Technical chit-chat thread

[strapping]

I figured it makes sense to add a thread for chit chat and disparate thoughts regarding technical aspects of the sport that are not important enough to need their own thread.There will likely be some overlap between the regular chit-chat thread but I'd like this to be more focused on technical aspects of the sport, whether from the athlete or coach perspective. I'll do my best to limit my whining to keep it technically focused.

Some thoughts floating around my head; some more recent but most on my mind for the last few years. I look forward to and welcome disagreement, iron sharpens iron etc.

• The catch and recovery of all three lifts is probably the aspect where strength is most important, particularly leg/abdominal/shoulder strength. I think lifts missed in this phase, or avoidance of this (e.g. not squat snatching when it's heavy) is more often a case of lacking specific strength being an issue than "poor technique".
• Following on from that, competition technique should probably focus on minimising the external force and moments (e.g. not letting the bar drop, minimising the moment arms). However, training exercises that focus on loading the catch by limiting bar height whilst maintaining correct timing/rhythm (e.g. pause jerk) are obviously still useful for developing the strength to make it accessible in the first place.
• There are some kinematic/visible constants for good technique in the positive/upward phase of the snatch/clean and the jerk, but the specific expression or geometry of a good pull or drive are highly dependent on what the individual's catching mechanics and strengths are. For example, it's often taught that the jerk must be driven back and/or driven through the heels, but it is objectively true that a significant number of jerk specialists have driven through their forefoot and leaned heavily on their front leg. Luo Shifang, Rizki Juniansyah and Liu Huanhua are probably the most contemporary examples, but this goes back several decades to many of the Bulgarians, Polish and other lifters.
• In summary, I think the "correct" solution to the upward/drive phase of the three lifts is whatever minimises the forces and difficulty of the catch. Usually this means applying maximum vertical impulse and catching higher with less downward momentum, which needs to be balanced against not too much forward or rearward momentum.
• We see a few elite level athletes "jumping forward" in the clean, typically only on heavy weights and squat cleans. Some do because they stiff legging the pull which is bad but I'm not interested in those cases. There are however, a considerable number of cases where athletes who struggle with pulling strength (Nasar, Masanori, Rahmat etc.) and typically display this on heavy weights (>85%). My headcanon is that they are unintentionally reducing the loading on the upper/lower back and glutes/hamstrings whilst trying to maintain momentum through the middle of the pull in order to have adequate height. Pulling the bar more rearwardly *might* compromise upward acceleration due to a less vertical bar path. I usually don't see these lifters have much trouble with balance in the clean, so I'm doubtful the forward shifting of the bar or body is a massive issue. Not something to be taught but something I think is worth thinking about as an attempt to understand it.
• The importance of the second pull is overrated. You don't need a massive second pull if the first pull and the middle of the pull apply and maintain adequate vertical force.
• 1RM and x% being yRM (e.g. 80% = 8RM) are known to be significantly variable for individuals AND movements; something I rarely see discussed. But I'm not sure this makes a big difference for the training of the sport, or for specific strength in the context of weightlifting. I think it matters for optmising hypertrophy training, but who is doing a %1RM based program for curls?
• Having said that, Masanori Miyamoto snatching 120/10 in one set is literally incomprehensible to me. 75.9%/10 for squats, I understand. For snatches? how the fuck
• I wish VBT and other gadgets (e.g. force plates) were useful to me because I am a child who likes playing with toys. However, I just haven't found anything that I really feel is useful in real time, having trialed a few VBT systems and force plates in the past. As much as I hate having fewer objective metrics, they don't tell me anything that I can't see already and they cost a lot of time and money. This is not necessarily true for all of these products as I haven't used all of them and might not be true for other coaches, this is only my personal experience. I hope this field improves into the future.
• Peak bar velocity isn't that important in the snatch/clean; neither is time to peak velocity. Optimising for the former results in a swinging pull, optimising for the latter leads to a janky pull. I'm not aware of any equipment at the moment that is able to reliably and accurately separate absolute bar velocity from vertical velocity, outside of a laptop with a well positioned camera.
• On the other hand, bar velocity is very important in the jerk. I suspect that lifters who "use their arms" when it's heavy are really just lifters who are unable to generate and transfer appropriate speed into the bar when it's heavy.
• All lifters are elastic jerkers, some more than others. I feel that the ability to deliberately brake the dip and change direction is vastly undertrained and makes many lifter's jerks harder than they need to be.
• Lifters without drugs/talent need more GPP than lifters with drugs/talent because they widen the parameters of training. The previous paradigm of training popularity might have had too much sport and SPP training, so the general trend towards more GPP work (maximum strength, hypertrophy, jumps/speed work) is most likely a positive thing. However, I think we are seeing the pendulum swinging the opposite way where GPP is mischaracterised and subsequently overemphasised. You can be very generally strong and fast with relatively poor transfer into the sport.
• Sport training does not lay the foundation for increased performance, nor SPP training, nor GPP training. Physiology and motor learning lay the foundation for sport performance. Treating GPP performance (e.g. squat 1rm) as an arbitrary foundation ignores the athlete's physiological response to that training, as well as the context in which that expression happens.

[Guima73]

I think Kashirina is an example of good technique but i might be wrong...

[Hawkpeter]

[*] The catch and recovery of all three lifts is probably the aspect where strength is most important, particularly leg/abdominal/shoulder strength. I think lifts missed in this phase, or avoidance of this (e.g. not squat snatching when it's heavy) is more often a case of lacking specific strength being an issue than "poor technique".

I agree with this, but it makes me think conceptually about 2 quite different problems to be solved in terms of catch and recovery - 1 in the Snatch and Jerk, the other in the Clean. In the Snatch and the Jerk I categorize the catch and recovery as a problem of stability. So I think of the 'strength' problem here in terms of minimizing deformation of the lifter's posture to maintain balance - a lot of isometric strength. I have started using the phrase 'arresting the bar' to describe to lifters what I am trying to elicit from them.

In the clean, I categorize it more so in terms of conservation of elastic bio-motor energy for the ascent of the lift. Yes, isometric strength is necessary in the racking and fixating the bar at the shoulder but optimising the amortization is where I perceive the 'strength' quality being most important.

Its for this reason that I include more power snatches and pause in split jerks than I do power cleans for most lifters.

Coming back to the jerk, a later point you make is spot on

[*] All lifters are elastic jerkers, some more than others. I feel that the ability to deliberately brake the dip and change direction is vastly undertrained and makes many lifter's jerks harder than they need to be.

If I were making a custom video game lifter, I would turn this quality up to 10. Obviously the other qualities have to at least be a 5 but if you can amortize that jerk dip - gold.

The jerk is the most important skill in weightlifting and it is wholly under-trained; there, I said it.

[*] Following on from that, competition technique should probably focus on minimising the external force and moments (e.g. not letting the bar drop, minimising the moment arms). However, training exercises that focus on loading the catch by limiting bar height whilst maintaining correct timing/rhythm (e.g. pause jerk) are obviously still useful for developing the strength to make it accessible in the first place.

I cant decide if its a problem or not, but how do you feel about a lifter who does this extremely well (minimising bar drop) to the extent that at sub maximal weights also pattern near zero bar drop - they have trouble with power versions of the lifts? I see it as a nice problem to have but also eventually concerned about stifling future progress.

Hang on, I found your answer.

[*] In summary, I think the "correct" solution to the upward/drive phase of the three lifts is whatever minimises the forces and difficulty of the catch. Usually this means applying maximum vertical impulse and catching higher with less downward momentum, which needs to be balanced against not too much forward or rearward momentum.

Yeah you're right.

[*] For example, it's often taught that the jerk must be driven back and/or driven through the heels, but it is objectively true that a significant number of jerk specialists have driven through their forefoot and leaned heavily on their front leg. Luo Shifang, Rizki Juniansyah and Liu Huanhua are probably the most contemporary examples, but this goes back several decades to many of the Bulgarians, Polish and other lifters.

Ack, I've never liked the cue 'heels'. Invariably I see that lifter earnestly rocking back on their heels, unable to maintain it during the dip, then driving the whole thing forward. I understand thats not what the coach is trying to do but the way in which that concept is being deployed is exacerbating the problem not solving it. Not that I coach it this way, but I'd rather be on the forefoot and stay there than try to get on my heels. I just know that the lifter wont be able to do it.
Staying with the jerk, I've always considered the end of the clean (or front squat) and the beginning of the jerk as very different postures. I dont see that coached much.

[*] We see a few elite level athletes "jumping forward" in the clean, typically only on heavy weights and squat cleans. Some do because they stiff legging the pull which is bad but I'm not interested in those cases. There are however, a considerable number of cases where athletes who struggle with pulling strength (Nasar, Masanori, Rahmat etc.) and typically display this on heavy weights (>85%). My headcanon is that they are unintentionally reducing the loading on the upper/lower back and glutes/hamstrings whilst trying to maintain momentum through the middle of the pull in order to have adequate height. Pulling the bar more rearwardly *might* compromise upward acceleration due to a less vertical bar path. I usually don't see these lifters have much trouble with balance in the clean, so I'm doubtful the forward shifting of the bar or body is a massive issue. Not something to be taught but something I think is worth thinking about as an attempt to understand it.

I'm fascinated by layback in the clean, probably because I'm a contrarian and it shits all over axiomatic concepts like 'ya gotta stay over the bar'. But I think its important to distinguish between garden variety top of pull layback, with the mid pull 'humping' of the bar that you see from Nasar or Opeloge and whatever you want to call what Rahmat does. It rarely seems to be female lifters. I agree with your suggestion that there is an attempt being made to reduce posterior load during that phase of the lift. It certainly results in a lot of double bouncing.

[*] 1RM and x% being yRM (e.g. 80% = 8RM) are known to be significantly variable for individuals AND movements; something I rarely see discussed. But I'm not sure this makes a big difference for the training of the sport, or for specific strength in the context of weightlifting. I think it matters for optmising hypertrophy training, but who is doing a %1RM based program for curls?
[*] Having said that, Masanori Miyamoto snatching 120/10 in one set is literally incomprehensible to me. 75.9%/10 for squats, I understand. For snatches? how the fuck

When I see programs that lock the squatting and pulling into the SN and C&J competition 1RM's I'm boggled.

[*] I wish VBT and other gadgets (e.g. force plates) were useful to me because I am a child who likes playing with toys. However, I just haven't found anything that I really feel is useful in real time, having trialed a few VBT systems and force plates in the past. As much as I hate having fewer objective metrics, they don't tell me anything that I can't see already and they cost a lot of time and money. This is not necessarily true for all of these products as I haven't used all of them and might not be true for other coaches, this is only my personal experience. I hope this field improves into the future.

Not only is the use not there, the data is so unreliable depending on what device is being used.

[*] Peak bar velocity isn't that important in the snatch/clean; neither is time to peak velocity. Optimising for the former results in a swinging pull, optimising for the latter leads to a janky pull. I'm not aware of any equipment at the moment that is able to reliably and accurately separate absolute bar velocity from vertical velocity, outside of a laptop with a well positioned camera.

I'm too lazy to find a better term than repeating "stay connected to the bar". Some times I'll say "decoupled", but you're spot on. peak speed and time to peak speed are problematic to pursue for their own sake.

[*] On the other hand, bar velocity is very important in the jerk. I suspect that lifters who "use their arms" when it's heavy are really just lifters who are unable to generate and transfer appropriate speed into the bar when it's heavy.

As I said previously, I would turn up quality in this phase to 10 if I could.

[*] Lifters without drugs/talent need more GPP than lifters with drugs/talent because they widen the parameters of training. The previous paradigm of training popularity might have had too much sport and SPP training, so the general trend towards more GPP work (maximum strength, hypertrophy, jumps/speed work) is most likely a positive thing. However, I think we are seeing the pendulum swinging the opposite way where GPP is mischaracterised and subsequently overemphasised. You can be very generally strong and fast with relatively poor transfer into the sport.
[*] Sport training does not lay the foundation for increased performance, nor SPP training, nor GPP training. Physiology and motor learning lay the foundation for sport performance. Treating GPP performance (e.g. squat 1rm) as an arbitrary foundation ignores the athlete's physiological response to that training, as well as the context in which that expression happens.
[/list]

I'd hold the microphone up so you could be better heard if I could. Preach.

[strapping]

When I see programs that lock the squatting and pulling into the SN and C&J competition 1RM's I'm boggled.

Eh, I don't 100% agree with this but I don't 100% disagree either.

I think the point of locking squatting and pulling into comp 1RMs is usually more a point of prioritisation of the classic lifts as the main stimulus, helps to prevent ego lifting a bit. For an ex-powerlifter for example, doing heavy-ish squats 1x a week to maintain strength and then prioritising relaxed and fluid squatting (typically with weights based off snatch/clean weights) is useful for developing the type of leg strength with good carryover to snatches and cleans.

I don't think it's accurate for beginners, but I find pulling weights can often be prescribed accurately for lifters based off comp 1RMs given the difference in rhythm and trajectory once the weights get above 90% of comp 1RM and again above 105% for virtually all lifters that I have seen. This seems to be true irrespective of what a lifter can snatch/clean deadlift. However, I do notice that lifters with a weaker pull have that rhythm change at a slightly lower threshold compared to lifters with a stronger pull.

I generally classify pulling intensities into 3 zones
Zone 1: <80% of classic lift. High pulls, straight leg snatches, trapi. Emphasises the connection at the top of the pull
Zone 2: 80-110% (really 85-105%). Regular snatch, clean, medium grip pulls.
Zone 3: >110%, or high reps at 90-100%. Deadlifts. Arguably develops starting strength and general muscle mass, but I'm not sure I see it move the needle on pulling strength in the lifts more than zone 2. @brian.degennaro might have more thoughts as he agrees with me on this point but maybe not on others.

I have definitely seen lifters progress well with a far smaller volume and intensity of pulling work than I would expect. As for squat weights, I think that's fine as long as there is enough intensity for progression and to keep the lifter healthy. Rizki Juniansyah is an example of a lifter who generally does pulls/front squats with weights below 1RM (e.g. 140 for 2-3 reps on snatch pull) and similar weights to max lifts on deadlifts and squats.

I think the use of accessory work to develop pulling and squatting strength is also highly underrated. The lifters I have seen succeed with relatively minimal pulls seem to use accessories like weighted hypers and so on. More recently, I have run into the problem of a lot of newbie lifters having minimal quad strength. The problem with squats is that you can really sneak out of using the quads. Single leg work seems to sometimes work, sometimes not.

[*] For example, it's often taught that the jerk must be driven back and/or driven through the heels, but it is objectively true that a significant number of jerk specialists have driven through their forefoot and leaned heavily on their front leg. Luo Shifang, Rizki Juniansyah and Liu Huanhua are probably the most contemporary examples, but this goes back several decades to many of the Bulgarians, Polish and other lifters.

Ack, I've never liked the cue 'heels'. Invariably I see that lifter earnestly rocking back on their heels, unable to maintain it during the dip, then driving the whole thing forward. I understand thats not what the coach is trying to do but the way in which that concept is being deployed is exacerbating the problem not solving it. Not that I coach it this way, but I'd rather be on the forefoot and stay there than try to get on my heels. I just know that the lifter wont be able to do it.
Staying with the jerk, I've always considered the end of the clean (or front squat) and the beginning of the jerk as very different postures. I dont see that coached much.

To be honest I think inability to get the bar back is usually a quad or (rarely) ab strength issue. I tend to cue lifters to drive the bar back if they're a bit more of a rushy lifter.

[Hawkpeter]

When I see programs that lock the squatting and pulling into the SN and C&J competition 1RM's I'm boggled.

Eh, I don't 100% agree with this but I don't 100% disagree either.

I think the point of locking squatting and pulling into comp 1RMs is usually more a point of prioritisation of the classic lifts as the main stimulus, helps to prevent ego lifting a bit. For an ex-powerlifter for example, doing heavy-ish squats 1x a week to maintain strength and then prioritising relaxed and fluid squatting (typically with weights based off snatch/clean weights) is useful for developing the type of leg strength with good carryover to snatches and cleans.

I completely agree on the point of patterning fluid efficient squatting as stand alone prescriptions, I'm suggesting that it can easily enough be worked off of their actual squatting ability rather than what they are capable of in the SN/C&J. Its still relatively light, but in the case of someone like the competent powerlifter, its not overly light.

Regarding the pulling variations. I find myself far more likely to use lighter pulls over power versions of the lifts. The rhythm of the lift I find quite different with powers, particularly the power clean, and apart from earlier in training blocks when a lot of squatting might be going on, I don't use them that often.

I think the use of accessory work to develop pulling and squatting strength is also highly underrated. The lifters I have seen succeed with relatively minimal pulls seem to use accessories like weighted hypers and so on. More recently, I have run into the problem of a lot of newbie lifters having minimal quad strength. The problem with squats is that you can really sneak out of using the quads. Single leg work seems to sometimes work, sometimes not.

For my newbies, or for the ones who have come for assistance after hitting plateaus I frequently use a lot of quad primers just so they can at least get a feel for their quads first - they do indeed contort themselves to avoid staying in their quads. This goes with a re-patterning of their squatting altogether. Sissy squats, kneeling levers, BW hack squats are usually hard enough as both primers and stand alone finishers.

[brian.degennaro]

I generally classify pulling intensities into 3 zones
Zone 1: <80% of classic lift. High pulls, straight leg snatches, trapi. Emphasises the connection at the top of the pull
Zone 2: 80-110% (really 85-105%). Regular snatch, clean, medium grip pulls.
Zone 3: >110%, or high reps at 90-100%. Deadlifts. Arguably develops starting strength and general muscle mass, but I'm not sure I see it move the needle on pulling strength in the lifts more than zone 2. @brian.degennaro might have more thoughts as he agrees with me on this point but maybe not on others.

I generally agree with this. As always, it becomes a case of "it depends" with whatever you are doing with specific athletes. If you are squatting with sufficient intensity while executing pulls of all sorts, your max pulling strength always tends to go up in conjunction with improvements in leg strength.I also find myself floating between eliminating pulls entirely in favor of just snatch/clean/mid grip/straight leg deadlifting because I do not really find the second pull phase all that useful (unless part of a complex or to build confidence in a high pull). If I am trying to strengthen the second pull, hang and block lifts, powers, and so on are better in my experience and use. Rarely do I see a lifter with a great pull maintain great connection when transitioning from second to third pull. At the same time, most people can get some degree of "pull" in with upwards of 85-90% of their max deadlift, so again, what is the point? There is often poor use of the upperbody in favor of thwacking the barbell with the legs and hips.

Regarding squat intensities: I used to favor limiting squats to 120-130% of their best clean but now I largely lean towards RPE instead. If we are gunning for a new personal best on the CJ I will suggest lifters to keep their squat volume around the intended PR attempt. I also fail to see the utility of LSUS 10s phase beyond 3-5 workouts in general. I usually incorporate it for a solid block of training for myself or my lifters probably once per year just to give it a try and all I continue to see is fatigue accumulation. Maybe results would be different if I were attempting it at the very beginning of my training career and same for my lifters.

Peak bar velocity isn't that important in the snatch/clean; neither is time to peak velocity. Optimising for the former results in a swinging pull, optimising for the latter leads to a janky pull. I'm not aware of any equipment at the moment that is able to reliably and accurately separate absolute bar velocity from vertical velocity, outside of a laptop with a well positioned camera.

Agreed; chasing improvements in bar velocity with all the new devices lately I think is a fool's errand and the current Western WL'ing example of Goodhart's Law (when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure). To paraphrase Charniga on squats, does one improve peak bar velocity to snatch/clean/jerk more weight. Or, what is more likely, does one snatch/clean/jerk more weight to improve peak bar velocity to snatch/clean/jerk more weight? I have done the napkin math, many of the best modern era lifters lift maximum weights with a lower peak velocity than what Roman outlined. However, this could simply be due to technological differences and quality of film.

[strapping]

For my newbies, or for the ones who have come for assistance after hitting plateaus I frequently use a lot of quad primers just so they can at least get a feel for their quads first - they do indeed contort themselves to avoid staying in their quads. This goes with a re-patterning of their squatting altogether. Sissy squats, kneeling levers, BW hack squats are usually hard enough as both primers and stand alone finishers.

I'm not sure what you mean by kneeling levers. Reverse nordics?

Sissy squats, reverse nordics, leg extensions and single leg BW hack squats have all been useful quad exercises in my experience, better than back/front squats. The humble leg extension machine gets too much hate because using machines is for pussies or something, but for lifters who have weak legs after squatting I think it's one of the best pieces of equipment outside of the barbell.

Squats are still useful in conjunction with pulls for developing the hip extensors and subsequently the first pull, but over time I've gravitated away from programming higher volume squats (no more than 5-6). General leg strength development in giraffes and pseudo-giraffes just seems to be much easier with accessory work in the 5-10 rep range.

I completely agree on the point of patterning fluid efficient squatting as stand alone prescriptions, I'm suggesting that it can easily enough be worked off of their actual squatting ability rather than what they are capable of in the SN/C&J. Its still relatively light, but in the case of someone like the competent powerlifter, its not overly light.

Regarding the pulling variations. I find myself far more likely to use lighter pulls over power versions of the lifts. The rhythm of the lift I find quite different with powers, particularly the power clean, and apart from earlier in training blocks when a lot of squatting might be going on, I don't use them that often.

It can be RPE, standalone% or clean% based, as long as the load is appropriate. Chances are that we are simply talking past each other with semantics where we would all probably so something somewhat similar in the end for a given lifter in front of us. For those who have a large strength surplus, the specifics of squatting are not that important.

For pulls, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Use for what exactly? I like both zone 1 (usually high or high-ish) pulls and powers for developing a lifter's top end of the pull, provided that they are using the legs and back appropriately.

I think power snatch and clean variations are not necessary or indispensable, but I do find them very useful in developing the desired intent of maintaining vertical impulse during the pull of a squat snatch/clean rather than prematurely backing off in order to squat snatch/clean. I believe the difference in rhythm to actually be a benefit for that reason. I find a lot of lifters, particularly those with a lengthened first pull/delayed transition and second pull benefit a lot from powers.

Part of it is that they can usually demonstrate that correctly with power variations, even if they rush from the floor. I find this is more impactful on the performance of the snatch than the clean.

One lifter I have been training for 6 months or so was taught by a previous coach only taught to squat lift and basically did not intuitively understand how to power snatch or clean at all, even on an empty bar or 35kg. When she started with me, she would not infrequently miss 80% on both snatches and jerks and not know why. Anything above 80% was a dice roll.

She rushed off the floor (weak quads + other things) and lost back tightness, resulting in the the lengthened first pull, delayed transition/2nd pull mentioned above. At near maximum weights she would simply rush the start and high pull/clark it. Strengthening her quads and upper back, slowing her start and having her do a lot of tempo and/or power snatch/clean work has made her much more consistent in her squat snatches and jerks at 80% and above. Despite extremely chaotic work life, she can now probably hit 90% convincingly on any given day (if I asked for it).

[Hawkpeter]

I'm not sure what you mean by kneeling levers. Reverse nordics?

Yup, its the old gymnastics lever progression habits in me.

Chances are that we are simply talking past each other with semantics where we would all probably so something somewhat similar in the end for a given lifter in front of us.

Likely. I think the overall point I'm making is that locking weight in on the program tends to feed into a discovery learning method that doesn't produce the designed effect the way that explicit instruction does that would, paired appropriateness of load.

For pulls, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Use for what exactly? I like both zone 1 (usually high or high-ish) pulls and powers for developing a lifter's top end of the pull, provided that they are using the legs and back appropriately.

I think power snatch and clean variations are not necessary or indispensable, but I do find them very useful in developing the desired intent of maintaining vertical impulse during the pull of a squat snatch/clean rather than prematurely backing off in order to squat snatch/clean. I believe the difference in rhythm to actually be a benefit for that reason. I find a lot of lifters, particularly those with a lengthened first pull/delayed transition and second pull benefit a lot from powers.

Part of it is that they can usually demonstrate that correctly with power variations, even if they rush from the floor. I find this is more impactful on the performance of the snatch than the clean.

One lifter I have been training for 6 months or so was taught by a previous coach only taught to squat lift and basically did not intuitively understand how to power snatch or clean at all, even on an empty bar or 35kg. When she started with me, she would not infrequently miss 80% on both snatches and jerks and not know why. Anything above 80% was a dice roll.

She rushed off the floor (weak quads + other things) and lost back tightness, resulting in the the lengthened first pull, delayed transition/2nd pull mentioned above. At near maximum weights she would simply rush the start and high pull/clark it. Strengthening her quads and upper back, slowing her start and having her do a lot of tempo and/or power snatch/clean work has made her much more consistent in her squat snatches and jerks at 80% and above. Despite extremely chaotic work life, she can now probably hit 90% convincingly on any given day (if I asked for it).

I know that lifter you're describing. I probably created a lifter or 2 like that 15years ago - now I'm destined to fixing them. I'm as likely to use something like CL pull + Clean as I am power clean to achieve the pull rhythm and top-of-pull-intent.

I'm reminded of how easy it is to overly emphasis an aspect of lifting when I see how someone like Micheala breeze explains how she coaches the 'its-not-a-fecking-pull-drop-under-the-bar'.

[strapping]

I also find myself floating between eliminating pulls entirely in favor of just snatch/clean/mid grip/straight leg deadlifting because I do not really find the second pull phase all that useful (unless part of a complex or to build confidence in a high pull). If I am trying to strengthen the second pull, hang and block lifts, powers, and so on are better in my experience and use. Rarely do I see a lifter with a great pull maintain great connection when transitioning from second to third pull. At the same time, most people can get some degree of "pull" in with upwards of 85-90% of their max deadlift, so again, what is the point? There is often poor use of the upperbody in favor of thwacking the barbell with the legs and hips.

I have had the same thoughts, to an extent. Zone 2 pulling exercises are simply all around strength training with a similar aesthetic to the classic lifts, but I am not sure they meaningfully develop the second pull. High pulls and straight leg snatches definitely help the connection. With a controlled eccentric, they can certainly develop postural strength.

Zone 3 I think can be useful but anecdotally I find that they are not necessary as it is too easy to lose position and lifters seem to get hurt more easily, especially with reps moreso than intensity. The relative intensity (through load or reps) is also too high to develop position specific strength in my experience, people tend to lose position.

I also fail to see the utility of LSUS 10s phase beyond 3-5 workouts in general. I usually incorporate it for a solid block of training for myself or my lifters probably once per year just to give it a try and all I continue to see is fatigue accumulation. Maybe results would be different if I were attempting it at the very beginning of my training career and same for my lifters.

The original program on the LSU walls lists the 10s as a "high intensity conditioning" phase. In the past, I have run 10-8-5-3-Peak with a L-M-H week structure for a more meaningful hypertrophy block (9 weeks).

I don't like squats and deadlifts with high reps, it just seems to piss off hips and low backs. Weightlifters being the way they are seemed to be able to overshoot the 10s/8s in capacity, relative to their tolerance. I personally feel that unless the intensity is kept to 65% or so, the workload becomes too much to handle.

The only argument I think is to develop the lactic anerobic energy system to help with the 5s and 3s phases, but I am not sure either way whether or not that is super important. Heavy 10s (and maximal 5s) in large ROM movements will cause large increases in both blood lactate and blood ammonia. However, the same parameters can be achieved with submax sets of 12-15 provided the exercise has a similarly large ROM. I think that is more practically manageable.

Personally, if there needs to be additional conditioning/energy system work, I would rather have people do 30 min of zone 2 cardio twice a week for stroke volume and/or simply program higher rep accessories for any anaerobic endurance capacities.

On a side note, I'm not convinced that zone 2 work helps increase specific work capacity for long term lifting improvement unless someone has an elevated resting heart rate or health problems. I think work capacity mostly scales with progression, food, sleep and lifestyle. However, I don't think small amounts of zone 2 is harmful to strength development in most practical settings if energy intake is accounted for. None of my lifters have had any problems with introducing a bit of LISS 1-2x a week.

I have done the napkin math, many of the best modern era lifters lift maximum weights with a lower peak velocity than what Roman outlined. However, this could simply be due to technological differences and quality of film.

I forgot to mention that Realanalyzer HD costs like 8000 EUR from the German weightlifting federation. A bit rich for my taste.

Interestingly, Ingo Sandau's 2016 paper (p4) on the kinematics of the snatch in male intl lifters from 2004-2014 shows an increase in Vmax but a decrease in velocity in the first pull and transition in the mean lifter over the 10 years. My suspicion for the decrease in V1 (end 1st pull) from 2004-2014 is simply a drop in maximum strength from less drugs, not a technical deficiency.

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.

I know that lifter you're describing. I probably created a lifter or 2 like that 15years ago - now I'm destined to fixing them. I'm as likely to use something like CL pull + Clean as I am power clean to achieve the pull rhythm and top-of-pull-intent.

I'm reminded of how easy it is to overly emphasis an aspect of lifting when I see how someone like Micheala breeze explains how she coaches the 'its-not-a-fecking-pull-drop-under-the-bar'.

I have found pull+lift and power+squat variations to be useful, depending on what the specific reasons for the poor rhythm are. If someone is slow because they are trying to be fast, I'm more of a pull + lift guy. If they are slow because they are slow, moreso powers. I personally like Breeze's terminology of a push rather than a pull; however the throwing oneself under the bar as rapidly as possible is not my cup of tea.

We have all made and continue to make mistakes with lifters, foolishness is unfortunately one of the costs of sentience. I usually think I've been wrong in basically every way possible in weightlifting, but I find new ways to be wrong every so often.

[brian.degennaro]

I have had the same thoughts, to an extent. Zone 2 pulling exercises are simply all around strength training with a similar aesthetic to the classic lifts, but I am not sure they meaningfully develop the second pull. High pulls and straight leg snatches definitely help the connection. With a controlled eccentric, they can certainly develop postural strength.

Zone 3 I think can be useful but anecdotally I find that they are not necessary as it is too easy to lose position and lifters seem to get hurt more easily, especially with reps moreso than intensity. The relative intensity (through load or reps) is also too high to develop position specific strength in my experience, people tend to lose position.

The only heavy pull that I think can accentuate the second pull (besides muscles, high pulls, and lower weight "power" exercises) are bench/staircase pulls as we rarely see from Russia/Georgia/South Korea. The use of bouncing the barbell off the bench/block to provide upward thrust is a beneficial training tool in my opinion.

The original program on the LSU walls lists the 10s as a "high intensity conditioning" phase. In the past, I have run 10-8-5-3-Peak with a L-M-H week structure for a more meaningful hypertrophy block (9 weeks).

I don't like squats and deadlifts with high reps, it just seems to piss off hips and low backs. Weightlifters being the way they are seemed to be able to overshoot the 10s/8s in capacity, relative to their tolerance. I personally feel that unless the intensity is kept to 65% or so, the workload becomes too much to handle.

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.

The only argument I think is to develop the lactic anerobic energy system to help with the 5s and 3s phases, but I am not sure either way whether or not that is super important. Heavy 10s (and maximal 5s) in large ROM movements will cause large increases in both blood lactate and blood ammonia. However, the same parameters can be achieved with submax sets of 12-15 provided the exercise has a similarly large ROM. I think that is more practically manageable.

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.

Personally, if there needs to be additional conditioning/energy system work, I would rather have people do 30 min of zone 2 cardio twice a week for stroke volume and/or simply program higher rep accessories for any anaerobic endurance capacities.

On a side note, I'm not convinced that zone 2 work helps increase specific work capacity for long term lifting improvement unless someone has an elevated resting heart rate or health problems. I think work capacity mostly scales with progression, food, sleep and lifestyle. However, I don't think small amounts of zone 2 is harmful to strength development in most practical settings if energy intake is accounted for. None of my lifters have had any problems with introducing a bit of LISS 1-2x a week.

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

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?