Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Sammy Sosa
New member
Where was the power outputs measured at?
AnabolicMD:
Thanks...a ton. Meant a lot to me. VERY much.
As far as the power cleans go...I do believe that they work. Like CCJ says...it takes many combinations of things to improve the athlete. For me the box squat does the most for the most of my goals.
B True
Thanks...a ton. Meant a lot to me. VERY much.
As far as the power cleans go...I do believe that they work. Like CCJ says...it takes many combinations of things to improve the athlete. For me the box squat does the most for the most of my goals.
B True
A
anabolicmd
Guest
b fold the truth said:
Its all true Bfold, thanks for being so understanding. By the way, I like what Im hearing about box squats. Watching you do them with the bands was...freaky. I do like how they stop the bounce at the bottom, which is a problem with deep squats. It reminded me of stop-squats, which I havent used and Im not familiar with either. The idea is similar, instead of coming up right away, the lifter holds the stop at the bottom for a second or two before driving up from a complete stop. It will be fun to try them both.
collegiateLifter
New member
anabolicmd said:
dr squat is a much more accomplished lifter than me.
THAT HAS NO BEARING ON HIS ARTICLES. NONE!
he writes wacky articles sometimes, somewhat frequently. Instead of quoting secondary sources why don't you dig up the actual documents on the 1964 tests??? (I won't because they don't exist, specifically because these competitions never happened.)
Charles Poliquin also is a "recognized" strength training authority talked about Ben Johnson squattin 3RM loads before his 9.79 in Seoul in his article on contrast training. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Why would Poiliquin say this? I don't know and nor do I care. Same thing with Hatfield.
(you can read the article at http://t-mag.com/html/body_58princ.html)
I was trying to be humble when i politely suggested 3 times that you were overlooking the kinematics and biomechanics of different movements. There is great irony in all of your posts in this thread. I'm starting to think that Bfold may have been right in thinking that you are just a troll.
A
anabolicmd
Guest
collegiateLifter said:
So Hatfield and Poiliquin are full of crap, thats your argument? Good one. Btw, the link you provided supports nothing you have said. Also, you keep criticizing me for not considering biomechanics, even though the whole point of this discussion is about how different bodies have different biomechanics as it relates to their ability to lift the bar along the ideal trajectory. Have you actually read my posts? It sure doesnt seem like it. Also, I dont think "kinematics" means what you think it means.
www.kinematics.com
Arguing in a discussion when you arent aware of what is being discussed nor the meaning of the words you try to throw around is a real troll characteristic.
Last edited:
coolcolj
New member
quoted from Bulgarian coach Spassov
Strength in Sports
The main kinds of strength are: maximal strength, explosive strength, velocity (or speed strength), and strength for endurance. It's very difficult to have examples from different sports when normally one sport needs more than one kind of strength. We know which car is the most powerful, what ship is the most powerful, and what muscles are more powerful. But which athlete is the most powerful? Coaches have debated who is the most powerful, the fastest, etcetera, for a long time. Some of the top contenders are boxers, wrestlers, judo or karate athletes, and weightlifters.
However, I believe the most powerful athletes are the shot putters. Why? Let's look at measurements. The universal measurement of athletic power tends to be in horsepower. The last world record in shot put was 23 meters - a little more than 9 horsepower. In weightlifting, the most powerful effort is a world record in snatch (not in clean and jerk). This power is not pure strength. Power is a mix of strength and velocity. So, the closest world record in snatch is about 6.6 horsepower - quite a bit less than the shot put. From this point, we can begin to understand the mix of different kinds of strength.
This article focuses on the development of maximal strength. I will use as examples weightlifting and weightlifters in Bulgaria or the Soviet Union because that sport is typical of representing that kind of strength. It's very easy to measure maximal strength and other results in weightlifting because you're measuring concrete concepts - the number of kilograms; the hike; movement of the bar; and so on.
The maximal speed of the movement of the bar is during the snatch and during the jerk from the chest. This maximal speed is not more than 2.8 to 3 meters per second. In this case, the effort from the lifter is 165 percent of the weight of the bar. So, if you are lifting 100 kilograms, your efforts are roughly 165 kilograms. It's during the second pull that this is the most powerful effort, from slightly over the knees to the point of jerking the bar from the chest.
The tendency over the last few years, when the results of the lifters improved so much, was not to increase the speed of the movement of the bar, but to increase the speed of dropping the body under the bar. You can hurt somebody when you say "faster from the knees." This is not correct advice. He can drop his body under the bar faster, but to move the bar faster is impossible. The weightlifting world championships show speeds of the bar in the snatch at 2.8 for one athlete and 0.8 for another. But the results are the same - world records. So, speed of the movement of the bar is not important. Dropping the lifter under the bar is another question. So, most of the high-level results in weightlifting depend on the maximal strength of the lifter. For that reason, we will use examples from weightlifting.
Many coaches, especially coaches from other events such as basketball, will ask "why should I make a full squat during my training with weights, when I never make a full squat during the game?" The answer is that in any sport, athletes need to develop a maximal strength level, the optimal level, which is what that kind of sport needs. But, let us say that the basketball player improves their full back squat. With the same body weight, it's absolutely certain that after some time in this kind of work, with mixing of other exercises, they can be in a better position, they can jump higher than before, and so on. But, they say, "half squat is enough for me." The weakest point of this opinion is that they think that full squats are a bigger danger for them, possibly causing injury to the knee joints or some other part of the legs or body. This is not true. In a full squat, the soft muscles of the legs slow the speed of the bar down, and help the joints recover. In the half squat you have to stop for a very short time when the bar is going down - and at the same time, shift the bar in the upward direction. That moment is a very sharp stop, it's like a knife, especially over the knee joints. So the danger of injury during the half squat is much greater than during the full squat.
In 1963, Valeriy Brumel from the Soviet Union held the high jump record at 228 centimeters. This is still a good result, although at that time it was an extraordinary jump. His coach said all jumpers in the world who want to reach high-level results must be able to make a full back squat with twice their body weight. Brumel weighed about 80 kilos, and made a full back squat with 175 kilos. Since they changed the style of the jumping it is not so necessary to have such strong legs. In Bulgaria, we have a female athlete who holds a world record in high jump of 209 centimeters. She is able, at 180 cm tall and 60 kilos body weight, to make a full squat with 100 kilos. This is a good performance. We have three girls taller than 6'6" who are making something around that squat. A girl in our institute high-jumped at 173 as a junior. After two years of training she jumped maximal 170, then stopped, because many coaches said, "she cannot improve more." I started to train her with weights. At 58 kilos of body weight when she was 28 years old (quite old for the sport), she made a full back squat at 120 and jumped at 188. So, she improved by 15 centimeters. I am not a high jump coach, but the girl already possessed technical knowledge in high jump. Only now the power of the leg was much greater and the jumps were higher.
Strength in Sports
The main kinds of strength are: maximal strength, explosive strength, velocity (or speed strength), and strength for endurance. It's very difficult to have examples from different sports when normally one sport needs more than one kind of strength. We know which car is the most powerful, what ship is the most powerful, and what muscles are more powerful. But which athlete is the most powerful? Coaches have debated who is the most powerful, the fastest, etcetera, for a long time. Some of the top contenders are boxers, wrestlers, judo or karate athletes, and weightlifters.
However, I believe the most powerful athletes are the shot putters. Why? Let's look at measurements. The universal measurement of athletic power tends to be in horsepower. The last world record in shot put was 23 meters - a little more than 9 horsepower. In weightlifting, the most powerful effort is a world record in snatch (not in clean and jerk). This power is not pure strength. Power is a mix of strength and velocity. So, the closest world record in snatch is about 6.6 horsepower - quite a bit less than the shot put. From this point, we can begin to understand the mix of different kinds of strength.
This article focuses on the development of maximal strength. I will use as examples weightlifting and weightlifters in Bulgaria or the Soviet Union because that sport is typical of representing that kind of strength. It's very easy to measure maximal strength and other results in weightlifting because you're measuring concrete concepts - the number of kilograms; the hike; movement of the bar; and so on.
The maximal speed of the movement of the bar is during the snatch and during the jerk from the chest. This maximal speed is not more than 2.8 to 3 meters per second. In this case, the effort from the lifter is 165 percent of the weight of the bar. So, if you are lifting 100 kilograms, your efforts are roughly 165 kilograms. It's during the second pull that this is the most powerful effort, from slightly over the knees to the point of jerking the bar from the chest.
The tendency over the last few years, when the results of the lifters improved so much, was not to increase the speed of the movement of the bar, but to increase the speed of dropping the body under the bar. You can hurt somebody when you say "faster from the knees." This is not correct advice. He can drop his body under the bar faster, but to move the bar faster is impossible. The weightlifting world championships show speeds of the bar in the snatch at 2.8 for one athlete and 0.8 for another. But the results are the same - world records. So, speed of the movement of the bar is not important. Dropping the lifter under the bar is another question. So, most of the high-level results in weightlifting depend on the maximal strength of the lifter. For that reason, we will use examples from weightlifting.
Many coaches, especially coaches from other events such as basketball, will ask "why should I make a full squat during my training with weights, when I never make a full squat during the game?" The answer is that in any sport, athletes need to develop a maximal strength level, the optimal level, which is what that kind of sport needs. But, let us say that the basketball player improves their full back squat. With the same body weight, it's absolutely certain that after some time in this kind of work, with mixing of other exercises, they can be in a better position, they can jump higher than before, and so on. But, they say, "half squat is enough for me." The weakest point of this opinion is that they think that full squats are a bigger danger for them, possibly causing injury to the knee joints or some other part of the legs or body. This is not true. In a full squat, the soft muscles of the legs slow the speed of the bar down, and help the joints recover. In the half squat you have to stop for a very short time when the bar is going down - and at the same time, shift the bar in the upward direction. That moment is a very sharp stop, it's like a knife, especially over the knee joints. So the danger of injury during the half squat is much greater than during the full squat.
In 1963, Valeriy Brumel from the Soviet Union held the high jump record at 228 centimeters. This is still a good result, although at that time it was an extraordinary jump. His coach said all jumpers in the world who want to reach high-level results must be able to make a full back squat with twice their body weight. Brumel weighed about 80 kilos, and made a full back squat with 175 kilos. Since they changed the style of the jumping it is not so necessary to have such strong legs. In Bulgaria, we have a female athlete who holds a world record in high jump of 209 centimeters. She is able, at 180 cm tall and 60 kilos body weight, to make a full squat with 100 kilos. This is a good performance. We have three girls taller than 6'6" who are making something around that squat. A girl in our institute high-jumped at 173 as a junior. After two years of training she jumped maximal 170, then stopped, because many coaches said, "she cannot improve more." I started to train her with weights. At 58 kilos of body weight when she was 28 years old (quite old for the sport), she made a full back squat at 120 and jumped at 188. So, she improved by 15 centimeters. I am not a high jump coach, but the girl already possessed technical knowledge in high jump. Only now the power of the leg was much greater and the jumps were higher.
collegiateLifter said:
I found this interesting a while back too when people argued with me that it DID take place. I think that the story was that he had squatted 600 or 650 for a 3RM then set that WR. I think that I argued that after a true 3RM...I had problems walking much less sprinting...lol.
I read a newspaper article about a week ago where Ben Johnson was talking about his training now. Said that he felt strong, as strong as ever and had even recently squatted 500 pounds. It eluded that "500" was either a PR or REALLY close to a previous one.
B True
A
anabolicmd
Guest
b fold the truth said:
500 is probably his clean PR, lol. It would be interestin to separate lifting legends from facts. I know that I have heard similar stories about Barry Sanders cleaning 350, which sounds possible but who really knows?
anabolicmd said:
It never eluded to that at all. It eluded to it being his best...ever.
So many times people either choose to ride on the coat tails of champions or brag about what someone else has done...to make them look better. Every time some friends from St. Louis tell stories about me training up there, it gets bigger and bigger. I just deny their claims in public...because they are only 'partially' true.
B True
collegiateLifter
New member
b fold the truth said:
The reason i know that it never happened is that Charlie Francis (Ben's coach) addressed this saying that Ben did not squat before the race and could not have squatted this load as there wasn't even an accessible weight set around in the warmup area in Seoul.
collegiateLifter
New member
anabolicmd said:
NO. My point was that they are certainly NOT infallible, and perhaps often wrong.
MY POINT is that if you really want to know the validity of something you go as close to the source as you can. You say there were these official competitions in 1964? If there were then there should be 1st hand documents on them. As far as Ben Johnson's squating before the 1988 record goes, I went as close as I could to that event by finding commentary from his coach, Charlie Francis, saying that not only did that not happen it was an impossibility. I don't have his refference handy. You can believe me, or go to his board yourself and ask, or just ignore everything i have said to this point as has been the trend in the thread.
anabolicmd said:
No you came out and said Bfold this is (probably) why you injured yourself. Then you offered a critique based upon overly simplified physical knowledge. I critiqued you saying that you did not have a complete picture and also later that you were using a straw man for reasoning.
anabolicmd said:
The irony again is rediculous.
I was never "arguing in a discussion" rather i was critiquing your argument because it did not and does not have a solid basis.
I have to disagree with the idea that an individual's personal accomplishments are irrelevant in terms of evaluating the merit of their arguments. I agree that stats and personal accomplishments are not the only relevant factor, but they are relevant to me.
If a person has bad stats because they have not been lifting for very long, that is a factor I throw into the equation when deciding how much merit their arguments may have. Similarly, if a person has been lifting for a long time, has a ton of experience, and yet still has bad stats, I have to wonder whether they know what they are talking about. Do they just have horrible genetics? or are they missing something?
If someone has great stats, I ask, how did they get them? In some cases, it is only because of raw genetic power. However, that is the rare exception, especially at high levels of achievement. Nine times out of ten, a person who has accomplished much in weight training knows a thing or two and should be listened to. Dave Tate, Louie Simmons and Dr. Squat come to mind. I also listen plenty to those that that have coached champions even though they may not have been excellent in their own accomplishments.
However, when someone comes in with very authoritative sounding statements that contradict many accomplished lifters, I find it appropriate to dismiss that person's statements unless they can give me some indication that they know what they are talking about--e.g. personal stats, coaching stats or references to individuals that have personal stats or coaching stats---or, although I don't think I have ever seen this, a well stated argument as to why everyone who seemingly knows what they are doing is wrong, and this person is right, even though they have no stats and no coaching of champions to prove it.
This is not to say that those that are new to the game or those that for whatever reason do not have great lifts never have anything relevant or helpful to say; however, it would seem that these kind of people should not be making statements that are contrary the statements of those I list above.
If a person has bad stats because they have not been lifting for very long, that is a factor I throw into the equation when deciding how much merit their arguments may have. Similarly, if a person has been lifting for a long time, has a ton of experience, and yet still has bad stats, I have to wonder whether they know what they are talking about. Do they just have horrible genetics? or are they missing something?
If someone has great stats, I ask, how did they get them? In some cases, it is only because of raw genetic power. However, that is the rare exception, especially at high levels of achievement. Nine times out of ten, a person who has accomplished much in weight training knows a thing or two and should be listened to. Dave Tate, Louie Simmons and Dr. Squat come to mind. I also listen plenty to those that that have coached champions even though they may not have been excellent in their own accomplishments.
However, when someone comes in with very authoritative sounding statements that contradict many accomplished lifters, I find it appropriate to dismiss that person's statements unless they can give me some indication that they know what they are talking about--e.g. personal stats, coaching stats or references to individuals that have personal stats or coaching stats---or, although I don't think I have ever seen this, a well stated argument as to why everyone who seemingly knows what they are doing is wrong, and this person is right, even though they have no stats and no coaching of champions to prove it.
This is not to say that those that are new to the game or those that for whatever reason do not have great lifts never have anything relevant or helpful to say; however, it would seem that these kind of people should not be making statements that are contrary the statements of those I list above.
JT Iron said:
I heard a rumor that you got some RED karma from this post...
I guess that it was seen...but not important.
I'll hit ya...
B True
