« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Reverse transfer effect of training  (Read 14087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Reverse transfer effect of training
« on: December 04, 2013, 10:04:27 am »
+1
Logged
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14619
  • Respect: +2539
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Reverse transfer effect of training
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2013, 02:37:39 pm »
0
Well, I was thinking some time back to write a thread about "why is everybody against explosive lifts with a small % of your 1RM for strength gains"? This is similar.

My thing is that what do you do when you lift heavy? You increase the neural recruitment and you subject the muscle fibers to high tensions and high times under tension. That's all you do.

But can't you do the same thing lifting a lower weight at a higher speed? You would still get a lot of recruitment and you would still subject the muscle fibers to high tensions. The only difference would be that in order to get the same total amount of time under tension you'd have to do more reps which would probably burn out your CNS or cause overuse injuries.

But assuming you can handle that kind of stress, I can't find anything to prevent someone of gaining "strength" and muscle mass doing lightweight stuff at high speeds. Any ideas?
Logged
Current PR status:

All time squat: 165 kg/Old age squat: 130 kg
All time deadlift: 184 kg/Old age deadlift: 140 kg
All time bench: 85 kg/Old age bench: 70kgx5reps
All time hip thrust (same as old age hip thrust): 160kgx5reps

AlexV

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Respect: +19
    • View Profile
    • Evolutionary Athletics
    • Email
Re: Reverse transfer effect of training
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2013, 03:38:50 pm »
+2
Bingisser's bondarchuck approach is interesting.

Research shows us that high speed work Moves the FV curve with it;s greatest impact at the V side.

Strength moves the FV curve with it's greatest impact at the F side

Strength work also positively impacts V to a greater degree than training at high speeds impacts the F side

Thus strength has more general carryover to athletics than Speed work (it is great GPP)

I think the high speed work improved the Snatch because the snatch may have been limited by bar speed.  He got faster.

Personally I like bondarchucks approach to strength training.  He follows something similar to Pavel's Easy Strength or Even Easier Strength (the 40 day program dan john wrote about).  these programs let volume and frequency drive strength as opposed to intensity.  This allows for more time to be spent on SPP and let practices drive performance improvements.  Bingisser described his strength program as a few basic lifts trained every day in the 60-80% range using lower reps (5 or fewer)  So Squat, Press, Pull every day, wave the load, minimize fatigue, keep intensity to 60-80%...  Thats Pavels Even Easier Strength workout.  Pavel would add 1-2 sets of swings and 1-2 sets of a core exercise.

I think an  approach similar to this 70% of the time would be great.  You could drive conditioning up in this period (Strength and endurance form the basis of GPP).  Then in a peaking approach go through a power phase where the loads are similar BUT you emphasize CAT.  Finally finish with a HIGH velocity/peaking phase in the 25-50% range.  Power and peaking phases would have little "strength" work other than the high speed stuff.

Finally everyone on Bingissers team benches around 500# (I believe that is what was said in his interview)  So what good is it to focus intensely on driving that up to 550 or 600?  That drive would require high intensity methods which would fight for compensation with sport practice taking away adaptive reserves that should be left for throwing.  It would also increase the risk of injury rather than taking the slow approach.

Food for thought
Logged
Check out the new look and updates

http://evolutionaryathletics.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »