[Sonny]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

I think there is a tendancy for there to be a great deal of overthinking as people become older, and continue their education.

I think there's a tendancy for overthinking with a lot of people. I can't tell you how many guys I know who READ more about training than actually doing the training.

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

Mick, well there is a tendancy, I think, for knowledge to be dangerous to a certain extent in the lifting world.

I think there is a tendancy for there to be a great deal of overthinking as people become older, and continue their education. In fact, it's somewhat similar to what I witness on this very board sometimes. People get fixated on the idea of an optimal way of training athletes, acquire too much information, and end up with a bunch of jumbled shit.

The fact of the matter is that there is only so much to be learned about lifting, and almost all of it is already in a book somewhere. The uncharted territory is in physiology only for the most part. And as peoples physical make-up and chemistry differs greatly from individual to individual, lifting will forever be an art not a science, the sooner people realize that, the better.

I was surprised about his position on Olympic lifts too (although I read it first in "Periodization Training for Sports").

But check this out:

Originally Posted by Tudor Bompa

Personally I'd use power cleans only for few sports such as linebackers in football and Greco-roman wrestling. I'd use clean and jerks for basketball players, performed with a medicine ball or a power ball.

However, in the book, on page 59 (1st Edition), in a chart listing recommended exercises for each sport, he recommends "deadlifts/power cleans" for nearly every sport:

Sports for which he recommends power cleans:

Track & Field:
-Sprinting
-Long/Triple Jump
-High Jump
-Pole Vault
-Shot Put
-Discus/Hammer
-Javelin
Boxing
Baseball
Basketball
Figure Skating
Football
Ice Hockey
Rowing
Rugby
Skiing (Alpine)
Speed Skating
Swimming:
-Butterfly
Volleyball
Wrestling


Sports for which he doesn't recommend power cleans:

Track & Field:
-Mid/Distance Runners
Canoeing/Kayaking
Cycling
Field Hockey
Martial Arts (Unspecified)
Skiing (Nordic)
Soccer
Swimming:
-Freestyle
-Breastroke
Tennis
Water Polo


This seems more sensible, unless he's only intending to recommend deadlifts and not power cleans to each of these sports except football, basketball, and wrestling.

[CarnalSalvation]

Yeah, well, powercleans are the queerness, so, I agree on that part.

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

Yeah, well, powercleans are the queerness, so, I agree on that part.

The queerness?

We are speaking English, right? This is my native tongue?

[CarnalSalvation]

I speak Taylorese mostly, not a ton of English.

Yeah, cleans are gayer than Elton John. Waddya want me to do about it?

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

I speak Taylorese mostly, not a ton of English.

Yeah, cleans are gayer than Elton John. Waddya want me to do about it?

I'm just trying to figure out if "gayness" is qualified as good or bad.

[CarnalSalvation]

Oh, well I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

However, like most assholes, I often equate homosexuality with weakness or femmeninity, so what I am saying is Fart Bompa is right, cleans are TEH GHEY.

[cockysprinter]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

Mick, well there is a tendancy, I think, for knowledge to be dangerous to a certain extent in the lifting world.

I think there is a tendancy for there to be a great deal of overthinking as people become older, and continue their education. In fact, it's somewhat similar to what I witness on this very board sometimes. People get fixated on the idea of an optimal way of training athletes, acquire too much information, and end up with a bunch of jumbled shit.

The fact of the matter is that there is only so much to be learned about lifting, and almost all of it is already in a book somewhere. The uncharted territory is in physiology only for the most part. And as peoples physical make-up and chemistry differs greatly from individual to individual, lifting will forever be an art not a science, the sooner people realize that, the better.

nvm i completely disagree with you.

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by CarnalSalvation

Oh, well I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

However, like most assholes, I often equate homosexuality with weakness or femmeninity, so what I am saying is Fart Bompa is right, cleans are TEH GHEY.

I wasn't sure if slang had reached the point where now "teh gayness" equated to the sublime- like in the 80's when Michael Jackson made "bad" mean "good."

On cleans, I disagree with you so strongly I am attempting to channel my contradictory energy through the internet with such pure focus that your CBH explodes in your face and on your junk.

Cleans= TEH SHIZNIT

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by cockysprinter

wow i didnt really expect that from bompa. its ironic that he says olympic life dont train the proper muscle groups. name a sport that doesnt use the hip extensors. and its also untrue that they only train the posterior chain. olys hit all the pulling muscles that deadlifts do, some to a greater extent. its also ironic that he comdemns bobdybuilding and suggests using isolation exercises such as leg curls and calf raises. im pretty sure he normally recomends a bodybuilding split. and he suggests no books to learn strength methods from? i think id much rather read supertraining or strength and practice. i agree with carnal, though i dont know much about hatfield.

No, and I found this a little odd, but he actually excoriates any type of training split for athletic-oriented resistance training in "Periodization of Sports." For example, If you have 7 exercises selected for an athlete (2 upper body, 2 core, 3 lower body) and the athlete is advanced to the point that he is considered capable of handling 4 days of lifting a week- in addition to his technical and tactical sports training- Bompa argues that every exercise should be lifted on every one of those days. This makes sense in his model only because even within microcyles (one-week cycles) that belong to a macrycocyle (4-15 weeks) devoted to the development of a single type of strength, the sessions in that microcyle will probably alternate the type of strength being trained or the intensity of training.

When I refer to "types of strength," for those of you unfamiliar to periodization, I am referring to Bompa's (perhaps most useful principle) of the speed-strength-endurance triangle. Different sports require different emphasis on one of these three biomotor abilities. A marathon runner needs a great deal of endurance, not much speed or strength. A shot putter needs strength and speed (since shot-putting relies on power, a function of speed and strength, not just strength) but absolutely no endurance. A mixed martial artists needs everything in probably equal proportions. Improvements in one ability usually improve abilities in another, but once an elite level is reached, trade-offs must be moderated; thus, it is doubtful you will ever see anyone who squats over 600 pounds excel in an endurance sport (since he has obviously dedicated too much of his energy to increasing the potential for an ability irrelevant to his sport).

He delineates many different types of strength along each axis of the triangle (between Speed & Strength, between Strength & Endurance, between Endurance & Speed). For example, on the Strength-Endurance axis, the type of strength nearest the strength peak is P-E (Power-Endurance), or the ability to perform a powerful movement such as jumping to rebound a basketball, and the ability to repeat this movement many times during a game. The emphasis is more on strength than on endurance, but both are involved. The type of strength nearest the endurance peak is M-EL (Muscular-Endurance Long), or the ability to perform a less powerful movement but to sustain it. You may jump 200 times during a basketball game lasting two hours, but the total time spent performing that action is probably less than a minute. Conversely, a marathon runner will never explode as in a jump, but he will have to maintain a turnover of his gait throughout the two hours his marathon lasts. The former emphasizes P-E, the latter M-EL.

The significance of this is that P-E operates mainly on the anaerobic system and M-EL on the aerobic system. It's best to tax only one system in a day, but this also makes it possible to completely tax one system on one day and then the other on a consecutive day; this allows for maximum intensity on consecutive days.

So even in a macrocyle dedicated to converting maximum strength into power (not muscular endurance) for a basketball player, a microcyle will probably involve a taxation of both anaerobic and aerobic systems, but with an emphasis (especially in strength training) on the anaerobic. However, you can sandwich two days with the same exercises if one day emphasizes power and the next endurance, since they operate on two separate systems.

Furthermore, I was wrong when I posted in another thread the aerobic system takes 24 hours to recuperate (this is perhaps only for seriously intense aerobic exercise); it's actually 8 hours. For the anaerobic, it's 24-48 hours. Since microcycles are composed of varying high intensity and low intensity days, some days won't tax the anaerobic system to the point that training the same exercises the next day will be impractical.

I should mention, some muscles take longer than others to recuperate. The lower back is the slowest; after an intense deadlifting session, it will take 72 hours or slightly more to fully receuperate.