HFT is Unpopular

Training Powerlifting
121

[quote]forevernade wrote:
If you haven’t read the article “Look Like a Bodybuilder, Perform Like an Athlete” then drop this thread and go now. I think it has very high relevancy to this thread (for when you come rushing back here), and if I was to start HFT I would base my format on the suggestions in that article. If you understand Broz, Sheiko and LLB,PLA then you are well on your way to immense strength gains.[/quote]

You say strength, but out of curiosity if you had to suggest one for size(I know this is the PL forum)what would you recommend? I would guess the LLB,PLA because of the added volume from the eccentric less work. But by adding that to the Broz routine, it could be just as effective in theory. I think a benefit of the 6 training days of LLD,PLA over the 3 of Sheiko is the added opportunity for adding in huge amounts of protein and calories that are used correctly in peri-workout nutrition.

I am away to do the 13 week Sheiko template given in an article on here:http://www.T-Nation.com/portal_includes/articles/2008/Sheiko13weekworkout.html

Dropping back to 3 days will actually mean keeping my weekly volume about the same as it is now but that each training day will have substantially more volume individually. When I eventually get strong enough using this, I can either go back to training 6 days a week but with more volume in each session or move to a more advanced Sheiko routine(very keen for this if this template works well). I certainly think HFT has the potential in PL, but you have to modify it to your strenghts and weaknesses. High frequency of squats and bench works well for me but not at all for deads.

122

[quote]stallion wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]stallion wrote:
The study by Kirketeig I am sure is interesting, but the results was released on a convention at Hamar, and what’s on the styrkeloft site is just a poorly written summary by a very young lifter. I haven’t checked if the complete paper is available, but I believe it was made as a part of Kirketeigs (norwegian squat record holder btw 341kg@90 IPF) education, so it might be available in some online site that store such papers. It might be possible to contact Kirketeig directly for inqueries regarding that research.

There was a lot of information that was not covered in the summary, so the summary is basically useless. To review the research critically, all raw data must be known, and proper statistical analysis must be conducted.[/quote]
According to Truls, the full disclosure probably won’t be until next summer / fall. Alex was supposed to compile and analyse all the data by himself, but it’s become apparent that it’s just too much stuff to handle alone. Assuming it is released next summer, that’ll be a full two years between the last squat and the publishing of the results. I hate research sometimes.

What is a good squat to you? Throw out some numbers.[/quote]

What’s a good squat to me personally you mean? Or did you mean in general for everyone on this site?

The answer is as with so many other questions: It depends.

Low bar, wide stance vs. high bar narrow stance. Atg vs. parallel. Suited vs. unsuited. There are many variables to consider. Relative strength vs. absolute strength, natural vs. enhanced etc…

If a trainee can do a deep squat with just a belt of 200kg/440lbs he is strong from the viewpoint of any ordinary gym rat. That’s something any healthy adult man should be able to do given enough training and focus on the squat. But in PL/weightlifting context a 200kg/440lbs raw squat is nothing special.

There exist some strength classification charts, both official and unoffical one can find using google. Typically a devoted trainee wil score higher on a classification chart that is aimed at ordinary gym rats as compared to PL/weightlifting strength classification charts.

So I’m not going to throw out so many numbers, as my personal opinion on the matter is not that important, but everyone that’s in the lifestyle of lifting sure can appreciate some heavy lifts and knows how much work is behind it.[/quote]
Yeah, I know the charts and standards (and NC qualifiers) pretty much by heart. I was really just interested in your opinion. You voice it on training methods, why not on strength standards.

123

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]stallion wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]stallion wrote:
The study by Kirketeig I am sure is interesting, but the results was released on a convention at Hamar, and what’s on the styrkeloft site is just a poorly written summary by a very young lifter. I haven’t checked if the complete paper is available, but I believe it was made as a part of Kirketeigs (norwegian squat record holder btw 341kg@90 IPF) education, so it might be available in some online site that store such papers. It might be possible to contact Kirketeig directly for inqueries regarding that research.

There was a lot of information that was not covered in the summary, so the summary is basically useless. To review the research critically, all raw data must be known, and proper statistical analysis must be conducted.[/quote]
According to Truls, the full disclosure probably won’t be until next summer / fall. Alex was supposed to compile and analyse all the data by himself, but it’s become apparent that it’s just too much stuff to handle alone. Assuming it is released next summer, that’ll be a full two years between the last squat and the publishing of the results. I hate research sometimes.

What is a good squat to you? Throw out some numbers.[/quote]

What’s a good squat to me personally you mean? Or did you mean in general for everyone on this site?

The answer is as with so many other questions: It depends.

Low bar, wide stance vs. high bar narrow stance. Atg vs. parallel. Suited vs. unsuited. There are many variables to consider. Relative strength vs. absolute strength, natural vs. enhanced etc…

If a trainee can do a deep squat with just a belt of 200kg/440lbs he is strong from the viewpoint of any ordinary gym rat. That’s something any healthy adult man should be able to do given enough training and focus on the squat. But in PL/weightlifting context a 200kg/440lbs raw squat is nothing special.

There exist some strength classification charts, both official and unoffical one can find using google. Typically a devoted trainee wil score higher on a classification chart that is aimed at ordinary gym rats as compared to PL/weightlifting strength classification charts.

So I’m not going to throw out so many numbers, as my personal opinion on the matter is not that important, but everyone that’s in the lifestyle of lifting sure can appreciate some heavy lifts and knows how much work is behind it.[/quote]
Yeah, I know the charts and standards (and NC qualifiers) pretty much by heart. I was really just interested in your opinion. You voice it on training methods, why not on strength standards.[/quote]

Ok then. I’m really just interested in raw deep squats. Preferably with no belt. No bashing of all the other styles out there.

So my numbers for a raw squat performed by a natural lifter would be (please add approx 5% to the weight if you use a belt):

200kg/440lbs I consider a beginner weight. When you reach that weight, then you start to realize what squatting is about, and how demanding it is. Still I used years myself to get there, as most average lifters also will do.

250kg/550lbs If you can do this weight in a deep squat, then you are strong imho.

300kg/660lbs You’re awesomely strong, and you’ve achived something that very few men on this planet have achived.

That’s my 5 cents and my humble opinions.

124

my best high bar ATG squat was 540, I did have a belt on though. I did not think I was “that” strong as far as comparing myself to some of the high level lifters and throwers I trained with at that time.

I also did 505x5 ATG with a pause at bottom(with belt) when I was young and healthy. to this day I think that was one of my most impressive feats of strength that I have ever done.