Is grinding a mistake ?

[Nockian]

It occurs to me that there is a trade off between force production and acceleration of mass. Such that grinding might not be a good method of training the body to handle more mass (hence exhibiting greater force production), but instead motivating the body towards slow endurance rather than sprint style explosive power. If that theory was correct then grinding has the effect of reducing acceleration and producing progressively less force in order to handle static weights better.

Are long slow lifts as bad as long slow distance runs ? Are they actually likely to lead to a performance plateau ?

Clearly, just lifting easy light weights fast doesn't produce increased force production if the weight lifting isn't increasing progressively. So, at some point there must be an ideal amount of time for a rep/set with a specific weight. If so, then that specific time frame would be applicable to everyone.

This would explain why deloaded are often helpful in maintaining progress-the lighter weight means faster reps for a period of time and force production increases-otherwise how does deloading work ?

Just interesting stuff as I've notice a correlation between grinding and lack of progress myself. If I deload and lift faster, then things progress. So are we kidding ourselves when grinding out those last heavy reps where the weight hardly moves ?

[Mark Rippetoe]

You "grind" on the last rep or two of a set of five, because the fatigue from the previous work has made these reps harder and force harder to produce. Because you are challenging yourself with heavier weight than you've done before, so you can get stronger. The only time force production approaches a limit is when the velocity approaches zero. Any other expression of force production is sub-maximal. This is obvious to most intelligent people. If you guys want to lift light weights on a diet for your abs, be my guest. But it's not like you invented something new, other than the excuse for doing so. Gold's Gyms all over the world are filled with your Brothers In Leanness.

[AndrewLewis]

These questions have a lot of assumptions in them.

The first question I think you need to answer is "Regardless of its effectiveness, are you able to measure instantaneous force production?" (Willingness to do so is going to be a function of how effective we anticipate it will be.)

If the answer is "yes", then the next question is "What are some preliminary calculations we can do to determine the change in force production as a function of speed?"
For example, what is the force at the turn around of the squat if the constant velocity upwards on a 315lb load is 1ft/s and what is the force if the velocity is 2ft/s? Bear in mind that you will need to know the mass of the load, the downward speed at turnaround and the constant upward speed (which is an assumption because we know it's not constant).
If these differences are significant - 5lb of force or more - the argument might hold valid.

However, the first question is going to hold most pertinent. Are you really going to constrict your training to "I will only squat is the bar speed is xft/s or higher. If it's any lower, I need to change programming"?

The main reason this is a silly way to train consistently is that measurement of barspeed is a continuous variable, whereas "Did you do the rep?" is a binary variable. You either did it or you didn't.

The fact of the matter is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus that grinding a rep has any detriment for most trainees. I can't speak to your training obviously, but true grinding only really becomes a problem with advanced lifters and strongmen.

The last aspect I'll mention for your consideration is that "how do you really know you're grinding?" Until you've failed reps - with excellent form - you have no idea what grinding is. Depriving yourself of that experience and understand is something I would not recommend for anyone in the absence of serious physical problems.

[samking7185]

It occurs to me that there is a trade off between force production and acceleration of mass

the lighter weight means faster reps for a period of time

The relationship between time and force in this equation is not linear.

Any other expression of force production is sub-maximal.

That's what makes this statement true.

[Scaldrew]

This post starts off rather well and then takes a nose dive into fuckarounditis. Grinding most or all of your reps and sets every day for extended periods of time is not recommended, no. But keeping a timer and deloading cos you were half a second slow on the third rep of your second set on volume day is arguably worse than grinding it out. If you're grinding a lot, as in most of your reps, look into programming and nutrition. If everything checks out and you're making progress, I wouldn't take a very random deload. That could do more harm than good. Depends on the situation.

Grinding can be a mistake in the realm of technique. If you find yourself grinding even the very first reps, even on supposedly "low" weights (read: 80% range), maybe get a form check. Ceteris paribus, you could be dive-bombing your squats for example. Not recommended. May or may not warrant a deload, probably not. Depends on the situation.

Deloads "work" in that you're doing less work and so recovering more easily. Better recovery means less fatigue means long term progress (ceteris paribus). Faster reps is generally an indication of lower weights (read: below 80% range) as lighter weights move faster than heavier weights. You progress faster on lighter weights cos they're easier and you're retreading ground. Not something I'd call progress, but there you go.

[Nockian]

You "grind" on the last rep or two of a set of five, because the fatigue from the previous work has made these reps harder and force harder to produce. Because you are challenging yourself with heavier weight than you've done before, so you can get stronger. The only time force production approaches a limit is when the velocity approaches zero. Any other expression of force production is sub-maximal. This is obvious to most intelligent people. If you guys want to lift light weights on a diet for your abs, be my guest. But it's not like you invented something new, other than the excuse for doing so. Gold's Gyms all over the world are filled with your Brothers In Leanness.

My grind velocity was approaching zero. It wasn't just that the last two reps were hard. Maybe I was grinding too much.

No idea what you are alluding to about diets and abs-where was that mentioned Mark ? I'm so plump now that I probably wouldn't be allowed in Golds gym by the sound of it.

[Fulcrum]

The only time force production approaches a limit is when the velocity approaches zero. Any other expression of force production is sub-maximal.

F=ma

Rep one of a 5RM set exhibits more force than the last rep (i.e the last rep where "the velocity approaches zero").

[Mark Rippetoe]

My grind velocity was approaching zero. It wasn't just that the last two reps were hard. Maybe I was grinding too much.

No idea what you are alluding to about diets and abs-where was that mentioned Mark ? I'm so plump now that I probably wouldn't be allowed in Golds gym by the sound of it.

Maybe you weren't getting recovered from your workouts. Maybe your rest between sets was insufficient. Maybe your increases were too big. Your posting history indicates some unwillingness to follow asked-for advice.

F=ma

Rep one of a 5RM set exhibits more force than the last rep (i.e the last rep where "the velocity approaches zero").

Yes. Rep 1 of a 5RM is a submax event. What is your point?

[Nockian]

Cheers for the replies. I shall contemplate.

Oh and Rip. I have never shown any unwillingness to follow advice. I had a reluctance to post video which I got over. I didn't coach my wife properly-but then I didn't profess to be a coach.

I did buy and read your book and Sulleys and I did complete SS NLP succesfully and I do tell everyone I meet to get under a barbell to save their lives and go buy your book. I'm still lifting and progressing a year later and have put on over 2 stone by taking diet advice on this forum-I actually look as if I belong in a gym now.

So, you can stop hallucinating that I don't take advice you grumpy old sod ;-)

[Erik Y]

F=ma

Rep one of a 5RM set exhibits more force than the last rep (i.e the last rep where "the velocity approaches zero").

So what’s going on here is a bit subtle. The acceleration that you see with the naked eye in a heavy lift is not most of the acceleration being produced. Most of the acceleration your body produces is resisting the deceleration of the heavy loaded barbell that is trying to crush you. To visualize this, imagine squatting with a twenty-pound medicine ball. Obviously you can do this very fast, but that doesn’t mean you’re producing more force because the weight is so light and you will reach peak velocity very quickly, at which point you’re no longer accelerating. Now think about doing the same thing with a 500-pound rock. Unless you’re very strong, your body will actually move down for the duration of the lift, perhaps very slowly. But the amount of force you’re producing at each moment to resist gravity is much greater at every moment, and that holds constant throughout the entire movement. To the naked eye, one is fast and the other is slow, so it’s easy to assume that the faster movement has more force behind it, but if you think about it more carefully, you’ll realize it’s not so straightforward.

Another way to think about it is, what if you have a guy who squats 395 so fast that the plates rattle but misses 400. Why did he miss the rep? Because he didn’t accelerate fast enough. It doesn’t matter how fast 395 moved, once we’ve established that he can’t lift 400, we know he produces less force than someone who can.