# Football Training



## Mr651 (Mar 21, 2005)

Anyone here plays football, I'm currently training for football for the summer and need some expert advise. First off let me say my position is Wide Reciever so I don't need to bench 350lb.

I'm currently benching more than ever but seems like I tend to work only upper body and forget my legs, stomach, and back. I really wish I would have played High School football, dam what I've give to go back and played instead of being a pot head.  Yeah but it is what it is, my little brother played CB for varsity football and man he's not even at my level (even when I was his age) but I'm proud of him.

Oh well let me say I'm 5'7 175lb right now but I'm trying to cut down to 160-165 of meat. Gotta admit I'm a little overweight right now but I tend to go up and down with each season. For you guys that don't know I'm asian........so that's pretty good size for a WR. I know aint no comparision but people around my league called me the asian T.O.   dont' laugh please  

Anyways my size gives me advantage blocking during a running play and I could grab on the rims with 2 hands so I could out jump small asian DB's.

So anyone gots some good workout programs, sh!t after 2 years in a row getting 2nd place in the tourny I'v dedicated my life to winning the big one.

Any help is welcome, oh and sorry I wrote so much about myselft but I just wanted people to know that I'm not a 6'2 WR so maybe the trainings a little different.  peace.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

It's more about diet than training. Go read about diet.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

http://ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=31408 There is a training plan.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Whoa - why is football training more about _diet_ ??


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Whoa - why is football training more about _diet_ ??


 He wants to loose weight.


----------



## Mr651 (Mar 21, 2005)

Actually I'm more into the different type of training football players do for their legs, arm, and body. I mean I never played organized sports so I dont know how the coaches train the player on conditioning. Diet I know already.....Stop eating fast food and white rice asian boy  

Anyways there's gotta be some of you that played football, what does you coach make you guys do, I tend to get fatigue in the calfs late in tournament.

Anything or suggestions would be good, just need more knowlegde on football training.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

The current training at my school is some of the most (in my opinion) ludicrous nonsense I've ever seen.  As far as training, make sure you focus on FIELDWORK.  Wide receiver needs speed and quickness, so get on the field and attempt real world situations and lateral movement, 20 - 40 - 60 yard sprints, backpedalling, etcetera.

As far as weight training is concerned, train to get stronger so that you can apply that when you have developed football skill.


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 21, 2005)

DD -- what does your school want you guys doing?  I know at my school it's mandatory to be in the gym every day, and pretty much every day kids bench and do arm curls the entire time.


----------



## DDan16 (Mar 21, 2005)

its always about diet, it makes all the difference


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Olympic lifts like SNATCHES, CLEANS, PULLs, ROPE PULLUPS, ROPE CURLS, ONE LEGGED SQUATS, MEDICINE BALL THROWS.

I showed up today for my first day and scarcely could believe what they were doing. The guys weren't terribly strong, and even though the actual football field / weights class started 3 weeks ago, the guys (awesome guys, btw) weren't paticularly strong in any of the core lifts.  We don't even do deadlifts - sigh?

The other linebackers were squatting free weight in the 330s, which was nice considering the immaculent form, and some of the guys were very strong at certain elements - like curls (barf), but overall strength wasn't too impressive.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Further to my dismay, the workout lasted about an hour and including between 30-35 sets.  This from a guy who typically stays in a 6-12 set range.  Everything was 5 reps (IGNORING THE VARIABLE OF INTENSITY - NOTHING WAS TO FAILURE) and i hardly broke a sweat.  Despite my time in the gym!  I came out after over an hour and felt like I hadn't done a thing, except I had sore feet because of the impact of the cleans.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Further to my dismay, the workout lasted about an hour and including between 30-35 sets. This from a guy who typically stays in a 6-12 set range. Everything was 5 reps (IGNORING THE VARIABLE OF INTENSITY - NOTHING WAS TO FAILURE)


 That's exactly what my school does for football and weight training. Same exercises everyday (squats, deadlifts, bench, cleans, curls, military press), 5 days a week. They also tell the kids to work out on the week ends if they can.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)




----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

>


 I know, that's why I refuse to sign up for weight training next year. And every one wants to know why.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Yeah, I feel you on that bro...frankly, I wanted to tell the coach that I'd train in my style and stack my results up to the average results of the rest of the team because I didn't want to break my back trying to snatch a weight up.  But coming off as an arrogant know-it-all isn't the best way to introduce yourself to a coach.

During the hang pull (or whatever) where you exaggerate a shrug, I saw EVERY SINGLE PERSON in my group hyperextend their back.  I pointed it out to the guys but I don't think they cared.


----------



## Newt (Mar 21, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> DD -- what does your school want you guys doing? I know at my school it's mandatory to be in the gym every day, and pretty much every day kids bench and do arm curls the entire time.


We all know that benching and curling every day is not good for anything, but that is a different story.  I agree that running 20,40, and 60 yrd sprints along with back pedeling and lateral movements is going to be the best thing for your quickness.  As far as weightlifting goes you should stick to your core lifts like bench, incline, and squats.  Out of everything in the weightroom I promise you that platform work like cleans and snatches are the best football excersizes you can do.  Football is a sport of explosiveness and quickness and platform work trains your body for both.  Stay away from things like deadlift for football.  They are a slow movement that has nothing to do with anything you will do on the field.  As far as you calves getting tired, you are not running enough!  If you run enough sprints and stands then your calves will not go out on you.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Newt said:
			
		

> Out of everything in the weightroom I promise you that platform work like cleans and snatches are the best football excersizes you can do.  Football is a sport of explosiveness and quickness and platform work trains your body for both.  Stay away from things like deadlift for football.  They are a slow movement that has nothing to do with anything you will do on the field. .



Whoa, whoa, whoa.  How in God's name is a SNATCH, where you toss a weight over your head and absorb thousands of pounds of force related in ANY WAY to football??  The rate of the movement performed has nothing to do with your capacity to GENERATE FORCE (there was a thread discussing this a day or so ago) and the fact that a deadlift is performed slowly DOES NOT MEAN IT TRAINS SLOW ATHLETES.  In fact, it's in my opinion a million times better than a clean because of the TUT experienced by the lower extremeties.   Strength training isn't skill training according to every single piece of motor-learning literature I've ever read.  Nothing except tradition has gone to contradict this, though I'd love for someone to show me otherwise.

As far as fast weight training movements making for explosive athletes, see my signature below... STRENGTH training (force generation) is best trained, imo, by controlled movements with high TUTs.  Using that force is trained on the field!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

> A related myth is that "to become explosive, one must train explosively." This is dimissed quickly if basic physics are understood. Explosiveness, in the context of resistance training, refers to the ability to generate maximum force and velocity in the briefest period of time. Force is the muscular exertion produced by the soft tissues. Changes in velocity are merely a result of the force - one cannot have changes in velocity (or the concept of velocity) without force. Therefore, in order to increase velocity, force must increase. But in order to increase force beyond current ability, there must be a structural change in the tissues: a change that is accomplished through progressive overload methods (resistance exercise) and increasing muscle size, regardless of the veloicty utilized in such training.
> 
> It is a myth that fast movement works FT muscle fibers (those largely responsible for hypertrophy and strength increases), whereas slow speeds work ST muscle fibers (those utilized during endurance-type activities). ST fibers are only slow relative to FT fibers. Even under fast conditions ST fibers may be the only fibers called upon if the intensity (effort/demands) is low. In other words, FT fibers dominaate only when muscular tension and effort are amplified, regardless of velocity. The continuous and blazingly fast reflexes and quickness of table tennis players are evidence of this phenomenon (Where are their big muscles?).
> 
> ...



^


----------



## PreMier (Mar 21, 2005)

You just cant see that power and strength training is different.  If you so confident in HIT, you should tell your coach that you know what your doing, and to stack the results next to each other(you vs others).  Let the performance on the field show wether your style is more productive than the rest.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Tell me how it's different?


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> During the hang pull (or whatever) where you exaggerate a shrug, I saw EVERY SINGLE PERSON in my group hyperextend their back. I pointed it out to the guys but I don't think they cared.


 Yea, I know what you're talking about, I do those after deadlifts sometimes (light weight). You wouldn't believe the form the kids at my school use. I only worked out there one time, because my gym is much better, but when I was there I was squating 160 for reps or something like that, and this kid who thought he was way stronger than me wanted to show off came up and said "Is that all you squat? I said yea, that's as heavy as I go for reps. He wanted to work in with me so I let him and he said he would warm up with 160, he got the weight off the rack and went down about 5 inches, and tried to come back up. His lower back started to round and it looked like he was doing good mornings with horrible form, then he just fell flat on his face (but the pins kept the weight from falling on him). It was the funniest shit I ever seen in a gym. He just got up and starting benching again.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Tell me how it's different?



strength has no time element.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

It's a simple equation, as Kinetic Energy (whatever unit that may be) is equal to Mass * Velocity squared, or KE = mv2.  In that regard, since mass is constant, velocity is proportionally related to the force.  

So you could argue that if you increase the speed, then the force must go up too, so train fast.  The problem with this is that if a resistance is not sufficent, it is impossible to exert 100 percent force.  Try and express 100 percent of your maximum force by throwing a ping pong ball (ignore density and air resistance, for a moment).  If the load is sufficient (say to do 4-6 reps with a constant velocity and TUT to failure), there is not going to be a fast velocity (relatively speaking) because the imposition of the load on the musculature is demanding and the force required to control and move the weight is, likewise.  

Also, muscle tension diminishes with a greater acceleration and momentum of "explosive lifts".  As far as I can tell, strength training is meant to impose tension and strain on a muscle, not relax it (which is what happens during the throwing of a weight, until gravity is called into question during the catch phase).  They are also much more dangerous.  They also don't correlate to more "explosiveness" on the field, per the SAID.

Not to say that so called explosive lifts don't instigate some kind of hypertrophy or neurological conditioning, but I don't believe they do so more than a squat or a deadlift.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

What is "TUT"?


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Mar 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Also, muscle tension diminishes with a greater acceleration and momentum of "explosive lifts".


 So for optimal hypertrophy, should I go slow on the way up on a dealift? I was always told to go as fast as I can, although that isn't that fast compared to explosive lifting. Will it make a difference, or is it insignificant because it's only a slight decrease in speed?


----------



## camarosuper6 (Mar 21, 2005)

Yo.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 21, 2005)

Disclaimer:
okay i haven't studied physics in a very long time and i waay to tired to go and start pulling out books and quoting equations, so i'll just go from straight up memory and i might be off. i'm also saying that both have their place in a functional/sports training program.



			
				Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> It's a simple equation, as Kinetic Energy (whatever unit that may be) is equal to Mass * Velocity squared, or KE = mv2.  In that regard, since mass is constant, velocity is proportionally related to the force.
> 
> So you could argue that if you increase the speed, then the force must go up too, so train fast.  The problem with this is that if a resistance is not sufficent, it is impossible to exert 100 percent force.  Try and express 100 percent of your maximum force by throwing a ping pong ball (ignore density and air resistance, for a moment).  If the load is sufficient (say to do 4-6 reps with a constant velocity and TUT to failure), there is not going to be a fast velocity (relatively speaking) because the imposition of the load on the musculature is demanding and the force required to control and move the weight is, likewise.



okay going with the ping pong ball analogy. using F=MA you can see that the greatest forces are not always generated through large masses. also, since when in a real world sporting situation is the velocity constant? especially for someone like a WR, you want to train the body to produce maximum force as fast as possible so you can fly by the defender at the snap.



			
				DD said:
			
		

> Also, muscle tension diminishes with a greater acceleration and momentum of "explosive lifts".  As far as I can tell, strength training is meant to impose tension and strain on a muscle, not relax it (which is what happens during the throwing of a weight, until gravity is called into question during the catch phase).  They are also much more dangerous.  They also don't correlate to more "explosiveness" on the field, per the SAID.



like i said, absolute strength and power are too different things. being able to squat 500lbs for one rep in 10s is much different than cleaning 315lbs in a matter of 1s.

i'm gonna ignore that whole, explosive lifts are dangerous bs because that is just typical HIT crap. anything is dangerous if done incorrectly, or at the wrong time in your training etc.

and yes, in a clean there is a point in which muscular tension is low because the whole point of oly lifts is to generate maximum force FAST, thats where the whole time aspect comes in.



			
				DD said:
			
		

> Not to say that so called explosive lifts don't instigate some kind of hypertrophy or neurological conditioning, but I don't believe they do so more than a squat or a deadlift.



i don't really know either way. like i said, squatting for 1 rep, squatting for 10 reps and cleaning for 1 rep are all working different aspects of fitness.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 21, 2005)

also i just want to stress the fact that i don't believe either way of training is superior to the other and that a good strength and conditioning coach will periodize training to include working all levels of fitness. i'm just playing devil's advocate to learn something out of this whole situation and to maybe teach other people some stuff.

i also very much respect DD and his knowledge and don't want to in any way come off as insulting/arrogant or whatever as that can happen very quickly online.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> What is "TUT"?



Time under tension.


----------



## Mr651 (Mar 21, 2005)

whooooooow....that was more response than I bargained for. All post was much appreciated, it's good to know what all you guys are doing. I see that most of you are training for absolute strength, which is good for the type of position you guys play. Even though I play WR I would have to say LB is the most demanding position in terms of physical ability and mental concentration (play action...oopps I just bit  ).

Anyways what about condition training like running hills for leg strength, good or bad or overrated.

How about back peddles, man that kills your front thighs.

And one thing I dred is Lounges( I think that how you spell it ) are those good for you thighs or overdoing it.

I know some of you guys love to be as big as you guys can but that slows you down if your getting too big too fast.

Aaahhhhaahhhh.....time to go to sleep, check with yall tomorrow mourning, hopefully this get like 500 post, (no arguing peeps  ) peace.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> okay going with the ping pong ball analogy. using F=MA you can see that the greatest forces are not always generated through large masses. also, since when in a real world sporting situation is the velocity constant? especially for someone like a WR, you want to train the body to produce maximum force as fast as possible so you can fly by the defender at the snap.


I agree completely.  Regardless of power/strength semantics, strength training implies (or should, I'm not aware of the definition) a general increase in the ability to generate force.  On the field, the ability to fly by a defender is a skill that will incorporate this general increase in strength.  Power cleans won't make a wide receiver more adept at flying by a defender unless there is an accompanying cross-sectional muscle increase, and likewise an increase in force output potential.



> like i said, absolute strength and power are too different things. being able to squat 500lbs for one rep in 10s is much different than cleaning 315lbs in a matter of 1s.


The idea of course is that exploding up a 315 pound weight will somehow transfer to improved field work.  This is where we will have to politely disagree.  Nothing in football resembles such a thing.  As far as cleaning improving general strength, though, I will agree it potentially can, but I would pick squats.



> I'm gonna ignore that whole, explosive lifts are dangerous bs because that is just typical HIT crap. anything is dangerous if done incorrectly, or at the wrong time in your training etc.


Don't delegate me as some HIT propagandist.  I don't even use strict HIT anymore, folks.  As far as anything being done incorrectly as being dangerous, I agree, but doing heavy cleans correctly is dangerous:

During the initial phase of a pliometric movement, the weight is accelerated as fast as possible (the throw), establishing that the time of tension on the muscular system is brief (>1 second).  The weight thrown continues under it???s own propensity to stay in motion  before gravitational energy negates it???s upward kinetic energy and causes it to fall.

This is the phase where the object is stopped.  Referencing Newton???s second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), we see that something had to halt the object and absorb the force of its kinetic energy accelerating towards Earth.  The body absorbing this force is the person conducting the movement.  For example, a 260-pound man, power cleaning 60 pounds of weight, can impose 860 pounds of force on his body.  

Pliometric experts have championed this as a specific way to for an athlete to adapt to tolerating enormous loads.  This notion is erroneous, because the benefits of such force would not be experienced entirely as muscle tension but as impact stresses on the skeleton and connective tissue (and muscle).  As marginally sedentary constructs, bone structures cannot be improved via adaptation by high impact stresses.  If this were the case, forcing stress fractures would be a beneficial exercise technique.  It should also be noted that the tensile capacity of connective tissue (tendons and ligaments) is significantly less than that of muscle tissue.  Brian D. Johnson pointed out that ???Experienced athletes, because of their developed muscles, can generate high forces and, as a result, the stiffness of their muscles often exceeds that of their tendons.???  Energy has a natural tendency to transfer through harder constructs, and dissipate in softer ones.  In that respect, high levels of force imposed on connective tissue is potentially dangerous for well-developed athletes.

A final note, I specifically avoid these exercises not because of guys like Arthur Jones or other HIT advocates like Matt Bryzski (spl.), but because of my dad, who taught physics at Texas A&M and thinks such movements (including depth jumps) are horrible.  If you choose to do them, I won't critique you.



> and yes, in a clean there is a point in which muscular tension is low because the whole point of oly lifts is to generate maximum force FAST, thats where the whole time aspect comes in.


This goes back to our different of opinion on motor-learning and SAID interpretation, which is fine.  I contend that there is no transference of such a movement to football, where MAXIMUM speed can't be realized if there is a load.  (this is true - given the constant of maximal intensity, it is impossible for a subject to move as fast as possible if imposed with a load than to move as fast as he could move without one.  If maximum speed training is essential to getting faster, one must remove any unnecessary weight to achieve maximum speed - notice I said unnecessary loads, where pads and shoes are quite necessary.)  As far as the advice of this thread, practice the very specific mechanics of moving fast as a wide receiver (sprints, lateral movement, etc.) in conjunction with increasing force potential to become a fast wide receiver.  To get fast, you gotta train as fast as you can.  To improve capacity to generate force GENERALLY, you have to use general strength training.



> i don't really know either way. like i said, squatting for 1 rep, squatting for 10 reps and cleaning for 1 rep are all working different aspects of fitness.


I don't know if they are working different aspects, but working to similar results in very different ways.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

> It's a simple equation, as Kinetic Energy (whatever unit that may be) is equal to Mass * Velocity squared, or KE = mv2. In that regard, since mass is constant, velocity is proportionally related to the force.



Also, this quote I had, is not technically accurate, though related statements are..


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 22, 2005)

im not gonna go all scientific on you but i played highschool ball and the main exercises as far as weights were concerned were squats, benchpress, and powercleans... IMO these are the most important as they correlate with actions of football, football is not really about hypertrophy, its more about strength to me so i feel the explosiveness is key in these exercises...

 my team did a lot of plyometrics around the track for legs.. frog hops, box jumps, crossovers, stadiums etc to build up "explosiveness", speed, agility, etc.. i guess some people are going to tell you scientifically you cant build explosiveness or what not but... they helped me.. 

lastly if you are 5'7 i dont think the best way to go is losing weight.. i think u want to gain weight, physical receivers are sometimes harder to defend than strictly fast guys and assuming ur already fast, its always good to add strength.. i play safety and linebacker and speed doesnt do those fast guys any good when i knock them on their ass  , sux juke me and leave me standing there though  

oh and by the way... id be pretty worried about trying to Jam a wide receiver that benched 350 so you might want to take that into consideration.. lol


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 22, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> my team did a lot of plyometrics around the track for legs.. frog hops, box jumps, crossovers, stadiums etc to build up "explosiveness", speed, agility, etc.. i guess some people are going to tell you scientifically you cant build explosiveness or what not but... they helped me..



You know what, it's impossible to argue with this.  Discussion forums are that, though, and if you're gonna argue a point you might want to bring evidence.  Otherwise we just gotta take your word for it, and that don't amount to much in terms of debate..

I can be painted as some kind of physics biology kiniseology science nut if you  like, but I'm not just saying this as a person who wants to major in exercise science. I'm saying it just don't make sense, period.  You want to buy into dogma, e.g. your coaches said it so it must be true, you got results out of it so it must be OPTIMAL, fine.



> and powercleans...IMO these are the most important as they correlate with actions of football



Tell me how throwing a weight and catching it correlates with a football action?   If power cleans make you a better football player, being a better football player (explosiveness on the line of scrimmage) MUST make you better at power cleans. (this is nuts)  Or substitute the word power cleans with squats, or bench presses.  You're confusing skills and general strength increases, friend.  If being a great bench pressers, squatter, or power-cleaner made a great football player, half of the westside champs would be pro football players.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 22, 2005)

I don't think that coaches perscribe an olympic lifting program becasue they think that those exercises translate to anything you do on the field.  They don't!!  I know a girl training for skeleton in the next winter olympics.  the onlypic coaches have her doing cleans and snatches exlusivly (as well as heavy squating).   There is no way the movement of a clean and jerk has anything to do with pushing a damn bobsled down the track.  What the belief is that they are attempting to make you more effecient at applying force.  The greatest amount of watts applied by a human is during the second pull of an olympic clean, measuring 52.6 watts per kilo of BW.  Teh greatest amount of watts applied by an elite powerlifter was something like 12 watts per kilo of BW (if memeroy serves me correctly.).


I don't think there is one optimal way.  I mean, like I have said before, there are two schools of thought on this stuff when it comes to collegiate and professional strength coachs.

On a side note, I do find it incredibly discussting that the guys on your team don't squat or deadlift heavy (and heavy curls??  WTF???).  I mean, although I love the olympic lifts, the squat and deadlift are the most incredibly functional and sports specific lifts out there.  I even put them before cleans and snatches.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 22, 2005)

1)Periodize, but you are prolly too late for this season in doing that

2)If you have a good strength base plyometrics is good.

3)Train speed-CharlieFrancis.com is a gfood resource for free info in that, albeit prolly over your head.

4)Field exercises as DD mentioned

5)I am actually a big believer in explosive movmeents now after having done them for a significant amount of time.


As a receiver, the big things to work on will be ground speed and since you are so short, your vertical.  Plyos and speedwork will help you at this.  I used the NASM OPT training principles, but looking back there are a few things I would change.  My vert went from 24 inches to 31 inches.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 22, 2005)

Okay so we basically disagree on degree of carryover to the field which is fine with me as that is something that cannot be proven either way, its up to the individual to find out what works best for them (and i don't play competitive football so i wouldn't know what works best for me, you obviously do know that squats help you more than cleans).

i just want to address a couple of points in hopes of learning something.



			
				Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Power cleans won't make a wide receiver more adept at flying by a defender unless there is an accompanying cross-sectional muscle increase, and likewise an increase in force output potential.



you don't always need an increase in CSA to be able to generate more force.



			
				DD said:
			
		

> The idea of course is that exploding up a 315 pound weight will somehow transfer to improved field work.  This is where we will have to politely disagree.  Nothing in football resembles such a thing.  As far as cleaning improving general strength, though, I will agree it potentially can, but I would pick squats.



you're right this is where we disagree and i have no problem with that.




			
				DD said:
			
		

> Don't delegate me as some HIT propagandist.  I don't even use strict HIT anymore, folks.  As far as anything being done incorrectly as being dangerous, I agree, but doing heavy cleans correctly is dangerous:



my bad   



			
				DD said:
			
		

> During the initial phase of a pliometric movement, the weight is accelerated as fast as possible (the throw), establishing that the time of tension on the muscular system is brief (>1 second).  The weight thrown continues under it’s own propensity to stay in motion  before gravitational energy negates it’s upward kinetic energy and causes it to fall.
> 
> This is the phase where the object is stopped.  Referencing Newton’s second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), we see that something had to halt the object and absorb the force of its kinetic energy accelerating towards Earth.  The body absorbing this force is the person conducting the movement.  For example, a 260-pound man, power cleaning 60 pounds of weight, can impose 860 pounds of force on his body.
> 
> Pliometric experts have championed this as a specific way to for an athlete to adapt to tolerating enormous loads.  This notion is erroneous, because the benefits of such force would not be experienced entirely as muscle tension but as impact stresses on the skeleton and connective tissue (and muscle).  As marginally sedentary constructs, bone structures cannot be improved via adaptation by high impact stresses.  If this were the case, forcing stress fractures would be a beneficial exercise technique.  It should also be noted that the tensile capacity of connective tissue (tendons and ligaments) is significantly less than that of muscle tissue.  Brian D. Johnson pointed out that “Experienced athletes, because of their developed muscles, can generate high forces and, as a result, the stiffness of their muscles often exceeds that of their tendons.”  Energy has a natural tendency to transfer through harder constructs, and dissipate in softer ones.  In that respect, high levels of force imposed on connective tissue is potentially dangerous for well-developed athletes.



i just want to say that its not like you are standing there with every joint locked and letting the weight drop on you...you clean the weight and in the catch phase you sink into an ass to ankle front squat with the weight to let your muscles absorb the force of the bar.



			
				DD said:
			
		

> A final note, I specifically avoid these exercises not because of guys like Arthur Jones or other HIT advocates like Matt Bryzski (spl.), but because of my dad, who taught physics at Texas A&M and thinks such movements (including depth jumps) are horrible.  If you choose to do them, I won't critique you.



oh that clears up a ton of things i was always wondering about. physics must flow in your blood, lol.




			
				DD said:
			
		

> This goes back to our different of opinion on motor-learning and SAID interpretation, which is fine.  I contend that there is no transference of such a movement to football, where MAXIMUM speed can't be realized if there is a load.  (this is true - given the constant of maximal intensity, it is impossible for a subject to move as fast as possible if imposed with a load than to move as fast as he could move without one.  If maximum speed training is essential to getting faster, one must remove any unnecessary weight to achieve maximum speed - notice I said unnecessary loads, where pads and shoes are quite necessary.)  As far as the advice of this thread, practice the very specific mechanics of moving fast as a wide receiver (sprints, lateral movement, etc.) in conjunction with increasing force potential to become a fast wide receiver.  To get fast, you gotta train as fast as you can.  To improve capacity to generate force GENERALLY, you have to use general strength training.



so you would be against wind sprints (i'm not sure if its the correct name, the one where you sprint with a little parachute)?




			
				DD said:
			
		

> I don't know if they are working different aspects, but working to similar results in very different ways.



well i just want to say, that yes if you increase your 10rm in say your squat, that your 1rm will increase somewhat but i believe it would be more optimal to train with circa maximal weight to increase your 1rm, likewise if you want more power (work/time) you need to train for more power even though maybe increasing your squats will help you generate more power but not optimally.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 22, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I mean, although I love the olympic lifts, the squat and deadlift are the most incredibly functional and sports specific lifts out there.  I even put them before cleans and snatches.



really, for all sports?


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> You know what, it's impossible to argue with this.  Discussion forums are that, though, and if you're gonna argue a point you might want to bring evidence.  Otherwise we just gotta take your word for it, and that don't amount to much in terms of debate..
> 
> I can be painted as some kind of physics biology kiniseology science nut if you  like, but I'm not just saying this as a person who wants to major in exercise science. I'm saying it just don't make sense, period.  You want to buy into dogma, e.g. your coaches said it so it must be true, you got results out of it so it must be OPTIMAL, fine.
> 
> ...





I knew a comment like this was coming and thats exactly why i stuck with the words "MY OPINION"... People in the Pro's during the offseason do powercleans, so tell me this, why would a professional athlete, with scientists and trainers that are mostlikely on their team or that they work with individually, do something that was not going to improve their performance?... Im no physiology major, shit im not even in college yet, but to me that is common sense, Pro's have been playing football for the majority of their lives most likely so id think they knew what was best, and even if they didnt they know whats been building their strength throughout their careers.. on every level of football with the exception of pee wee or middle school, you will see the players doing those three workouts, and i can all but guarantee their not doing it for nothing... 

secondly i never said those exercises would make you a great football player,   you are taking my words and simplifying them to the point of stupidity and it seems like your'e trying to discredit my opinion to promote your own.. if lifting weights made you a great football player than any huge man from the gym would quit his day job to make millions of dollars... improving strength will improve your game... personal experience.. i played varsity in the 10th grade... i wasnt as strong as the people i went up against and despite my efforts and "skill" i couldnt get around them... the next year after i had worked out i played some of the same teams and the same boys, and i had better results... im sure someone is going to find a million and one other things that could have been the reason for this, like it was a full moon or sum shit and the gravitational pull, but, i mean what can i say to arguee.. lol i get by on science with Cs

You can have all the skills in the world and that is excellent but all i was saying was its good to add strength to the skill because its a better combination in any sport... strength alone definately wont cut it, and skill alone might get by, but why not have both?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 22, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> really, for all sports?




yea.  I mean, the squat positin is pretty much the prime athletic position (baseball.....infiedler and outfilder stance and catcher.  Football.....getting down into a two point stance.  Basketball...squatting down and loading up to jump for a rebound.)  Plus, if you can't squat or deadlift you can't clean.  I place those exercises up there as they will help to build fundemental hip strnegth as well as strengthen stabalizers in the knee, hips and glutes which will hopefully preven injury on the field.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 22, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> you are taking my words and simplifying them to the point of stupidity and it seems like your'e trying to discredit my opinion to promote your own..



I used quotes, pal, and don't call me stupid.  Of course I'm discreditting your opinion, I think it's nonsense because you didn't use evidence.  In a discussion, am I supposed to do YOUR RESEARCH for you?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I used quotes, pal, and don't call me stupid.  Of course I'm discreditting your opinion, I think it's nonsense because you didn't use evidence.  In a discussion, am I supposed to do YOUR RESEARCH for you?





oh man......


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I used quotes, pal, and don't call me stupid.  Of course I'm discreditting your opinion, I think it's nonsense because you didn't use evidence.  In a discussion, am I supposed to do YOUR RESEARCH for you?



lol where did i say you were stupid? what evidence would you like for me to provide if im saying that after getting stronger i performed better in football? a tape of 10th grade and a tape of 12th?I mean i guess you can take my word for it or you can say im lying which is fine but its not that serious. It seems logical to me, in track and field, after working the necesarry muscles over time do they not get better in their event? do i need to provide evidence for that or do you believe it? All i said was those were the main workouts used to improve performance and that i personally felt gains on the field from the gains i acheived in the weight room.. With that said, no sir, you do no have to do MY RESEARCH for me, Pal 

unless you really wanted to, im intersted to hear how you scientifically break down my opinion into nonsense, its quite amusing


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 22, 2005)

> so you would be against wind sprints (i'm not sure if its the correct name, the one where you sprint with a little parachute)?


Yes.  On the field, in my estimation, it's best to have speed and movement specificity. If you're wind sprinting with a big bag behind you, you're going to change (even if in an infinitesimal way) the gait and timing of your movement.



> you don't always need an increase in CSA to be able to generate more force.


I believe that you do if you're looking to improve specific skills via general strength training.  I've observed this generally in my own CNS-happy HIT programs, where I was funky ass strong in my primary core exercises but the general strength transfer wasn't apparent on similar exercises (lunge, leg extension).  Your capacity to apply that force through the neuorlogical learning of the skill (practice) will improve, however, and that's where a hypertrophical force increase will help.  In my opinion.



> well i just want to say, that yes if you increase your 10rm in say your squat, that your 1rm will increase somewhat but i believe it would be more optimal to train with circa maximal weight to increase your 1rm, likewise if you want more power (work/time) you need to train for more power even though maybe increasing your squats will help you generate more power but not optimally.


I really believe that the speed at which you TRAIN for power is completely unrelated to the speed at which you DEMONSTRATE power on a field.  Remember that force and velocity are proportionally related.  This goes back to our disagreement about skill transference, so there's really nothing left to say but to agree to disagree.



> I don't think there is one optimal way. I mean, like I have said before, there are two schools of thought on this stuff when it comes to collegiate and professional strength coachs.
> 
> On a side note, I do find it incredibly discussting that the guys on your team don't squat or deadlift heavy (and heavy curls?? WTF???). I mean, although I love the olympic lifts, the squat and deadlift are the most incredibly functional and sports specific lifts out there. I even put them before cleans and snatches.



Yeah, man, the team is frustrating.  I think we'd both agree that all the cleans and squats in the world won't do anything if you stay off the field (see my westside as pro football players analogy), so it should be obvious that FIELD WORK should be the essential cornerstone of a football player's program.  I'd assume we all agree on that.

Thanks for the discussion gentlemen


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 22, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> lol where did i say you were stupid? what evidence would you like for me to provide if im saying that after getting stronger i performed better in football? a tape of 10th grade and a tape of 12th?I mean i guess you can take my word for it or you can say im lying which is fine but its not that serious. It seems logical to me, in track and field, after working the necesarry muscles over time do they not get better in their event? do i need to provide evidence for that or do you believe it? All i said was those were the main workouts used to improve performance and that i personally felt gains on the field from the gains i acheived in the weight room.. With that said, no sir, you do no have to do MY RESEARCH for me, Pal
> 
> unless you really wanted to, im intersted to hear how you scientifically break down my opinion into nonsense, its quite amusing



God, are you fucking kidding?  HOW MANY VARIABLES COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT IMPROVEMENT FROM 10th to 12th GRADE?  INCREASES HORMONAL IMPROVEMENTS?  GENERAL MATURITY INCREASES?  HAVING A FEW EXTRA YEARS OF EXPERIENCE UNDER YOUR BELT?  The fact that you had a few years of strength training down?  Oh man, but it MUST have been the jump squats you did.  And I'm the guy who oversimplifies?  

You're seriously confused with that secondary comment.  Your opinion is not based on any evidence, it's an opinion that goes to "cuz i sed so", so I can't break it down "scientifically" because you haven't backed it up with anything "scientific" but instead a statement about going from 10th to 12th grade and being better at football.



> in track and field, after working the necesarry muscles over time do they not get better in their event?



Isn't that what I've said?  That general strength increases and WORKING the muscles related to the sport makes one better in the event??


----------



## P-funk (Mar 22, 2005)

> Thanks for the discussion gentlemen



it is a good discussion at that.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 22, 2005)

i never said that strength training was the ONLY thing that contributed, and you just proved my point by acting like im saying do a couple jump squats and youll be better in football... not at all, basically what im saying is improving sport related strength IS a factor in becoming better and im guessing you would agree since u agreed somewhat with my track analogy, i guess the reason u are arguing is because ur assuming that I believe that all you need to do is do squats powercleans and benchpress and youll do great in football. Those are just the main workouts, from my experience, that are used on each level of the sport... along with various other mearsures of course... lol no reason to get in such a heated arguement, i think we agree to a certain extent, there is just a gap in communication somewhere.. 

anyways not all opinions HAVE to be based on scientific evidence to have validity, in my opinion of course


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 22, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> i think we agree to a certain extent, there is just a gap in communication somewhere..



Fair enough.  Only problem with strict opinion is that it's really impossible to debate "opinion" taken at face value, without substance beyond it (i.e. the interpretation of facts) that gives some marker for evaluation, that is, the search for the truth. 

Good luck in football this year, btw


----------



## Yanick (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Yeah, man, the team is frustrating.  I think we'd both agree that all the cleans and squats in the world won't do anything if you stay off the field (see my westside as pro football players analogy), so it should be obvious that FIELD WORK should be the essential cornerstone of a football player's program.  I'd assume we all agree on that.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion gentlemen



i just want to emphasize that first paragraph right there. with all this talk about power and physics jabber the original poster will more than likely get confused, i mean i know that a year or two ago this would be so far over my head i wouldn't learn a thing.

You can be the best PL'er/OL'er in the world, but unless you get out on the field you'll never be better than an average at best football player.

and yes, discussion was definitely good...i wish we could have more of these types of discussions around here because i really learned and re-learned a couple of things in this thread.


----------



## Mr651 (Mar 22, 2005)

Me too and for a moment I forgot that I started this war....oh....thread.

Anyways "to me" strength will always help you if you don't overdue it. Depending on you body type, Football is the only sport I can think of that goes full speed every play. Basketball and soccer you just job until that moment you need to burst. Speed, Quickness, and agility is the key for any football positions, man these OL in the pros these days are quick as a cat.

As for being so short as someone stated, well I am, but in my league I'm one of the taller and more physical WR if you can believe. I would be more interested in building head to toe strength to improve speed and agility. But I love stenght too, right now I max at 260, and my goal is to get to 275-285 by summer.

Football rules.


----------



## hsfootball (Mar 22, 2005)

Ok, at our school it goes like this:

Monday: Squat, Lunges, leg curls, hammer jammer (some weird ass thing, but it helps alot) hang cleans (for the first 8 weeks, then power cleans)

Tuesday:Bench, rows, inclined dumbell, shoulder complex (5 different shoulder things) Lat pull downs, tricep extensions, abs.

Thursday: Power cleans, box step-ups, leg curls, hammer jammer, hip sled, explosive dead lifts

Friday: same as tuesday



And as for running, we do things with bungie (spelling?) cords and parachutes.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> It's a simple equation, as Kinetic Energy (whatever unit that may be) is equal to Mass * Velocity squared, or KE = mv2.  In that regard, since mass is constant, velocity is proportionally related to the force.
> 
> So you could argue that if you increase the speed, then the force must go up too, so train fast.  The problem with this is that if a resistance is not sufficent, it is impossible to exert 100 percent force.  Try and express 100 percent of your maximum force by throwing a ping pong ball (ignore density and air resistance, for a moment).  If the load is sufficient (say to do 4-6 reps with a constant velocity and TUT to failure), there is not going to be a fast velocity (relatively speaking) because the imposition of the load on the musculature is demanding and the force required to control and move the weight is, likewise.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with Duncan when it comes to the scientific standpoint...

I doubt anyone cares what I have to say, but I feel like i must explain my reasoning...as best this 17 yr old can

(Units for energy is the Joule by the way DD...)

Since Force= Mass * Acceleration, then moving the bar faster means you apply more force...

However, if you are using 100% intensity, the force will not change
Because the equation cancels itself out

For example

If you are benching 100 pounds at maximal intensity
and you do it in 2 seconds
your force is 50 lbs/sec

that means you can only use a force of 50 lbs/sec no matter what because you are maximal intensity

So if you increase the weight to 200 lbs, it will take you at least 4 seconds
therefore, the same amount of force is being applied...

and work=force * distance, so, because you have the same amount of force, your work remains constant


Therefore, if your work is constant and your force is constant
then training faster with lighter weight or training heavier for slower reps produces the same outcome

thus strength training is no different from power training




My second case is what DD said about exerting 100% force on a ping pong ball

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

If you punch a wall very hard, the wall hits your hand just as hard
This is why, if you tried to punch a tissue floating in the air, it would not hurt, because it cannot exert the same amount of force on you, as you did on it

Which means, you did not exert maximal force on the tissue, while you could on the wall, which is why you break your hand...

This is relevant because just as you cannot hit the tissue with maximal force, you cannot put maximal force into a wieght that is light, because it doesnt exert that same amount of force on you


Please tell me this made sense to someone so the 20 minutes i spent wasn't a waste of time


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 22, 2005)

It made sense to me. Good post. I didn't know you were 17... I'm 17 too, will you be my freind?


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 22, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Only problem with strict opinion is that it's really impossible to debate "opinion" taken at face value, without substance beyond it (i.e. the interpretation of facts) that gives some marker for evaluation, that is, the search for the truth.



Thats understandable.



> Good luck in football this year, btw



i hope i have a season left... im trying to gain some weight, strength, and speed to match up and walk on at UF, D1 is pretty competitive, i just dont have much time to focus on that with all this end of senior year shit


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> For example
> 
> If you are benching 100 pounds at maximal intensity
> and you do it in 2 seconds
> ...


----------



## devildog88 (Mar 23, 2005)

Great Thread guys.  All I know is that the Airforce acadamy put tons of money into research about strength training for football.  Typically these guys aren't the biggest in the nation but they have been able to compete at a relatively high level.  They say that the platform lifts are the absolute best for football and basketball, believe it or not.  The reason being is that they are ground based, complex movements that involve core strength.  Any athlete performs at various degrees of movement, not confined or isolated as some lifts premote.  For example the bench press is a great bodybuilding lift but very restricted in football.  When do you push a weight over your chest with only your arms?  Perhaps if you are on the bottom of a pile but not very often I would think.  As far a building speed and explosiveness I am not sold on that one.  I think you do that with speed work and agilities.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 23, 2005)

not disagreeing with you, platform lifts are absolutely important, but benchpress cant go ignored because you use those two arms and hands throughout the whole play, every play, for example an offensive lineman blocking for pass protection is taught to use his arms, along with good footwork to blast the approaching defensive end several times with his hands and push him away, during the same play that same defensive end is using his arms to counter what the offensive lineman is doing.. and during every running play normally the first think that hits after the ball is snapped is (along with pads and helmets) is the offensive lines hands against the person they are blocking's chest


----------



## devildog88 (Mar 23, 2005)

I didn't mean to imply that you should ignore Bench Press.  It is important but not to the extent as many would like to believe.  I am a high school coach and I only require my kids to bench once a week.  They do them on the same day they do speed and agility work.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 23, 2005)

Do you coach for spring football? If so what do you have them doing in preparation for that jambori or one game?


----------



## devildog88 (Mar 23, 2005)

No, we don't have a spring season per say.  We go through spring weight training in preperation for the fall.  We have a three day platform routine that is augmented with two days of speed and agility training.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 23, 2005)

oh, i asked because i didnt like the way our coaches did our spring training but we have a jambori each spring in most of florida, or you can play one game


----------



## Newt (Mar 23, 2005)

Mr651 said:
			
		

> Even though I play WR I would have to say LB is the most demanding position in terms of physical ability and mental concentration (play action...oopps I just bit  ).
> 
> Well I played LB in school and in college and I gave you the best answer I knew.  There are obviously people in here that are going to stick to the fact that slow moving heavy lifts are the only way to develop your body.  I never said that deadlifts are a bad lift, but I can promise you that if you ask any strength coach who is in a succesfull football program which is better he will tell you that platform work is better for football than deads.  I do respect you knowledge of physics DD, but if you've ever played football then you should know that these kinds of equations have nothing to do with the sport.  Football is a game of action and reaction.  For this reason it is essential to be explosive.
> Mr651, if you want to powerfully lean on someone then deadlift your little heart out.  If you want to train your body for explosive power like breaking a tackle, breaking on a pass, being quick off the line of scrimage, or most of all wrapping your arms around someone and exploding through them when making a tackle, then you need to train your body for these movements.  Humor me and bend down and do the movement of a power clean and then do the slow movement of a deadlift and then ask yourself which one would be more helpfull if you were in any of the situations that I've given you above.
> ...


----------



## Newt (Mar 23, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> A final note, I specifically avoid these exercises not because of guys like Arthur Jones or other HIT advocates like Matt Bryzski (spl.), but because of my dad, who taught physics at Texas A&M and thinks such movements (including depth jumps) are horrible. If you choose to do them, I won't critique you.ways.


One more thing.  My strength coach in highschool, who taught me everything I know about weight lifting, graduated from Texas A&M and was an assistant strength down there before deciding to coach highschool football.  You sound like a very smart guy DD and I respect that and your father sounds like he is probably genius level to be teaching physics at A&M which is awsome!   After saying that I do still stick to my guns when I say I'll probably listen to my old coach compared to your dad when it comes to strength traing for football every time.  I don't mean any disrespect to you or your father by that, but you don't become a better football player in the classroom.


----------



## Newt (Mar 23, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> yea. I mean, the squat positin is pretty much the prime athletic position (baseball.....infiedler and outfilder stance and catcher. Football.....getting down into a two point stance. Basketball...squatting down and loading up to jump for a rebound.) Plus, if you can't squat or deadlift you can't clean. I place those exercises up there as they will help to build fundemental hip strnegth as well as strengthen stabalizers in the knee, hips and glutes which will hopefully preven injury on the field.


I agree that you have to have strong legs to have a good clean.  You are right about being in a squated stance in almost all sports.  This is why in my fist post I said that the basics like bench, incline, squat, and cleans are what you need to do.  I don't see why some people, not you P-Funk, think that you cant do squats and cleans.  I've been talking about why I believe cleans are a better football lift than deads but if you don't squat too then you might as well not do anything if you want to be a good football player.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> After saying that I do still stick to my guns when I say I'll probably listen to my old coach compared to your dad when it comes to strength traing for football every time.



It isn't the coach, it's the information he follows that is relevant.  The fact that a person coaches or has a degree is irrelevant if that which is purported is faulty or not defined correctly.

That said, you're entitled to believe what you want, but individually we should all evaluate the principles and theory of methodology to determine if it has value.  Then  a decision can be made, based on the facts, which is a million times better than taking dogma because of tradition or title (i.e., because a coach said so).

In any case, I will be attending A&M by the end of the year, and it's my ultimate goal to train college athletes on the D1 level.  Hopefully I can better understand  the use of ballistics in football programs, even though I can't understand it based on neurology and basic physics 

As far as your quotes on being explosive, ballistics, and the fact that deadlifts are completely unlike any football movement (I agree with that, by the way), I will simply advise you to research motor-learning neurology literature over the past 56 years.  The idea that throwing a weight over your head somehow mimics a football move is completely wrong.  The logic behind this can be illuminated quite easily via the concept of reciprocous-ness - that is, if training with power cleans make you more explosive in football, being more explosive in football will make you better at power cleans.  I can say factually that this is wrong.



> I don't mean any disrespect to you or your father by that, but you don't become a better football player in the classroom.



I can assure you that while playing 4 years at TAMU, my dad didn't learn to be a good football player in the classroom, and in that regard, neither am I..


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> DD can throw out every law of physics he wants and they are still not going to tell me that doing deads instead of doing cleans is better for you when training for football. I'll tell you right now that it is just not true



Oh man, I just read that.  Wow.  Tell me, please, why this is not true.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> The idea that throwing a weight over your head somehow mimics a football move is completely wrong.  The logic behind this can be illuminated quite easily via the concept of reciprocous-ness - that is, if training with power cleans make you more explosive in football, being more explosive in football will make you better at power cleans.  I can say factually that this is wrong.




If you are using reciprocity as a principle to negate a concept, then I wouldn't be recommending squats or deads for a football player.


----------



## Newt (Mar 23, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> if training with power cleans make you more explosive in football, being more explosive in football will make you better at power cleans. I can say factually that this is wrong.
> 
> First of all go back and read.  I have never said that being more explosive in football will make you better at power cleans!  You're right, that makes no sense at all.  Football is a game of strength and explosion and nothing you have said in all of your scientific "dogma" tells me that you accually get that.  If you are trying to tell me that you explosiveness has nothing to do with football then I don't guess you've gotten a lot of playing time.  By the way you dont throw the bar over your head in a clean like you said in an earlier quote.  Do you know what a power clean is?  I wrote scientific "dogma" because I haven't seen any quotes or scientific proof and studies that tell me you aren't just going by what you've been told as well.  It is obvious that we are not going to agree on this topic.  I have a degree, I've taken biomechanic and kinesiology classes in college so I guess your right, I'm just spouting "dogma" so we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Newt (Mar 23, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Oh man, I just read that. Wow. Tell me, please, why this is not true.


Then tell me why it is.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

What he is saying is that cleans are ineffective because there is no reciprocity between playing football and doing cleans.  He is not saying you said that playing football will make you better at cleans.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> If you are using reciprocity as a principle to negate a concept, then I wouldn't be recommending squats or deads for a football player.



I am using it to negate the concept of using a very specific CLOSED skill to relate to a very specific OPEN skill.  Squats and deadlifts and power cleans, as I've stated dozens and dozens of times, will go to increase GENERAL strength (maximizing force potential), not a specific skill.  I've said many times that power cleans can improve cross-sectional FORCE capacity - at this point it's a matter of what will do that most optimally, and safely.

My point is that a skill that is as fundamentally complicated as a power clean (I read somewhere that, mechanically, 19 things can go wrong during a lift that lasts a fraction of a second) will not transfer to a dissimilar skill.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> If you are trying to tell me that you explosiveness has nothing to do with football then I don't guess you've gotten a lot of playing time.


  

Please, keep these little personal barbs to yourself.

Secondly, where did I say EXPLOSIVENESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FOOTBALL?  Explosiveness in football is an OPEN SKILL, where each play is unique according to changing variables, and it must be trained in such a fashion.  ON THE FIELD!! 



> First of all go back and read. I have never said that being more explosive in football will make you better at power cleans!



I never said you said that, buddy.  I used it at a way of ILLUSTRATING THIS POINT:  That power cleans dont make you better at being explosive in football!  If such was the case, then being explosive in football would make you better at power cleans.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I am using it to negate the concept of using a very specific CLOSED skill to relate to a very specific OPEN skill.  Squats and deadlifts and power cleans, as I've stated dozens and dozens of times, will go to increase GENERAL strength (maximizing force potential), not a specific skill.  I've said many times that power cleans can improve cross-sectional FORCE capacity - at this point it's a matter of what will do that most optimally, and safely.



Oh, I agree with you 100%, thought you were saying something else.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 23, 2005)

I don't think this conversation is leading anywhere DD
He already stated that he will not change his ideas
He'd rather base them off of older ideaology, which is fine for him...if that's what he wants to do


But newt let me say this:

If everyone was to keep training the "old way"
then everyone would still be massively overtraining without giving any thought to
new more advanced weightlifting methods

We would be stuck in the past...Its accepting, and learning about new things that keeps
weightlifting/bodybuilding/training fresh and ever progressive

So don't be so quick to brush off different methods, than the ones you've been using all your life...


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 23, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> It made sense to me. Good post. I didn't know you were 17... I'm 17 too, will you be my freind?




yay, i've always wanted one of those


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 23, 2005)

> I wrote scientific "dogma" because I haven't seen any quotes or scientific proof and studies that tell me you aren't just going by what you've been told as well.



Initially, I used basic physics to explain why I thought the idea behind power training was wrong.  These are laws, incontrovertibly, so that was one reference point.  I also referenced SAID.  If that's not enough, I will willingly provid neuro-learning references (research studies, etc.).  If you're interested, ask, and when I'm on later, I'll provide them, because I don't want to dig unless you actually independently want to research it.)


----------



## Yanick (Mar 23, 2005)

myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> Since Force= Mass * Acceleration, then moving the bar faster means you apply more force...
> 
> However, if you are using 100% intensity, the force will not change
> Because the equation cancels itself out
> ...



you are exerting 100lbs, if you start talking about time (x lbs/sec) that is power (which as Pat stated earlier is measured in watts).

oh yes, when talking about intensity we need to define it as % of 1 rm.



			
				myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> that means you can only use a force of 50 lbs/sec no matter what because you are maximal intensity
> 
> So if you increase the weight to 200 lbs, it will take you at least 4 seconds
> therefore, the same amount of force is being applied...
> ...



force does not remain constant. if you exert 100lbs of force on a 200lb barbell the barbell will not move.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

as far as the safety of olympic lifting goes:



> Weightlifters [Olympic style] have less than half the injury rate per 100 hours of training than do those engaged in other forms of weight training; 17 vs 35. (Hamill, B. ???Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training.??? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8(1):53-57.1994)





> Retired Olympic weight lifters had lower lifetime incidence and prevalence of low back pain than a control group of normal active men of similar age; 23% vs. 31%. (Granhed, H. et al. ???Low back pain among retired wrestlers and heavyweight lifters.???


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> as far as the safety of olympic lifting goes:




I am with ya P-funk.  After doing Olympic lifts for a few months, I find them very safe and very useful.

One thing to consider, though, is that most athletes at the high school level are either doing them on their own, or with the supervision of a coach untrained in lifting properly.

IMO, if done properly, there is nothing better than explosive lifts for improving general explosiveness.  If you are looking to train for a certain skill, the use of explosive lifts should precede training that skill.  IMO the heavy squatting is not as effective in that you are doing double extension and not triple extension.  Field work is important, but you are not going to improve without a change in workload, i.e., you are not going to run a post pattern quickly and then improve on that without some form of explosive training.  You could argue wind assisted/resisted methods, but those tools are only useful for people stuck at their peak.

There was some deal with plyos that I was reading about and I believe it goes like this.  Perform a depth jump and a regular jump.  If the regular jump is higher, you need to work on explosiveness, if the depth jump is higher, you need to work on general strength stuff like squats.  I think it was from a Bill Foran book called high performance sport conditioning.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

> There was some deal with plyos that I was reading about and I believe it goes like this. Perform a depth jump and a regular jump. If the regular jump is higher, you need to work on explosiveness, if the depth jump is higher, you need to work on general strength stuff like squats. I think it was from a Bill Foran book called high performance sport conditioning.






to add to that I have seen documents stating that you should not be doing depth jumps unless you can squat a minimum of 2 times your BW in order to be able to react to that force coming down.  maybe I saw that in a NSCA publication??

some studies I have that may be aplicable here:



> Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance.
> 
> Kyrolainen H, Avela J, McBride JM, Koskinen S, Andersen JL, Sipila S, Takala TE, Komi PV.
> 
> ...




i think i posted this one once before:



> Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players.
> 
> Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J.
> 
> ...






> Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps.
> 
> Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, Schilling B.
> 
> ...






> Department of Kinesiology, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas 76308, USA.
> 
> Muscular power is considered one of the main determinants of athletic performance that require the explosive production of force such as throwing and jumping. Various training methods have been suggested to improve muscular power and dynamic athletic performance. Although various acute training valuables (e.g., sets, repetitions, rest intervals) could be manipulated, the training loads used are some of the most important factors that determine the training stimuli and the consequent training adaptations. Many research results showed that the use of different training loads elicits the different training adaptations and further indicated the load- and velocity-specific adaptations in muscular-power development. Using the optimal loads at which mechanical power output occurs has been recommended, especially to enhance maximum muscular power. Additionally, introducing periodization and combined training approach into resistance-training programs may further facilitate muscular-power development and enhance a wide variety of athletic performances.
> 
> ...






> Biomechanical analysis of the knee during the power clean.
> 
> Souza AL, Shimada SD.
> 
> ...





> Human muscle power output during upper- and lower-body exercises.
> 
> Siegel JA, Gilders RM, Staron RS, Hagerman FC.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

Yeah, P-funk, that is the NSCA's criteria for plyos.  I believe it is least twice your weight in the squat and at least bodyweight or 1.5x bodyweight in bench.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

> No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in Delta VJ than PL.



Oh, wow...the only stastically significant improvement was in a vertical jump, a specific skill that is actually performed during olympic lifts like the snatch and clean.   That's not biased..


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Oh, wow...the only stastically significant improvement was in a vertical jump, a specific skill that is actually performed during olympic lifts like the snatch and clean.   That's not biased..




you jump when you do cleans and snatches?


----------



## Yanick (Mar 24, 2005)

> Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM squat (p > 0.05), *and a twofold greater improvement (p > 0.05) in 40-yard sprint time by OL*, no further significant group differences were seen



am i misunderstanding this (the bold part)? someone should try and find the full study, i'll try to when i get home later tonight.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> you jump when you do cleans and snatches?



Sure.  Everytime I've watched someone clean a lot of weight (relatively), I've seen their feet leave the ground.  Everytime I clean, even if it's a few inches, the upward momentum of the bar and my own weight literally forces me off the ground.  I am able to generate this force by what amounts to a jump - stored torque transferred into the feet via a complex interaction of leg contractions.  The way the lift is begun on the balls or center of the feet and follows through the toes is identical to the vertical jump.  Also studying the initial four phases of the movement (clean), you can see a mechanical sameness among the lower extremeties that occurs during a vertical jump.  

I'd also like to point out that a standing vertical jump would help in basketball, but not in football.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 24, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I'd also like to point out that a standing vertical jump would help in basketball, but not in football.


 Ever block a field goal?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Sure.  Everytime I've watched someone clean a lot of weight (relatively), I've seen their feet leave the ground.  Everytime I clean, even if it's a few inches, the upward momentum of the bar and my own weight literally forces me off the ground.  I am able to generate this force by what amounts to a jump - stored torque transferred into the feet via a complex interaction of leg contractions.  The way the lift is begun on the balls or center of the feet and follows through the toes is identical to the vertical jump.  Also studying the initial four phases of the movement (clean), you can see a mechanical sameness among the lower extremeties that occurs during a vertical jump.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that a standing vertical jump would help in basketball, but not in football.



It would help in football.  If you can jump 36 inches off 2 legs you will have a greater capacity to jump off of 1 leg than someone who can jump 32 inches off of 2 legs.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> Ever block a field goal?



I've never seen a strict vertical jump when attempting to block a field goal.  Typically there is contact, a gaining of ground, and then a leap with horizontal motion into a body.  I don't think this would be classified as a standing vertical jump (like one might make when boxing out and going for a rebound).  In any case, this might be beneficial to lineman (as was noted in the study).  HOWEVER, a jump would be much much better trained specifically without weight (specifically because of safety reasons).  OL are typically heavy, and throwing around hundreds of pounds of weight is dangerous - notice I said throwing.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> It would help in football.  If you can jump 36 inches off 2 legs you will have a greater capacity to jump off of 1 leg than someone who can jump 32 inches off of 2 legs.



Given that logic, then people who can squat 360 pounds can one-legged squat (lunge) more than someone who can squat 320 pounds.  Because of learning distinctions of dissimilar exercises, a person squatting 320 pounds who constantly one legged squats will out one-legged squat someone who is stronger in the regular squat.

I actually saw an example of this yesterday at school, where I nearly lost balance and fell  doing 135 pound one legged squats; almost immediately after squatting 360 pounds for 15 reps in the regular squat.

Also, the one legged jump (while related to other leg exercises and function in general force capacity) is a very comlicated movement that is different than the regular jump.  If you evaluate the intricacies related to a one legged jump (related just to proprioception, involving neurofeedback, joint position, ancillary isometric contraction, blah blah), it is in fact quite dissimilar from a two legged jump.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

I really think you are taking specificity to a ridiculously insane extreme.

They are not as dissimilar as you are making them out to be.  Also, there is more transference between movements than you are letting on.  You don't think the person in the NBA who has the greatest vertical can leap the highest with 1 leg as well?  I would have to guess that there is some relationship between the two.

And a lunge is not a one-legged squat, a one-legged squat is a squat done with one leg and no contact between the other leg and the ground or anything else.  I do them weekly and there is a great deal of transference between 1-legged and 2-legged squats.

Is there a specific person you are getting your methodolgy from?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I really think you are taking specificity to a ridiculously insane extreme.


Of course I'm not.  The point isn't even that there is 0 transference, but that they are not exact - so why would you want to train something specific OPTIMALLY by doing something dissimilar?

As far as the neurology is concerned, a one legged jump and a two legged jump are very different.  

In other words, who the hell would train one aspect of a jump and not the other aspect, because one was enough because one provided a benefit??  If you want to be a great jumper off of two legs, jump with two legs.  If you want to be a great jumper off of one leg, practice that. (or, if you want to play basketball, practice both)  But someone who practices with one leg all the time will outjump someone who practices with two legs all the times given a standard of testing (one legged jumps), despite how strong the two legged jumper is or how good he is at jumping with two legs.  

Of course this would be true given a constant level of ability - but you undestand my point.



> They are not as dissimilar as you are making them out to be.  Also, there is more transference between movements than you are letting on.  You don't think the person in the NBA who has the greatest vertical can leap the highest with 1 leg as well?  I would have to guess that there is some relationship between the two.


The person who can jump the highest in a context of the NBA has several things going for him.  Initially, fantastic genetics - also balance, skill, force generation capacity relative to the skill, etc.  These innate abilities (which are fanastic, genetically freaky stuff) will make him proficient at most athletically related abilites where he has so much functional control over his legs and balance and so forth. 

I've seen a guy who'd never played a sport dunk a basketball.  I could only imagine how great he could be if he practiced jumping.  Comically, he was a total computer nerd type who rarely saw the sun.

Again, let me clarify my position, there is a relationship between the two.  



> And a lunge is not a one-legged squat, a one-legged squat is a squat done with one leg and no contact between the other leg and the ground or anything else. I do them weekly and there is a great deal of transference between 1-legged and 2-legged squats.


Okay, then I was referring to one legged squats, which is what we do at school.  Let me point out again that someone who has a great deal of strength relative to muscle and/or excellent neurological coordination (that is, a genetic ability to activate motor units relative to the general population) will likely improve his ability in an exercise very fast.  In the span of a month, that individual might reach or suprass someone who has been doing them for years.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 24, 2005)

I believe in cleans and snatches done safely, footballs a brutal sport and requires some brutal conditioning for the body to adapt.

 Run in sand often and hit the sled that should help your calfs.

 I said on here many times that one summer I worked at Wal-mart as a cart pusher running 80 shopping carts at a time from the parking lot back to the store and I showed major improvment when I started football that fall, my 40 times had even improved greatly, I was burning our fastest WR yet I was able to manhandle 300 pound linemen.  I think pushing the sled is probably the best football training you can get.  But you also gotta run in the sand too working on quick lateral movement as well as sprints.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

Related:


> Effects of the standardized basketball training.
> The 4 week period of standardized basketball training maintained the gain in isokinetic, isometric strength and SJ performance achieved by the electrostimulation (EMS) training program.  The same (basketball) program also was followed for the 8 weeks by the control group with no gain in strength or vertical jump performance.  It was therefore concluded that standardized basketball tranining maintained muscle aptitude.  However, it is not specific enough to develop strength and vertical jump aptitude, which confirms the findings of Amiridis et. al.
> 
> Two studies concluded that jumping in basketball (as per normal game play) does not improve vertical jumping ability, at least not beyond what is to be expected from the practice of basketball, because the manner of jumping in basketball is nonspecific to the dynamics of vertical jumping.  If this is the case then the opposite must be true, in that vertical jumping is non specific to jumping in basketball and, hence, the pratice of plyometric verrtical jumping would not assist a basketball player to jump higher *during the normal dynamics of basketball*.
> ...



http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/June2004/OttoV4.doc&e=747


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

Effects of the standardized basketball training.
The 4 week period of standardized basketball training maintained the gain in isokinetic, isometric strength and SJ performance achieved by the electrostimulation (EMS) training program. The same (basketball) program also was followed for the 8 weeks by the control group with no gain in strength or vertical jump performance. It was therefore concluded that standardized basketball tranining maintained muscle aptitude. However, it is not specific enough to develop strength and vertical jump aptitude, which confirms the findings of Amiridis et. al.

*I would need to know what the 2 methodologies being trained were.  Also, this takes into consideration  8 weeks of training and not a full years worth of periodized training.  Of course someone who trains all year by playing Basketball will be better at basketball than someone who just trains by weightlifting, but who the hell would do this?  So what this study is saying is that playing BBall will have you maintain what you gain.  Who wants to maintain, most want to get better.* 

Two studies concluded that jumping in basketball (as per normal game play) does not improve vertical jumping ability, at least not beyond what is to be expected from the practice of basketball, because the manner of jumping in basketball is nonspecific to the dynamics of vertical jumping. 

*
What is to be expected as vertical jump improvement from playing basketball.  By putting that caveat in there they pretty much open the door for anything from insignificant change to adding 5 inches to your vertical.*

If this is the case then the opposite must be true, in that vertical jumping is non specific to jumping in basketball and, hence, the pratice of plyometric verrtical jumping would not assist a basketball player to jump higher during the normal dynamics of basketball.

*This escapes me.  Just because one thing is true does not mean the opposite has true.  IE, because squatting 500lbs will help you squat 135, squatting 135 will help you squat 500. * 


Several other studies have come to similar conclusions, as summarized by Carpinelli, Otto, and Winett: 1) Explosive training is not required to increase or prevent the decrease of muscle power. 2) High power outputs and relatively light loads (including loaded jump squats with 30% 1 RM) do not produce better vertical jumping ability than traditional resistance training. 3) A program of depth jumping adds nothing to a program that already includes resistance training and other jumping movements, such as those inherrent in volleyball. 4) Resistance training coupled with practice of the specific skill to be enhanced (such as jumping) is all that is required to enhance that specific activity. 5) No one method of training was superior to another for increasing jump height or power performance, including the use of ballistic or explosive training. 6) None of the studies investigated has shown any carry-over from an increase in jump height to any other physical activity.

*
1)Prolly true, but again, we are aiming for improvement not maintenance.

2)I would need to see the data.

3)Depth jumping, like most plyos, improve the muscles ability to store and call upon potential energy for use.  This is a fairly widely held construct.  If they have some sort of science backing up a claim that this is not the case, I would love to see it.

So basically what they are saying is that resistance training and power movements are pretty much equal at improving performance?  I would still choose explosive movements over typical resistance training movements for energy system and cardio work.  I also don't get what they are saying, they are saying that you should do field movements because they are more sport specific than explosive movements, but you should use traditional resistance training as a training methodology.  If I had to choose which more resembled a field movement, I would choose explosive movements.  When you are tackling someone do you say that you should lower your body for 2 seconds, pause for a second, then extend for 2 seconds.  No, you explode the fuck at them.*


Maffiuletti, N.A. et al. Electrostimulation and basketball players' performances. UFT STAPS, Universite' de Bourgogne, Dijon Cedex, France. Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Hellas. Faculte' de Medecine de St. Etienne.

A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training: Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols. Journal of Exercise Phyisology online: Volume 7 Number 3, June 2004.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Sure.  Everytime I've watched someone clean a lot of weight (relatively), I've seen their feet leave the ground.  Everytime I clean, even if it's a few inches, the upward momentum of the bar and my own weight literally forces me off the ground.  I am able to generate this force by what amounts to a jump - stored torque transferred into the feet via a complex interaction of leg contractions.  The way the lift is begun on the balls or center of the feet and follows through the toes is identical to the vertical jump.  Also studying the initial four phases of the movement (clean), you can see a mechanical sameness among the lower extremeties that occurs during a vertical jump.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that a standing vertical jump would help in basketball, but not in football.




oh, the second pull is going to create momentum and going into triple extension (hip, knee, ankle) will cause you to leave the ground adn do a little shuffle with your feet (which also help to set a base of support for your clean).  I never really considered it a true vertical jump as it doesn't really happen on purpose but I know what you mean.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

> So basically what they are saying is that resistance training and power movements are pretty much equal at improving performance? I would still choose explosive movements over typical resistance training movements for energy system and cardio work. I also don't get what they are saying, they are saying that you should do field movements because they are more sport specific than explosive movements, but you should use traditional resistance training as a training methodology. If I had to choose which more resembled a field movement, I would choose explosive movements. When you are tackling someone do you say that you should lower your body for 2 seconds, pause for a second, then extend for 2 seconds. No, you explode the fuck at them.



And how, exactly, does throwing a bar over your head quickly transfer to a very VERY VERY unique, ever changing open skill like football, where not only do the context of collision change but the actual mass, reaction of the opponent, blah blah.

IF this kind of training makes sense in terms of being MORE explosive, why not bounce the bar off your chest doing bench presses?  Or bounce and rebound out of the bottom position of the squat?  After all, this rebound phase is associated with high-force pliometrics, so why not do it in all the time?

Probably because you don't want to fracture your sternurm (safety) and because it relieves the muscle of tension, which actually makes the exercise easier.

The point being that strength training and skill training should not be mixed, but should instead be trained separately to provide a mutual benefit.  



> Depth jumping, like most plyos, improve the muscles ability to store and call upon potential energy for use. This is a fairly widely held construct. If they have some sort of science backing up a claim that this is not the case, I would love to see it.


"The idea behind pliometrics is that when a muscle shortens immediately after a stretch, as a result of stored torque, force and power output increases.  Although this is what occurs, this response does not carryover as an adaptive training effect of the tissues...Rather, the use of plimoetrics makes you more explosive in the specific activity by decreasing muscle energy expenditure.  In effect, since force production shifts from the force produced voluntarily by the muscles to the elastic energy stored within the soft tissue, the muscles do not need to produce as much energy to demonstrate the same amount of work."

From what I know about energy, this makes perfect sense, and if you disagree, let me know.

Here's a point that needs to be brought up, regarding the idea of training the myotatic reflex ("Tonic contraction of the muscles in response to a stretching force"), which occurs in pliometric exercises and is touted (as I've read before, maybe nobody here is reporting this) as a tool to improve this reaction time and likewise transfer it to the field (quicker reflex).

This reflex, however, is initated in the spinal cord.  If the mind is not controlling the function, it's not going to be "taught".  

The very purpose of this myotatic reflex is to preven overstretching and tearing of physical tissue in the body.

"The other rarely discussed fact about plios is that much of the mystery surrounding them deals with something called the 'Amortization Phase.'  That is, part of the stretch-shortening cycle.  Plios are supposed to 'teach' this to be quicker.  Well, the facts are a little different.  The higher or 'more intense' the plio jump, the longer the amortization phase.  In other words, what is suppose to be the most beneficial way of developing explosive jumping ability is training the amortization phase to be longer.  As I believe Tom Kelso once mentioned, in terms of the amortization phase, the best 'pliometric' activity you could do would be sprinting."



> This escapes me. Just because one thing is true does not mean the opposite has true. IE, because squatting 500lbs will help you squat 135, squatting 135 will help you squat 500.



You are speaking of a single exercise, not multiple functions.  The exercise is a constant, so to improve in it you must progressively exercise the squat.  Key word progressively.  We're discussing two functions in the case with bball and plios.  One is a closed skill, the other open, different mechanics, changing variables, etc.  Given the old point, that if power cleans make you good at collision in football, collision in football makes you good at power cleans.  Such just isn't the case.

In regards to your statements regarding the studies, I'm sure you'd want to evaluate them yourself.  The .doc I provided above is an excellent example of the very poor condition this field seems to be in.  I've spent the last few days (fueled by my interest of this material) reading this junk and can conclude that most of the research is biased and/or poorly designed - ESPECIALLY the vertical jump testing protocols, which are very very easy to cheat (this is all sad, since science is the search for what is true..).


----------



## TriZZle305 (Mar 24, 2005)

Vertical leap is always good for wide receivers or cornerbacks trying to get the advantage on a pass


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

Trizzle, what school are you going to walk on for? (from your shorts, I'd assume orange and blue FU)  What position do you play?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

DD are you walking on at Texas A&M (is that where it was?  I can't remeber....).  Or do you have a spot on the team?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

I can't transfer yet because of several things.  Funds, initially.  I'm trying to get a full academic scholarship by transferring from my current school (currently my GPA is a tender 3.6, which I'm trying to get to a 3.8 +).  Right now I believe I can transfer minus several GED classes I've skipped because I prefer the more interesting subject material.  Before I apply I really want a full ride, though.  As a side note, my high school cumulative GPA was 1.8 (  ), but my SAT score was 1510.  I regret laziness, indeed.

Right now I'm working 20 hours a week at UPS, taking 19 course credits and training (in theory) 5 days a week for football.  Not to mention the stress of stupid fucking bitches.  This is why I recently started drinkin'  

Not to mention my independent (so called) research, i.e. reading all kinds of books and shit that I'll probably never remembr.  I'm trying to pour over at least thirty or so pages of exercise related research a day, not to mention the discussion around here (by the way, I think everyone who has respectfully engaged me in cordial discussion, as it helps very very much to understand the opposing viewpiont as well as interact with it logically in a debate).  Parts of my shoulder have been involuntarily contracting and twitching for weeks, and it won't go away.  My eyes also twitch and I'm sleeping about 10 or so hours a day on my days off.  My blood sugars are completely out of control, too.  God bless stress...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

That eye twicth is a reflex typically associated with a lack of restorative sleep, I have had it before.

Oh, nearly all of the research is skewed, that is why it is important to look at the whole picture and all sides, that is why i asked you if the methodology you're using sifrom a specific source.  I was very big into the NASM's stuff a couple of years ago, but I have started to realize that more and more of it is actually manipulated into  what they want you to do.  It won't get any better, I assure you.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> That eye twicth is a reflex typically associated with a lack of restorative sleep, I have had it before.
> 
> Oh, nearly all of the research is skewed, that is why it is important to look at the whole picture and all sides, that is why i asked you if the methodology you're using sifrom a specific source.  I was very big into the NASM's stuff a couple of years ago, but I have started to realize that more and more of it is actually manipulated into  what they want you to do.  It won't get any better, I assure you.




that is a good point.  I like a lot of different opions and enjoy a lot of differnet writers that don't always agree.  This topic is one that is debated by strength coaches all the time.  Dr. Ken Leistner is one of my favorite writers but he would agree with you DD.  He thinks that the Olympic lifts are dangerous for someone that has never done them to start doing them at a developed age (college or pro level).  He doesn't ahve a problem if you have been doing them since you were younger an dhave learned perfect technique.  he says that he would rather train a player to be functinally as strong as possible and then let them work on real game type situations to perfect their play in the field. That is a guy that I really enjoy readinga nd respect but I don't agree with him all the time.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 24, 2005)

It's good to discuss these things.  I actually believed in plios until I read some stuff that directed me to some studies conducted on motor-learning and the like, and I got very involved in it and formulated my opinions.  Sadly, I may have been drawn more to the research and data that contributed to my own beliefs.  This may have prematurely closed my mind, although I'm very confident in my interpretation of the physics, etc., of everything.  It's impossible to deny a bias, though.

What is NASM?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 24, 2005)

> Sadly, I may have been drawn more to the research and data that contributed to my own beliefs. This may have prematurely closed my mind, although I'm very confident in my interpretation of the physics, etc., of everything. It's impossible to deny a bias, though.



and I am guilty of reaserching those things which contribute to my beliefs as well.  we all are. 

i try and keep an open mind as much as possible.

It is good to discuss these things and learn from eachother.  It is also nice to discuss these topics without them escalating to name calling and stupid bull shit.


NASM= National Acadamy of Sports Medecine


Now........If I do incline bench press, will my upper chest grow?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

We all want our theories to be right, but it is a select few who are just looking for the truth.  I would put myself as looking for the truth, as I am sure both of you would, but when I look for research, I am most definitely looking for stuff that re-affirms my beliefs.  Who wants to know they have been wasting their time.  Such is Mango.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 24, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> and I am guilty of reaserching those things which contribute to my beliefs as well.  we all are.



gotta agree with this. its just human nature, IMO. Like Dale said noone wants to realize they've been wasting their time. 



			
				P-funk said:
			
		

> It is good to discuss these things and learn from eachother.  It is also nice to discuss these topics without them escalating to name calling and stupid bull shit.



gotta agree with this. IMO this has been one of the most productive threads we've had on here in a while. 4 pages of info and and almost 0 name calling bs.



			
				P-funk said:
			
		

> Now........If I do incline bench press, will my upper chest grow?



only if you lift up your left leg and close your right eye. also i found a cool trick to hit your upper/inner quadrant...you gotta turn you head to the side and open your mouth on the negative and on the positive you reverse the side to which your head is turned and close your mouth simoultaneously. great trick...my upper/inner chest has been growing like mad!!!


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 24, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> gotta agree with this. IMO this has been one of the most productive threads we've had on here in a while. 4 pages of info and and *almost 0 name calling bs.*



You read my mind, I am thankful for this thread.
Maybe you guys were right all along about johnny

Certainly he would have come into this thread and put in his input

Which would have caused chaos....


----------



## camarosuper6 (Mar 24, 2005)

I leave the board for 2 months and the brother I had such a big influence getting into weight training surpasses my knowledge 10 fold....


----------



## P-funk (Mar 25, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> only if you lift up your left leg and close your right eye. also i found a cool trick to hit your upper/inner quadrant...you gotta turn you head to the side and open your mouth on the negative and on the positive you reverse the side to which your head is turned and close your mouth simoultaneously. great trick...my upper/inner chest has been growing like mad!!!





kyle?  is that you???  what happened to yan?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 25, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> IMO this has been one of the most productive threads we've had on here in a while. 4 pages of info and and almost 0 name calling bs.




You calling me fat.  Fuck you chump.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 25, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You calling me fat.  Fuck you chump.



i believe my exact words were beached whale


----------



## maniclion (Mar 25, 2005)

Here's the best advice you'll get, do everything and vary it monthly, the body responds to variation better than anything


----------



## Newt (Mar 25, 2005)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> I leave the board for 2 months and the brother I had such a big influence getting into weight training surpasses my knowledge 10 fold....


Yeah, DD and I were close though!  No, I'm just joking DD.  To think all of this started from you thinking deads were better and me thinking cleans were better?  Anyway, I respect your opinion and knowledge of biomechanics.  I think I'm through debating this one though.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 25, 2005)

these are for DD:



> The Case Against Explosive Weight Training
> A Rebuttal to the NSCA Position Paper on Explosive Training
> 
> by Ken Mannie, Strength and Conditioning Coach - Michigan State Spartans
> ...




and one from my favorite, Dr. Ken.  Even though I love his writing I still disagree.  Oh well:



> Asking Dr. Ken - Issue #36
> by Dr. Ken E. Leistner
> 
> Olympic lifting
> ...


----------



## footballmaniac (Mar 25, 2005)

At my school we work out mon-thur and sat. Mon-Thur we bench- bar,dumbbells, flies, incline- bar,dumbbells, shouders- military press w/bar, military press w/dumbbells and other asorted shoulder exercises, work the lats a little bit not as much as id like to, some people do deadlifts, then legs curls, extensions, presses, lunges, and on saturdays we have another full leg workout w/ squat, curls, extensions presses, and lunges. Every other saturday we have speed camp. Our coach knows what he's talking about. He was the strength and conditioning coach for the Milwaukee Mustangs when they still played. Hes got certification to be a strength and conditioning coach on a professional level. Hes also the o-line coach. Our team went to state this year but unfortunately lost. Next season we will have the top rb in state. The only reason that he wasnt this year was because he missed 2 games. He still came in third and he rarely ever played in the second half. I can't wait til next season.


----------



## footballmaniac (Mar 25, 2005)

Oh, forgot about the cleans. Usually do those twice a week.


----------



## god hand (Dec 13, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I really think you are taking specificity to a ridiculously insane extreme.


There's a lot of members on this site that do that!


----------



## Yanick (Dec 13, 2005)

since this thread's been bumped, i might as well ask...



			
				P-funk said:
			
		

> I mean, although I love the olympic lifts, the squat and deadlift are the most incredibly functional and sports specific lifts out there.  I even put them before cleans and snatches.



do you still hold this view? in terms of sports specific lifts that is?


----------



## P-funk (Dec 14, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> since this thread's been bumped, i might as well ask...
> 
> 
> 
> do you still hold this view? in terms of sports specific lifts that is?




I still say squat is king over anything.  Also, the olympics biggest problem with athletes is that it is so hard to teach.  If you have athletes in college or pro then you really have to take time and teach it (or re-teach bad technique).  Simply doing what you think is a power clean and throwing it up there will give you no benefit.  You only benefit from those lifts if you are using proper form and the right muscles.  I would teach older athletes the lifts some time deep in the offseason.  They can all squat though and for explosiveness there are always plyos or even just clean pulls.  All that stuff is much easier to teach then a full clean and they will still reap the benefits.


----------



## Yanick (Dec 14, 2005)

you really think that bad technique will lead to diminished results? i'm thinking as long as one gets the strong second pull with a good triple extension aren't they still reaping the rewards, in terms of explosive strength at the hips/knees/ankles? i'm picking at straws of course, but i'm bored and have nothing better to do


----------



## P-funk (Dec 14, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> you really think that bad technique will lead to diminished results? i'm thinking as long as one gets the strong second pull with a good triple extension aren't they still reaping the rewards, in terms of explosive strength at the hips/knees/ankles? i'm picking at straws of course, but i'm bored and have nothing better to do



you can get strong and do a jacked up reverse curl.  That has nothing to do with the second pull.  If the technique is not good one does not reap the benefits of the lift.


----------



## Yanick (Dec 14, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> you can get strong and do a jacked up reverse curl.  That has nothing to do with the second pull.  If the technique is not good one does not reap the benefits of the lift.



damn you and your friggin logical reasoning!!  

maybe we should all just stop squatting, deadlifting, snatching and cleaning and instead switch to reciprocating unilateral incline barbell presses?

lol, that reference to Kyle on the 4th page brought back some great memories


----------



## P-funk (Dec 14, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> damn you and your friggin logical reasoning!!
> 
> maybe we should all just stop squatting, deadlifting, snatching and cleaning and instead switch to reciprocating unilateral incline barbell presses?
> 
> lol, that reference to Kyle on the 4th page brought back some great memories




dude, he has new shit now.  he has gotten so much worse.  he has the people do awful plyos, like hops to balance.  But they are old people that can't even lunge and they land al fucked up and it is painful to watch.  then he has another new exercises were he sticks a bar in the corner, like he is going to do the old BB'er free weight t-bar row.  But, instead of holding the bar or using a neutral grip cable attachment, he hooks a towel around the bar.  The client then hold each of the towel and lifts the bar off the floor, so the bar is resting on it like a hammock.  They then proceed to move their hands and attepmt an alternate arm row (right arm pulls, left arm pulls, etc.).  The only problem (LOL) is that the towel is not fixed on the bar so the bar just stays in one place in mid air and they move the towel around it, like they are shinning the bar.  LOL, he doesn't seem to know why that keeps happening.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 14, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> The only problem (LOL) is that the towel is not fixed on the bar so the bar just stays in one place in mid air and they move the towel around it, like they are shinning the bar.  LOL, he doesn't seem to know why that keeps happening.



Bahaha.  That is funny to envision.


----------



## Yanick (Dec 14, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> dude, he has new shit now.  he has gotten so much worse.  he has the people do awful plyos, like hops to balance.  But they are old people that can't even lunge and they land al fucked up and it is painful to watch.  then he has another new exercises were he sticks a bar in the corner, like he is going to do the old BB'er free weight t-bar row.  But, instead of holding the bar or using a neutral grip cable attachment, he hooks a towel around the bar.  The client then hold each of the towel and lifts the bar off the floor, so the bar is resting on it like a hammock.  They then proceed to move their hands and attepmt an alternate arm row (right arm pulls, left arm pulls, etc.).  The only problem (LOL) is that the towel is not fixed on the bar so the bar just stays in one place in mid air and they move the towel around it, like they are shinning the bar.  LOL, he doesn't seem to know why that keeps happening.



LMAO!! that guy is great, i feel like we should pay him...only because he has brought so much entertainment to our lives. that and he makes me feel so good about myself, when i feel down and out i think about the fact that atleast i'm not as retarded as him and i feel better right away


----------

