Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - steven-miller

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 33
316
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: The PR's/PB's, videos, pictures, and daily achievements thread
« on: May 20, 2011, 04:46:05 pm »
A clip of todays session for you guys. New powerclean PR at 259 lbs (117.5 kg). Still not as strong as Flander, but it's getting there :). For video of powersnatch (198 lbs) check my journal - was just practice though, next PR scheduled for monday.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iteVV8o18EU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iteVV8o18EU</a>

317
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Interesting Jump snatch variation.
« on: May 20, 2011, 03:50:53 pm »
I agree with adarq, this is a misconception of what specificity means. The goal is not to try to train as specific as possible (if that was the case, you would just do your sport and keep away from the weight room), you still need get stronger in what you do. If your training movement does not allow this to happen in an objectively measurable way, specificity becomes a useless concept. Aspects like time for force production, muscle groups involved in a movement, length of the kinetic chain etc. are more useful in determining specificity in my opinion. Would the guy do powersnatches and bent over rows he would probably get much faster progress for a much longer period of time than with this "exercise".

318
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Interesting Jump snatch variation.
« on: May 19, 2011, 09:34:23 am »
It does not take years for christs sake. You would obviously do overhead presses and snatch what you can and increase both regularly. It is rather unlikely that someone is able to snatch 120 kg and not have the upperbody strength to hold it overhead or develope it in a rather short time. I am a pretty good example of rather poor upperbody strength but not so bad lowerbody strength and for me lowerbody power still sets the limit for my powersnatch by far.

319
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Interesting Jump snatch variation.
« on: May 19, 2011, 08:26:04 am »
Quote from: JackW on May 18, 2011, 10:03:40 pm
Quote from: mattyg35 on May 18, 2011, 08:33:13 am
This is a stupid exercise.

It is only a stupid exercise if he is going to get hurt, or it isn't going to meet his training goals. He likes to do it, he feels it is very safe, and from my discussions with him and the nature of his sport, it would appear that, while unconventional, it is helping him develop his full body power.

Maybe he could do a regular snatch but then that does require a bit more balance and ROM, and in fairness, he has no need what so ever to hold a weight overhead.

Stupid? No. Unconventional? Yes.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. Not getting hurt by some training method does not necessarily make it unstupid. Your athlete found something that he thought might going to help him and which he thinks is safe (he probably just thinks it's cool because it's different).
However, is he really in a position to come to an educated conclusion about that? Isn't this why he has you as his coach to tell him whether something is uneffective (compared to other training methods) or unsafe? Do you really think this is a better exercise than a powersnatch or a barbell row? Would you actually make all of your mountain bike riders do this exercise because it is that good?

320
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Interesting Jump snatch variation.
« on: May 18, 2011, 05:48:07 am »
What is this supposed to do and why is a normal snatch, or normal jump snatch even, not sufficient in doing it?

321
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Squat - volume day
« on: May 17, 2011, 11:21:28 am »
Quote from: Raptor on May 17, 2011, 11:03:07 am
But progress week by week is not possible. Such a thing does not exist unless you drink gallons of milk to become a fat pig and just brag about your squat.


Now you are silly. Plenty of people have done this before, even without gaining weight at all it is possible for quite a while. But we had this conversation many times before and I do not expect you to get over your "It did not happen when I was doing it wrong, so it is impossible" - logic.

Regarding your discs: You should just buy some 1.25 kg discs. Expecting to make 20 kg or even 10 kg jumps equals no progress. No wonder that you still think a hypertrophy phase is necessary to increase your squat.

322
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Squat - volume day
« on: May 17, 2011, 10:25:01 am »
Quote from: Raptor on May 17, 2011, 08:52:51 am
Well I don't know, seems like too little volume. I might be better served to use less weight and more volume for a while, I trained too much with heavy weights and I'm also injured.

It is not too little volume if you progress week by week. It is too much volume if you cannot walk for days and thus not train effectively.
BTW: Injury is a good argument to either not train or train rather conservatively and progress slowly. "Killing the legs" is neither of those. Also I have to wonder about plyos and heavy half squats but not being able to start with moderately heavy sets of 5 and progress from there.

323
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Squat - volume day
« on: May 17, 2011, 07:46:26 am »
I think programming like that does not make any sense. You are training with rather high frequency, so you would want to get away with as little volume as possible while still driving progress (that is always a useful idea btw.). "Killing your legs" is a terrible concept for any type of training that is supposed to increase your strength and it is likely to either fuck up the rest of your training week or make you stall very soon. I would just do 5 reps of 3-5 sets and increase weight weekly. And I would read Practical Programming for Strength Training 2 if I were you.

324
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfish
« on: May 17, 2011, 07:11:00 am »
Quote from: Kingfish on May 16, 2011, 11:51:40 pm
Mon
May 16, 2011

Single leg Jog
- bball length x 2 - warmup for single leg hurdles

Hurdles
Single Leg 16"
- 12x4 continuous, 2 step apart

Jumps
- SVJ double hand rim grabs x6

* single leg hurdles were hard. legs lost capacity to absorb really quick. first 1-2 sets was good.. last 2 had misses on both legs. did pick up game also as warmup to the SVJs. was about 2" above foam on the SVJ.. lol. thats a 40.. and i did it at least 2 times. could have been the lower bodyweight at 188lb while maintaining the same squat strength.. or its probably the heavy ballistic partials doing its thing.. will take SVJ vids after im repping 405+minibands.
* tmrw is another set of heavy warmup squat singles, 385+minibands partials, back up full x6-8 and some more hurdles. hopefully fatigue really dies out by then.

That's absolutely sick man! Are these your first 40s? Beastly work either way.

325
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: The PR's/PB's, videos, pictures, and daily achievements thread
« on: May 14, 2011, 06:32:22 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on May 14, 2011, 05:59:30 pm
Quote from: steven-miller on May 14, 2011, 02:30:53 pm
Some nice PR's from yesterday and today:

Powerclean: 254 lbs

Squat: 419 lbs x 5



sick, why don't you vid anymore? squat is getting insane mang.


Hey, gonna vid more soon! Usually I am somewhat short on time in training or there are a ton of people around in our rather small weightlifting gym. Will definitely try and film some of the bigger PRs though. There should be several of them in the coming weeks!

326
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: The PR's/PB's, videos, pictures, and daily achievements thread
« on: May 14, 2011, 02:30:53 pm »
Some nice PR's from yesterday and today:

Powerclean: 254 lbs

Squat: 419 lbs x 5


327
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: The PR's/PB's, videos, pictures, and daily achievements thread
« on: May 13, 2011, 06:32:46 am »
Quote from: LBSS on May 11, 2011, 09:10:00 pm
:ibjumping: :personal-record: :ibjumping: :personal-record: :ibjumping: :personal-record:

33" DLRVJ

 :highfive: :wowthatwasnutswtf: :highfive: :wowthatwasnutswtf:  :highfive:

Hey man,

that's really awesome, grats on the PR!

328
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Quad dominant vs Glute/Ham dominant
« on: May 11, 2011, 09:26:28 am »
Irrelevant question, again. And I would not know how to determine that anyway.

Edit: Well, actually I could think of a statistical method. But I think the question is still irrelevant.

329
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Quad dominant vs Glute/Ham dominant
« on: May 11, 2011, 05:54:31 am »
Not trying to argue with the idea that quad strength/power is very important in any VJ, but by which analysis do we come to the conclusion which muscle is, relatively speaking, the biggest contributor to vertical displacement? Judging from the thread adarq posted I see videos in which there is knee as well as hip flexion and extension to varying degrees. But that does not include any information on where the power is primarily coming from.

I think it would be wise to see it this way: Glutes and quads are both important for the VJ because they are the biggest and strongest muscles that are actively involved in it. Thus we should train both. I don't think it is actually of any importance, for a trainee, to know whether one or the other contributes more to the VJ.

330
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfish
« on: May 09, 2011, 06:00:47 pm »
Quote from: DamienZ on May 09, 2011, 05:44:14 pm
Quote from: steven-miller on May 09, 2011, 05:31:19 pm
Quote from: DamienZ on May 09, 2011, 04:28:59 pm
Mark Rippetoe is a fucking idiot!


Actually, one could say that you are the idiot since it seems that you cannot read. But maybe we should not name-call in kingfish's log...

@kingfish: Strong squats recently! Your form is fine too as far as I am concerned, although Rippetoe's point about relaxed hamstrings seems to be true to a certain extent in your technique. I know you don't bother about that too much and your successful training speaks for itself.

lol! Rippetoe and the author of the article are both idiots! Rippetoe says that you can't squat deep without rounding the low back (http://www.adarq.org/forum/article-video-discussion/rippetoe/msg48005/?topicseen#msg48005 in this video he says otherwise) and the author seems to agree with it as he says one shouldn't squat deep because it would be dangerous with the rounded low back.
All those pictures are deep squats with a natural lumbar curve. Fuck Rippetoe!

I thought you might be intelligent enough to re-read and actually understand what is being said, but that does not seem to be the case.
Rippetoe basically says that most people are not flexible enough to squat ATG or learn so in a reasonable time frame. And he is probably right about that, considering his vast experience with trainees from the general public. He does not say that ATG squats are dangerous per se, he just says that most are not equipped to do them right away and that for most populations time is better spent doing a proper below parallel low-bar squat and get strong in it instead of investing time in gaining the flexibility and lumbar control necessary to squat ATG. He never said anywhere that no one can squat very deep without relaxing hamstrings or lumbar muscles. He just does not advise the vast majority of people, including non-athletes, to do them and I feel like that this is a reasonable statement.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 33