Author Topic: Utilization of Strength (Read 20277 times)

RJ Nelsen · « **Reply #15 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:18:32 pm »

Quote from: T0ddday on August 29, 2011, 07:07:55 pm

Just wondering RJ, where do you put the 110 lbs? Do you have some type of heavy weight vest?

I balance 2 DBs upright on my shoulders in a quasi-front squat position.

$ick3nin.v3nd3tta · « **Reply #16 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:28:25 pm »

Thank god your here RJ.

$ick3nin.v3nd3tta · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:33:44 pm »

How effective do you think explosive lunge walks/jumps are for sprinters RJ?.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HyGwvvST04" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HyGwvvST04</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPjjgU0FrjY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPjjgU0FrjY</a>

TheSituation · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:36:39 pm »

Quote from: $ick3nin.v3nd3tta on August 29, 2011, 07:28:25 pm

Thank god your here RJ.

True. This forum needs some more misleading, false information.

Everyone keep in mind that RJ hasn't made improvements in years, so take what he does as his main lift with a grain of salt.

(Not trying to bash him, but if he's going to talk like that (as if what he is saying is 100% fact) then I'm not going to be nice)

steven-miller · « **Reply #19 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:42:23 pm »

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 06:59:06 pm

Quote from: steven-miller on August 29, 2011, 06:31:55 pm
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.

I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?

When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.

For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.

First, you seem to think that I am dumb because you are explaining to me that load is depended on the exercise. I find that hilarious.

Second, your math is wrong because you pretend that people don't have to lift their bodyweight as well in the squat.

Third, you fail to see my point. It is irrelevant that you THINK that your 110 lbs shrimp corresponds to a 410 lbs squat. My argument is that you would be able to train your body more efficiently with an exercise that does not limit your performance due to imposed demand of balancing around on one foot.

TheSituation · « **Reply #20 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:44:54 pm »

Quote from: steven-miller on August 29, 2011, 07:42:23 pm

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 06:59:06 pm
Quote from: steven-miller on August 29, 2011, 06:31:55 pm
So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.

I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?

When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.

For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.

First, you seem to think that I am dumb because you are explaining to me that load is depended on the exercise. I find that hilarious.

Second your math is wrong because you pretend that people don't have to lift their bodyweight as well in the squat.

Third you fail to see my point. It is irrelevant that you THINK that your 110 lbs shrimp corresponds to a 410 lbs squat. My argument is that you would be able to train your body more efficiently with an exercise that does not limit your performance due to imposed demand of balancing around on one foot.

These

RJ Nelsen · « **Reply #21 on:** August 29, 2011, 08:01:48 pm »

Steven, the body weight lifted in the squat is taken into consideration in my equations. They're correct, you're not. Come back when you can power snatch 100+ kilos for reps, SLJ 10'6", and do flips at 225 lbs, and then tell me how useless the exercises I'm using are. Balance is not an issue for those who have it.

Situation, I have improved by leaps and bounds over the years so I don't know what you're talking about. I gave up sprinting a while ago, but everything else keeps going up.

SV, lunge walks are decent general exercises/warmups for sprinters, but you'd be better served by lifting heavy and sprinting.

steven-miller · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2011, 08:55:19 pm »

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 08:01:48 pm

Steven, the body weight lifted in the squat is taken into consideration in my equations. They're correct, you're not.

I am taking back what I said about in which way the math was wrong because I misread what you wrote. The equations are still wrong, though. When a 225 lbs guy only has to lift 190 lbs of that bodyweight standing on one leg, then standing on two legs would mean he only lifts around 155 lbs of that bodyweight. Taking this into consideration the load handled with a 410 lbs back squat equates to 565 lbs, not 600 lbs. But as I said earlier, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion since my point was something else.

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 08:01:48 pm

Come back when you can power snatch 100+ kilos for reps, SLJ 10'6", and do flips at 225 lbs, and then tell me how useless the exercises I'm using are. Balance is not an issue for those who have it.

It comes off as quite condescending to talk like that. Are you that unconfident in your argument that you have to throw some arbitrary numbers at me that I have to perform before I am allowed to have a discussion with you?

Btw., I just jumpsnatched 102.5 kg x 2 last week at a bodyweight of ~203 lbs. I think I am fit for powersnatching 107.5 kg at this point, soon 110 kg - you can derivate reps from that if you wish. Last time that I checked my broad jump a while ago it was ~ 10'. This was when my best powersnatch was 87.5 kg at around the same bodyweight. If this was in some way important for me I could probably improve on that a lot in very little time. I am not interested in flips. I hope these performances are sufficient to have this conversation with you.

Now, with that out of the way, why don't you address my point and explain to everyone why balance is not an issue when more stability always enables one to lift more weight?

RJ Nelsen · « **Reply #23 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:06:31 pm »

Steven, if 155 lbs of bodyweight were lifted in the squat then it would be subtracted from the 600, not added to the 410. It would look like this:

(190 + 110) + (190 + 110) = 600 lbs total tension on the legs
600 - 155 = 445 lbs squat

I intentionally fudge the numbers so my estimates come out on the low side when I compare my "squat" to other movements. Realistically though, you're right, a 110 lb pistol or shrimp at my weight has similar leg/hip loading to a 445 lb back squat.

As for my tone being condescending, I'm sorry. Training boards are full of idiots (The Situation) and I originally left the internet for a reason. I couldn't deal with the jackasses. Sorry, I was on the defensive and called you out unnecessarily. The number comparison was given for a similar reason. You discredited the lift and poked fun at the fact that I was using 110 lbs for a lower body strength movement, which makes no sense. As stated, the load is irrelevant.

Further, I provided my numbers because they are a testament to the usefulness of the shrimp. Yes, a back squat could allow me to accomplish the same feats, but the shrimp is an equally valid lift, more so for someone who has recurring SI joint problems when heavily loading the lower back for long stretches of time. I stand by my case that it is a useful lift, perhaps more so than the squat if one does not need an overly developed lower back.

And regarding your own numbers, Steven, they're impressive. Keep up the good work.

EDIT: Oops, yeah, you were right about the 410 lb squat equally 565 lbs of leg tension. My bad. I was trying to get the post written before leaving work, but I'm stuck here a little while longer anyways.

J-DUB · « **Reply #24 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:19:57 pm »

Steven, have you any idea the extreme depth of expertise of the expert elite coach super iso extreme master of sport inno sport guru whom you are debating? allow myself to cue you in sir:

RJ Quotes

"I've read the works of the heavyweights in the field and I see gaps in even their thinking, understanding, and organization. They may have more experience than me, but I wouldn't say they know more. Coaches can only apply so many different physiological stimuli in so many patterns and I can outline the effects of most down to a cellular level. As far as we, as coaches, are concerned, the rabbit hole only needs to go so deep."

"And I know a grasp on science alone isn't enough to be a coach. One of the biggest things I've learned over the past couple years is how practice rarely mirrors theory. However, with a good psychology background and people skills (for understanding the athlete), scientific knowledge, a bit of intuition, and the understanding that perfect is often the enemy of great, it's a piece of cake.

"While I'm obviously still not at the pinnacle of my writing/sports science career, skill acquisition is asymptotal and, at least in areas concerning training, I'm near the asymptote. I've put in an ungodly amount of time and I believe I have plenty to show for it. I can compare my works to those of Bompa, Verkhoshansky, and Zatsiorsky and I don't find myself lacking. In areas of specific study, I don't know as much about nervous system function as Enoka, or as much about tendon and fascicle function as Kubo, but I can take their ideas and findings and integrate them into a complete training plan without difficulty. In areas like nutrition and biochemistry, I still have A LOT to learn and I'm working on it."

^^ yea, pretty good if you ask me. he also ranned a 11. something second 100m which is a decent time for a low level high school sprinter so if i were u i wouldnt argue with rj, he is expert. also he held iso lunge iso extreme for long ass time, way longer than u can and look at his results, he could beat about 50% of high school sprinters. realize that steven.

RJ Nelsen · « **Reply #25 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:21:28 pm »

And that's why I left the internet...

TheSituation · « **Reply #26 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:27:14 pm »

I'm an idiot because I disagree with you?

Your strength may have increased a bit over the years due to you getting out of shape and gaining weight (I'd like to see your 400+ olympic squat however), but you haven't made significant improvements in jumping or sprinting. Maybe that's why you change your mind about what is optimal every 3 seconds. I guarantee you don't talk about "shrimps" in your engineering the athlete book that was supposedly backed by science.

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 01:48:43 pm

I disagree with Andrew and Steven, the shrimp is the backbone of my lower body training right now. Provided one is coordinated enough, they should actually be seeing higher levels of muscular tension in the shrimp than in the back squat due to the bilateral deficit. Lack of balance is an individual issue.

That having been said, unweighted shrimps are damn near useless. I'm using 110 lbs on my shoulders for reps at a BW of 225, so the exercise is a bit different the way I do it.

You state something as if it were fact, and then you incorrectly try and prove it using numbers that you completely messed up with. That's why I came down hard on you. You've been doing the same shit for years and I'm sick of people being mislead because you talk using big words that the average vert bro doesn't understand.

steven-miller · « **Reply #27 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:27:50 pm »

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 09:06:31 pm

Steven, if 155 lbs of bodyweight were lifted in the squat then it would be subtracted from the 600, not added to the 410. It would look like this:

(190 + 110) + (190 + 110) = 600 lbs total tension on the legs
600 - 155 = 445 lbs squat

I intentionally fudge the numbers so my estimates come out on the low side when I compare my "squat" to other movements. Realistically though, you're right, a 110 lb pistol or shrimp at my weight has similar leg/hip loading to a 445 lb back squat.

I agree with that. I just added the 155 lbs to the 410 lbs to show that 565 lbs is not the same as 600 lbs which means the loads are not equal. No big deal about fudging on the conservative side, it was just confusing to read initially.

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 09:06:31 pm

As for my tone being condescending, I'm sorry. Training boards are full of idiots (The Situation) and I originally left the internet for a reason. I couldn't deal with the jackasses. Sorry, I was on the defensive and called you out unnecessarily. The number comparison was given for a similar reason. You discredited the lift and poked fun at the fact that I was using 110 lbs for a lower body strength movement, which makes no sense. As stated, the load is irrelevant.

Not a problem at all, I am glad we can have a civilized conversation about this.

I think this is somewhat important because there are a lot of things people think they need to do nowadays. Becoming stronger by training on unstable surfaces under load is an example of that. Therefore I think my critique of the movement is making a lot of sense. Load is not entirely irrelevant either because it can be an indicator of the potential the lift has for optimal expression of muscular strength. The squat is a better exercise at expressing strength. For this reason it enables a better increase in strength as well. The lift is not limited by the instability of having to stand on one leg.

There was a ridiculous study a while ago in I believe the NSCA journal about how people can bench more on a solid bench compared to a bosu ball. Big surprise? I don't think so.

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 09:06:31 pm

Further, I provided my numbers because they are a testament to the usefulness of the shrimp. Yes, a back squat could allow me to accomplish the same feats, but the shrimp is an equally valid lift, more so for someone who has recurring SI joint problems when heavily loading the lower back for long stretches of time. I stand by my case that it is a useful lift, perhaps more so than the squat if one does not need an overly developed lower back.

Your numbers are a testament to your good genetics compared with your dedication to train. I do not think the shrimp has a lot to do with that other than being a poor squat substitute. I can relate to you having SI joint problems, I had those as well on and off. Getting a stronger back helps with that. Squats help with getting a stronger back.

Quote from: RJ Nelsen on August 29, 2011, 09:06:31 pm

And regarding your own numbers, Steven, they're impressive. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. I can return that compliment.

RJ Nelsen · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:48:51 pm »

Situation, you're an idiot because you rarely add anything to discussions and mostly just diss/sidetrack people. And I don't know why you think I haven't made progress over the years. I haven't been indecisive or wishy-washy in regards to training for years now, and I'm better all around than ever. Since I was last online seriously (early 2010), I've somehow taken my SLJ from 10'2" to 10'6" while gaining 20 lbs. I would say that constitutes jumping progress.

Steven, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because there is nothing inherent in the squat that makes it a better lift for displaying strength provided one has proficiency in both movements. You say the stability allows for better loading, but in my experience, no, it doesn't. I can't back squat 455 lbs for reps, but I can do pistols and shrimps with 110 for reps, resulting in the same amount of load on the legs, so for me, the shrimp provides superior loading. I've seen similar things from many other athletes.

TheSituation · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:54:52 pm »

I believe I'm adding plenty to the discussion.

Were "shrimps" talked about in your Engineering the Athlete book that was backed by science and can be compared to the works of Verkhoshansky ? If the answer is no, I think everyone can see why nobody should listen to a word you say.

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Utilization of Strength (Read 20277 times)

RJ Nelsen

Re: Utilization of Strength

$ick3nin.v3nd3tta

Re: Utilization of Strength

$ick3nin.v3nd3tta

Re: Utilization of Strength

TheSituation

Re: Utilization of Strength

steven-miller

Re: Utilization of Strength

TheSituation

Re: Utilization of Strength

RJ Nelsen

Re: Utilization of Strength

steven-miller

Re: Utilization of Strength

RJ Nelsen

Re: Utilization of Strength

J-DUB

Re: Utilization of Strength

RJ Nelsen

Re: Utilization of Strength

TheSituation

Re: Utilization of Strength

steven-miller

Re: Utilization of Strength

RJ Nelsen

Re: Utilization of Strength

TheSituation

Re: Utilization of Strength