Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Discuss your weight training questions, concerns and tips!

Moderators: cassiegose, Boss Man

Packard
VETERAN
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by Packard »

The article says: If you want strength and size, you better learn to start lifting fast. How fast? As fast as humanly possible without compromising form!

But like you and I it does not provide any science behind the statement.

I've always lifted "fast". I benched as quickly I could; I deadlifted as quickly as I could.

But rows and pull downs and curls tend to need to be done much slower or you compromise for too much. Even bench pressing has the risk of "bouncing" the bar off the chest for speed, and that compromises your strength at the lower end of the lift.

I did a bit more internet searching but I could not find anything that sounded seriously scientific that says that the intent of speed was sufficient to involve the fast twitch muscles; nor have I found anything that says you need to move fast to train the fast twitch muscles.

I know that boxers ordinarily will not lift weights based on the notion that lifting will slow hand speed. But I don't know of any studies that confirm that either.

There is a lot of B.S. in the exercise field that is based upon the lack of rigorous study. Just because a successful body builder or power lifter says something is so, it is believed. I think we need to question these sorts of statements more closely.
swanso5
VETERAN
Posts: 10658
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: melbourne, australia

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by swanso5 »

says something to that effect here:

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Mo-P ... witch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as far as the speed wthout form being compromised if you'll only bounce the bar off the chest when using a wt that is far too light or when your technique is simply shit...that;s not the style of lifting that's wrong, it's the lifter

it also says as fats as you can without form being comprimed wjich means that each lift won't be the same speed either...curls will be way quicker then squats as the range of motion and leverage is different

how can you be fast if you don't train fast? you have to at some point which is why you said football players should do plyo's closer to the season starting

boxing training is years behind, look evander in his heyday...think he didn't do any wts?
There is a lot of B.S. in the exercise field that is based upon the lack of rigorous study. Just because a successful body builder or power lifter says something is so, it is believed. I think we need to question these sorts of statements more closely.
i've read plenty and i mean plenty, even posted some for you, of very reputable strength coaches who go by the isometric core strength thing but you've given me no reason to say why we should do crunches except that 'we should train through a full range of movement" but then i've also seen you prescribe many times, 3/4 crunches...
Packard
VETERAN
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by Packard »

swanso5 wrote:... but then i've also seen you prescribe many times, 3/4 crunches...
That is a problem with terminology only.

3/4 crunches (by terminology) are crunches done not straight up but diagonally to a 45 degree angle.

I do crunches

1. On back straight up
2. On side straigth up
3. On back 45 degrees to the side, both left side and right side (which I call 3/4 crunches).

I also do hanging leg raises to the front and (3/4) 45 degrees to the side.

Admittedly "science" is from personal trials, but I've always attempted to add some scientific discipline to the trials. So I've recently added the bicycle maneuver to torso routine. I also want to add Russian twists, but I will wait for 12 weeks to add the Russian twists so that I can isolate the effectiveness of the bicycle maneuver. If I add both at the same time I will never be able to discern which one had the greater effect.
swanso5
VETERAN
Posts: 10658
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: melbourne, australia

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by swanso5 »

Admittedly "science" is from personal trials
what's wrong with that?

i would rather hear something from somneone whose in the trenches everday then some wanker in a white coat testing on subjects who have never trained before in their lives

you get real world results from real world scenario's, not a lab setting
Packard
VETERAN
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by Packard »

swanso5 wrote:
Admittedly "science" is from personal trials
what's wrong with that?

i would rather hear something from somneone whose in the trenches everday then some wanker in a white coat testing on subjects who have never trained before in their lives

you get real world results from real world scenario's, not a lab setting
Yeah, but most people will try an exercise (or diet) and will not subject it to any kind of scientific discipline and will declare it "effective".

I try to bring in some discipline to tests.

I think you will see a lot of copycat "experts" out there.

I used to lift in the afternoon, and do cardio in the evening. To save on laundry bill I would wear street socks during afternoon workout and sweat socks during cardio workout.

At the time I weighed 182 pounds and I was benching 425 pounds.

Someone asked why I work black socks in the afternoon and white socks in the evening and I replied: "Black socks are for power; white socks are for endurance". This was supposed amusing. But the following week at least 25% of the lifters were wearing black socks and swearing that it worked. That is how much of the "science" in weight lifting is developed.
swanso5
VETERAN
Posts: 10658
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: melbourne, australia

Re: Squats, Lunges, and Deadlifts

Post by swanso5 »

they are also the one's no where too
Post Reply