REGISTER AN ACCOUNT
Who's Online - 1 member and 445 guests
You are here: HomeForumXander → View All Posts

View All Posts: Xander

» Strength Shop - new products and updates (Go to post)16-10-2013 @ 23:19 
Strengthshop said:
Xander said:Are the power cages that have just come back into stock the new version with these J hooks and the same dipping bars as the commercial cage?


Cages are the same as before, as per photo on the website.



Must just be on those aussie ones, thanks for checking.
» Strength Shop - new products and updates (Go to post)14-10-2013 @ 21:24 
Are the power cages that have just come back into stock the new version with these J hooks and the same dipping bars as the commercial cage?

http://www.littleblokefitness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/p...

http://www.littleblokefitness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/p...
» Very First 1 rep maxes and bodyweight (Go to post)11-09-2013 @ 18:50 
I was a very late starter, I didn't set foot in a gym until I was 31.

I was about 9st soaking wet when I started and spent the first year or so only using machines, when I moved on to barbells I recall my first deadlift being 40kg (and hurting my back) and very nearly dropping 40kg on my face when I failed to bench it.
» garden gym (Go to post)21-08-2013 @ 23:35 
LegendHowes said:Does no 1 work in metres. Ft and inches is old school lol. Gonna go for 3.8 x 3.8 with 4 inch hardcore and 5-6 inch of concrete. I think you need planning permissio n over 15 sq meters


It would need planning permission if:

(a) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);

(b) any part of the building would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse;

(c) the building would have more than one storey;

(d) the height of the building would exceed—

(i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof,
(ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or
(iii) 3 metres in any other case;

(e) the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5 metres;


A 2.5m tall building probably isn’t going to high enough to press in, so unless you’ve got enough space to build more than 2m from any boundary, you’re gonna need planning permission.
» reps x % (Go to post)25-02-2013 @ 22:27 
Luuuuuukey said:
I don't fit with your magic spreadsheet at all. Is this a good or bad thing?


That's my custom RPE charts for RTS, you'd be even further out on the standard one here:

http://www.reactivetrainingsystems.com/articles/training-artic...

I dunno if that's good or bad but I suspect you probably need to do more singles.
» reps x % (Go to post)25-02-2013 @ 21:48 
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2ihlawz.gif[/IMG]
» Shoulder flexibility..... (Go to post)20-01-2013 @ 13:49 
ben66 said:I seem to have problems getting my arms straight up when pressing.
If I hold the both in front of me, I can only lift them 3/4 to vertical before my chest lifts and I have to lean back. It makes lock out harder. I guess it's some kind of rotational issue?
Any ideas to fix it? (Hopefully this will make sense...)


Were your shoulder blades pulled back and down when you did that?

If they weren't try it again with your chest out and your shoulders pulled back and down, you'll find that you can get your arms back a lot further.
» Squatting - negative only (Go to post)12-01-2013 @ 13:17 
Steve said:I'm guessing nobody told Mike Tuchscherer this. He seems to manage to incorporate ecentric training into his lifting.

Surely there is nothing wrong with negative training (every powerlifter already does a substantial amount of ecentric training within their ordinary training anyway), as long as you allow your body to recover properly at some stage. Just like concentric training.

Obviously if a lifter is training to failure all the time they will have problems, but why would say 80% of your maximum ecentric lift be any more stressful on the CNS than 80% of your maximum concentric lift?


Mike Tuchscherer's log is where I picked up the link to Cal Dietz's triphasic stuff because he said he was incorporating some of the principles into his training.

I've been doing something similar, nothing as extreme as forced negatives or dive-bombing into a pause as Dietz suggests, but with squat and bench I train once per week normal tempo, once with a 4ish second eccentric and once with a 2ish second pause. If nothing else it adds a bit of variety and I am making some decent progress at the moment.

n.b. I know at my piss weak level of strength pretty much anything should work, but that hasn't always been the case for me.
» Squatting - negative only (Go to post)11-01-2013 @ 17:21 
Steve said:
There isn't any real ecentric phase to weightlifting so I would doubt you would get much benefit from ecentric training


I don’t think it’s necessarily true that there is no eccentric in the Olympic lifts. What he is talking about with triphasic training is developing the stretch reflex in athletes, that one of the main differences between top and average athletes is their ability to take advantage of the stretch reflex to generate power.

As far as I see it, in the clean and jerk there are actually four eccentric phases where the stretch reflex is loaded up and used. First in the start position, then in the catch of the clean, then in the start of the jerk and then in the catch of the jerk. So, if the stretch reflex can be made stronger by doing negatives and stuff, as he suggests, it might well benefit an Olympic lifter.
» Squatting - negative only (Go to post)11-01-2013 @ 13:02 
Post Edited: 11.01.2013 @ 13:05 PM by Xander
Have a look at Cal Dietz's Triphasic Training method. He believes that training eccentric portion of the lift is extremely important for developing power for athletes.

He rotates training eccentric lifts, paused lifts and normal tempo lifts to develop the eccentric, isometric and concentric phases. So eccentrics probably could be useful for an Olympic lifter, alongside other stuff.

» What accessories do you use in the gym? (Go to post)07-01-2013 @ 21:53 
Olympic collars. Because, for £45 per month, my gym currently has 3 squat racks, 2 flat benches, 1 incline bench and 1 decline bench each with an Olympic bar (all but one bent beyond use by some c**t who enjoys dropping loaded bars onto the rails of the squat racks after every set of his 1mm rom shrugs), plus a couple of Olympic ez-curl bars… and just 3 collars! So I have to take my own.
» Split Routines (Go to post)03-11-2012 @ 12:55 
It depends what they looked at and how long they looked at it for.

If it was max strength and for a relatively short period of time it makes perfect sense that higher frequency would come out on top.

Like I said above, higher frequency is better for neurological adaptations. Gains in strength from neurological adaptations occur much faster than from morphological. So, in a short study, high frequency is bound to come out on top in terms of strength.

But, in the long run, both neurological and morphological adaptations are important for someone training for strength. So it's best to have periods of training focused on developing one or the other.
» Split Routines (Go to post)03-11-2012 @ 12:32 
Post Edited: 03.11.2012 @ 12:32 PM by Xander
From what I understand, yes. Even though the volume and intensity is the same over the week, the training effect would be different because more concentrated workloads are better for driving morphological adaptations, especially for more advanced trainees.
» Split Routines (Go to post)03-11-2012 @ 11:55 
From reading Mike Tuchscherer’s (who f**kin’ knows his stuff) stuff:

Morphological adaptations (changes in the size and structure of muscles) are best stimulated by higher volumes of high effort training, therefore requiring more recovery – i.e. split training.

Neurological adaptations (coordination, movement efficiency, and nerve impulse patterns) are best stimulated by higher frequency training - i.e. full body or training the main lifts more than 2x per week.

Either can result in both, but in general splits are better for morphological adaptations, full body for neurological.

It also depends on how advanced you are; A novice (below class 3 in the Russian classification chart) is better off sticking to full body and getting in lots of sub-maximal work with the big 3, because they need to really learn the movement patterns and need lower workloads to stimulate hypertrophy etc.

The more advanced someone becomes, the more intensity and/or volume they need to drive adaptations. So, especially when training for morphological adaptations, more advanced trainees need more concentrated workloads.

It’s not that splits don’t work for novices or full body for advanced people, and everybody is different; but, if strength is the goal, novices are best sticking to full body training and more advanced trainees should ideally rotate between blocks of split training (for morphological adaptations) and full body training (for neurological adaptations).
You are here: HomeForumXander → View All Posts
© Sugden Barbell 2024 - Mobile Version - Privacy - Terms & Conditions