I thought who would know more about testing explosive testing than Olympic lifters?
What’s a better indicator of “explosive” reaction - broad jump or vertical test?
I’m asking since it’s the pre NFL draft, in which they test the athlete’s 40, broad jump, vertical, etc.
Dan John mentions testing your broad jump, as an indicator of progression. What are your thoughts?
Well in my opinion each of those tests are highly dependent on our fast twitch fibers and their ability to fire quickly and develop synchronicity with other muscles/joints (triple extension). So they will both increase with Olympic lifting, the only thing I would hypothesize is that someones vertical jump would increase more effectively since lifts are all performed vertically with no horizontal motion.
It also depends on our previous neural patterns that allow us to perform these tests more effectively. Realize most players getting ready for combine all start putting vertical jumps, broad jumps and 40 yard dashes into their training and not only get more explosive, but get more effective at performing these tests just by repetition. (Which is also why OLifters can lift more weight by just gaining better technique.)
Its also interesting to point out that each of these tests are done in one plane of motion and does not factor in a players ability to use this explosiveness changing directions in a controlled manner (agility). IMHO agility is the true indicator of someones explosive reactive ability, although vert/broad tests are also great too. It just really comes down to what we are training for and how we are training for it.
I’ve been reading Dan’s book “Never Let Go” and his rational for the broad jump, 3 jump to be exact, was it was easier to measure progress.
He says an 118lb freshman might vertical jump 26 inches and do the same as an 188lb senior, not showing that something good has happened. The broad jump gives bigger increments and is easier to show progress. He also looks at the ratio of the first jump to the subsequent two.
The other 2 performance measures he recommends are deadlift 1 rm and # of real pullups. His rational is they are ‘unfuzzy’ and easy to perform w/ inexpensive equipment for a large number of athletes.
I think it makes a lot of sense and most definitely indicates progress. I can’t comment on the carryover to sport.
I also think the NFL needs to institute a game of ‘Kill the Carrier’ in their testing. For one, it would be more entertaining than watching guys bench press, and two, it may be a bit more indicative of on the field performance for receivers, kick returners, safeties, and linebackers. You can even attach accelerometers to the guys w/ the ball to see how hard they get hit.
I train a lot of guys for the combine and it’s always interesting when someone has a great long jump but an average VJ or vice versa. Like someone said on here, everything is skill-dependent - you HAVE to practice the tests. I agree that the tests aren’t really that related to football, but that’s what the position drills are for. After all the testing, they take guys through position drills and a lot of guys really get exposed because all they can do is test. But, make no mistake, these scouts watch hours of film on guys before they ever test. If you don’t have good film and a strong recommendation from your coach, you’re done.
On more thought, a lot of people think that Olympic lift are automatically going to help explosiveness in other tests/events. Just like people have commented that there is often no carry over to sport, the same holds true for Olympic Lifts. Sure, they’re fun, but there is no scientific evidence that they transfer to sport or that they’re better at developing power than other methods. Food for thought.
[quote]jocko7 wrote:
I train a lot of guys for the combine and it’s always interesting when someone has a great long jump but an average VJ or vice versa. Like someone said on here, everything is skill-dependent - you HAVE to practice the tests. I agree that the tests aren’t really that related to football, but that’s what the position drills are for. After all the testing, they take guys through position drills and a lot of guys really get exposed because all they can do is test. But, make no mistake, these scouts watch hours of film on guys before they ever test. If you don’t have good film and a strong recommendation from your coach, you’re done.
On more thought, a lot of people think that Olympic lift are automatically going to help explosiveness in other tests/events. Just like people have commented that there is often no carry over to sport, the same holds true for Olympic Lifts. Sure, they’re fun, but there is no scientific evidence that they transfer to sport or that they’re better at developing power than other methods. Food for thought.[/quote]
Well…my coach could probably dig up some papers that could state otherwise.
It depends on what events/ tests you are going to test. Most throwers will do some OLifts without exception, most jumpers (long, triple, high jump) and most sprinters.
The carry over to sport depends on the sport.
The Power Snatch is measured to be the single most explosive exercise out of any lift. Whats a better way of generating power then working the lift that creates the most power?
Koing
[quote]jocko7 wrote:
On more thought, a lot of people think that Olympic lift are automatically going to help explosiveness in other tests/events. Just like people have commented that there is often no carry over to sport, the same holds true for Olympic Lifts. Sure, they’re fun, but there is no scientific evidence that they transfer to sport or that they’re better at developing power than other methods. Food for thought.[/quote]
Actually, there’s a ton of scientific data. Are you a member of the NSCA? I cant tell you how many peer-review articles have shown up in the journals showing that the Olympic lifts carry over to sports. There’s a ton of empirical evidence for it.
Not to mention the theory behind them carrying over is logical and sound:
Basically, something has carryover if it mimics the same joint angles and body mechanics of something else. Since the Olympic lifts simulate the most essential motion in all of sports - the knee and hip co-extension which is THE most powerful motion our bodies can do as understood via our study of biomechanics (read: science) - and they give you a progressive way to get stronger/more powerful/more coordinated in this motion, they theoretically have a huge carryover for any sport that would use it (which is really most sports.)
Beyond the actual power carryover, which would be enough in and of itself, the olympic lifts also incorporate a lot of flexibility training, as well as receiving force. Those things sound useful to sports.
Now, I’m sure its possible to train flexibility more efficiently with other methods. I’m sure its possible to train receiving force more efficiently. The data has shown that the Olympic lifts teach power production most efficiently, and since you get other things along with it…
The Olympic lifts should automatically increase your vertical IF you are doing them right. I’ve yet to see a single lifter that I’ve coached not increase his vertical… and we don’t even practice jumping! Maybe once or twice a year we are near a vertec, and just randomly try it. If the lifts are taught wrong, then yes, there may be no carryover.
Saying there is no science behind the Olympic lifts transferring to other sports is like saying there’s not a whole lot of evidence for Evolution - its just an uneducated statement. Not only is there tons of evidence in American journals recently, research on track and field power/speed athletes (throwers, jumpers, sprinters) has shown for years the huge benefit and carryover. This research has been done all over the globe in countries with powerhouse track and field programs.
[quote]Dr. Manhattan wrote:
[quote]jocko7 wrote:
On more thought, a lot of people think that Olympic lift are automatically going to help explosiveness in other tests/events. Just like people have commented that there is often no carry over to sport, the same holds true for Olympic Lifts. Sure, they’re fun, but there is no scientific evidence that they transfer to sport or that they’re better at developing power than other methods. Food for thought.[/quote]
Actually, there’s a ton of scientific data. Are you a member of the NSCA? I cant tell you how many peer-review articles have shown up in the journals showing that the Olympic lifts carry over to sports. There’s a ton of empirical evidence for it.
Not to mention the theory behind them carrying over is logical and sound:
Basically, something has carryover if it mimics the same joint angles and body mechanics of something else. Since the Olympic lifts simulate the most essential motion in all of sports - the knee and hip co-extension which is THE most powerful motion our bodies can do as understood via our study of biomechanics (read: science) - and they give you a progressive way to get stronger/more powerful/more coordinated in this motion, they theoretically have a huge carryover for any sport that would use it (which is really most sports.)
Beyond the actual power carryover, which would be enough in and of itself, the olympic lifts also incorporate a lot of flexibility training, as well as receiving force. Those things sound useful to sports.
Now, I’m sure its possible to train flexibility more efficiently with other methods. I’m sure its possible to train receiving force more efficiently. The data has shown that the Olympic lifts teach power production most efficiently, and since you get other things along with it…
The Olympic lifts should automatically increase your vertical IF you are doing them right. I’ve yet to see a single lifter that I’ve coached not increase his vertical… and we don’t even practice jumping! Maybe once or twice a year we are near a vertec, and just randomly try it. If the lifts are taught wrong, then yes, there may be no carryover.
Saying there is no science behind the Olympic lifts transferring to other sports is like saying there’s not a whole lot of evidence for Evolution - its just an uneducated statement. Not only is there tons of evidence in American journals recently, research on track and field power/speed athletes (throwers, jumpers, sprinters) has shown for years the huge benefit and carryover. This research has been done all over the globe in countries with powerhouse track and field programs.[/quote]
I definitely agree with this. I’ve found quite a few new (>10 years) studies showing that Olympic lifting can improve an individuals vertical jump. (Channell et al. 2008)
The carry over to sports is valid in my opinion, but it can still be argued to a certain extent. Olympic lifting does use triple extension which correlates very well with most any sport that involves jumping and running (all? :D). The thing is, most of the time these athletes are using the OLifts along with training for their specific sport too.
Just like training for maximal strength does not necessarily mean that maximal power will increase, if training with both maximal strength and power, progression in both disciplines will occur. For example, if you increase your max squat 25% does not mean that your max power clean will go up 25%. That strength increased must be followed and used with those power movements/training (eg p. clean).
So by training with JUST the Olympic lifts and nothing else doesn’t mean there will be a direct and immediate carryover to any sport of choosing. For Olifts to be effectively transitioned as progression occurs, the specific sport/skills must be trained along side or at least in a following training phase to take advantage of this increase.
In the end, Olympic lifting is amazing for most athletes.
Can anyone throw up any references for decent studies showing the carry over of weightlifting training to sports/explosive testing?
From what I have seen the evidence is extremely weak and the few studies that exist are very poorly designed. I would very much like to be shown that the power developed through training the olympic lifts offers a superior training stimulus to simply getting stronger and training sprints/jumps/plyos, however I just don’t see the evidence for it. That’s not to say that they don’t offer this benefit just that the empirical evidence simply isn’t there.
There are plenty of studies showing strong correlations between oly lifts and jumps/sprints, but that is pretty obviously going to be the case and sheds no light on their training benefits.
The study above that laujik posted (Channell et al. 2008) shows a “modest advantage” to their olympic training group versus their “power” training group. However the programme design used means that very little can be inferred on training practices. It certainly doesn’t allow us to say that a programme incorporating olympic lifts would have any benefit whatsoever over a well designed, balanced athletic training programme that does not incorporate them.
Another study often cited in such arguments is Hoffman et al. (2004), and again bad study methods mar any the ability to make any conclusions other than the fact that the way the designed their olympic lifting programme was better than the way they designed their power lifting programme.
As far as anecdotal arguments like the best sprinters/jumpers/throwers use them; look at the 3 fastest 100m sprinters in the history of the world, you won’t find any oly lifts in their training. Look at the training of top sprinters in general and you will find quite a lot of athletes that do not incorporate the lifts at all, and many of those that do do not push them particularly hard. That alone suggests that any benefit they have on sprinting ability is fairly marginal and has little significance when viewed within the athlete’s programme as a whole.
[quote]Calis wrote:
The study above that laujik posted (Channell et al. 2008) shows a “modest advantage” to their olympic training group versus their “power” training group. However the programme design used means that very little can be inferred on training practices. It certainly doesn’t allow us to say that a programme incorporating olympic lifts would have any benefit whatsoever over a well designed, balanced athletic training programme that does not incorporate them.
Another study often cited in such arguments is Hoffman et al. (2004), and again bad study methods mar any the ability to make any conclusions other than the fact that the way the designed their olympic lifting programme was better than the way they designed their power lifting programme.
[/quote]
I’d like to hear your issues with the Channell and Hoffman studies. After reading through both, I do not see a significant reason not to draw the same conclusions the authors expressed in the abstracts.
[quote]Dr. Manhattan wrote:
[quote]Calis wrote:
The study above that laujik posted (Channell et al. 2008) shows a “modest advantage” to their olympic training group versus their “power” training group. However the programme design used means that very little can be inferred on training practices. It certainly doesn’t allow us to say that a programme incorporating olympic lifts would have any benefit whatsoever over a well designed, balanced athletic training programme that does not incorporate them.
Another study often cited in such arguments is Hoffman et al. (2004), and again bad study methods mar any the ability to make any conclusions other than the fact that the way the designed their olympic lifting programme was better than the way they designed their power lifting programme.
[/quote]
I’d like to hear your issues with the Channell and Hoffman studies. After reading through both, I do not see a significant reason not to draw the same conclusions the authors expressed in the abstracts.[/quote]
I would like to hear your point of view too. Always interesting to have different ways of looking at things.
[quote]Calis wrote:
As far as anecdotal arguments like the best sprinters/jumpers/throwers use them; look at the 3 fastest 100m sprinters in the history of the world, you won’t find any oly lifts in their training. Look at the training of top sprinters in general and you will find quite a lot of athletes that do not incorporate the lifts at all, and many of those that do do not push them particularly hard. That alone suggests that any benefit they have on sprinting ability is fairly marginal and has little significance when viewed within the athlete’s programme as a whole.
[/quote]
I would like to mention the obvious that OLifts along side sprints/jumps/plyos are all forms of power training.
Unless I missed it though, no one brought up the idea that the Olympic lifts are the best and most efficient ways of improving explosiveness in a sport although I know its a common topic of debate. We are just discussion the evidence supporting that it ‘can’ carry over from training.
If a naturally gifted 100m sprinter beats the world record and has, for some reason, incorporated a lot of Olympic lifting, would that mean that Olympic lifting creates great sprint times? Of course not, I’m just suggesting that for the average athlete, there is evidence that supports there can be an advantageous carry over from incorporating OL’s (since that’s the topic of discussion). I do agree that there are other forms of power training that could be more beneficial for certain sports/activities but bringing up elite athletes is difficult to debate when discussing training disciplines. Just because GSP uses a lot of Olympic lifting in his training, does that mean its the secret to becoming a great fighter?
When comparing top athletes success simply to the type of training they perform, is like comparing a class who reads the same material will automatically get the same grades. Genetics play a huge role in many sports and training simply helps maximize those strengths but there are more than one way of accomplishing that.
Also, for any great athlete you find that is successful without Olympic lifting, there is most likely an equal amount that does incorporate them.
Yes, Correlation does not equal causation necessarily. However, to disprove a theory, you need evidence. There seems to be evidence for the Olympic lifts being excellent for sports, and no evidence to the contrary as of yet.
[quote]Dr. Manhattan wrote:
Yes, Correlation does not equal causation necessarily. However, to disprove a theory, you need evidence. There seems to be evidence for the Olympic lifts being excellent for sports, and no evidence to the contrary as of yet.[/quote]
Hmmmm…I like it man 
Koing