Author Topic: Hang Snatch Alternative (Read 35317 times)

LBSS · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:17:01 pm »

ALSO RATIOS ARE LARGELY BULLSHIT EXCEPT IN AN EXTREMELY GENERAL SENSE BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

this is wankery of the highest order.

steven-miller · « **Reply #61 on:** January 26, 2012, 04:06:03 pm »

Quote from: LBSS on January 26, 2012, 03:17:01 pm

ALSO RATIOS ARE LARGELY BULLSHIT EXCEPT IN AN EXTREMELY GENERAL SENSE BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

this is wankery of the highest order.

Please explain yourself.

Raptor · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2012, 04:34:52 pm »

Exactly. I mean, if you front squat already, why would you back squat high bar? Why not do a hip dominated (yes, I know) back squat when you already do a quad dominated front squat?

Daballa100 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:05:23 pm »

About the low bar vs high bar shenanigans, like what others said, it probably doesn't matter as long as you're strong, but I would agree with TODDAY. High bar is more specific and has a little more carry over than low bar for olympic lifts. Olympic lifting is already so "quad dominant" and relying so much on being upright, that one might say high bar IS the p-chain exercise of choice for an olympic lifter. It depends on your dimensions, but I know high bar gets plenty of p-chain for me.

The back angle and the starting position of the low bar squat and the classical lifts(steven brought it up) could be argued, but the first pull usually isn't a problem for a lot of people.

For regular athletes, front squat and high bar back squat might be a little redundant.

steven-miller · « **Reply #64 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:29:04 pm »

Quote from: Daballa100 on January 26, 2012, 05:05:23 pm

About the low bar vs high bar shenanigans, like what others said, it probably doesn't matter as long as you're strong, but I would agree with TODDAY. High bar is more specific and has a little more carry over than low bar for olympic lifts. Olympic lifting is already so "quad dominant" and relying so much on being upright, that one might say high bar IS the p-chain exercise of choice for an olympic lifter. It depends on your dimensions, but I know high bar gets plenty of p-chain for me.

The back angle and the starting position of the low bar squat and the classical lifts(steven brought it up) could be argued, but the first pull usually isn't a problem for a lot of people.

For regular athletes, front squat and high bar back squat might be a little redundant.

Are you an o-lifter? Where do you get the information from that o-lifting is about "being upright"? This could not be further from the truth. Also, standing up after you made the catch is not where most of the difficulty is either for the majority of lifters.

Daballa100 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:52:44 pm »

Quote from: steven-miller on January 26, 2012, 05:29:04 pm

Quote from: Daballa100 on January 26, 2012, 05:05:23 pm
About the low bar vs high bar shenanigans, like what others said, it probably doesn't matter as long as you're strong, but I would agree with TODDAY. High bar is more specific and has a little more carry over than low bar for olympic lifts. Olympic lifting is already so "quad dominant" and relying so much on being upright, that one might say high bar IS the p-chain exercise of choice for an olympic lifter. It depends on your dimensions, but I know high bar gets plenty of p-chain for me.

The back angle and the starting position of the low bar squat and the classical lifts(steven brought it up) could be argued, but the first pull usually isn't a problem for a lot of people.

For regular athletes, front squat and high bar back squat might be a little redundant.

Are you an o-lifter? Where do you get the information from that o-lifting is about "being upright"? This could not be further from the truth. Also, standing up after you made the catch is not where most of the difficulty is either for the majority of lifters.

Nah, I'm not an olympic lifter. What do you mean about by, "further from the truth?" By upright I meant the catch position. If you're an olympic lifter, I would like to hear your opinion.

Edit: I would like your opinion regardless, but it would be nice to know if you're an o-lifter.

steven-miller · « **Reply #66 on:** January 26, 2012, 06:23:41 pm »

Quote from: Daballa100 on January 26, 2012, 05:52:44 pm

Quote from: steven-miller on January 26, 2012, 05:29:04 pm
Quote from: Daballa100 on January 26, 2012, 05:05:23 pm
About the low bar vs high bar shenanigans, like what others said, it probably doesn't matter as long as you're strong, but I would agree with TODDAY. High bar is more specific and has a little more carry over than low bar for olympic lifts. Olympic lifting is already so "quad dominant" and relying so much on being upright, that one might say high bar IS the p-chain exercise of choice for an olympic lifter. It depends on your dimensions, but I know high bar gets plenty of p-chain for me.

The back angle and the starting position of the low bar squat and the classical lifts(steven brought it up) could be argued, but the first pull usually isn't a problem for a lot of people.

For regular athletes, front squat and high bar back squat might be a little redundant.

Are you an o-lifter? Where do you get the information from that o-lifting is about "being upright"? This could not be further from the truth. Also, standing up after you made the catch is not where most of the difficulty is either for the majority of lifters.

Nah, I'm not an olympic lifter. What do you mean about by, "further from the truth?" By upright I meant the catch position. If you're an olympic lifter, I would like to hear your opinion.

No, I am not a weightlifter. And regarding the catch you are right. But again, that's what you front-squat for. As long as you do them and any kind of back squat you will probably be fine and this is not going to limit your clean&jerk. And the back-squat that strengthens the most muscle mass is obviously favorable - and that is low-bar. Getting up after the catch is not the only part of a clean&jerk / snatch that requires strength...

TKXII · « **Reply #67 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:01:10 pm »

Ratios have nothing to do with this discussion LBSS. But since you brought it up, yes they are bullshit in some ways

They don't take RFD or GRFs into account.

THe higher the GRFs in a given movement, the more bullshit a squat or deadlift ratio is. A standing vertical jump has the lower GRF compared to the step phase in a triple jump, a large squat will correlate with better success int he former, and will not in a triple jmp or a long jump.

TKXII · « **Reply #68 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:04:31 pm »

Yeah low bar squat sucks, it's overly hip dominant.

For VJ high bar is way better. Steven, if you could high bar 440lbs, you'd be jumping way higher.

We haven't finished defining dominance I guess.. gotta find some studies but it has to do with the amount of force a muscle produces to lift the weight, not the joint angle.

In a sit up, you can have your knee flexed, this does not mean sit ups are hamstring dominant. In a deadlift you can have considerable knee flexion, or in a hack squat, but they are both glute dominant exercises. Has to do with lever arms as well.

Power cleans are nowhere near being as quad dominant as a squat jump because the barbell is not aligned to place stress on the quads in the same fashion in a powerclean compared to a jump squat, or any olympic lift. The bar is too far in front of the body. n a jump squat the weight is right above the center of mass.

steven-miller · « **Reply #69 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:14:20 pm »

Quote from: Avishek on January 26, 2012, 08:04:31 pm

Yeah low bar squat sucks, it's overly hip dominant.

For VJ high bar is way better. Steven, if you could high bar 440lbs, you'd be jumping way higher.

We haven't finished defining dominance I guess.. gotta find some studies but it has to do with the amount of force a muscle produces to lift the weight, not the joint angle.

In a sit up, you can have your knee flexed, this does not mean sit ups are hamstring dominant. In a deadlift you can have considerable knee flexion, or in a hack squat, but they are both glute dominant exercises. Has to do with lever arms as well.

Power cleans are nowhere near being as quad dominant as a squat jump because the barbell is not aligned to place stress on the quads in the same fashion in a powerclean compared to a jump squat, or any olympic lift. The bar is too far in front of the body. n a jump squat the weight is right above the center of mass.

I would also jump way higher if I could lounge 440 lbs. But that does not mean that the lounge is a superior exercise. Go right ahead and post more irrelevant studies to define quad dominance. Also notice that you are using the phrase without having it defined yet.

TKXII · « **Reply #70 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:38:14 pm »

I just defined it. Let me type it in caps:

QUADRICEP DOMINANCE, AS USED HERE ON THIS FORUM, BY ME, AND OTHERS, AT YOUR REQUEST..

DOMINANCE OF A MUSCLE GROUP REFERS TO THE AMOUNT OF FORCE PRODUCED BY A PARTICULAR MUSCLE OR MUSCLE GROUP OR JOINT EXTENSOR/FLEXOR/STABILIZER/ETC. AND OTHER MOVERS IN THE EXERCISE IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF FORCE PRODUCED BY OTHER MUSCULATURE IN THAT GIVEN EXERCISE. DOMINANCE OF A MUSCLE DOES NOT REFER TO EMG ACTIVITY, IT REFERS TO FORCE PRODUCTION. PERIOD.

IN A POWER CLEAN, NOT AS MUCH FORCE COMES FROM THE QUADRICEPS AS IN A BARBELL JUMP SQUAT. THEREFORE, THE JUMP SQUAT IS MORE QUAD DOMINANT.

DOMINANCE OF A MUSCLE GROUP DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH JOINT ANGLES. FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE, IT HAS TO DO WITH WHERE YOU "FEEL IT."

DOMINANCE OF A MUSCLE GROUP IN A GIVEN EXERCISE WILL VARY WITH INDIVIDUAL BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCE,S MUSCLE ACTIVATION PATTERNS, AND NERVOUS SYSTEM. WITH ACTIVATION TRAINING, ONE CAN IMPROVE THE FIRING OF A MOTONEURON TO A MSUCLE GROUP BY LEARNING HOW TO CONTRACT IT IN A MOVEMENT, THIS CAN HELP WITH MOVEMENT EFFICIENCY IN RUNNING FOR ISNTANCE, JUMPING/SPRINTING.

DOn't compare a lunge to a squat, that's fucking RETARDED.

And we did not conclude properly on the studies I cited. It showed that power output from a jump squat is HIGHER than olympic lifts poewr cleans and hang snatches, using different measuring methods. It is not completely irrelelvant, I said there is more to the story. Just because you are obsessed with olympic lifts, whiach all suck for power development doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are tlaking about.

Lastly, front squat and high bar back squat are not redundant. they are actually completely different exercises. The way the bar is placed on your back has a HUGE impact on the way weight is displaced on the joints and muscles attached to them. Notice, front squat - quads dominant, high bar back squat - quad/glute, low bar - glute, less quad... see a pattern? hack squat.. glutes...the bar is moving back and back and bck and back.. can't compare deadlift whre bar is in front.

I've PRed heavy back squats the day after heavy front squats because they are just so different. The amortization in the back squat involves much mroe hip musculature whereas the front squat does not.

steven-miller · « **Reply #71 on:** January 27, 2012, 07:03:41 am »

Thank you for the definition, it is sufficient for now. Your operationalization is lacking though, since going by feel might not be a valid measure of force production since you might feel muscle A fire more compared to muscle B, but that might be because B is way stronger than A and still produces more force - just less force compared to it's potential. You might want to think about that again.

About the studies you cited: They do not show anything of relevance to this discussion. The results showed that an unloaded jump-squat is highest in body power production. What shall we conclude from that? Jumping is the best training for jumping?

Btw., I feel my glutes quite well during front-squats compared to quads. By your definition it must be a glute-dominant exercise then.

And you PR'd your back-squat after front-squats not because they are so different, but because you are so weak.

TKXII · « **Reply #72 on:** January 27, 2012, 03:44:47 pm »

Your welcome. Yes front squats do require quite a bit of force productino from the glutes as well, depth of the squat will influence this dominance issue. If you do a font squat to above parallel, it will be more difficult to feel it in your glutes.

Our discussion was originally on hang snatch alternatives, so I mentoined a jump squat, and I cited studies showing that it is more powerful than oly lifts. How is that not relevant? I already said we should not be convinced by body power analysis, in fact that is meaningless since in a power clean we are applying power into the bar, the body doesn't need to move. But bar power peaked at 80% in the jump squat and was higher than bar power in the power clean which peaked at 90%1RM. However the difference was small. bar power, the authors stated, may be important to understand in contact or throwing sports for isntance.

I disagree with you on why ai PRed in heavy back squats the day after heavy front squats as well. They may not be as different as I suggest, but the involvmeent on hips/glute is different.

steven-miller · « **Reply #73 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:47:35 pm »

Quote from: Avishek on January 27, 2012, 03:44:47 pm

Our discussion was originally on hang snatch alternatives, so I mentoined a jump squat, and I cited studies showing that it is more powerful than oly lifts. How is that not relevant?

It is not relevant because it does not address the question at hand, namely whether training with jump squats at 80% will at least have the same (if not more of an) effect as training with an oly-variation. There are several arguments one could make in favor or against that, all of which are hypothetical unless someone does quality experimentation on it. The studies you cited do tell nothing about this. To conclude that the jump-squat is a better way of training based on these papers demonstrates a misunderstanding of that research and the generalizability of scientific research overall.

So in absence of valid science to back up the olympic lifts vs. alternatives debate, one has to resort to analytical reasoning. T0dday and I already stated the problem of measuring progress, which does not exist in the same magnitude for the olympic lifts. Another thing that needs to be addressed is spinal safety if we are actually discussing using 80% of a back squat max for jump squats. It might not hurt you when your max squat is 100 kg. I will not try what happens when I load 180 on the bar and jump with it though.

Raptor · « **Reply #74 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:54:28 pm »

WTF?

So you guys were actually talking about doing jump squats with 80% of your 1RM?

I think this emoticon "

" is not enough to express my feelings.

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Hang Snatch Alternative (Read 35317 times)

LBSS

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

Raptor

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

Daballa100

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

Daballa100

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

TKXII

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

TKXII

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

TKXII

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

TKXII

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

steven-miller

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative

Raptor

Re: Hang Snatch Alternative