, and in any case whatever you are doing is working well and you are comfortable with it.  But lots of people who read these posts are not in your position and may not be sure what they should be doing, or when, or why.  Many of them would rather spend their training time, such as it is, working out it ways that have been established as being relevant to throwing improvement. 

Now, other then throwing technique, the most important factor in throwing success after an initial period of training is probably genetics (percentage of fast-twitch muscle, height, armspan, coordination, etc.), but since we must work with the genetics we were born with, we might as well do so in the manner most likely lead to the improvements we desire.

 

Back to Top
Trainerterry View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic
Avatar

Joined: 9/09/04
Location: Suriname
Status: Offline
Points: 1155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trainerterry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:57am

Craig your point is taken.... but I believe there is a better way for anyone to train... problem is we are all different, have different experiences etc.  maybe you would have better results if you did more olympic lifts, Myles did Pilates, and Brock lost the bowflex for a total gym and did circuits with Chuck Norris (actually that would be cool)

The problem I have had with sports science is that the field is more often a role of sports science historian.  One reason is we have an industry that still gets run by fads and the Muscle and Fiction crowd.  Heck on another message board we have all the HIT Jedis still trying to tell us one set to failure is all you need ever.  Our science leaders are all about testing whether a person will run a 5K better if they wear breath right strips then how to maximise strength.

I agree people need to train... Ijust think if you are gonna spend the time and put in "work" you might as well do the best possible to get the most in results.  Then we have to worry if those results will actually cross-over to the field.

 

"A man has to know his limitations" - Detective Harold Callahan
Back to Top
C. Smith View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 8/30/04
Location: Antarctica
Status: Offline
Points: 6661443
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote C. Smith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 10:20am

ok, ok....perhaps a little clarification was needed in my post.  Of course there are distinguishing training between a marathon runner and a powerlifter. 

But with me, i look at what I've done and what has gotten me to where i am.  I probably could've trained like a thrower and got there, but i didn't.  I probably couldn've trained like a bodybuilder and got there, but i didn't.  I'm not sure what i trained like, but it worked.  I lifted heavy, and often, and that + throwing made me a good thrower.  Everybody is always quick to say well so-and-so did this and was a great thrower, and then this thrower did this and was great thrower.  We always want to attribute our success to our training, and especially the guys writing the articles.  Who's to say i couldn't have taken Christian Cantwell or Larry Brock or Adam Nelson or Ryan Vierra and made them just as good with deadlifts and Zercher squats.  We will never know....but what i do know is it worked for ME.  And it is so far from the thrower's norm, that i think there are many things that can get the job done will similar results.  But hey, i could be dead wrong....maybe all the science fancy schmancy stuff would've made me throw farther.  I guess we will never know. 

Back to Top
Trainerterry View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic
Avatar

Joined: 9/09/04
Location: Suriname
Status: Offline
Points: 1155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trainerterry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 11:13am

Craig... I agree.  Plus you have to be first to use "schmancy"

Unless we get many sets of identical twins... place them labs on some island somewhere we may never the best way to train.

In all I still contend that the most important aspect of training is the "intent" of the reps.  No matter whether light or heavy the athlete needs to have the intent to be explosive.  Even when the weight is too heavy and the rep is slow... if the athlete has the "intent" to be as explosive as possible the result will be positive.

So heavy deads done in the right manner (with intent)  are better then cleans done without intent.  I have taken your and others workouts that are short and brief to also be done with intent to be explosive thus your results. 

 

"A man has to know his limitations" - Detective Harold Callahan
Back to Top
xxxxl View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 7/12/07
Status: Offline
Points: 166
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xxxxl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 12:50pm
This year will begin my 36th year of training. Weights have always been a means to an end in my case for football ,basketball and track in the begining. Then on to the heavy events.Through all of it I always found it amazing that the things I was doing were claimed by experts and given a name. I always enjoyed dunking a b-ball and at times would try to get 25 in a row, liitle did I  know it was plyometrics! On our old Universal press station we would use one arm in a power position and use leg/hip explosion to press the weight in a shot motion.Sports specific? We benched three times a week,but by luck I found my way to squats and pulls employing the old 5x5 or 5,4,3,2,1 pyramid. I always figuered if this was good enough for Dallas Long and Al Oerter it was good enough for me. Since that time alot of philosophies have come down the pike, but in my opinion if you never been under a bar with 5,6or 700 lbs on it you might not understand the mindset of plain old hardwork. Lately I've employed bands and some westside techniques with my own little nuances that have seemed to benefit HB and have allowed me to box squat 535 with 180lbs of band tension 13 weeks following a total hip replacement. I think out the workouts and determine what we need to do on that day and we do it. Simple  but effective and  yet I've never been asked to write an article for Muscle and Fitness ..... Paul
Back to Top
M-BAAB View Drop Down
Postaholic
Postaholic
Avatar

Joined: 8/30/04
Location: Jamaica
Status: Offline
Points: 3515
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote M-BAAB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/14/08 at 1:07pm
I like xxxxl....35th off season - same conclusion.
Back to Top
kover View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Top 10 in the USA - '03-'11

Joined: 8/05/07
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/17/08 at 7:39am
the answer is easy.   WORKING HARD YEILDS GOOD RESULTS.    NO MATTER HOW YOU WORK AT IT.  
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/17/08 at 1:39pm

Great point, KO.

I'll throw in my opinion based on personal experience.

Training the 'perfect' way occording to the science is for the athlete who has put his sport above all else in life, for the athlete who can train hard 5-6 days a week, maybe multiple times per day, and eat and sleep right without all the mental distractions.  This means constantly doing explosive movements with little weights as well as big weights, and supplementing with heavier, slower movements.  When you train this much and are smart about it crazy things can happen.  You get in a groove where even what used to be considered big weights seem routine, you don't have to think any more and you just train.

The same science that works for elite athletes may have no correlation to those of us that have families and jobs that come ahead of traning.

For me there is a direct relationship between the amount of time I have to train, and the speed of the lifts I do.  The less time I have to train, the slower and heavier the lifts I do.  For me it takes more mental and physical energy to do quick lifts.  Doing slower lifts, even with much bigger weights, seems much easier.  I still think the quick lifts are the key, but if I can only do them once a week, I don't get much benefit.  I think now I could get more benefit for throwing from doing heavier, slower lifts with my limited time to train.

I think this is why there is such a large variation between what works for the elite athletes and what the science says, and what will work for some of us.

Back to Top
kgb1 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/29/04
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kgb1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 1/17/08 at 5:24pm
Kurt
Excellent post. I found the same to be true.
Rick
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.11
Copyright ©2001-2012 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.