Opinions on Speed Work

Training Powerlifting
141

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Theoretically there is enough energy stored in lowering a squat to almost raise it. If you drop a weight on a trampoline it will rise to the same level minus the inefficiency. Unless the weight is great enough to damage the trampoline.

[/quote]

I don’t think there is anywhere near enough energy stored to “almost” raise a squat. Humans are far less efficient at storing energy than a trampoline. IIRC, with the stretch reflex, the energy stored is typically like 15-30%.[/quote]

The flexed muscle-tendon apparatus is physically speaking a highly elastic material but of course there is heat produced, and also heat lost to mechanical inefficiency (energy dispersed into the core during a squat) but I think that when you get a maximal force for a given individual, say someone maxing 300 on the bench, the force caused the reflexes to balk at maintaining (continuously) the contraction needed to elastically rebound the weight. The muscles become less elastic under that force to prevent damage. Maybe its 30% efficient. I think if you take a fairly light weight, say 135 and stay tight, a good chunk of the work done in raising the weight came from the lowing of the weight if you can lower the weight (at the end) at the same speed that gravity would give it falling from the lockout.

The stretch reflex is something different. It is about raising force production reflexively. People have come to confuse the stretch reflex with storing energy during the descent. A trampoline has no stretch reflex (or maybe it does, I’ll explain) but it stores the energy.
A muscle may store the energy but not have an increase in maximal force potential.

My theory, or at least conjecture is that the stretch reflex may not actually be an increase in stimulation, but rather just a decrease in inhibition. When you lower a weight, if the force is too high, or too high for too long you have a “reflex” that inhibits maximal force, so the 300 pound bench presser may vary well be able to exert 360 pounds of force, but the reflexes shut that down to protect. If the force rises fast enough though (ballistic reversal) the muscle starts contracting at 360 pounds of force BEFORE the reflexes kick in to reduce the force.

And in part that is why MAXIMAL weights are not as good as 75-85% weights. You tend to lower/and reverse maximal weights slower so you are not beating the inhibitory reflexes. With lesser, faster weights, you get up to 360 pounds of force before the contraction gets inhibited.

And it brings up another issue. Maximal weights tend to move faster (therefore higher force) for people who have done or are doing fast/ballistic work. For people who’s tendons have adapted and thickened, heavier weights are going to be able to produce more load even at slower reversals.

So really the degree to which someone should train fast or plyometrically or lighter versus heavier is probably very individualsized, depending on the relative difference between the force they can produce with a stretch reflex, compared to a slower reversal, or in another manner of speaking, if your tendons are thickened to match your muscle strength, then heavier training is going to be best. If your muscles exceed your tendons then you need to train the tendons with lighter faster reps.

If your max reps are slow, OR if you can do fairly high reps with a given percentage (say more than 7 at 80%, more than 3 at 90% with about a 3 second per rep natural tempo) then your tendons probably need lighter faster work. If your max reps are fast (less than 3 seconds) or you do less than 7 at 80% or can’t triple 90% tnen maximal weights are probably striking a good balance between muscle and tendon. 3 seconds would be for a full range bench press. Maybe 4 for a squat, and less for a partial like a board press.

142

I’m forced to train at home right now, and my set up to squat is a bar suspended from the rafters by straps (best I can do right now) anyway my best squat is 470 in gym. At home with the set up I have, the most I can budge is 335, once I get it up and adjust I can get 5 with it. When I try 345 it doesn’t move. My set up is about 2 inches below parallel, I thought about building some sort of rack, but got thinking this is obviously something I need to work on, if I can get my dead stop squat to 400, it should pay dividends to my real squat.

143

Paused squat compared to a pin squat (at same mechanical position and load) are completely different when I performed them. How would you guys use them to structure your training? Great thread by the way.

144

And pin squat vs box squat too.

145

[quote]shffl wrote:
Paused squat compared to a pin squat (at same mechanical position and load) are completely different when I performed them. How would you guys use them to structure your training? Great thread by the way.[/quote]

My response will be pretty tangential to a mostly Conjugate thread, but…

I just recently started using both. I run modified Sheiko CMS/MS cycles where I train seven days a week, one lift per day. On days that call for double squat (squat/bench/squat on a Monday becoming squat/squat on Tuesday, for example), I do competition squats first, then drop the load on the second round of squats by 5% and either do pause squats or pin squats, with a preference on pause squats if there’s only one double squat session that week. I make similar alterations on double bench days, substituting close grip or pin press after competition bench.

I feel as though my hip strength has improved dramatically after only a short time doing this, and I can better hold my positioning under heavier loads in the competition squat because of it. Doing them highly fatigued, directly after my main squat session of the day has been pretty brutal, but I think that has actually made them even more beneficial.

146

To clarify Mike Tuchscherer’s position a bit–he does not state that speed work doesn’t work at all, he just believes that it is not the most efficient way to get stronger.

In order to determine whether or not speed work is effective, one must pose an alternative. Effective as compared to what? For example, which method will result in the greatest strength gains…speed work or heavy singles. Once the alternative has been suggested, one must conduct a randomized clinical trial. (I suspect I know the answer and it is not speed work, but that is my opinion.)

In the absence of this strict empirical proof, circumstantial evidence, backed by scientific principle must suffice. Many lifters, including myself, have been successful using Mike T’s methods (as well as Westside’s), so I would caution against discrediting Mike T’s methodology based on 1 poster’s iconoclastic argument.

147

[quote]thaddypants wrote:
To clarify Mike Tuchscherer’s position a bit–he does not state that speed work doesn’t work at all, he just believes that it is not the most efficient way to get stronger.

In order to determine whether or not speed work is effective, one must pose an alternative. Effective as compared to what? For example, which method will result in the greatest strength gains…speed work or heavy singles. Once the alternative has been suggested, one must conduct a randomized clinical trial. (I suspect I know the answer and it is not speed work, but that is my opinion.)

In the absence of this strict empirical proof, circumstantial evidence, backed by scientific principle must suffice. Many lifters, including myself, have been successful using Mike T’s methods (as well as Westside’s), so I would caution against discrediting Mike T’s methodology based on 1 poster’s iconoclastic argument. [/quote]

All of the explanations of speed work that I have heard in the context of a Westside like system are that it’s something to do on the second upper or lower day each week. You can’t do two squat max effort workouts a week without burning out so you need something to do on the second day. That context makes it somewhat more difficult to conduct a clinical trial.

The question just becomes, if you’re going to work out 4 days a week, two upper and two lower, what options do you have for the second day (assuming the first was some sort of ME)? You can do some ‘speed work,’ you can do some rep work, or you can try to rep out at a lower weight. But I just don’t really see those approaches as categorically distinct. They’re all just sort of ‘pick up heavy stuff and put it down but make sure it’s not too heavy.’

In my mind, the real division in training systems is between systems that center around maxing out frequently (like westside) and volume type systems that avoid frequent maxing. Doing every rep as fast as you can seems to be a common denominator.

148

I’ve never read up on Mike tuchscherer, pretty interesting stuff. I’ve never played to much with west side, because I’m still making gains from linier progression, lots of low rep sets adding weight when possible, and deloading. I used this same system to get a 1480, albeit 13yrs ago, but it wasn’t so complicated back than, everyone was getting strong on basic programs. nowdays I see people doing fancy shit, with fancy gagits but their not getting strong.

People seem to know to much, and not do enough, I’m gonna leave it at that. I’ll be starting a log up begining of Aug, with pics and numbers, should be comming back at around 1300 I figure, we’ll see. Point is for me, as long as your getting 10% a year gains, why complicate the program. I’ll bet alot (most) of you guys complicating your programs (speed work) aren’t getting 10% stronger each year. This is an interesting thread for sure, and it’s fun to think about, but if your not getting stronger why do it.

I’m leaving for three weeks (jail) when I get back I’m going to start my log, mabey we can continue some of this there. I’d like to find someone thats doing West Side, around the same strength as me, and see who gets stronger at the end of the year, sounds like real world science (instead of talk) I’m up for it. Latter

149

I was just thinking about the Russian reset theory. Actually it is a “theory” in that the details are not all set in stone, but the axiom was that 90+% true max loads REQUIRE at least 1 lighter day for such things as the “natural” muscle firing rate, and synchronicity to return. They tested guys a week after training with over 90% of competition max and they found that a group that had entirely abstained from training still had certain things about the motor unit firing rates that had not returned to normal. Athletes that had used lighter loads (60-70%) at least once had returned to baseline levels and were ready to progress again. They also found (as Louie cites regularly) that they could only progress on a movement for a 3 week wave and then had to go back down near the bottom of the wave. So in the most advanced lifters it was essential to wave back down at least every 3rd workout. Even more advanced guys used waves like 70%, 80%, 90%, 70%, 80%, 70%, 80%, 90% which approached them doing 50% of their workouts in the “light” range.

Now definitely I think that even with the training percentages that I like: about 70/80/90 in the squat, and 75-85% in the bench that when I stall it is time to go back down by about 10% of my max and start building again. I personally stall in 5-7 workouts, but the wave seems to get shorter as the poundages progress.

One last thing I’d like to mention again about the ME method. The Russian ME/conjugate method was not designed to allow maximum pounds to be used as often as possible. It was designed to slightly alter the move so that athletes were not extremely proficient and so they could not burn themselves out. To the Russians, TRUE 100% efforts utterly destroyed athletes. They believed that this was largely psychological stress from a) doing a high stakes lift that they basically judged their self worth from and b) trying to match or beat a known standard or max. In the gym, 90% WAS 100% on all of their tables. If someone cleaned 400 in a competition, then 360 was 100% in the gym, and 325 would be at the 90% edge. And they only did 3-5 doubles at 90% of 90%. True 100% for the Russians was equated with DEATH and DESTRUCTION of the athlete.

The reason to change max effort exercises is NOT that you have gotten strong and aren’t getting stronger on it anymore, it is because you have gotten strong enough on it to OVERTAX yourself, a) physically because your are able to handle over 90% of a true physioligical max, and b) psychologically because you get to know what the poundages mean on the movement and get stressed out if you don’t beat the number.

Louie was adamant that you should not psych up for an ME lift, because the total stress could take your cortisol up to levels that ate up all your muscle.

The ME method is a way to CONTROL AND LIMIT the stress. Do NOT guess where your max should fall and try to get there. Do not psych up. Your arousal in an ME exercise should be on a level below what it would be for a high stakes lift. Its like "I don’t know what the heck I can do in this lift, lets do a triple, add a little and keep going, but no big deal. IF you change your exercises enough you will never get to the killer stress level and you can probably do ME 2-3 times a week, especially since many of them are partials, top loaded, don’t use a full arch, or create lateral stresses (GMs) that TARGET key muscles, rather than hammer the whole system.

Well, anyway I’m basically testing that out. I again am using 75-85% in the bench for about 12-20 reps done in 10 minutes in one workout, and ME 2 days later, but the ME will be something much less stressful. For example a 3 board press, or a reverse band press will get the muscles firing hard, but there is so much less going on in terms of ROM, set-up, arch, load at reversal etc, that they are nothing to the system like a full range bench workout. With this kind of ME you fail because your muscles can’t flex hard enough, not because not every single aspect of a maximal full range bench press or squat is not absolutely perfect, tight, set up, firing perfectly, moved through the ideal path etc.

THAT is my take on what ME should be. I might even jokingly call it a “casual” max. Not because its not hard, but because it is specifically hard, but generally, on the whole system much easier than a big 3.

150

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Now definitely I think that even with the training percentages that I like: about 70/80/90 in the squat, and 75-85% in the bench that when I stall it is time to go back down by about 10% of my max and start building again. I personally stall in 5-7 workouts, but the wave seems to get shorter as the poundages progress.

[/quote]

Much of my training has been based around similar waves the last couple of years. Ramp the percentages up over a 4-6 week period while keeping the reps in line with Prilipen’s chart. When I stall, drop back down and start over. It is amazing how simple it can be.

151

[quote]burt128 wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Now definitely I think that even with the training percentages that I like: about 70/80/90 in the squat, and 75-85% in the bench that when I stall it is time to go back down by about 10% of my max and start building again. I personally stall in 5-7 workouts, but the wave seems to get shorter as the poundages progress.

[/quote]

Much of my training has been based around similar waves the last couple of years. Ramp the percentages up over a 4-6 week period while keeping the reps in line with Prilipen’s chart. When I stall, drop back down and start over. It is amazing how simple it can be.
[/quote]

I have been coming to this conclusion lately as well. I structured my training for Worlds around these same ideas and was making really good progress (which is really saying something because I am happy when I get 20-30lbs a year). When I tore my quad (because I am an idiot and did not stick to my rest day plans) I was on my second rep of squats with 615… on DE day.

Not a lot of people know this about me but when I was in the junior division, I got a 670 raw squat in competition. Thinking back to how my training was then compared to the Westside template I am following now is instead of having a low percentage speed work day, I trained in a relatively high intensity zone 2 days a week. One with lower volume, one with higher volume. I need to get back to that, for squats anyway, once the trillion injuries I have heal up.

152

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I was just thinking about the Russian reset theory. Actually it is a “theory” in that the details are not all set in stone, but the axiom was that 90+% true max loads REQUIRE at least 1 lighter day for such things as the “natural” muscle firing rate, and synchronicity to return. They tested guys a week after training with over 90% of competition max and they found that a group that had entirely abstained from training still had certain things about the motor unit firing rates that had not returned to normal. Athletes that had used lighter loads (60-70%) at least once had returned to baseline levels and were ready to progress again. They also found (as Louie cites regularly) that they could only progress on a movement for a 3 week wave and then had to go back down near the bottom of the wave. So in the most advanced lifters it was essential to wave back down at least every 3rd workout. Even more advanced guys used waves like 70%, 80%, 90%, 70%, 80%, 70%, 80%, 90% which approached them doing 50% of their workouts in the “light” range.

Now definitely I think that even with the training percentages that I like: about 70/80/90 in the squat, and 75-85% in the bench that when I stall it is time to go back down by about 10% of my max and start building again. I personally stall in 5-7 workouts, but the wave seems to get shorter as the poundages progress.

One last thing I’d like to mention again about the ME method. The Russian ME/conjugate method was not designed to allow maximum pounds to be used as often as possible. It was designed to slightly alter the move so that athletes were not extremely proficient and so they could not burn themselves out. To the Russians, TRUE 100% efforts utterly destroyed athletes. They believed that this was largely psychological stress from a) doing a high stakes lift that they basically judged their self worth from and b) trying to match or beat a known standard or max. In the gym, 90% WAS 100% on all of their tables. If someone cleaned 400 in a competition, then 360 was 100% in the gym, and 325 would be at the 90% edge. And they only did 3-5 doubles at 90% of 90%. True 100% for the Russians was equated with DEATH and DESTRUCTION of the athlete.

The reason to change max effort exercises is NOT that you have gotten strong and aren’t getting stronger on it anymore, it is because you have gotten strong enough on it to OVERTAX yourself, a) physically because your are able to handle over 90% of a true physioligical max, and b) psychologically because you get to know what the poundages mean on the movement and get stressed out if you don’t beat the number.

Louie was adamant that you should not psych up for an ME lift, because the total stress could take your cortisol up to levels that ate up all your muscle.

The ME method is a way to CONTROL AND LIMIT the stress. Do NOT guess where your max should fall and try to get there. Do not psych up. Your arousal in an ME exercise should be on a level below what it would be for a high stakes lift. Its like "I don’t know what the heck I can do in this lift, lets do a triple, add a little and keep going, but no big deal. IF you change your exercises enough you will never get to the killer stress level and you can probably do ME 2-3 times a week, especially since many of them are partials, top loaded, don’t use a full arch, or create lateral stresses (GMs) that TARGET key muscles, rather than hammer the whole system.

Well, anyway I’m basically testing that out. I again am using 75-85% in the bench for about 12-20 reps done in 10 minutes in one workout, and ME 2 days later, but the ME will be something much less stressful. For example a 3 board press, or a reverse band press will get the muscles firing hard, but there is so much less going on in terms of ROM, set-up, arch, load at reversal etc, that they are nothing to the system like a full range bench workout. With this kind of ME you fail because your muscles can’t flex hard enough, not because not every single aspect of a maximal full range bench press or squat is not absolutely perfect, tight, set up, firing perfectly, moved through the ideal path etc.

THAT is my take on what ME should be. I might even jokingly call it a “casual” max. Not because its not hard, but because it is specifically hard, but generally, on the whole system much easier than a big 3.[/quote]
Excellent post. This explains some of the struggles I have been having trying to push my lifts to the next level.

153

Great thread