PariahCarey

Lol if anyone here is involoved in sports for their career like myself....shit like this is common! People bash and yell, debate and fight, kick and scream...get used to it or buy a chess board!
 
mariah_carey_b_002.jpg
 
Where did James say that about OH pressing???
 
I can't find a direct post Sonny, but I know he said it many times. Like Cocky said check his board, or search here, 800 + posts is a lot to sift through though.
 
cockysprinter said:
hes said it millions of times, look through this board or his.

Really? funny I don't remember him saying it at the time, but I did tend to ignore him towards the end of his stay here at Sherdog.
 
I compensate by doing heavy rounded back GMs. I never wear a belt.
 
Everything works for 3 weeks, everything is bad for you, everything is good for you...
 
Sorry for the off subject for a second. Sonny, that is a drastic av switch. You went from Phil Collins to Pete "El Duro" Williams. Why such a drastic switch man.
 
Madmick said:
I thought the point of the belt was to compensate for the natural strength imbalance between the abdominals and the lower back? I know said imbalance will have to be endured on the field, and I know you won't wear a belt on the field...but then, you won't be put laying 600 pounds across your back on the field, either.

The assistance provided by a belt during exercise occurs as a result of increased abdominal pressure, reduced compressive and shear forces on the spine, and restricted torso movement which in turn allows for greater stability. It is for these exact reasons, that the strength qualities developed during belt use, will not have the same functional strength transfer to athletic action as non belt actions.

To assume that the strength qualities obtained are equal between both variations would require that an increase in the machine squat strength has the same functional carry over to sports as the standard squat which clearly is untrue. Though an extreme example, the exact reasons why one is dominant over the other are virtually identical to belted vs non-belted squats.

Squatting without a belt requires far greater stabilization and contraction of the core musculature, which is not only responsible for maintaining the stability of the spine and pelvis, but in the case of athletic expression, is also responsible for the transfer of energy from large to small body parts. As such, an increase in a non-belted squat will pay bigger dividends in terms of functional strength in the long run by way of greater CNS efficiency, etc.

If belts truly had a benefit in terms of increasing athletic strength expression, one would observe that if a lifter increases his belted squat, that an expected increase should occur in the non belted squat. Interestingly, this has not been observed!
 
Monger said:
I was just curious if you seen any stats on overhead pressing vs. injury. What I'm really trying to get at is that I've had tears in my labrum tendon twice and once in my rotator cuff and both required surgery (same shoulder). I do both MT/Boxing along with strength training. I really have no idea which one is more the cause of my injury and at the moment I'm nervous as hell of going through that crap again. I'm doing all the rotator cuff exercises to try to stay strong there. Any thoughts on overhead pressing with previously injured labrum/rotator cuff? Good or bad? Sorry to get off topic in the thread.

Sorry been slammed at work and missed your post as a result.

I have not seen research showing a statistical corellation between overhead pressing vs injury.
 
ENTROPY said:
The assistance provided by a belt during exercise occurs as a result of increased abdominal pressure, reduced compressive and shear forces on the spine, and restricted torso movement which in turn allows for greater stability. It is for these exact reasons, that the strength qualities developed during belt use, will not have the same functional strength transfer to athletic action as non belt actions.

The valsalva maneuver provides protection for the same reason.


As a side note, I have a lot of respect for Entropy. His replies to posts always show a lot of thought and whether or not you agree with him they are informative and make you think. While thinking can be painful it's how the SC community learns and grows over time.
 
rickdog said:
Sorry for the off subject for a second. Sonny, that is a drastic av switch. You went from Phil Collins to Pete "El Duro" Williams. Why such a drastic switch man.

LOL! My old Av was Ben Kingsley not Phil Collins. My current av is underground hip hop artist Aesop Rock not Pete Williams.
 
ENTROPY said:
The assistance provided by a belt during exercise occurs as a result of increased abdominal pressure, reduced compressive and shear forces on the spine, and restricted torso movement which in turn allows for greater stability. It is for these exact reasons, that the strength qualities developed during belt use, will not have the same functional strength transfer to athletic action as non belt actions.

To assume that the strength qualities obtained are equal between both variations would require that an increase in the machine squat strength has the same functional carry over to sports as the standard squat which clearly is untrue. Though an extreme example, the exact reasons why one is dominant over the other are virtually identical to belted vs non-belted squats.

Squatting without a belt requires far greater stabilization and contraction of the core musculature, which is not only responsible for maintaining the stability of the spine and pelvis, but in the case of athletic expression, is also responsible for the transfer of energy from large to small body parts. As such, an increase in a non-belted squat will pay bigger dividends in terms of functional strength in the long run by way of greater CNS efficiency, etc.

If belts truly had a benefit in terms of increasing athletic strength expression, one would observe that if a lifter increases his belted squat, that an expected increase should occur in the non belted squat. Interestingly, this has not been observed!

Okay, but has there even been demonstrated either an insignificant or significant difference in the likelihood of injury between belted vs. non-belted squats?

I'm just wondering what James's response would be, because I'd actually theorized the machine squat metaphor there on my own (smart little me), but have always worn belts because I was told to.

I've never researched this subject myself.
 
ENTROPY said:
Sorry been slammed at work and missed your post as a result.

I have not seen research showing a statistical corellation between overhead pressing vs injury.


That's cool. I appreciate you responding.
 
101pro said:
The valsalva maneuver provides protection for the same reason.


As a side note, I have a lot of respect for Entropy. His replies to posts always show a lot of thought and whether or not you agree with him they are informative and make you think. While thinking can be painful it's how the SC community learns and grows over time.

Thanks for the kind words.

I
 
cockysprinter said:
http://powerdevelopmentinc.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

heres one place to start. i looked through his posts here on sherdog but couldnt find anything. ive seen james post on way more places than sherdog, so maybe i got mixed up.

No, you didn't, Cocky, I found it in the Supertraining thread (Post #5):
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=176661&page=2&pp=20

James Smith said:
Now, as far as what are the most beneficial lifts for MMA goes; we must first perform a cost:benefit analysis.

1. Although the OL's are great for power development they are also much slower to learn than the powerlifts, with a higher risk of injury, due to high technical demand, and shorter career longevity of competitive lifters.

2. The snatch is the fastest lift around, however, many NON olympic lifters tend to suffer from fraying of the labrum from performing snatches.

3. Cleans pose a risk to injuring the wrists, and the act of racking the weight on the clavicle, following the pull, is of no athletic use.

I am a fan of pull variations, both snatch and clean grip. The execution of pulls allows the athlete to focus on true triple extension without prematurely squatting to either catch the bar during the clean or executing the snatch.

Heavy backward overhead medicine ball throws are also a fantastic tool for developing true hip extension and power development. This type of throw allows the athlete to reap all of the athletic rewards of the snatch without the trauma to the shoulder capsule.

All in all, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to perform the classical Olympic lifts (snatch, clean and jerk) unless you are either required to test in the power clean (which many football players are) or are training to be a competitive Olympic weightlifter.

My former boss said the same thing. He didn't like C&J for basketball/football players- since despite that the "double knee bend" is the fastest human movement- the movement involves a deceleration phase, and there is no such phase in these sports. The same is true for MMA.

I have to admit, I'm very apprehensive about giving up my Barbell C&J. But I have to get over that, there just seems to be a consensus on this point from those I respect: my former boss, James Smith, Entropy, Urban.

Nevertheless, I also think it should be kept in mind the potential for force with these lifts. Even dynamic powerlifts don't rival the motor recruitment of the olympic movements, so when I'm after speed-strength, the cleaning station is where I'm headed.
 
Back
Top