Likes Likes:  7
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: A question about intensity? (I think)

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Blairbob View Post
    Maybe, but I would expect that you'd just get better at being able to do triple cleans than a 1rm.
    Yes, if you want to better at triples, train triples. If you want to get better at singles, train singles.

  2. Likes Blairbob, Gary Echternacht liked this post
  3. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Wittmer View Post
    Yes, if you want to better at triples, train triples. If you want to get better at singles, train singles.
    Would you advise training to heavy singles then? I thought that style of training was not well suited for regular/natural lifters?

  4. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    474
    Post Thanks / Like
    Training max singles multiple times per day, every session of the week is not advised for non-enhanced lifters.

  5. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  6. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jackie View Post
    Would you advise training to heavy singles then? I thought that style of training was not well suited for regular/natural lifters?
    Work up to your max (for that day) two to three times per week. When/if your technique starts to break down, back the weights down or stop. If you are not feeling good during any particular day, back down. Usually, shoot for 95-100%, but it's OK to stop at 85-90% on an off day. I think the three times per week max will catch up to clean lifters after a while, that's when you go to twice a week.

  7. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  8. #15
    Member Blairbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    Took awhile to find.

    http://wlforums.com/forums/showthrea...ll=1#post36090

    We eventually cut it back to max snatch on Tues/Sat and max C&J on Thurs/Sat, only one day doing both lifts max. It isn't something you can do indefinitely, in my opinion.

  9. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    The idea of doing sub max for higher reps vs a max single is compelling. It is very viable means of getting stronger muscles but not necessarily helpful with the strength and skill to lift a max single. One problem with 85% and less is that it is still a wt with which you can getaway with a lot of bad issues that tend to manifest very quickly as the % increase to 93%,97%, ect. The Russians say the technical skill to lift 85% CJ is a different skill than to lift 100% CJ. And then there are the biochemical/ neuromuscular adaptations. We need to practice the competitive event (a single max end attempt) occasionally ie.= > than 90% of competitive max. The debate is the frequency and # reps within time frames. Within certain time frames the answer may well be never and zero, within others maybe 3-7%.

    This week I got 115kg for 3+1, next I plan for 117kg for 3+1 and the following 120kg 3+1 then maybe a back off of 107 for 3+1; if the object was to was to get strong and get better at doing 3+1 it may well work. Will it help you do heavy single the 5th week?7th week, 9th week? Maybe , but maybe not.

    The body should get stronger over time, but I am not a huge fan of the strict linear blueprint approach in OL to getting strong, even in beginners.

    Heavy max cleanjerk is taxing for everyone, everyone at times feels weak/inadequate . There is a reason the CJ is called the king of lifts. I try never to get to far away from the ability to do a 90% CJ single. But that does not necessitate the need to always be practicing it. The experts in OL say; all intensity ranges must be used, it is as simple as that. The art (more than science) is the arrangement. Left to their own thoughts and programming many lifters will consciously/unconsciously skew more training towards the high end.

    A funny practical example conveyed to me by a coach who had a lifter who thought he knew more than the coach and was going to design his own program. The coach is 82 yrs old, has been coaching for 50 yrs, pan- am medalists, commonwealth medalists, too many Canadian champions to count. The coach being wise said OK. The lifter comes back beaming with the masterpiece, “here’s the program coach, what do you think?” The coach looks at it for minute, looked at the intensities and says did you calculate the coefficient of intensity? Say what? Coach explains how to calculate it. Lifter comes back sheepishly the next day. So what is it? 50 . I will say no more.

    Strict numbers don’t always tell the story in a given session for example if it is the 6th session of a high volume fairly heavy week and a 90% single is programed and it is lifted with some semblance of authority, speed and determination that lifter has done a excellent job ( because of residual fatigue), even though it may be more than 15kg less than their competitive best. We are training qualities of grit and determination. The following week MAY include nothing higher than 80% in the top end. With some initial drill/warmup exercises to max 60%

    Verkhoshansky -Soviet Union-
    “If there is one self- limiting tendency among strength and conditioning professionals we focus on numerical models.”
    The idea of training to failure IMO is very bad idea as is the idea to always train heavy.

    Both are similiar
    3+1 @ 115kg is 85% (4 reps) = very taxing
    1 @ 135kg(~100%) in either clean or jerk or cleanjerk = very taxing
    So in prep phase (you are not likely to do 3+1 in a competition phase)

    One approach;
    Lets say for example they are each done maybe once over 10-12 sessions (over 2-3 wks depending on sessions/wk); this is the high end of training
    From there the remaining days are adjusted with demand decreases depending on the placement of higher demand intensities
    ie. I would then vary reps 1-6 with varying % from 55-90%
    I can’t be specific. There is always adjustment depending on what I see and training response to previous workloads. The programed % gives a target wt, but there is always some minor flexibility either up or down.

Posting Permissions

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