Thib's Random Thought of the Day

MikeTheBear · February 23, 2010, 11:37pm

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
FEBRUARY 23RD

EXPLOSIVE EXERCISE FOR STRENGTH, SIZE AND PERFORMANCE

And then a whole bunch of gold nuggets…

So we’re back to square one: ''Bring me someone explosive and I can make him strong (or big)…

[/quote]

Funny, because the other day I foolishly decided to post in a thread in the BB forum titled “Why train for strength if size is wanted?” I never post in the forums anymore except for articles and here, but this was listed in the “Most Popular Pages” at the top and so, like a moth drawn to light, I decided to add my two cents. I’ve seen more civil discussions about religion. To be fair, the original poster ultimately conceded that strength training methods are good to use to bust through a plateau. To bad this thought wasn’t available (or perhaps that was a strategic choice by CT?).

Explosiveness may just be the basis for everything. If you want a discussion about strength training that’s more vicious than a discussion about strength for bodybuilding, try discussing strength training for endurance athletes. However, there apparently has been some research showing that plyometric training can really help in developing power endurance. Even some of the hardcore anti-weights endurance athletes had to concede that plyometrics might be a good addition to an endurance training program. (BTW, I place explosive training into the pure strength training category even though this may not be technically accurate.)

I’ve experienced this myself to some extent. For example, when I did some running, it was easier for me to run on pavement than dirt. On pavement, my calves and Achilles tendon would “bounce” off of a hard surface while running on dirt (even packed dirt, not the really soft stuff which is hard for everyone to run on) forced me to actually use some muscle to propel forward.

Dont_Want_None · February 24, 2010, 4:09am

I re-read the Ballistic Muscle article and for the Dead Man Medicine Ball Toss it recommends a “heavy” medicine ball. I was wondering what you would recommend for someone who wanted to purchase a medicine ball for home use and to be used as an all purpose medicine ball (for dead man tosses, maybe chest passes, etc…)?

i.e. what weight? Specific type? Maybe even a brand recommendation?

Thanks Coach…

Italiano · February 24, 2010, 5:41am

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
FEBRUARY 18TH

HIGH REPS HTH

The solution is a form of cluster training where you perform a series of “mini-sets” of 2-3 reps spaced out by 10 seconds rest intervals. This way you can perform sets of 8-12 reps with a relatively heavy weight without grinding.

A god starting point is roughly 65-70% of your maximum (the 65-75% zone is ideal) and you perform micro, or mini sets of 2-3 reps with 10 seconds of rest between them.
quote]

Thibs, I believe you suggested before to use pins for clucters to eliminate the racking/unracking in an exercise such as the bench press.

Would you recommend using pins for these “mini sets” as well, or would it be necessary because you are trying for 3 reps for each “mini set”?
If pressing from pins is what you recommend, would this be a touch and go, or a slight pause. (The more I think about it, the more techniques could be incorporated within a system really. Depending on wether or not pins are used, you could choose paused reps, deadstops, fast turnaround, touch and go etc)

Thanks Thibs, really loving the ramndom thoughts thread!

Christian_Thibaudeau · February 24, 2010, 11:40am

[quote]Italiano wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
FEBRUARY 18TH

HIGH REPS HTH

The solution is a form of cluster training where you perform a series of “mini-sets” of 2-3 reps spaced out by 10 seconds rest intervals. This way you can perform sets of 8-12 reps with a relatively heavy weight without grinding.

A god starting point is roughly 65-70% of your maximum (the 65-75% zone is ideal) and you perform micro, or mini sets of 2-3 reps with 10 seconds of rest between them.
quote]

Thibs, I believe you suggested before to use pins for clucters to eliminate the racking/unracking in an exercise such as the bench press.

Would you recommend using pins for these “mini sets” as well, or would it be necessary because you are trying for 3 reps for each “mini set”?
If pressing from pins is what you recommend, would this be a touch and go, or a slight pause. (The more I think about it, the more techniques could be incorporated within a system really. Depending on wether or not pins are used, you could choose paused reps, deadstops, fast turnaround, touch and go etc)

Thanks Thibs, really loving the ramndom thoughts thread![/quote]

Yes, I mentioned it twice in this thread already. With movements where the unracking robs away some energy, do the lifts from pins.
Just make sure that you do not use the rebound of the bar against the pins to lift the weight. So probably a very short pause, never touch and go.

Dark_Knight1 · February 24, 2010, 7:51pm

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Level 1 - Basic bilateral jumps (vertical jumping, broad jumping, jumping onto a box), throws (medicine ball throws from various positions) and sprints.

Level 2 - Unilateral jumps, hops and bounding

Level 3 - Weight lifting exercises trying to accelerate the weight as much as possible

Level 4 - Shock training or ‘‘real’’ plyometrics (depth jumps, depth push ups)

[/quote]

You’ve mentioned that true plyometrics shouldn’t be used for long periods of time. Would “plyometric” pushups be included in that, or those aren’t true plyometrics? From this chart, I’d assume that plyo pushups go into level 1 - is that correct?

Mondy · February 25, 2010, 8:36am

Thibs,

I am slow as a cow, how would a level 1 program mix look like?

Would integrating them in a explosive/heavy exercise pair be enough?

Something like:

Lower body:
A1) Jumps (vertical, long, box)
A2) Front/Back Squats or Deadlifts

Upper body:
A1) Medicine ball throws or explosive pushups off bench
A2) Bench Press

B1) Medicine ball slam
B2) Pullups/rows

How do I know when I’m ready for the next level? After a certain % of improvement or other indicators?

Thank you.

Christian_Thibaudeau · February 25, 2010, 10:51am

[quote]Mondy wrote:
Thibs,

I am slow as a cow, how would a level 1 program mix look like?

Would integrating them in a explosive/heavy exercise pair be enough?

Something like:

Lower body:
A1) Jumps (vertical, long, box)
A2) Front/Back Squats or Deadlifts

Upper body:
A1) Medicine ball throws or explosive pushups off bench
A2) Bench Press

B1) Medicine ball slam
B2) Pullups/rows

How do I know when I’m ready for the next level? After a certain % of improvement or other indicators?

Thank you.[/quote]

If that’s all you’re doing for upper body you are severely lacking in a) overall volume b) movement pattern diversity.

I’m all for training simplicity, but this is taking it a few steps too far.

In your case I don’t like contrast training that much, while they are a good tool that you can use, you really should devote a specific period in your workout to work solely on explosive moves.

For example, one of my former olympic lifting coach had us start every single training session (after a general warm-up) with 15 minutes of various types of jumps. We were not jumping for 15 minutes straight, obviously. But we would do 5-10 jumps … rest a bit, do 5-10 more… rest, etc. Until the 15 minutes were done.

It’s more about how you move. When your jumps and throws are much snappier and faster and feel more natural, you can go up a level.

Christian_Thibaudeau · February 25, 2010, 10:54am

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Level 1 - Basic bilateral jumps (vertical jumping, broad jumping, jumping onto a box), throws (medicine ball throws from various positions) and sprints.

Level 2 - Unilateral jumps, hops and bounding

Level 3 - Weight lifting exercises trying to accelerate the weight as much as possible

Level 4 - Shock training or ‘‘real’’ plyometrics (depth jumps, depth push ups)

[/quote]

You’ve mentioned that true plyometrics shouldn’t be used for long periods of time. Would “plyometric” pushups be included in that, or those aren’t true plyometrics? From this chart, I’d assume that plyo pushups go into level 1 - is that correct?[/quote]

If by plyo push ups you mean the movement that is also often called ‘clap push up’ (push yourself in the air using a regular push up technique), you’re right.

A ‘‘true plyometric’’ or ‘‘shock’’ push up would be a depth push up… from a push-up position have your hands on two elevated boxes, let yourself drop down to the floor, as soon as your hands hit the floor you propel yourself back up on the boxes.

Christian_Thibaudeau · February 25, 2010, 11:39am

FEBRUARY 25TH

THE VIRGIN SEX EXPERT

Dave Tate once said that everybody who gives a seminar about getting stronger or bigger should do so in a tank top.

While it doesn’t look really professional, the message is clear and I agree with it: if you look like doodoo crap and have no muscle, you really shouldn’t try to pass as a strength training (or muscle building expert).

Richard Marcinko said something similar: ‘‘Leaders lead from the front, not from the back’’.

And Mark Twain echoed their thought when he said that: ‘‘One pound of theory crumble in front of one ounce of results’’.

All three men are essentially saying the same thing: if you really are an expert at something you should at least have decent results to show for it.

Would you trust an investment broker that went bankrupt twice?

Would you trust a morbidly obese dietician?

Or how about: ‘‘Would you take advice about how to pleasure women from a virgin?’’

The later might have read every skin mag in existance, have a paying membership to all those sites we never visit ourselves and watched a zillion XXX tapes, but when it comes to real world advice I would rather go to the guy with a successful ‘‘in the trenches’’ experience than our well read virgin!

And I don’t care if he can quote 30 studies showing the exact angle you have to hit the G-spot to increase sexual satisfaction by 67.5%… no results = no validity when it comes to something that is mostly learned on the field of play.

I think you know where I’m getting at… If somebody is supposedly a ‘‘muscle growth’’ or ‘‘strength’’ expert, then he better have at least an acceptable degree of either one of 'em (preferably both).

Now, we obviously don’t all have the same genetics. Some are naturally built to carry a lot of muscle mass, while others will have a harder time getting there. But still, genetic predisposition can only account for so much. If you know how to make a muscle big and strong, and that you don’t have an aggravating factor preventing you from building muscle, then you should be able to significantly improve the way you look. Especially since most experts have been at this training thing for a while.

I’m not saying that the bigger guy is the one that knows the most… heck, I know guys who do everything wrong under the sun and still get big and muscular.

What I’m saying is that if you are telling people that you are an expert on a subject, you should have accomplished at least above average results.

Some will claim that ‘‘my goal is not to build more muscle’’ or that ‘‘I’m training for XYZ sport and can’t gain too much muscle’’.

FINE! But if that is the case you should at least:

Have an experience at successfully building a decent amount of muscle. Kal Skcalak was a world class bodybuilder, one of the freaks of his era, before he decided to switch to road cycling. Now he doesn’t look anywhere like a bodybuilder, but he DID accomplish an impressive physique at one point.

This also holds true for older coaches who have been hit with old age, or those who have suffered a serious health problem (e.g. Cosgrove had a bout with cancer).

Don’t claim to be an expert in that field. You might be ‘‘book smart’’ about the subject, but not an expert. Take me for example, I read a lot about any form of training, including endurance training. But I have never trained to maximize my endurance performance. This is why I NEVER answer questions about how to train for endurance. I may know the theory and I’m able to quote studies on the subject and interpret them but since I never actually focused on that type of training I CANNOT claim to be an expert in it.

In some fields, theory is worth as much as practice. In nutrition for example, studies are generally fairly safe and easy to apply to the real world. But when it comes to building a lot of strength and size, it isn’t that easy. In fact many of the individuals who had the best results are those who go outside the box and generally against common dogma and pseudo-scientific theorist.

Okay, that was more a rant than an article… but I was wearing a tank top while writing it so it counts.

Charles3264 · February 25, 2010, 12:52pm

Thanks coach!!! Good to know you like Marcinko as i do

Dark_Knight1 · February 25, 2010, 7:09pm

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Level 1 - Basic bilateral jumps (vertical jumping, broad jumping, jumping onto a box), throws (medicine ball throws from various positions) and sprints.

Level 2 - Unilateral jumps, hops and bounding

Level 3 - Weight lifting exercises trying to accelerate the weight as much as possible

Level 4 - Shock training or ‘‘real’’ plyometrics (depth jumps, depth push ups)

[/quote]

You’ve mentioned that true plyometrics shouldn’t be used for long periods of time. Would “plyometric” pushups be included in that, or those aren’t true plyometrics? From this chart, I’d assume that plyo pushups go into level 1 - is that correct?[/quote]

If by plyo push ups you mean the movement that is also often called ‘clap push up’ (push yourself in the air using a regular push up technique), you’re right.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I’m referring to.

So this leads into something that I’ve been wondering about. I know some combat athletes who do circuit training with “plyo” pushups in a density format. Their idea behind it is that fighters need to be able to remain explosive while fatigued, so they build fatigue throughout the circuit, and then finish off with exercises that would be within the above Level 1 (such as the “plyo” pushups, and various jumping exercises).

I understand the idea behind this, but should these exercises, like true plyometrics, still not be done to fatigue? What about in the case of a combat athlete, who needs to train to be explosive while fatigued?

Christian_Thibaudeau · February 25, 2010, 8:21pm

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Level 1 - Basic bilateral jumps (vertical jumping, broad jumping, jumping onto a box), throws (medicine ball throws from various positions) and sprints.

Level 2 - Unilateral jumps, hops and bounding

Level 3 - Weight lifting exercises trying to accelerate the weight as much as possible

Level 4 - Shock training or ‘‘real’’ plyometrics (depth jumps, depth push ups)

[/quote]

You’ve mentioned that true plyometrics shouldn’t be used for long periods of time. Would “plyometric” pushups be included in that, or those aren’t true plyometrics? From this chart, I’d assume that plyo pushups go into level 1 - is that correct?[/quote]

If by plyo push ups you mean the movement that is also often called ‘clap push up’ (push yourself in the air using a regular push up technique), you’re right.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I’m referring to.

So this leads into something that I’ve been wondering about. I know some combat athletes who do circuit training with “plyo” pushups in a density format. Their idea behind it is that fighters need to be able to remain explosive while fatigued, so they build fatigue throughout the circuit, and then finish off with exercises that would be within the above Level 1 (such as the “plyo” pushups, and various jumping exercises).

I understand the idea behind this, but should these exercises, like true plyometrics, still not be done to fatigue? What about in the case of a combat athlete, who needs to train to be explosive while fatigued?
[/quote]

I’m all for including explosive movements into a circuit and I understand the need to stay explosive when tired. So yeah, I see the value in performing explosive movements while tired.

BUT I still don’t think that REAL plyometrics should be done for more than 4 weeks. And I certainly do not think that they should be done in a tired state.

Build the capacity to be explosive even while tired: YES
Include movements of an explosive nature in a fatigue inducing circuit: YES
Include movements that carry a high risk of injury when done in a fatigued state: HECK NO!!!

To me it’s the same logic as a football player practicing being blind-sided by a guy with a full head of steam build over a 30 yards sprint: it can happen in a game, but you don’t practice that in training!

You don’t have the quaterback being run over in practice so that he will develop the capacity to maintain his throwing accuracy 25 seconds after almost getting a concussion… the quaterback is never ‘‘live’’ in practice.

YES you practice contact. YES you have drills where full contact is used under controlled situations. But you never allow dangerous hits in practice, at least not on purpose.

So throws and low-impact jumps in a circuit: YES.
Traditional movements performed with a lot of acceleration: YES.
The olympic lifts in a circuit: YES, if the athletes are of that level
But high-impact stuff in a fatigued state: NO

AND… NEVER allow a supposedly explosive movement to become not explosive. Stop the set when speed slows down. Over time the athlete will build up the capacity to do more and more explosive reps in that fatigued state, but it’s gradual.

MikeTheBear · February 26, 2010, 6:24am

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

And I don’t care if he can quote 30 studies showing the exact angle you have to hit the G-spot to increase sexual satisfaction by 67.5%… no results = no validity when it comes to something that is mostly learned on the field of play.
[/quote]

And sometimes the studies may be 100% correct but just don’t quite pan out in the real world. Here’s an example. There are lots of studies that show that interval training can increase aerobic capacity just as good as long, steady-state training.

This has resulted in at least two groups, which I shall not name, to claim that you can train for endurance events with short bouts of interval training. To that I say: Yeah, right. How do I know? Because I’ve trained for and completed a half-marathon, that’s how I know. I have no reason to doubt the studies; in fact, I believe that they are 100% accurate and correct.

But unless you want to have a very miserable day, you do not want to train for an endurance event on intervals alone.

captaincalvert · February 26, 2010, 6:33am

That’s probably because aerobic capacity isn’t the only factor at play. Economy of movement is a big part of the run as well. If you sprint a lot, but never run at competition speed, you won’t be well enough adapted for the required movement pattern.
Shit. Now I’m turning this into an endurance forum. Sorry.

Dark_Knight1 · February 26, 2010, 7:59pm