Justin Hurley
02-28-2005, 09:25 PM
Simmon's Principles #1
Great questions! In Dr. Zatiorsky's book, "Science and Practice of Strength Training," he speaks about ESD (Explosive Strength Deficit). I'll get the specific page #s tomorrow for you. The Dr. claims that modest gains in absolute strength will result in large performance increases for young shotputters, who naturally lack absolute strength. He uses the benchpress as his test lift (curious choice), and he also claims that an experienced shot putter even when making huge jumps in absolute strength, may experience no increase in throwing performance. He then suggests that these experienced throwers should engage in training that increases explosiveness to overcome this "deficit" . One problem-he says very little about the nuances of dynamic training (page references to follow tomorrow). This made Louie very curious, so he asked the Dr. about it. Louie's impression of the discussion mirrored his impression of the book-brilliant, but created more questions than answers. Where Louie fits into this whole mess is that he essentially operates from a very rudimentary understanding of Force (with Force equaling mass times acceleration). He has noted that most strength coaches and athletes attack the equation by moving a very heavy mass slowly. He has found moving a moderate mass very quickly to work wonders; not only can you perform more pushes per session, you can actually exert more force than your max lift (with the acceleration factor being the determinant). This is not a cycling strategy per se, but a standard practice used on the main lifts. With powerlifters and other strength athletes that are used to attacking the problem from the maximum mass angle, his concepts have been very liberating in that they are now able to increase force by slipping through the acceleration "door". Here's how it all fits together. Louie feels that it is not necessary to periodize the main lifts; rather, periodize and cycle assistance movements. The assistance movements are chosen to specifically attack weakpoints. Yet, the "dynamic" work is always done. I will use myself as an example. In 1990, I benched 310 at a meet. It took 4.5 seconds to lock out the lift (we video the meets for analysis purposes). The training before the meet was traditional prog. overload (8's, 5's, 3's and eventually working to a heavy double with 290, producing the snail-like 310 at the meet). Fast-forward to 1994 . . . after a few years of Louie's methods, I was able to bench 396 at a meet, and the lift took 1.6 seconds to lock out. Same bodyweight. The difference was in using the percent training. 245 for 8 sets of 3 was used exclusively to bench with for the WHOLE CYCLE; specific weaknesses were dealt with through incline benches, rack work, weight release work, etc. We bench by percents on Monday, and do the special work on Thursday. The special work is worked as follows: 3-4 weeks hypertrophy work; 3-4 weeks heavy rack singles (or board press, or floor press) work, then 2 weeks of weight release singles to get that stretch reflex snapping. In a nutshell, the main lift is trained dynamically ALWAYS, and the special exercises are cycled as necessary. Louie calls it "conjugarte training". Now-as far as building a base-yes and no is the "scientific" answer. Louie has one lifter he has trained since he was 14; all he has done is % training. He benches 700+ at 22. 620 or so without any of the lifting paraphernalia that is sometimes used. Our take on this? We mix the dynamic training with the standard repeated effort method for the younger ones. This builds the necessary coordination and hypertrophy, while teaching them to be real fast, and it doesn't hurt them and beat them up like heavy training-yet it takes advantage of one thing that all lifters have in common-a functioning nervous system. Once the hormones are popping as they get older, they easily slide into a more intense routine-but the dynamic "base" is always there. So Andy, the short answer to my long-winded explanation is that the physiological reason we do it is because that acceleration is, indeed, a part of the force equation, it is one that is often overlooked, and it is a major window of opportunity to increase force without burning the strength trainee out. Once you are used to this kind of training, you can play around with volumes of the dynamic work performed and really tailor-make whatever outcome you're striving for. While any chimp could tell you that yes, there is a limit to what a person can do, we have found it possible to retard that law of diminishing returns experienced due to ESD. This is essentially Louie's answer to the question/problem Zatsiorsky so succinctly outlines in his ESD equation. The ramifications for the thrower (specifically shot-putter)? They are quite obvious. A thrower who benches 400, and takes about 4 seconds to do so, may become a bit more effective in the circle when he's benching 500 in about 2 seconds. Well, hopefully, at least. I hope I have not caused too much confusion. Take care!
Simmon's Principles #2
Louie’s got some feelings about training throwers that may or may not help you out. Remember how we talked about beefing the deadlift up by power cleaning? Louie claims that he helped Jud Logan progress past a personal sticking point in his power clean by suggesting the use of reverse hypers and sled pulling. Louie’s thoughts on the matter naturally go to fixing weak links. I have read postings suggesting using no belt while doing multi-joint movements in order to accomplish the strengthening of torso weaknesses. We don’t quite do it that way. Louie thinks good torso strength will contribute to helping out the multi joint lift-so rather than not wearing a belt, we attack the breakdown point. This is accomplished by taking exercises like reverse hypers, sled pulling, back raises with and without weights, and abdominal work with a static component very, VERY seriously. I don’t know about throwers, but I know a lot of P/L men blow these lifts off, and just concentrate on the "big" ones. Those who don’t blow them off usually benefit from their use. Think about this-if you use a power clean to strengthen your ability in the power clean, you will forever be thwarted by whatever your weak link is. Ever see how some guys get a giant butt from squatting, while some get giant thighs, and some get giant midsections? Multi-joint lifts often times serve to beef up strongpoints and identify weaknesses, not cure them. It’s like the bencher who is built to bench-the weaknesses aren’t there, so just benching works fine for him (favorite example: Bridges). Now, if you are not built to bench, then Bridges’ type of routine will lead you to gains right up to the point where the weakpoint lets you down. Louie’s recommendation: build your program around some form of squatting (with that form being relevant to your event), most preferably executed in a percentage-driven format. Do this once a week, and then take another day out of the week to beef up whatever weaknesses you have (Paul, this is essentially the answer to your max effort day question: it is on this day that we address major strength concerns and/or glaring weaknesses-for the bench, many of us do rack singles at specially selected heights-for the squat/deadlift, anything from Hatfield bar singles to power cleans to deadlift singles from various pin positions to 2 sets of 20 reps in the partial hi-rep deadlift to real low box squatting-depending on your need-can be done). We always follow squats with either back hypers or reverse hypers or both, AND ABS. SERIOUS ABS. Same on the max effort day. Now, there are a few weird things we do. Following squats, we sometimes do rubber band stomps. Taking a giant, fat rubber band that is anchored to the top of the power rack or chin bar, we attach one foot to the band and keep the other foot on the ground. We then stomp down for 3 sets of 15 reps. Be careful that you don’t allow the rubber band to thrust your knee into your face, as it will try to do so. Not good. We do a similar drill on a see-saw like device, putting weight on one end and stomping down on the other. We also do squats, without weights, affixing ourselves to a platform with these same giant rubber bands. We then simply execute 3 sets of 10-20 reps, depending on the size of the rubber band, and concentrate on coming onto our tiptoes at the finish of the movement. Getting ahold of these giant rubber bands can be done by calling 1-800-344-3539. These are really wild, as there is less of an eccentric component to this exercise than regular squatting (meaning less soreness and the ability to use them a number of times a week depending on the level of tension), and you can really put the mustard to the last half of the movement-and you will find that this helps your vert. leap and your general explosiveness quite a bit without the spinal trauma that may coincide with cleans & pulls. So does this mean we don’t do pulls? No way. It means that you may want to inject some other stuff to beef up the pulls. This centers on attention to torso strength. One parting thought. . . the program at UCLA is of interest to many people. Not much is known about the nuances. However, this is something that should be noted: I understand they have reverse hyper machines in their training facility. That may not mean jack, but I will allow you to draw whatever conclusion you may draw. Take it easy, and remember to keep any modifications to your training routines real simple, so you can see the benefits and go from there. I hope this has helped.
Simmon's Rationale for his programs
Remember the hGH issue and the 10RM sets with minimal rest? I discussed this w/Louie. He was aware of it; he rather abruptly reminded me that if THAT (hGH production enhancement) was the overriding factor in the success of % training, then every bodybuilder in the world would be reaping the rewards of the concept and displaying the commensurate brute power, since that is the way they typically train. He asked me to cite you this example: Let's say a lifter can bench 300 for 10 reps. Would it be better to do 3 sets of 10 reps, or 10 sets of 3 reps with the 300? While it depends on your training goal, for strength/power/and THROWING considerations, he says the 10 sets of 3 wins every time. Why? All 30 reps can be moved fast as hell. With the 3 sets of 10, around rep 4 or 5, the speed slows down as the burn sets in. And the rate of force development potential is shot out the window. Now, for P/L, although we do a wide array of special things on one bench day, on the percent day we ALWAYS do the 8-10 sets of 3. With 65 or so percent. You know how most (virtually all) strength trainers go for 8's, then 5's, then 3's then singles in the basic lifts? We NEVER do that, we believe that this sort of cycling is counterproductive at best. I know I'm kicking a sacred cow here. Blame Louie, not me. Of course we DO cycle our special exercises (racks, inclines, etc). Now, I know that this is a P/L example, so I will talk in terms of an exercise ALL throwers love: the power clean. Louie asked me if I knew why throwers loved power cleans so much. I asked him to explain-so he did. He said that although he feels that there are better exercises than the power clean for throwers (sorry-kicked another sacred cow there), this one has worked best for them over the years simply because it is usually trained quickly, at an optimal percent. That is, lets say a man can deadlift 750, and he does his power cleans with 500. Regardless of how many reps he does with the 500, he's moving 67% of his top D/L, as fast as hell. The result? A super training response directed at the hams/low back/mid back and glutes, and an undying belief in the power clean as the be-all and end-all. We all know they work-but WHY? Is the power clean the magic exercise, or is it due to the fact of the area hit and the speed of the bar (and the use of an optimal percent)? I'll let you be the judge of that. He has had a number of interesting thoughts regarding throws training, and I'll toss them onto the Ring as I get the chance. You know, "Help" would really get his (or her) rocks off hearing me say this: I think that the power clean could be "dangerous" to a young lifter. Know what, though? We haver even nastier ways to hit the affected muscle groups, while mitigating the injury risk. I'll keep you posted. Hope I haven't made too many people mad-but it sure wouldn't be the first time.
Great questions! In Dr. Zatiorsky's book, "Science and Practice of Strength Training," he speaks about ESD (Explosive Strength Deficit). I'll get the specific page #s tomorrow for you. The Dr. claims that modest gains in absolute strength will result in large performance increases for young shotputters, who naturally lack absolute strength. He uses the benchpress as his test lift (curious choice), and he also claims that an experienced shot putter even when making huge jumps in absolute strength, may experience no increase in throwing performance. He then suggests that these experienced throwers should engage in training that increases explosiveness to overcome this "deficit" . One problem-he says very little about the nuances of dynamic training (page references to follow tomorrow). This made Louie very curious, so he asked the Dr. about it. Louie's impression of the discussion mirrored his impression of the book-brilliant, but created more questions than answers. Where Louie fits into this whole mess is that he essentially operates from a very rudimentary understanding of Force (with Force equaling mass times acceleration). He has noted that most strength coaches and athletes attack the equation by moving a very heavy mass slowly. He has found moving a moderate mass very quickly to work wonders; not only can you perform more pushes per session, you can actually exert more force than your max lift (with the acceleration factor being the determinant). This is not a cycling strategy per se, but a standard practice used on the main lifts. With powerlifters and other strength athletes that are used to attacking the problem from the maximum mass angle, his concepts have been very liberating in that they are now able to increase force by slipping through the acceleration "door". Here's how it all fits together. Louie feels that it is not necessary to periodize the main lifts; rather, periodize and cycle assistance movements. The assistance movements are chosen to specifically attack weakpoints. Yet, the "dynamic" work is always done. I will use myself as an example. In 1990, I benched 310 at a meet. It took 4.5 seconds to lock out the lift (we video the meets for analysis purposes). The training before the meet was traditional prog. overload (8's, 5's, 3's and eventually working to a heavy double with 290, producing the snail-like 310 at the meet). Fast-forward to 1994 . . . after a few years of Louie's methods, I was able to bench 396 at a meet, and the lift took 1.6 seconds to lock out. Same bodyweight. The difference was in using the percent training. 245 for 8 sets of 3 was used exclusively to bench with for the WHOLE CYCLE; specific weaknesses were dealt with through incline benches, rack work, weight release work, etc. We bench by percents on Monday, and do the special work on Thursday. The special work is worked as follows: 3-4 weeks hypertrophy work; 3-4 weeks heavy rack singles (or board press, or floor press) work, then 2 weeks of weight release singles to get that stretch reflex snapping. In a nutshell, the main lift is trained dynamically ALWAYS, and the special exercises are cycled as necessary. Louie calls it "conjugarte training". Now-as far as building a base-yes and no is the "scientific" answer. Louie has one lifter he has trained since he was 14; all he has done is % training. He benches 700+ at 22. 620 or so without any of the lifting paraphernalia that is sometimes used. Our take on this? We mix the dynamic training with the standard repeated effort method for the younger ones. This builds the necessary coordination and hypertrophy, while teaching them to be real fast, and it doesn't hurt them and beat them up like heavy training-yet it takes advantage of one thing that all lifters have in common-a functioning nervous system. Once the hormones are popping as they get older, they easily slide into a more intense routine-but the dynamic "base" is always there. So Andy, the short answer to my long-winded explanation is that the physiological reason we do it is because that acceleration is, indeed, a part of the force equation, it is one that is often overlooked, and it is a major window of opportunity to increase force without burning the strength trainee out. Once you are used to this kind of training, you can play around with volumes of the dynamic work performed and really tailor-make whatever outcome you're striving for. While any chimp could tell you that yes, there is a limit to what a person can do, we have found it possible to retard that law of diminishing returns experienced due to ESD. This is essentially Louie's answer to the question/problem Zatsiorsky so succinctly outlines in his ESD equation. The ramifications for the thrower (specifically shot-putter)? They are quite obvious. A thrower who benches 400, and takes about 4 seconds to do so, may become a bit more effective in the circle when he's benching 500 in about 2 seconds. Well, hopefully, at least. I hope I have not caused too much confusion. Take care!
Simmon's Principles #2
Louie’s got some feelings about training throwers that may or may not help you out. Remember how we talked about beefing the deadlift up by power cleaning? Louie claims that he helped Jud Logan progress past a personal sticking point in his power clean by suggesting the use of reverse hypers and sled pulling. Louie’s thoughts on the matter naturally go to fixing weak links. I have read postings suggesting using no belt while doing multi-joint movements in order to accomplish the strengthening of torso weaknesses. We don’t quite do it that way. Louie thinks good torso strength will contribute to helping out the multi joint lift-so rather than not wearing a belt, we attack the breakdown point. This is accomplished by taking exercises like reverse hypers, sled pulling, back raises with and without weights, and abdominal work with a static component very, VERY seriously. I don’t know about throwers, but I know a lot of P/L men blow these lifts off, and just concentrate on the "big" ones. Those who don’t blow them off usually benefit from their use. Think about this-if you use a power clean to strengthen your ability in the power clean, you will forever be thwarted by whatever your weak link is. Ever see how some guys get a giant butt from squatting, while some get giant thighs, and some get giant midsections? Multi-joint lifts often times serve to beef up strongpoints and identify weaknesses, not cure them. It’s like the bencher who is built to bench-the weaknesses aren’t there, so just benching works fine for him (favorite example: Bridges). Now, if you are not built to bench, then Bridges’ type of routine will lead you to gains right up to the point where the weakpoint lets you down. Louie’s recommendation: build your program around some form of squatting (with that form being relevant to your event), most preferably executed in a percentage-driven format. Do this once a week, and then take another day out of the week to beef up whatever weaknesses you have (Paul, this is essentially the answer to your max effort day question: it is on this day that we address major strength concerns and/or glaring weaknesses-for the bench, many of us do rack singles at specially selected heights-for the squat/deadlift, anything from Hatfield bar singles to power cleans to deadlift singles from various pin positions to 2 sets of 20 reps in the partial hi-rep deadlift to real low box squatting-depending on your need-can be done). We always follow squats with either back hypers or reverse hypers or both, AND ABS. SERIOUS ABS. Same on the max effort day. Now, there are a few weird things we do. Following squats, we sometimes do rubber band stomps. Taking a giant, fat rubber band that is anchored to the top of the power rack or chin bar, we attach one foot to the band and keep the other foot on the ground. We then stomp down for 3 sets of 15 reps. Be careful that you don’t allow the rubber band to thrust your knee into your face, as it will try to do so. Not good. We do a similar drill on a see-saw like device, putting weight on one end and stomping down on the other. We also do squats, without weights, affixing ourselves to a platform with these same giant rubber bands. We then simply execute 3 sets of 10-20 reps, depending on the size of the rubber band, and concentrate on coming onto our tiptoes at the finish of the movement. Getting ahold of these giant rubber bands can be done by calling 1-800-344-3539. These are really wild, as there is less of an eccentric component to this exercise than regular squatting (meaning less soreness and the ability to use them a number of times a week depending on the level of tension), and you can really put the mustard to the last half of the movement-and you will find that this helps your vert. leap and your general explosiveness quite a bit without the spinal trauma that may coincide with cleans & pulls. So does this mean we don’t do pulls? No way. It means that you may want to inject some other stuff to beef up the pulls. This centers on attention to torso strength. One parting thought. . . the program at UCLA is of interest to many people. Not much is known about the nuances. However, this is something that should be noted: I understand they have reverse hyper machines in their training facility. That may not mean jack, but I will allow you to draw whatever conclusion you may draw. Take it easy, and remember to keep any modifications to your training routines real simple, so you can see the benefits and go from there. I hope this has helped.
Simmon's Rationale for his programs
Remember the hGH issue and the 10RM sets with minimal rest? I discussed this w/Louie. He was aware of it; he rather abruptly reminded me that if THAT (hGH production enhancement) was the overriding factor in the success of % training, then every bodybuilder in the world would be reaping the rewards of the concept and displaying the commensurate brute power, since that is the way they typically train. He asked me to cite you this example: Let's say a lifter can bench 300 for 10 reps. Would it be better to do 3 sets of 10 reps, or 10 sets of 3 reps with the 300? While it depends on your training goal, for strength/power/and THROWING considerations, he says the 10 sets of 3 wins every time. Why? All 30 reps can be moved fast as hell. With the 3 sets of 10, around rep 4 or 5, the speed slows down as the burn sets in. And the rate of force development potential is shot out the window. Now, for P/L, although we do a wide array of special things on one bench day, on the percent day we ALWAYS do the 8-10 sets of 3. With 65 or so percent. You know how most (virtually all) strength trainers go for 8's, then 5's, then 3's then singles in the basic lifts? We NEVER do that, we believe that this sort of cycling is counterproductive at best. I know I'm kicking a sacred cow here. Blame Louie, not me. Of course we DO cycle our special exercises (racks, inclines, etc). Now, I know that this is a P/L example, so I will talk in terms of an exercise ALL throwers love: the power clean. Louie asked me if I knew why throwers loved power cleans so much. I asked him to explain-so he did. He said that although he feels that there are better exercises than the power clean for throwers (sorry-kicked another sacred cow there), this one has worked best for them over the years simply because it is usually trained quickly, at an optimal percent. That is, lets say a man can deadlift 750, and he does his power cleans with 500. Regardless of how many reps he does with the 500, he's moving 67% of his top D/L, as fast as hell. The result? A super training response directed at the hams/low back/mid back and glutes, and an undying belief in the power clean as the be-all and end-all. We all know they work-but WHY? Is the power clean the magic exercise, or is it due to the fact of the area hit and the speed of the bar (and the use of an optimal percent)? I'll let you be the judge of that. He has had a number of interesting thoughts regarding throws training, and I'll toss them onto the Ring as I get the chance. You know, "Help" would really get his (or her) rocks off hearing me say this: I think that the power clean could be "dangerous" to a young lifter. Know what, though? We haver even nastier ways to hit the affected muscle groups, while mitigating the injury risk. I'll keep you posted. Hope I haven't made too many people mad-but it sure wouldn't be the first time.