Technical chit-chat thread

[Hawkpeter]

Something I've been curious more so about this year is the bio-energetic considerations occurring in the sport.

Dr Pierce attended a conference I organised earlier this year and clarified the LSUS program and 'high intensity conditioning' phase. I have been an advocate of including more Zone 2 aerobic work for left ventricle strength although the counter argument for it put to me is the disruption to signalling for muscle protein synthesis. Then a few weeks ago my understanding for mitochondria changes were re-examined by this upload.



I haven't had time yet to process it all but I have to re-assess my thoughts on what is actually occurring bio-energetically in response to different training stimuli.

[strapping]

Something I've been curious more so about this year is the bio-energetic considerations occurring in the sport.

Dr Pierce attended a conference I organised earlier this year and clarified the LSUS program and 'high intensity conditioning' phase. I have been an advocate of including more Zone 2 aerobic work for left ventricle strength although the counter argument for it put to me is the disruption to signalling for muscle protein synthesis. Then a few weeks ago my understanding for mitochondria changes were re-examined by this upload.



I haven't had time yet to process it all but I have to re-assess my thoughts on what is actually occurring bio-energetically in response to different training stimuli.

What did Dr. Pierce say about the 10s phase? I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it explicitly so it would be great if you could clarify.

I think that Zone 2 work is minimally harmful if kept to small amounts, in an otherwise heavily anabolic environment (gaining weight, eating protein, training hard etc.). Like yeah, there's an interference effect but if you just prioritise building zone 2 capacity for a couple of weeks, then put it on the back burner with 1-2x 30 min sessions a week for maintenance, I don't think that will have a huge effect honestly. Unless someone has a really hard time putting on muscle mass.

I was aware of the difference in mitochondrial changes a few years ago doing my undergrad, but I wasn't sure what to make of it. The best I could come up with was that some bodybuilders historically have advocated using a variety of rep ranges for each muscle, 4-8 for strength-hypertrophy, 8-12 for general hypertrophy and 15+ reps for hypertrophy and endurance. Of course the justification was largely broscience.

I think Stone's early periodization stuff from the 80s or thereabouts where they did 15-12-10-8-5-3 was excessive and resulted in detraining of the top end.

Oh so like this study right here. Granted, the few minutes you spend in such a high respiratory rate pale in comparison to actually just performing steadystate cardio for 20-30 minutes.

I wasn't aware of this study until you showed me but it seems about right. Menno's extrapolation of this to squats being actual cardio is nonsense though.

I would suspect that the duration of the elevation of oxygen consumption (rather than HR) is too low for big changes in stroke volume from high volume training. However, I would have to wonder if steady state cardio makes much difference in terms of muscular endurance and subsequent muscular fatigue; or if that's even particularly relevant. Training to train is the goal of all GPP, but I don't want to get to the point of training to train to train.

I have personally found utilizing very light loads and cluster repetitions with heavier loads much more effective than being in the middle for sub- and maximal sets of 5-10 reps. Basically training at either end of the spectrum rather than the middle.

I notice shorter rest periods and higher work capacities with the minimal amount of zone 2 conditioning involved.

The specificity of training conditioning makes sense and is something I have argued for. Training on a 60-120s clock makes a notable difference for competition recovery, just need to get lifters to actually stick to it in training. I find the other way around is true as well where if lifters train on a short clock (<90s), their general aerobic fitness is usually not completely sloppy even if they don't do any cardio.

Lasha, Xiaojun, Om, Ilya, Deng Wei, the Rim sisters, and maybe a few others during lockdowns; I forget whom else exactly but I had a lot of free time. I think my criteria were all time records or near there. Interestingly, I believe the younger Shi Zhiyong is the only lifter I found that since his 73kg debut loses the least amount of speed during the transition from 1st to second pull. Practically no drop off if I recall?

All of those lifters certainly lift with a low barbell velocity, but I'm just not entirely sure as I can't really remember the values listed by Roman or where to find them. Was it from The Training of the Weightlifter? I have a pdf copy somewhere. Rizki Juniansyah can be added to that list. There are certainly lifters with low bar velocities from the 80s too, Zakharevich being a classic example.

I think ultimately it's just harder to build muscle mass nowadays without the infinite drug hacks. That shows itself up in different technical and mechanical changes for each lifter, but struggling to develop pulling strength and acceleration might be the one that is most obviously affected for elite lifters, especially as many elite lifters have little trouble squatting and catching.

I'm not sure this affects training prescription much either. As we have discussed previously, drugs reduce the training stimulus threshold for muscle growth and strength gain and also increase tolerance of additional volume, which has allowed lifters to spam the lifts/squats/pulls* (optional) and let the drugs take care of the smaller details. As a result, the only thing I can suggest is perhaps that drug free lifting requires a wider breadth of training stimulus (classic lifts, variations, specific and general physical preparation) with more GPP work than we have seen from some in the past.

[Guima73]

Which lifters did you study to come to this conclusion? For my eye test, on average you might be right but I see exemplary modern lifters on both low and less-low vmax sides.

Regardless of peak velocity values and strategies used to lift the bar, I'm curious about the relative ratios of modern lifters' ability to squat and deadlift in comparison to their predecessors. I would suspect that the gap between sn/cj vs pulls (sometimes squats) has narrowed for most athletes.

Lasha, Xiaojun, Om, Ilya, Deng Wei, the Rim sisters, and maybe a few others during lockdowns; I forget whom else exactly but I had a lot of free time. I think my criteria were all time records or near there. Interestingly, I believe the younger Shi Zhiyong is the only lifter I found that since his 73kg debut loses the least amount of speed during the transition from 1st to second pull. Practically no drop off if I recall?


Going back to 2010, Garhammer recorded some examples of weightlifters who didnt lose speed.

https://sportsedtv.com/docs/The_Pull_in ... ifting.pdf

Dimas was not a good example...

[Hawkpeter]

What did Dr. Pierce say about the 10s phase? I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it explicitly so it would be great if you could clarify.

I think that Zone 2 work is minimally harmful if kept to small amounts, in an otherwise heavily anabolic environment (gaining weight, eating protein, training hard etc.). Like yeah, there's an interference effect but if you just prioritise building zone 2 capacity for a couple of weeks, then put it on the back burner with 1-2x 30 min sessions a week for maintenance, I don't think that will have a huge effect honestly. Unless someone has a really hard time putting on muscle mass.

I was aware of the difference in mitochondrial changes a few years ago doing my undergrad, but I wasn't sure what to make of it. The best I could come up with was that some bodybuilders historically have advocated using a variety of rep ranges for each muscle, 4-8 for strength-hypertrophy, 8-12 for general hypertrophy and 15+ reps for hypertrophy and endurance. Of course the justification was largely broscience.

I think Stone's early periodization stuff from the 80s or thereabouts where they did 15-12-10-8-5-3 was excessive and resulted in detraining of the top end.

I framed the question to him something like, 'Why do people call the initial phase of the LSUS program a hypertrophy block when the more significant change is bioenergetic, and that not a great deal of hypertrophy is going to occur in such a short time?'

His response was that he never called it that, and that the idea was from Dr Stone where it was called a (I'm reading the notes I made now) 'high intensity endurance phase', the purpose being as preparation for the 5's and 3's that were to follow. I'm paraphrasing but he said something to the effect of, 'we just felt that we did better 5's and 3's later on when we included the 10's that Dr Stone had been doing with some of his research, than if we'd been doing 5's or 3's all the way through.'

[strapping]

Getting people to eat enough protein and calories is genuinely the hardest part of weightlifting coaching for me.The stuff inside the gym is easy.

Interesting to hear Steve Fauer talk about 3-4 harder sessions approaching high intensity weights being more productive than 6+ sessions a week. Strokes my bias that variations and combinations are useful as an adjunct, but the bread and butter of the sport is working with moderately heavy and heavy weights.

I framed the question to him something like, 'Why do people call the initial phase of the LSUS program a hypertrophy block when the more significant change is bioenergetic, and that not a great deal of hypertrophy is going to occur in such a short time?'

His response was that he never called it that, and that the idea was from Dr Stone where it was called a (I'm reading the notes I made now) 'high intensity endurance phase', the purpose being as preparation for the 5's and 3's that were to follow. I'm paraphrasing but he said something to the effect of, 'we just felt that we did better 5's and 3's later on when we included the 10's that Dr Stone had been doing with some of his research, than if we'd been doing 5's or 3's all the way through.

I think that could be ameliorated by doing higher rep accessory work and zone 2 after 5s rather than 10s on squats/deads. Also extending out the 5s phase for some months rather than a 3-4 week cycle that repeated more frequently.

Going back to 2010, Garhammer recorded some examples of weightlifters who didnt lose speed.
https://sportsedtv.com/docs/The_Pull_in ... ifting.pdf

Dimas was not a good example...

Thanks for sharing that. I agree that Dimas isn't a good example of technique, he was just ridiculously strong. Jolting the bar like that basically always counter productive, there should be one continuous leg drive through the lfloor.

[strapping]

https://simplifaster.com/articles/train ... eve-fauer/

This strokes my biases. Fewer sessions with more attempts at technical threshold weights (imo not ncessarily 90+%) to train the skill-strength of the movements rather than endlesd submax volume accumulation with high levels of fatigue seems to be a productive approach with drug free athletes and people with jobs.

[Guima73]

Looks good to me.. rounded back but doesnt seem to interfere much.

[strapping]

Looks good to me.. rounded back but doesnt seem to interfere much.

Quite a few top lifters have lifted with a rounded back over the years, including the king Lasha. Yanko Rusev is perhaps a more obvious example, as is Blagoy Blagoev in the snatch.

Truth be told, whilst I do try to get lifters to lift with a flat back, the reality is that the back only needs to be extended enough. Why, I'm not entirely sure. I do think most lifters who have a rounded back tend to have a harder time connecting the finish of the pull.

Back rounding in the recovery of the clean or a heavy front squat is not a technical fault as most people say. It reduces the workload on the quads and (slightly) on the hips.

[brian.degennaro]

I have leaned away from cuing anyone to extend their back too much. I have found this results in fewer complaints about excessive lumbar tension and stiffness, and results in less throwing the shoulders back and hips into the barbell during the second pull.

[strapping]

I have leaned away from cuing anyone to extend their back too much. I have found this results in fewer complaints about excessive lumbar tension and stiffness, and results in less throwing the shoulders back and hips into the barbell during the second pull.

I think it depends on how hard they need to work to get to an extended position but I agree.

It makes some sense, a more flexed spine can reduce the hip extension demands. A Japanese lifter who came to my gym had a very flexed lumbar spine/posterior pelvic tilt in the start of the pull and really struggled to generate force/acceleration off the floor with a "neutral" spine.

Things like hypers, back bends and so on are probably good for spinal mobility into extension I guess.