DE method of lifting barbells

[Athlete X]

Question:

Right, so previously you were questioned as to whether speed training could be used to increase your max. Your response was no, that it could not. It is just a tool for increasing rate of force development.

(http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=88816&tid=)

To be honest, I disagree with this entirely. I'd like to explain why by applying simple physics.

Muscular strength is defined as maximum force a muscle can exert. The general equation for force is based on several parameters: mass, distance, and time. Consider this equation, Force = (mass x velocity)/ time. Therefore, I've directly linked maximal lifting potential (force) to speed (velocity) with this well known equation. Let me know your thoughts on this.

Answer

Frank, I appreciate your interest in the subject; however, despite the large forces, which of course must be specified in order to have a meaningful discussion, that are generated against sub-maximal barbell loads, via the DE method, you must consider the variables associated with improved intra-muscular coordination (rate coding, recruitment, and synchronization) and the percentages of Fmm that correspond to each respective neural factor.

More from Zatsiorsky:

In small muscles most MUs are recruited at a level of force less than 50% of Fmm; thereafter, rate coding plays the major role in the further development of force up to Fmm. In large proximal muscles, such as the deltoid and biceps, the recruitment of additional MUs appears to be the main mechanism for increasing force development up to 80% Fmm and even higher. In the force range between 80% and 100% of Fmm force is increased almost exclusively by intensification of MU firing rate.

What must be compared, then, is, considering the same lifter, the forces generated during DE training compared against the forces generated during Fmm attempts. Thus, the overload itself must be closely scrutinized. In this regard we must pay special attention to the fact that "there are no substantial correlations between Fmm and the force Fm in movements with minimal external resistance. The correlation is greater when the resistance is increased."(Zatsiorsky)

The critical factor, again, is the overload itself and this is why, from a coordination standpoint, the actual lifting and handling of maximal weights presents a different problem than the lifting and handling of sub-maximal weights; regardless of the speed at which they are lifted.

It is clear, then, why many of the lifters who subscribe more closely to the WSB method have in certain cases, over the years, increased the load (via accommodating resistance means) on the DE day; as the greater resistance more closely approaches the Fmm range and actually reduced the load on ME day to more repeated and sub-maximal efforts.

Or, from an alternative viewpoint, let us recall the advice routinely given to certain populations of lifters who are WSB influenced and experiencing plateaus on ME day and advised to reduce the bar weight utilized on DE day.

In either case, one may state that the DE method is effectively complimented by an additional training method as a second training session during the week- hence one of the fundamentals of the WSB method.

In the case of lesser percentages of 1RM used on DE day the ME training satisfies the training of neural factors which most positively correspond to the Fmm.

In the case of greater overload used on DE day (in the form of bands, chains or otherwise) the neural factors more closely correspond to Fmm and thus the second training day is more wisely designated for sub-maximal and/or repeated efforts.

What I'd like to point out is that I'm not taking the standpoint that the DE method of lifting barbells has no purpose towards maximal strength development; because it has been, and continues to be, utilized by many for this very reason; HOWEVER, let us acknowledge the capacity at which it is simultaneously utilized in the training along with the use of additional training methods; hence the conjugation.

Let us take note that the majority of lifts, accounted for over time and categorized into different percentages of the limit, fall in the sub-maximal range for the majority of high class powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters.

My message to those interested, then, is that the DE method of lifting barbells is not necessary for developing maximal strength. As a result, and due to the fact that it is simply a variation of the sub-maximal effort method (from the standpoint of the overload that is used), it is my suggestion to those who do utilize the DE method to replace it with the sub-maximal effort method (in which they cease to place value on bar speed) and enjoy the positive experience of continued strength gains at a lesser structural and neuromuscular expense.

I trust that I have explained myself well enough.

I've exhausted my interest in devoting any more time towards this matter and will no longer address any questions that relate to it in any way, shape, or form.

[Athlete X]

Question

Speed-strength is what I believe we all train on speed day which is moving fast with sub max light weights in the 50-70% range. Can you clarify that Strength-Speed is moving fast with sub maximal but heavier weights in the 70-90%. If one were bad in the strength-speed phase what should the focus be. Also, if one were faster then strong, would one benefit from strength-speed over speed-strength on DE day. Would also doing heavy reps in the 4-6 range be strength speed assuming they were done as explosively as possible?

Answer

Joe, in order to discuss speed strength and strength speed with any meaningful context we must discuss the training means and the specific sport.

It is entirely nebulous to have a discussion without providing more meaningful context.

By definition we know that speed strength characterizes an unloaded or very small externally loaded movement to be executed with the greatest possible speed.

Strength speed also demands that the load be moved with the greatest possible speed; however, the load must be greater because the velocity must be lower in order to develop strength.

I think that it's too vague to limit the parameters of speed strength and strength speed to two absolute parameters.

Example:

Lifter A squats 60% with the greatest possible speed, then Lifter A squats 80% with the greatest possible speed.

Regardless of the actual velocity attained on either lift we know that the 60 is faster and the 80 is slower.

But how much more speed is developed with 60 and how much more strength is developed with 80...

It doesn't end there, however.

We can easily draw any comparison we want:

39% to 89%

45% to 93%

56% to 58%

70% to 94%

and on and on and on

The reality is that, assuming the load is moved as fast as possible, the lighter the load the faster it moves and, thus, the greater the speed component.

Alternatively, the greater the load the slower it moves and, thus, the greater the strength component.

To state that a powerlifter, who trains according to what is publicly recognized as the Westside method, trains speed strength on DE day is only meaningful within the context of that system because we know that the loads lifted on the primary ME exercise are much greater.

If one uses an accelerometer such as the Tendo we know that the target on DE day is somewhere in the vicinity of .7 and .8 meters per second. As the load increases the velocity will decrease to .6, .5, .4 etc and as the velocity slows we know that strength is the governing factor that determines whether the load is successfully lifted

NOT SPEED

Which is why as my knowledge grew I became confused as to why a powerlifter would lift lighter loads as fast as possible.

The only way that I am able to rationalize the efficacy of this for a powerlifter, who trains according to the Westside model, is to state that any 'speed' developed on DE day is secondary in importance, relative to the goal of improving the limit of strength, to the fact that you are simply lifting less weight and the lesser weight is a reprieve from the heavier weight lifted on ME day.

I suspect that this is the appeal of the program that Joe Defranco has popularized in which there is simply a heavier day of lifting and a lighter day of lifting.

Back to discussing speed strength and strength speed, a powerlifter who trains according to Westside might state that he/she is moving 'fast' on DE day and, thereby, developing speed strength; however, if we widen the context to comparing different training objectives such as a lifting a barbell at .8 meters per second and a world class 100m sprinter who reaches 12 METERS PER SECOND! then we see that, comparatively, the .8 meters per second that the powerlifter is squatting the barbell might as well be in slow motion compared to the velocity that the sprinter is moving.

So, according to this example, the .8 m/s that the powerlifter squats the bar on DE day is faster than the velocity that a limit weight is lifted on ME day and by comparison more speed strength is developed on DE day;, the sprinter who trains at +10 m/s during training might as well be moving at light speed compared to the powerlifter lifting 50-60% at .8 m/s

My point?

Why would a powerlifter spend training time and energy on lifting the barbell faster.

If he/she is sold on a heavy day and a lighter day why not simply lift the sub-max loads at a comfortable speed.

After all, the Soviets found that the optimal tempo of lifting for strength development was NOT slow, nor is it FAST, but rather, MODERATE

Speed strength and strength speed are relative terms.

It is more accurate to state that one is developing 'more' speed strength or 'more' strength speed than to make the blanket statement that one is training speed strength or one is training strength speed.

Joe, the question you asked me seems to indicate that you are referencing lifting barbells.

The question I ask you is...

Unless you are competing in a 'who can lift X percentage the fastest contest'- why are you concerned with how fast you lift the barbell?

Of the barbell sports (powerlifting and weightlifting) neither athlete is ever judged on how fast the weight is lifted.

The weight is either lifted...

or it's not.

If you were inquiring as to why athletes other than powerlifters or weightlifters might train for more speed strength or more strength speed then I have, in fact, just wasted a great deal of time typing this response.

[Athlete X]

Question

Could you clarify this statement for me?

"After all, the Soviets found that the optimal tempo of lifting for strength development was NOT slow, nor is it FAST, but rather, MODERATE"

I was under the impression that Fmm and Vm were positively correlated. (Zatsiorsky)

I'm probably missing/ misunderstanding something.

Answer

Mark, you are confusing two different subject matters.

Subject matter #1:

The development of the limit of strength, considering nothing else, was found to be most optimally achieved via the lifting of weights at a moderate tempo of movement in reference to the following literature.

S. I. Lelikov, N.N. Saxanov

Tiazhelaia Atletika

53 – 55:1976

Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

Sportivny Press©

The effect of the exercise tempo on the rate of improvement of strength has been explored in many works (N.V. Zimkin, 1954, 1956, 1960; G. Vasiliev, 1954, 1956; V.D. Monogarov, 1957, 1959; A. N. Vorobeyev 1964, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1971; V. M. Zatsiorsky, 1966; A. I. Falameyev, 1974, et al). However, there was no unanimity of opinion among the specialists. One suggests that a rapid exercise tempo is the most effective for increasing strength; another said the same about a moderate tempo, and still a third said a slow tempo was the most effective.

There is no experimental research in either the weightlifting literature (or for other types of sports, for that matter) dealing with a comparative analysis of whether a fast, moderate, or slow tempo of performing exercises, under the natural conditions of training, is the most effective means for increasing strength.

An earlier analysis of the results in the snatch, the clean and jerk, and back squats showed that squats performed at a moderate tempo produced the most improvement. In order to determine the reliability of the preliminary data obtained, we conducted a pedagogical experiment to reveal the effectiveness of various exercise tempos on the weightlifter's increase in strength.

The experiment lasted four months. We utilized a complex of training devices for obtaining crucial information with biofeedback (signal lamps). Four programs enabled us to determine the assigned exercise tempos; they were fast, moderate, slow, and very slow.

The subjects trained three times per week during the experiment for 1.5 to 2 hours. Weightlifters with two years of training (classified youths 17 years old) and novices with six months training experience (7 class III, 8 youth class I, 8 youth class II and 10 novices) took part in the experiment. The 32 subjects were divided into four groups of eight (according to age, height, weight, qualification, sport results in the snatch, the clean and jerk, and squat).

The sportsmen in all of the groups did the back squat (in the yielding and overcoming regimes). The weight of the barbell for this exercise was 80%. The sportsmen did fifteen lifts per workout (5 sets of 3 repetitions per set). Every five weeks we tested the athletes. The 80% weight was adjusted depending on the subject's new best results. All of the subjects trained under equivalent conditions throughout the experiment.

They trained according to a unified training plan where all did the same volume and intensity of loading, number of exercises, lifts, general and special warm -up, and so forth. The subjects trained 48 times over the course of the experiment. Each subject executed an average of 700 lifts with 80% weights. The sports men of the 1st group did their exercises with a fast tempo (2 sec, average speed of movement was 0.6 m/sec); the 2nd group performed their exercise with a moderate tempo (2.5 sec, average speed of movement 0.5 m/sec); the 3rd group employed a slow tempo (3 sec, an average speed of 0.4 m/sec); and, the 4th group employed a very slow (6 sec, an average speed of movement 0.2 m/sec).

The data obtained in this experiment is presented in table 1. It shows that the subjects who exercised with a moderate tempo made the most progress of 21.3±1.2 kg or 20.65% over their initial results (103.1±11 kg). The improvement of strength of this group were substantially greater than the improvement of strength over the other groups (p<0.05). There was not a statistically reliable difference between the strength increases of the other three groups who exercised with a fast, slow, and very slow tempo (p>0.05).

We also determined the energy expenditure relative to the tempo with which the exercises were performed.

The subjects performed the squat with a training device in the following sequence by beginning with a fast tempo, then moderate, slow, and finally a very slow tempo. The magnitude of energy expenditure was determined by means of the indirect calorimetry utilizing the East German gas analyzer "Spirolit." We employed the method developed by one of the authors of this paper (N.N. Saxonov, 1969) to determine the amount of work performed.

The data shows that there is no statistically reliable difference between performing squats fast, moderate, slow and very slow, with respect to energy expenditure. This indicates that the work performed relative to energy expenditure is practically uniform. A reliable difference was observed only between a fast and a very slow tempo, which is in harmony with Y.M. Berkovitch's data (1964).

Our data and research enable us to recommend a moderate tempo (2.5 sec, a movement speed of 0.5 m/sec) for the 17 year old novice and class III athletes to perform squats with 80% weights. This method resulted in the greatest improvement. Furthermore, the energy expenditure of moderate exercises tempos is practically the same as the other exercise tempos.

So take that for what it's worth.

Subject matter #2:

From Supertraining "In all instances the maximum dynamic force is less than the absolute strength, the closest value to absolute strength being the maximum force of explosive isometric tension. In the dynamic regime, the difference between absolute strength and Fmax increases as the resistance decreases. In other words, with decreasing external resistance, the realization of the strength potential of the muscles for explosive force is diminished, as shown by the decreasing correlation between absolute strength and Fmax."

If we scrutinize subject matter #2 we clearly see how the explosive strength is dependent upon absolute strength, not the other way around. Because as the resistance decreases and the movement becomes faster the correlation between the absolute strength and Fmax decreases.

The reason why Louie Simmons has shown that many of the Westside lifters are strong and explosive is because both qualities are trained. While the loads lifted on DE day are sub-maximal they are still closer to the absolute strength then they are of zero load.

And again, I will assert that the reason why any lifters have become stronger via emphasizing or including the dynamic effort method in the weekly training is simply because they necessitated a reduction in loading and considering the fact that the Westside method promotes heavy lifting more often through out the year this only stands to reason.

I think that it is very important to note that the training of explosive strength is not necessary for increasing the limit of strength.

While increasing absolute/limit strength, alone, will not improve explosive strength to the same degree as training both qualities we must not assume that training the speed at which sub-maximal loads can be lifted will positively improve the limit. Again, this is because not enough force is produced with lighter loads.

The graph on pg 129 in the 5th edition of Supertraining highlights this very subject. The graph shows that the greatest force (in th leg press while moving the weight as fast as possible) was attained through lifting loads in excess of 80%. The graph also shows that Fmax is always beneath the level of absolute strength.

Going by the graph we know that training for explosive strength will decrease the explosive strength deficit and in this regard explosive strength training is valuable for all athletes. The graph also shows us that increased explosive strength does not affect the absolute strength as absolute strength provides the potential for explosive strength NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It is for this reason why I question a powerlifter, whose sole directive is to improve absolute strength, who dedicates training time and energy towards lifting sub-maximal weights faster.

[Athlete X]

Question

Sports Training-Thinker-What if any sportsmen do you feel benefits from lifting loads that represent 40-60% of one's 1rm in the sq/bp. Fmax (explosive strength development) can be achieved in the squat lifting 80% while not necessarily trying to find a weight that you can move the barbell at the greatest possible speed? The dynamic effort method taxes the CNS in a manner that has a lower dynamic correspondence so you choose to use those reserves on something of high correspondence? In addition does building absolute strength while developing rate of force development (jumps throw sprints) account for the strength necessary to complete throws/lifts of other sportsmen of equal size in say wrestling?

Answer

Frank, if we consider the most specific motor adaptation of lifting 40-60%1RM, on a barbell, as fast as possible then we know that the result is greater speed with that range of resistance on that exercise. From that standpoint we would have to consider what sport disciplines demand that a barbell be squatted, presses, or deadlifted with 40-60%1RM as fast as possible.

Of course no such discipline exists.

Moving further along the continuum of specificity we may begin to consider more non-specific representations of any type of external resistance, for instance, that represents 40-60%1RM of one of the athletes barbell maximums.

As we move further away from the actual special exercise we see how we may draw more and more correlations; however, this comes at the expense of less and less transference.

It's an interesting topic of debate because the 40-60%1RM range is truly a purgatory, training percentage wise, from the standpoint of practical application.

Nearly all of the Soviet and overseas literature points to the efficacy of training loads below or above that percentage range in order to develop speed strength (lower) or explosive and absolute strength (above).

The 60% percent rule seems to be most prevalent regarding restorative work and the percentage drop off in training load volume for deloading purposes.

We know that tendo numbers seem to register highest (power output wise) in the 40-60 percentage range; however, training for highest power output is a nebulous statement and again we must come back to the training means.

Registering high power output pressing, squatting, pulling 40-60%1RM on an accelerometer tells us only one thing for sure and that is that the lifter is generating X amount of power output on THAT EXERCISE WITH THAT LOAD IN PARTICULAR. It tells us very little with respect to what the athlete is capable of doing on the field, ice, mat, snow, track, against an opponent, throwing an implement that weighs less than 8kilos, swinging a hockey stick, pushing a bobsled, etc.

There's a reason why you don't see any meaningful attention paid to the speed at which one could squat, press, deadlift with 40-60%1RM in Dr. Bondarchuk's transference tables, Dr Verkhoshansky's literature or most if not all of the translated literature available to us Westerners.

A note to those who swear by the dynamic effort method of squatting, pressing, and pulling: If there was something particularly special about lifting those loads as fast as possible on a barbell don't you think that the greatest minds and coaches in the history of recorded sport would have popularized its use.

I don't say these things to criticize those who adhere to lifting 40-60%1RM on a barbell as fast as possible.

I say these things to encourage those people to question the possibility of whether there exists a more effective means of training relative to their objective.

[Athlete X]

Question

I know you are not an advocate of dynamic effort barbell lifts but I have a situation I would like your insight on. Say that someone has horrible rate of force development and there is a large discrepancy between what they can do maximally and what they can do when hooked up to a tendo unit (such as moving weight in the desired range for speed strength). Would dynamic effort barbell lifts have an effect on their maximal strength? I know most of the literature out says it should not make a difference but at the same time wouldn't it create a limiting factor in displaying one's strength? Another reason I ask is because the data presented in Prilepin's chart always speaks of the Russians judging if the weight was correct for training by "bar speed". Now, my question on this would be is their definition of bar speed the same as most advocates of dynamic effort barbell lifts definition?

Answer

Greetings Gabe, I trust all is well with you.

As I've stated since the beginning of my participation here on the Q&A four years ago, the dynamic effort method of lifting barbells, to the exclusion of other methods of training, does not have a high correlation with increasing maximal strength.

It is a means of explosive strength development.

to discuss it's function as an adjunct to other means of training is another discussion altogether, however.

That discussion is neither here nor there because we are not debating the DE method as it exists as an adjunct/supplement to other forms of training.

In my experience, the sub-maximal and repeated effort methods are the most effective foundational training methods for increasing maximal strength; leaving the dynamic and maximal effort methods as useful adjuncts, during specialized blocks, but not methods from which to form a platform from which to work off of.

Zatsiorsky states the following:

Because of the existence of the explosive strength deficit, it is impossible to attain the maximum of force in fast movements against intermediate resistance. Therefore the method of dynamic effort (lifting/throwing a non-maximal load with the highest attainable speed) is used not for increasing maximal strength but only to improve the rate of force development and explosive strength.

[Conscience]

Jeg traener jo efter en WSB opsplitning og arbejder foelgeligt med en ME og DE dag for upper/lower body.

David, hvad vil du sige er hovedbudskabet i artikel serien du har postet? Hvor meget/lidt kan man forvente sig at faa ud af det dynamiske arbejde? Er man bedre tjent med at skifte dagen ud men en repetition day?

Jeg kan tilfoeje at jeg bestemt ikke selv har svaret men foeler mig frem og proever at blive kloge ved at se paa resultaterne i min formkurve. Jeg foeler faktisk nogengange at jeg famler lidt i blinde...saa hvis du har nogle gode pointers saa er jeg meget lydhoer?

[Athlete X]

Jeg traener jo efter en WSB opsplitning og arbejder foelgeligt med en ME og DE dag for upper/lower body.

David, hvad vil du sige er hovedbudskabet i artikel serien du har postet? Hvor meget/lidt kan man forvente sig at faa ud af det dynamiske arbejde? Er man bedre tjent med at skifte dagen ud men en repetition day?

Jeg kan tilfoeje at jeg bestemt ikke selv har svaret men foeler mig frem og proever at blive kloge ved at se paa resultaterne i min formkurve. Jeg foeler faktisk nogengange at jeg famler lidt i blinde...saa hvis du har nogle gode pointers saa er jeg meget lydhoer?

Hovedbudskabet i hvad The Thinker skriver, for dig, som styrkeløfter, er at dynamiske løft kun har overførbarhed grunden den submaximale load og pausen (antaget at, der arbejdes i noget wsb-look-a-like) fra det meget tunge ME arbejde. Altså, at dynamiske løft (speed wize) ingen overførbarhed har til din maximale styrke, der egentlig er det eneste relevante for dig.

Eric Talmant (Drug free, sheiko ekspert og yderst dygtig løfter) snakker om selvsamme her:

Jeg vil ikke komme med nogle gode råd og bud til dig da jeg slet ikke er kvalificeret nok til dette.

Jeg vil dog give The Thinker ret i at submaximale løft og repetitions arbejde er det mest effektive til at øge max styrke:

In my experience, the sub-maximal and repeated effort methods are the most effective foundational training methods for increasing maximal strength; leaving the dynamic and maximal effort methods as useful adjuncts, during specialized blocks, but not methods from which to form a platform from which to work off of.

Han øgede min max styrke i squat fra 140-240 på et halvt år, vel, hvor maximale løft kun var dedikeret til én enkelt blok (realization block) samt dage i enkelte blokke hvor jeg skulle gå på en PR såfremt jeg følte mig stærk nok. Max løft på 100% fandt dog ikke sted i mere end 15 procent af min samlede vægtsessioner.

Spørg dig selv om WSB virkelig er det rigtige for dig, Sune.

Jeg tror du vil finde at langtidsplanlægning ville være langt mere effektivt. I sær for en løfter på dit niveau.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Athlete X

[Conscience]

Spørg dig selv om WSB virkelig er det rigtige for dig, Sune.

Jeg tror du vil finde at langtidsplanlægning ville være langt mere effektivt. I sær for en løfter på dit niveau.

Tak for det. Jeg er rimeligt bekendt med kritikken af DE, men det er selvfølgelig rart at læse flere perspektiver og meninger.

Om WSB er noget for mig i det lange løb vil selvfølgelig også gerne have klarhed over. Jeg har på det seneste skiftet imellem sheiko perioder m/uden udstyr og en WSB baseret template. Tidligere har jeg selv sammensat programmer, med gillingham progression andet godt. Jeg kan godt lide WSB opbygningen, men synes ogsaa at sheiko arbejde med en masse submaximale løft er effektivt.

Alle programmer har og giver mig stadigvæk fremgang, så det er selvfølgelig svært at afgøre hvad der er bedst. Det hænger selvfølgelig sammen med at jeg ikke har såå mange års erfaring som styrkeløfter og jeg derfor gratis kan høste fremgang på teknik, udstyr og neuraltilpasning pga af lavere reprange stadigvæk. Var man endt på et plateu, saa ville det faktisk være nemmere at afgøre hvad der er godt og skidt.

At være sin egen træner kan være dybt frustrerende.

[RuneB]

Louie Simmons bygger jo ikke kun sigen teori på DE dag men en DE dag hvor man arbejder med specifik stick points i ens primære øvelser....

Det må da være en begrænsende faktor hvor stor RFD man har ved et specifikt stick point...altså hvor hurtigt man kan genere kraft ved det svagest punkt man har...

Ligeledes må det da også være hensigsmæssigt i ens primær øvelse at lære at genere hastighed på barbellen så man nemmere kommer over stick pointet...

Det kunne f.eks. være bænkpress.. nu højere fart man kan genere fra bunden nu nemmere er det også at kommer over ens stick point f.eks. i toppen.

Derfor kan man f.eks. med følgende 2 metoder forbedre ens stick point i toppen. Tunge Board presses og DE metode bænkpress med bands eller chains.

Hvis man lavede en DE workout uden bands for at forbedre ens top stick point i DE ville det ikke give mening, fordi man ikke forsætter accelerationen.

Jeg siger ikke at Louie simmons metode er overlegen den submaximal metode og repetitions metoden. Jeg siger bare at for mig giver Louie simmons metode stadig mening. Har jeg overset noget?

"In my experience, the sub-maximal and repeated effort methods are the most effective foundational training methods for increasing maximal strength; leaving the dynamic and maximal effort methods as useful adjuncts, during specialized blocks, but not methods from which to form a platform from which to work off of."

Enig. Han afviser ikke metoden, men sætter den på sigen retmæssige plads. Undulationg Periodization bliver lidt tyndt fordi man bevidst vælger ikke at langtids planlægge. Ligeledes er linear periodization for tyndt fordi det er svært at handle pragmatisk på en allerede fast definerede model. Man fast låser sig selv på en teoretisk model, istedet for at arbejde en anelse mere analytisk

Hvis man kunne lave en model hvor man planlagde langsigt men hvor der i planen var inkomperet muligheder for pragmatisk løsningsmodeller, f.eks. hvis der opstår et stick point...ville det være optimalt.

Undulating, linear periodization. hvilket kræver:

- Maksløft testning der indikere stick points.

- Plads til pragmatisk løsninger i langtids planen, på baggrund af tests, der inkompere Louie simmons DE metode.

- en solid linear periodization som bygger på repetions og primært sub metoden.

en ugentligt maksløft testning er som Athlete X indirekte skriver (jeg sagde inddirekte) ikke optimalt i forhold til ens sub maximale periodisering. Man kunne lave færre maksløfts tests og så bruge dem konstruktivt. Det giver ikke mening at kører DE metoden hvis man ikke gøre det analytisk dvs. analysere sig frem til den begrænsende faktor.

Da analysen er DE metodens begrænsende faktor, er det langt fra sikkert at den er særligt effektiv metode til den typiske MOL bruger... Det må være Louie Simmons analytisk evner der gøre hans løfter stærkere lige såvel som det er DE metoden. Man må ikke glemme at Louie Simmon athleter løfter meget tungt... så et eller andet må han gøre rigtigt. Det er i sig selv et argument der ikke må overses.

laver man dårlig analyser er man better of med Sheiko istedet for WSB

Der hvor tingende tilgengæld virkelig adskiller sig fra om man spilder tiden eller ikke gør, illustere Athlete X fænomenlt. Enten kegler man selv rundt og prøver at optimere sigen træning igennem læsning på forums, eller også for man "Thinker" til at lave en langsigt program strukture så ens squat rykker sig fra 140-240kg på et ½ år!!!

Du kan download et sheiko program, køre det i en periode og så prøv lidt WSB i en periode. Den typisk mol kommentar... jeg skal til at kører sheiko... hvordan skal jeg sætte mit maks. Et ambitøst svar burde være:

1. Du skal ikke kører sheiko du skal have nogen til at lave et program specifik til dig

2. Personen skulle deltage i din daglig træning og kende til dig som person (værdier, livstil, psykologisk profil)

Edited February 20, 2009 by RuneB

[RuneB]

At være sin egen træner kan være dybt frustrerende.

[Athlete X]

RuneB.

Thinkers og Eric Talmants pointe er nu at dynamic effort (speed komponentet) slet ingen ingen overførsel har til ens maximale styrke. Uanset om man træner sticking points eller ej.

Tror også at du overdriver Louies "analytiske" evner. Træningen er oftest team baseret og hovedøvelserne på DE dagen oftest noget "Nå, hvad har vi så lyst til at lave i dag?"

[Yetti]

Nu har jeg skimmet trådene overfladisk... Interessant er det da, men er det postet, fordi det er fuldstændigt revolutionerende?

Altså jeg mener, hvordan skulle DE løft kunne bidrage til maksimal styrke udover måske et øget neuralt drive..? Hvis man er rimeligt trænet, vil man have tilstrækkeligt neuralt drive til at opnå maksimal kraft uden effekten af hurtige løft...

Har vi iøvrigt ikke haft en lignende diskussion før?, og som jeg vist skrev dengang også, så anser jeg mere DE dagen som en restitutionsdag fremfor en egentlig træningsdag (uden at jeg har super meget styr på ideologien)

Men det er da dejligt med nogle spændende emner, så min skepsis er ikke udtryk for lav interesse!

Edited February 20, 2009 by Yetti

[Unicorn]

David, hvad vil du sige er hovedbudskabet i artikel serien du har postet? Hvor meget/lidt kan man forvente sig at faa ud af det dynamiske arbejde? Er man bedre tjent med at skifte dagen ud men en repetition day?

Det vil jeg mene du er. De studier der er lavet omkring analyser af stangens baner tyder på at de sidste, tunge reps i et RE sæt minder meget mere om banen i et maxløft end de første i sættet og de dynamiske sæt. Eneste potentielle problem skulle være den hypertrofi det jo vil stimulere. DE er imo kun restitutionstræning.

[cookie_sq]

Forummet er ved at være sjældent dødt og Athlete X poster noget interessant, kan ikke helt forstå hvorfor du ikek er henrykt, men i stedet skriver som om de var noget der var en lang tråd om for 3 dage siden...

[Yetti]

Forummet er ved at være sjældent dødt og Athlete X poster noget interessant, kan ikke helt forstå hvorfor du ikek er henrykt, men i stedet skriver som om de var noget der var en lang tråd om for 3 dage siden...

Hvis du henvender dig til mig, så bør du læse mit indlæg igen og evt. søge på en lignende tråd...

Iøvrigt er det vel kun essentielt, at forummet overlever, hvis det har et eksistens grundlag?

[RuneB]

Tror også at du overdriver Louies "analytiske" evner. Træningen er oftest team baseret og hovedøvelserne på DE dagen oftest noget "Nå, hvad har vi så lyst til at lave i dag?"

Hvor ved du det fra.... og ja det gør jeg måske nok... så meget kender jeg slet ikke til ham... eller WSB...

Det kan være at trænings kulturen har gode analytiske kvaliteter... at athleter såvel som trænerne har en god forståelse for stickpoint træningen og derfor laver korrekt valg. WSBs systemets fundament er vel gode analystiks evne i forhold til øvelses valg...

Hvis din påstand 2 er rigtig, så giver det selvfølgelig ikke mening at kreditere WSB nogen analytiske evne... Hvorfor de har så mange stærke løfter er dog stadig ubesvaret... Ligeledes kan jeg ikke se hvor de argumenter mod, stickpoints træning...

I video klippet forklarer han at speedstrength training ikke virker (hvad hedder den rigtig term). Han nævner ikke Louie Simmons, DE metode eller stick points træning.

i indlæg 1..er der intet argument mod DE training, den sammenlignes kunne med speed training...og modargumenters ved at sætte ligehedes tegn imellem DE og speed training. Speed training modargumentet lyder tilgengæld fornuftigt.

Indlæg 2.

Er igen et fint modargument mod speed training. Det står ikke noget om stick points... han pointer dog hvor langsomt løftet er.

Et modargument mod min påstand kunne selvfølgelig være at, selvom der generes moment fra bunden af løftet i bænkpress eksemplet er momentet så lille at det ingen betydning har for resten af løftet...

Indlæg 3.

Igen super reference som for sat det ekstra meget på plads. Du bliver ikke bedre til at løfte tunger ved at løfte lettere barbells hurtigere.

"And again, I will assert that the reason why any lifters have become stronger via emphasizing or including the dynamic effort method in the weekly training is simply because they necessitated a reduction in loading and considering the fact that the Westside method promotes heavy lifting more often through out the year this only stands to reason"

Her argumenter han for hvorfor WSB virker.. de løfter tungt oftere. Hvilket for mig overhovedet ikke er et tilstrækkeligt argument. DE dagen virker som en sub max/rep dag. Ifølge ham bliver forskellene simpelt sat op:

WSB:

Ofte tungt (ME)

Sub max/rep træning

jævnlig varitation i øvelses valg.

ingen volume periodisering

Lineæar periodisation:

altid tungt træning, vedligeholdende eller form toppende (ME)

sub max/ rep træning

fra en overvægt af sub max/rep træning til en overvægt af tung træning (ME)

ingen øvelses variation fra primær løft, fra mange til få øvelser (overvægt af auxillar, sekundær løft til overvægt af primær løft)

Indlæg 4

Igen intet... kort fortalt argumenter han for at man bliver bedre til at løfte let ved at løfte let

Indlæg 5

Let træning forbedre kunne RFD ikke absolut strength. Igen intet om stick points eller Louie simmons

Mest af alt synes jeg forfatterne til artiklerne bruger DE metoden i flænge, uden at skelne imellem speed training og Louie simmons DE metode.

Nu har jeg for anden gang gennemgået alle artiklerne og video linket. og står ved mit argument. Tilgengæld vil jeg gerne takke for linket... blev en del klog af at analyser det igennem. Jeg havde forstillet mig at speed training rent faktisk kunne forbedre absolut styrke. Hvilket minder mig om at

t-nation anbefale OL løft til bodybuilder for at øge absolut styrke, f.eks. at en power clean kan rykke ens dødløft. Mark Ripptoe advokere også for denne tilgang i Starting strength. De tager så fejl, må jeg konkludere... medmindre nogen har noget at tilføje...

Edited February 20, 2009 by RuneB

[incognito]

Er der nogle steder The Thinker kommenterer på DE løfts funktion som svagpunktstræning, når svagpunktet er i bunden af løftene...

Derudover så har jeg også hørt en lille fugl synge om at krudtforbruget i west side barbell club skulle være ... lade os bare kalde det "over norm", selv blandt amerikanske styrkeløftere

[Athlete X]

Hvor ved du det fra.... og ja det gør jeg måske nok... så meget kender jeg slet ikke til ham... eller WSB...

Jeg kender et par af løfterne, der for tiden træner i westside klubben og ved en smule til hvorfor de gør, som de gør.

WSBs systemets fundament er vel gode analystiks evne i forhold til øvelses valg...

Ikke altid. Som sagt igen er træningen team baseret og ofte bliver hovedøvelser valgt udfra "Hvad har vi lyst til at lave i dag"

Hvorfor de har så mange stærke løfter er dog stadig ubesvaret...

Louie Simmons er da stadig en dygtig coach. Udover dét er krudt ganske accepteret i klubben, fint nok, og det er dermed slet ikke værdigt at sammenligne dem med fx IPF løftere. For ikke at nævne udstyret. Hvis de nu gik helt væk fra at krudte den max samt at begynde at kæmpe i IPF regi. Hvor tough tror du så den klub ville være?

Ligeledes kan jeg ikke se hvor de argumenter mod, stickpoints træning...

Hvad har træning af sticking points med denne tråd at gøre, Rune? Vi diskutere hvorfor dynamiske løft (speed komponentet) ingen overførbarhed har til limit strength.

Faktisk er en hel del af løfterne i Westside Barbell begyndt at gå væk fra DE metoden og over til RE metoden.

The Thinker, som har skrevet alt det overstående, har faktisk selv fin indsigt i hvorfor Louie gør, som han gør. Så det er ikke bare tom bashing.

Louie Simmons og Matt Smith har sågar flere gange besøgt The Thinker og Coach X på Universitet X for netop at lære af dem.

[Athlete X]

Er der nogle steder The Thinker kommenterer på DE løfts funktion som svagpunktstræning, når svagpunktet er i bunden af løftene...

Ikke noget jeg har kendskab til, desværre.

[RuneB]

Nå... jeg troede at du havde fangede hvorfor jeg bragt stick points på banen.

1. Conscience spurgt konkret til hans program, som er et WSB program med stick points træning.

2. Forfatterne til dit indlæg bruger DE metoden i flæng med speed training. DE metode tager udgangspunkt i stick points træning.

3. The missing link i deres kritik er netop at de overse den stor forskel imellem DE og speed training nemlig "stick point træning"

4. At speed training ingen overførebarehed har til absolut styrke er rimelig klart og velargumenteret i ovenstående artikler. Jeg ville bring en overset dimension til diskussionen.

5. Stick points legitimere ifølge mig speed training til at forbedre absolut styrke. Den korrekte term er DE metoden

for at bringe endnu en dimension på banen så kan man legitimere speed training som opvarmning da den har en Post-tetanisk potentiering effekt. Et par power cleans før en dødløft seance burde rykke ens dødløft akut og på langsigt.

http://www.bodybuilding.dk/artikler/bodybu...st-tetanisk.php

[RuneB]

Jeg tror hellere ikke at der er tom bashing. Manden lyder fornuftig... nu ville jeg bare hæfte mig ved stick points

[Athlete X]

DE metode tager udgangspunkt i stick points træning.

Nej, ikke rigtigt. Ihf ikke i Westside Barbell Club. Men fair nok ellers. I kan bare diskuttere videre.

[RuneB]

Ok. så de kunne godt finde på at kører:

3 * 10 sæt i Benchpress med hastighed på alle løfte uden nogen chains/band/what ever...

så giver det bedre mening at han sammenligner dem i flæng.

så vil jeg revurder mit argument til at speed training kun holder til at forbedre absolut styrke hvis den er baseret på overkomme stickpoints, via bands, chains osv.

[Yetti]

for at bringe endnu en dimension på banen så kan man legitimere speed training som opvarmning da den har en Post-tetanisk potentiering effekt. Et par power cleans før en dødløft seance burde rykke ens dødløft akut og på langsigt.

http://www.bodybuilding.dk/artikler/bodybu...st-tetanisk.php

Jeg tror ikke, du har helt ret her...! Normalt ser man kun potentiering efter fuld aktivering af muskelgruppen.., og speed træning burde ikke udvikle fuld potentiering!.

[RuneB]

nej... ikke de helt lette -30...men de tunge+60.. det mener jeg da at have læst... det må jeg lige finde...

Edited February 20, 2009 by RuneB