![]() |
Database ![]() |
Hatfield - A Fresh Look at Strength |
Post Reply
|
| Author | |
Pingleton
Postaholic
Highland Games' virtually straight legs Joined: 11/28/06 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 2747 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Hatfield - A Fresh Look at StrengthPosted: 1/14/08 at 8:19am |
|
>>
A FRESH LOOK AT STRENGTHFrederick 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. WHAT STRENGTH LOOKS LIKEBreathe 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)
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: 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)
FACTOR THREE: ForceWhat’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: TimeMeasure 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 ForceNow, 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). FACTOR SIX: The Relationship Between Limit Strength and FmaxIn 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. 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)
FACTOR SEVEN: The Amortization PhasePicture 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! THE SEVEN FACTORSThere 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. |
|
![]() |
|
Pingleton
Postaholic
Highland Games' virtually straight legs Joined: 11/28/06 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 2747 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
![]() |
|
Mr. Natural
Postaholic
Top 10 in the USA - '02-'08 Joined: 7/24/07 Location: NY Status: Offline Points: 1169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|
![]() |
|
C. Smith
Admin Group
Retired Joined: 8/30/04 Location: Antarctica Status: Offline Points: 6661443 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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? |
|
![]() |
|
Pingleton
Postaholic
Highland Games' virtually straight legs Joined: 11/28/06 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 2747 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 1/14/08 at 9:55am |
|
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.
|
|
![]() |
|
Trainerterry
Postaholic
Joined: 9/09/04 Location: Suriname Status: Offline Points: 1155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
![]() |
|
C. Smith
Admin Group
Retired Joined: 8/30/04 Location: Antarctica Status: Offline Points: 6661443 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|
![]() |
|
Trainerterry
Postaholic
Joined: 9/09/04 Location: Suriname Status: Offline Points: 1155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
![]() |
|
xxxxl
Senior Member
Joined: 7/12/07 Status: Offline Points: 166 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
![]() |
|
M-BAAB
Postaholic
Joined: 8/30/04 Location: Jamaica Status: Offline Points: 3515 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 1/14/08 at 1:07pm |
|
I like xxxxl.
...35th off season - same conclusion.
|
|
![]() |
|
kover
Senior Member
Top 10 in the USA - '03-'11 Joined: 8/05/07 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 1/17/08 at 7:39am |
|
the answer is easy. WORKING HARD YEILDS GOOD RESULTS. NO MATTER HOW YOU WORK AT IT.
|
|
![]() |
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|
![]() |
|
kgb1
Senior Member
Joined: 10/29/04 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 1/17/08 at 5:24pm |
|
Kurt
Excellent post. I found the same to be true. Rick |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |