Focusing on power development instead of peak strength (via dynamic effort)

[Urban]

Most of my training these days is focused on highland games training. Outside of event training (vital to my improvement) it requires power development rather than peak strength, originally I thought "I'll just focus on cleans and push press instead of deadlifts and bench, and do some high rep squats cause Dan John said so." but as my cleans have "progresses" (200 for 4x3 Monday, it's not super awesome) I've gotten better at dipping under the bar. To me this means potentially less power development since the bar isn't traveling as far. This got me to thinking about simpler exercises that don't have this potential to reduce distance.

Reading up on dynamic effort I found several criticisms. One that struck me was this article by Brett contreras

The TLDR is basically this:
- Dynamic effort models based on 60% of your 1 rep max are based on studies done on single joint movements and that loading parameter may not carry over to compound movements.
- Peak power development was achieved in deadlifts at around 30-40%

Building off this, if you were training solely for power development (Force * Velocity) couldn't you structure your routine using 30% of your 1 rep max and using bands to add load at lockout and fight deceleration on your main lifts? Are there any articles that have debunked this type of approach for power athletes?

 

[TehWeak1]

I'm not sure about the whole 30-40% thing, but instead of cleans, that have a limited end point where you must catch the bar, try high pulls. That way your ability to put weight on the bar isn't limited to your ability to catch the bar.

I also assumed weighing the bar during speed drills was simply to offer a slight bit of resistance without compromising technique. I would say the lower the better, but there is a point, I'm sure. I think the 60% was an arbitrary number, and that people actually looked into it and figured lower was even better.

 

[selfcritical]

People in track and field have found some pretty consistent success with using velocity-based training and lighter loads. Do you listen to Hammr media?

 

[selfcritical]

I'll try to find more articles, but while there are some decent criticisms of dynamic effort work for powerlifting transfer, i can't think of a single reason why high-velocity lifting wouldn't transfer to throwing a fixed weight as fast as you can.

 

[MandirigmaFit]

What events are you competing in?

 

[Urban]

I'm not sure about the whole 30-40% thing, but instead of cleans, that have a limited end point where you must catch the bar, try high pulls. That way your ability to put weight on the bar isn't limited to your ability to catch the bar.

I also assumed weighing the bar during speed drills was simply to offer a slight bit of resistance without compromising technique. I would say the lower the better, but there is a point, I'm sure. I think the 60% was an arbitrary number, and that people actually looked into it and figured lower was even better.

I considered high pulls, Mathew Vincent (world champion highland games thrower) likes them and weighted box jumps for developing explosiveness. I have trouble with high pulls determining how to load them. For example, Say I decide to pull with my snatch max, and use that to determine my high throw height. I guess I could set up a bungee cord at that height to ensure I'm hitting it every time, and adjust my load accordingly. Something like my 12x1, 6x2, 4x3, then adding 5 lbs progression I use now for cleans. Might be worth a shot.

The 30-40% mark is actually based on a study with 19 male power lifters done with hexagonal deadlifts to monitor power production. 30% and 40% produced maximum power when lifted explosively. Which in my mind, means using 30-40% and loading up with bands to accommodate for deceleration.

People in track and field have found some pretty consistent success with using velocity-based training and lighter loads. Do you listen to Hammr media?

I've never heard of HMMR media, I'll check it out, Thanks! Anything specific I should look at?

I'll try to find more articles, but while there are some decent criticisms of dynamic effort work for powerlifting transfer, i can't think of a single reason why high-velocity lifting wouldn't transfer to throwing a fixed weight as fast as you can.

That's what I was thinking. Rather than training for the heavy end of the force curve, it puts the emphasis on the fast end. While this might not be ideal for powerlifters, it might make more sense for throwers and explosive athletes. I think the problem lies in making progressing in a tangible way. It's easy to measure how much weight your moving, it's harder to measure power generation, so determining whether you should add more weight or stronger bands to the bar can be tricky. You really cant tell if you're still generating as much power as possible on a lift that has a fixed start and end like squats, it's a little easier with something like high pulls where you can set a height to throw to.

What events are you competing in?

The highland games have 8 standard events: Weight over bar, braemar stone, open stone, Heavy & Light weight for distance, Heavy and Light hammer, Sheaf Toss, and Caber toss.

 

[MandirigmaFit]

You should consider looking into Static-Dynamic training and Strength-Speed training. The former might require some critical thinking or a partner to execute certain movements/exercises, the latter is pretty common.

I wish I had more input, but I am not familiar with Highland Games, but they look tough as shit.

Generally, in training, if there is a high resistance to overcome, your strength training should reflect that. It is the reason why my grapplers focus on 85%+ intensities and my Thai fighter focuses on <30% and below & absolute speed.

 

[selfcritical]

One of way of tracking progress would be some sort of velocity tracking device to allow you to set speed PR's with given weights

 

[Urban]

One of way of tracking progress would be some sort of velocity tracking device to allow you to set speed PR's with given weights

Up until a couple hours ago I didn't know such devices even existed. So ok, let's walk this out with an example like squats and my 12x1, 6x2, 4x3 rep scheme might play out.

Take 30% of my 1 rep max and slap on a couple light bands and an accelerometer.

First session gets 12x1. This "sets the bar" so to speak for power production I'm looking for, which should should be generated by said device.

Next session, same weight for 6x2 for with a goal of over 90% of peak power production from session 1 for every rep.

Session 3 is 6x3 with the same weight and goals. If successful add 5 lbs and go to session 1.

Repeat until progress stops then take 75%of final weight and begin again (cause remember 30-40% is peak power production so 30/40 is .75).

Something like that? It only works if the bar accelerometer can calculate peak power in watts. I'll have to look for one that does.

 

[spdrew2143]

Most of my training these days is focused on highland games training. Outside of event training (vital to my improvement) it requires power development rather than peak strength, originally I thought "I'll just focus on cleans and push press instead of deadlifts and bench, and do some high rep squats cause Dan John said so." but as my cleans have "progresses" (200 for 4x3 Monday, it's not super awesome) I've gotten better at dipping under the bar. To me this means potentially less power development since the bar isn't traveling as far. This got me to thinking about simpler exercises that don't have this potential to reduce distance.

Reading up on dynamic effort I found several criticisms. One that struck me was this article by Brett contreras

The TLDR is basically this:
- Dynamic effort models based on 60% of your 1 rep max are based on studies done on single joint movements and that loading parameter may not carry over to compound movements.
- Peak power development was achieved in deadlifts at around 30-40%

Building off this, if you were training solely for power development (Force * Velocity) couldn't you structure your routine using 30% of your 1 rep max and using bands to add load at lockout and fight deceleration on your main lifts? Are there any articles that have debunked this type of approach for power athletes?

Not sure if you read this article, but it's kind of interesting. http://www.jssm.org/vol12/n1/18/v12n1-18text.php It was a study done with a group of intermediate throwers. One group trained for peak strength while the other group trained for ballistic strength. The study concluded similar increases with the two different methods of training. The interesting thing was how much the muscle biopsies differed between the two groups at the end of the experiment.

Also, some of the stuff Brett contreras writes should be taken with a grain of salt. I know he has a phd in sports science, but he wrote a book about powerlifting after he competed in 2 meets. Not to mention the fact he went 1328@236 at his second meet.

 

[Urban]

Not sure if you read this article, but it's kind of interesting. http://www.jssm.org/vol12/n1/18/v12n1-18text.php It was a study done with a group of intermediate throwers. One group trained for peak strength while the other group trained for ballistic strength. The study concluded similar increases with the two different methods of training. The interesting thing was how much the muscle biopsies differed between the two groups at the end of the experiment.

It's an interesting study. I can't help but wonder how a comparison of either modality with dynamic effort using accommodating resistance would compare. Also what the long term ramifications of continuously cause IIx hypertrophy? Does it eventually outpace strength training or is it hindered by the lack of growth of surrounding fiber types? The study concludes,

The ballistic type of power training resulted in a significant increase of the mass of type IIx muscle fibres and no change in their proportion. Thus, this type of training might be used effectively during the last weeks before competition, when the strength training load is usually reduced, in order to increase muscle power and shot put performance in novice shot putters.​

But doesn't that also miss the opportunity for athletes who must compete within the constraints of weight classes?

Also, some of the stuff Brett contreras writes should be taken with a grain of salt. I know he has a phd in sports science, but he wrote a book about powerlifting after he competed in 2 meets. Not to mention the fact he went 1328@236 at his second meet.

His conclusion that 30-40% of your 1rm seems corroborated by the study you posted. The grain of salt however seems to be in application and reality. While the study did have some interesting findings in the preservation of type IIx fibers, it seems like there ought to be a happy medium in terms of power training. Ultimately, maybe WSB got lucky with 60% actually being ideal for well rounded power development. Either way I think the thing to take away from all this is two fold:

- Strength training is good for you and good for power development
- Don't worry too much about going too heavy when going using balistic means for power training.

30, 40, 60 percent, balistic, accomodating resistance, it probably doesn't make THAT much difference according to the article. Which is both frustrating, and kind of reassuring.

 

[miaou]

Most of my training these days is focused on highland games training.

Highland games is basically heavy throwing.

Do what throwers have been doing for decades: Max strength (squats, half squats, bench press, etc.), olympic lifts (squat jumps, (hang) power cleans, maybe (hang) power snatches), some plyometrics, and throwing stuff (overhead throws, one-arm, two-arms, for height, for distance, etc.) and various loads (lighter and heavier than the competition load). That, and put in the reps on the competitive throws/events.

No need to re-invent the wheel, especially not if you're not already at a pretty high level. Which, if you are doing cleans with 200 lbs, you are obviously far from.

 

[MandirigmaFit]

If it is throwing and a lot of it, then check out Eric Cressey's stuff.

 

[miaou]

If it is throwing and a lot of it, then check out Eric Cressey's stuff.

It is *heavy* throwing.

I.e. throwing 8-25 kg implements (plus an 80 kg pole) for distance/height/etc.

It has almost nothing to do with throwing a 140 g baseball.

 

[Viskovitz]

Highland games is basically heavy throwing.

Do what throwers have been doing for decades: Max strength (squats, half squats, bench press, etc.), olympic lifts (squat jumps, (hang) power cleans, maybe (hang) power snatches), some plyometrics, and throwing stuff (overhead throws, one-arm, two-arms, for height, for distance, etc.) and various loads (lighter and heavier than the competition load). That, and put in the reps on the competitive throws/events.

No need to re-invent the wheel, especially not if you're not already at a pretty high level. Which, if you are doing cleans with 200 lbs, you are obviously far from.

Maybe doing high pulls instead of cleans and snatches. Just producing power without having to bother with the catch.

 

[MandirigmaFit]

It is *heavy* throwing.

I.e. throwing 8-25 kg implements (plus an 80 kg pole) for distance/height/etc.

It has almost nothing to do with throwing a 140 g baseball.

Yeah. Not something I am familiar with.

 

[miaou]

Maybe doing high pulls instead of cleans and snatches. Just producing power without having to bother with the catch.

Sure.

 

[Urban]

Ok so basically get stronger, lift heavy, try high pulls for height instead of cleans, before I worry too mucheap about switching to a solely power oriented routine. Sounds good to me. I'm adding some accomodating resistance to squats and one arm dumbell press which I use primarily as volume exercise's because each of them is stronger at lockout than at the bottom. I figure it may not be necessary but it's not detrimental, and might even be beneficial since I can get some time under heavier loads.

More of the same, only different, for now. Thanks for all the help!

 

[Viskovitz]

Ok so basically get stronger, lift heavy, try high pulls for height instead of cleans, before I worry too mucheap about switching to a solely power oriented routine. Sounds good to me. I'm adding some accomodating resistance to squats and one arm dumbell press which I use primarily as volume exercise's because each of them is stronger at lockout than at the bottom. I figure it may not be necessary but it's not detrimental, and might even be beneficial since I can get some time under heavier loads.

More of the same, only different, for now. Thanks for all the help!

Just remembered this video.

 

[Urban]

Just remembered this video.

I've seen that video (been watching a lot of Mathew Vincent lately). And I'm not sure where to incorporate weighted box jumps or how much weight to use. Again it seems like an exercise that would be tough to gauge progress on, especially since he says he doesn't like doing it on taller boxes. Maybe that's something I should look into more.