View Single Post
Old 01-21-2009, 03:33 PM   #20
Barry Ross
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 16

Originally Posted by Donald Lee View Post :

Barry Ross' argument against the use of Olympic lifts does not seem valid to me. Is not intent more important than the actual speed in terms of building explosiveness or in terms of rate of force development?

The only rationale I can see for forgoing Olympic lifts and/or plyometrics is that the strength gained from the "minimalist" approach in the gym translates into explosiveness through the specific sprint training, which eliminates the need for adding Olympic lifts and/or plyometrics.
You're comment about intent has validity from both Behm and Sale's JAP study of 1993 (where they concluded that the intent to increase velocity rather than actuall increase determined velocity-specific training response) and Mel Siff (in many of his Supertraining posts).

I would not dispute that fact, but rather I would point out that we never lift less than 85% of a 1rm and we do plyometric training during the strength workout.
Our run training is based upon a patented algorithm that allows us to predict running times from a few meters up to 5 minutes of running (distance covered) with >97% accuracy. This allows us to improve rate of force delivery in our athletes through running as close to maximal speeds as possible.

In other words, we're doing exactly what you've said in your second paragraph!

As a long time throws coach, I've been on both sides of the "power" issue.
I've spent many hours in discussions with researchers regarding the ability of elite athletes to deliver support force significantly faster than non-elites. As of now, there is no consensus as to the how or why they are able to (it does kinda knock out the idea of nurture over nature).

From an opposite perspective, speed decrements are not reduced by doing explosive training. Decrements are reduced by maximal or near maximal strength training.
Barry Ross is offline   Reply With Quote