The role of the olympic lifts in training programs The role of the olympic lifts in training programs

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: The role of the olympic lifts in training programs

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    461

    Default The role of the olympic lifts in training programs

    • phoenix arizona seminar date
    • texas seminar date
    Hey Rip

    Apologies if this has been asked before, I couldn't find anything using the search engine, which worries me because that makes me feel like this might be a dumb question.

    Anyways, after that whole 10+ page Olympic lifting thread we had on this sub-board, I decided to reread the chapter in The Book about power cleans. In it you say:

    "The power clean is used in sports conditioning because it trains explosion, and done
    correctly it is the best exercise for converting the strength obtained in the other exercises to power."

    and

    "... the clean and the snatch are unique in their ability to be incrementally loaded with an increasingly heavier weight, making it possible to develop a more powerful explosion in a simple programmed way."

    While, for example, in the olympic lifting thread earlier, your position is that explosion is not really trainable to any significant degree, and the olympic lifts are primarily a skill, as opposed to a developer.

    If this is the case, why would non-olympic lifter athletes even perform the power clean? If strength is the only component of power that can really be trained, why would a coach have an athlete even bother training anything other than the pure strength lifts?

    For sake of clarity, this post is not a poor attempt to wrangle you into saying that explosiveness is trainable, I'm just curious because there is something here that I'm not getting.

    Am I misunderstanding the wording in The Book? Or have your views on the topic changed since the third edition?


    Thanks in advance

    Piet

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,328

    Default

    We deal with this every weekend at the seminar. The power clean is a way to make the display of strength as power keep pace with the increase in force production in the same incremental fashion as the strength increase is programmed. Explosion is minimally trainable, while strength is quite trainable for years. The explosive lifts allow the expression of explosive strength to be practiced.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    So, looking at fig 8.1 in the SS 3rd edition:
    http://startingstrength.com/articles/figure1te.jpg

    If you made it "power performance" instead of "strength performance," would the figure would basically look the same except that the DIFFERENCE between "Low" and "High" on the Y axis would be smaller* for power performance, because it is less malleable?

    *Obviously they are different units so this isn't technically correct. But is that the gist? How else would the figure change?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,328

    Default

    If by "power performance" you mean the ability to display strength as power, the slope of that curve would essentially mirror the slope of the strength curve.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Thank you for the replies, both of you.

    But I'm still not sure I get it. My understanding still is that strength is trainable, while explosion isn't (not really, anyways). In other words, the only thing that will contribute to a lifters power is strength, since the other component isn't trainable.

    Maybe my understanding of the word "practice" is different from yours. To me, practice means technique, or enforcement of a specific movement pattern. Is this a different definition from yours?

    Am I just being obtuse?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goatamon View Post
    But I'm still not sure I get it. My understanding still is that strength is trainable, while explosion isn't (not really, anyways). In other words, the only thing that will contribute to a lifters power is strength, since the other component isn't trainable.
    What do you think you don't understand?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    The gym, the field.
    Posts
    955

    Default

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I get what the OP doesn't get:
    The ability to explode is not very easily improvable beyond acquiring the skill to do so. Performing power cleans merely keeps that skill concurrent with the strength you have. A man who only deadlifts will probably recruit force less rapidly than a man who deadlifts and power cleans, even if their strength is equal. Power cleans allow the expression of explosion, and ensure that force is always as readily available as it can be.
    Amirite?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,328

    Default

    The Goat Brothers. I agree with this:

    The ability to explode is not very easily improvable beyond acquiring the skill to do so. Performing power cleans merely keeps that skill concurrent with the strength you have.
    I don't know about this:

    A man who only deadlifts will probably recruit force less rapidly than a man who deadlifts and power cleans, even if their strength is equal.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goatamon View Post
    Thank you for the replies, both of you.

    But I'm still not sure I get it. My understanding still is that strength is trainable, while explosion isn't (not really, anyways). In other words, the only thing that will contribute to a lifters power is strength, since the other component isn't trainable.

    Maybe my understanding of the word "practice" is different from yours. To me, practice means technique, or enforcement of a specific movement pattern. Is this a different definition from yours?

    Am I just being obtuse?
    I think I see what you're missing here.

    PC is the demonstration o the strength you build and IS trainable as far a your base level of strength is concerned.

    Don't confuse this with saying that simply training the DEMONSTRATION of that strength is to train the strength itself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCavin View Post
    Don't confuse this with saying that simply training the DEMONSTRATION of that strength is to train the strength itself.
    Think about this: does putting the 16-pound shot make you strong? After all, big strong men throw the shot.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •