Leaving false strength conventions behind
https://www.exodus-strength.com/forum/
Indeed. I did a strongman comp in the summer with guys from my gym (who I mostly didn't know at the time). I was added to their whatsapp group and find myself arguing with them every few days. They talk shit about other people, put people down, post nasty crude things... They're gonna mock me for leaving but sick of reading their toxic little messages all day. It's unpleasant being around negative people all the time
Hanley wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:54 pm I love these two quotes:
OCG wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:30 pm2. "Hip drive" can also be cued as "leg drive" or "using your quads". It's simply a cue intended to counteract the chest/bar drive and keep the torso angle fixed out of the bottom. I feel like a proper "chest drive" is severely underrated and under discussed around certain parts, but that's another topic. As to what degree of back angle loss is acceptable, that's a bit more of a squishy thing I think. Perhaps we can take bar speed or smoothness of the lift? If you start learning forwards enough the bar slows, it's bad?Regarding the first: I think OCG is right on. "Hip Drive", "Chest up" etc, etc seem to all correct something regarding relative rates of opening at the hip and knee joints vs rate of vertical bar displacement. I'm too dumb to articulate what the ideal relationship in the rates should be. I might be completely off base, but I think I intuitively look for jacked up rates of joint opening and bar displacement when cueing "hips" or "chest".
Regarding the second: Yes! Once a lifter gets the basics down, torso rigidity is of prime importance (it's so important that its mention demands italics and bold font). I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of an absolutely rigid torso. It's also incredibly difficult to coach. I'll try to tease out some cues for 1) upper back isometric contraction and 2) valsalva.
For now, I'll simply repeat what I've said before: the 30-50 seconds of trunk bracing in a squat set should rank among the most taxing volitional efforts of your life. Literally. Every time. (I fail at achieving this on almost every set). I think every major breakthrough I've had with press, dead and squat mechanics has started with an ever more rigid torso. In brief: if it helps, replace the oft-repeated "Tight, tight, tight" with "most intense volitional effort of my life*".
* I don't think the knee and hip extension in a squat are "volitional effort". Muscle spindles stretch, motor units are appropriately recruited (or if fatigued....not); there's an automatic quality to hip and knee extension. But the bracing in a squat (the upper back isometric contraction and valsalva) is pure, unrelenting intention.
Put this on the Instagram, tyia.Handlebars wrote: Here's my Mint Chocolate Chip:
Hypertrophy:
about 40 reps at 70% (chunked into sets of 4 or 5)
power:
warmup
2@70%
2@75%
2@80%
then 2 singles at 85%
Strenth:
4x3 @80%
Add some weight across the board each week
Aight.PatrickDB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:04 pmPut this on the Instagram, tyia.Handlebars wrote: Here's my Mint Chocolate Chip:
Hypertrophy:
about 40 reps at 70% (chunked into sets of 4 or 5)
power:
warmup
2@70%
2@75%
2@80%
then 2 singles at 85%
Strenth:
4x3 @80%
Add some weight across the board each week
Hodge.KDW wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:56 pm I think I said this on a thread back on SS that I think was deleted but, I think everyone can do a narrow sumo. Everyone cannot conventional pull correctly. Just really no reason for a narrow sumo to be the go to lift. It forces proper form, because it is much harder to break the ground without having sound mechanics. Because proper mechanics are more "required" for the narrow sumo, it helps the lifter to learn how to actually use the hips and what this feels like. This transfers to squats and other hip extension type lifts really well. More often than not, I see novice (and experienced) conventional pullers lift with their glutes and hamstrings checked out and lower back doing most of the work. It is not usual to see someone deadlift like Mike T. I think there is something anthropometric going on there. Anyway, I don't really care if one has a larger moment arm over another if the longer moment arm is being acted upon by concentric and eccentric erector contractions instead of hamstring/adductor/gluteus concentric contractions with isometric erector contractions. It is just fucking you up over time, and I guess for some people that's cool. OK. I'm done.
Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:25 pmNah, I wouldn't say that.MattimusMaximus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:00 pmSo would you say that optimal is minimal tonnage at higher intensity, medium tonnage at the intermediate zone, and highest tonnage at the 70% zone? I think that's basically what you programmed for me.
I'd say optimal is max 48-72 hour tonnage at 65%-75%, max 48-72 hour tonnage at 75%ish-85% and max 48-72 hour recoverable tonnage at 85%+. Fatigue doesn't scale linearly with intensity, so you've a fuckton more volume at 70% than 85%+. This general 48-72 hour rule doesn't apply to peaking and test weeks, because you're working at such high intensities that 72-hour recovery might not be possible.
Yeah. "Strength" is really a nice combo of hypertrophy + "neuro & strength skill". "Neuro" sounds more pretentious than I want it to. What I mean is that 80% represents the probable threshold at which you're training the near-entire pool of IIx fibers on every single rep done outside of fatigue. "Training" them means not only "growing them" but also improving shit like frequency of twitches.MattimusMaximus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:00 pmSorry if this should be obvious... just trying to get all the pieced info from different threads and putting it all together in my head movies. So volume @70% increases muscle size (hypertrophy) which increases strength potential? Then 80% for triples increases that strength? Then 85-90%+ is testing/skill?
85% offers moar better training of the neuro elements and also offers the training of "volitional shit" like bracing, anxiety management/arousal, self-cueing, etc. "Volitional" also sounds more pretentious than I want. Meh.
Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:06 pm[TAKE 2 with rant warning]
Why is the default assumption that we even need variations? My version of HPS manages fatigue by dosing each session carefully (so that I'm largely recovered within 48 hours (upper and squats) or 72 hours (main pull). Any residual fatigue from a session is mitigated by the H P S pattern ("power" is not fatiguing...so if I've got residual fatigue from a hypertrophy session..that's fine; power adds very little fatigue and boosts MPS a bit). "Strength" is very fatiguing, but I've got 72 hours of recovery there as a catch. "Hypertrophy" is usual "novel" volume for intermediate peep, so DOMS sucks for 2-3 weeks, but it gets better.
Judiciously-used and justified variations can be incredibly useful** (and necessary when using really high intensities), but we've entered a very, very odd period of "baroque-programming"...complexity for its own sake. I think this trend in programming sucks. And lots of peeps straight outta novice or Texas Method are weak, tired and making little technical progress on the main lifts because of baroque-programming.
I understand that doing 75%+ of total volume via primary movements might not be fun. But I think there's beauty in hyper-refining motor patterns. And setting new lifetime PRs.
** if a powerlifting coach is actively programming, monitoring, prescribing variations...that's a different thing altogether [ie KOTJ prescribing tempo squats or Manveer's coaching from Mark Robb]. I'm talking about the arbitrary assignment of variation with no articulated training purpose.
this stuck with me to this dayManveer: "meathead is gonna meathead"
(from the thread discussing Rip/Baker/bradford article that sorta-defends TM from Feigenbaum's critique)Hamburgerfan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:13 pm Excessive simplicity can be seductive too. It's a very appealing thought that everything worth knowing about training can be learned from a single source. In a world of conflicting and confusing ideas on how to train, it's very tempting to allow yourself to disregard anything unfamiliar or hard to understand.
