Re: re:olymic lifts not for power?

[Guest guest]

,

What about the simple equation Force = mass x acceleration ?

McCann

Philadelphia

[Guest guest]

Mr. Trakas points out that time is a factor. OK, let's compare the

equation for powerlifters and Oly-style lifters. You can basically

time a powerlifter in the deadlift or squat by counting

one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, ... The initial clean to the

shoulders in a clean & jerk is over in an eyeblink. So we're talking

a longer distance divided by a much smaller time. That results in

very high power.

Trakas seems to be talking about some sort of sustained power -- as

if time were in the numerator -- but it is in the denominator,

meaning that any lift done in less time equals more power. He faults

Oly lifters for their brief effort but fails the basic math of

measuring how intense that effort is. Bands would only result in

more power if they were done explosively, as are many Oly-style lifts.

As an aside, there was an interesting series of articles at Intensity

Magazine (an e-zine) about a device that measured the power exhibited

during a lifting session. The training regimen focused on lifting at

a weight that resulted in maximum power (measured in watts). The

trainee lifts at a sub-maximal weight, with respect to maximum

strength, but always in an explosive manner. The author was

beginning to see some interesting results in his max strength, but

the e-zine stopped publishing and it was only a sample of one. The

author did not limit himself to Oly-style lifts, as almost any

freeweight lift can be done explosively with a focus on power.

Stuart

Silver Spring, USA

>--- Optimum Physique

>wrote:

>> When measured on force plates, world-class Olympic

>> lifters have been shown to be the most powerful

>> humans of the earth. Remember power and absolute

>> strength are different qualiites.

>>

>> Thank you

>>

>> Coach Hale

>> www.maxcondition.com

>> Winchester ky

>>

>

>Again,they are not different qualities.Power is a

>function of force(strength):Power=force times

>distance/time.You are operating under a false

>assumtption.

>

> Trakas,

>Chicago,USA

>

>

>

>Modify or cancel your subscription here:

>

>http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

>

>Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

>wish them to be published!

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mr. Trakas points out that time is a factor. OK, let's compare the

equation for powerlifters and Oly-style lifters. You can basically

time a powerlifter in the deadlift or squat by counting

one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, ... The initial clean to the

shoulders in a clean & jerk is over in an eyeblink. So we're talking

a longer distance divided by a much smaller time. That results in

very high power.

Trakas seems to be talking about some sort of sustained power -- as

if time were in the numerator -- but it is in the denominator,

meaning that any lift done in less time equals more power. He faults

Oly lifters for their brief effort but fails the basic math of

measuring how intense that effort is. Bands would only result in

more power if they were done explosively, as are many Oly-style lifts.

As an aside, there was an interesting series of articles at Intensity

Magazine (an e-zine) about a device that measured the power exhibited

during a lifting session. The training regimen focused on lifting at

a weight that resulted in maximum power (measured in watts). The

trainee lifts at a sub-maximal weight, with respect to maximum

strength, but always in an explosive manner. The author was

beginning to see some interesting results in his max strength, but

the e-zine stopped publishing and it was only a sample of one. The

author did not limit himself to Oly-style lifts, as almost any

freeweight lift can be done explosively with a focus on power.

Stuart

Silver Spring, USA

>--- Optimum Physique

>wrote:

>> When measured on force plates, world-class Olympic

>> lifters have been shown to be the most powerful

>> humans of the earth. Remember power and absolute

>> strength are different qualiites.

>>

>> Thank you

>>

>> Coach Hale

>> www.maxcondition.com

>> Winchester ky

>>

>

>Again,they are not different qualities.Power is a

>function of force(strength):Power=force times

>distance/time.You are operating under a false

>assumtption.

>

> Trakas,

>Chicago,USA

>

>

>

>Modify or cancel your subscription here:

>

>http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

>

>Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

>wish them to be published!

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

<< Again,they are not different qualities.Power is a

function of force(strength) >>

Power depends on both force and velocity along the same line of travel. You

should be aware of the general relationship between force production and

velocity of movement. Generally, as velocity increases the ability to

generate force decreases.

Consider the following, " ...power is maximal when the magnitudes of force and

velocity are optimal-- about one third of maximal levels of velocity and

about one half of maximal force. As a consequence, the maximal power equals

approximately one sixth of the value that could be achieved if one were able

to exert both highest force and highest velocity simultaneously... " Quoted

from Science and Practice of Strength Training by Zatsiorsky.

Yes, power is a function of force production but also simultaneously a

function of velocity. Along with increased velocity comes attendant

increases in momentum. Maximal power is about 17% of the simplistic product

of maximal force produced under nearly isometric conditions and maximal

velocity produced under conditions of nearly no external load.

As to the comment that no net force is necessary to maintain acceleration;

that's simply " bad " physics. It is best to remember that as physics is the

basic science underlying all phenomena; if its " bad " physics, its not " good "

anything! Anything in the universe of logos that is. Mythos may be excused

in this discussion, unless your beliefs are taking precedence over science.

Do check out Zatiorsky's little book if you haven't seen it and are open to

learning the scientific basics of strength training.

Boardman

Chicago USA

[Guest guest]

<< Again,they are not different qualities.Power is a

function of force(strength) >>

Power depends on both force and velocity along the same line of travel. You

should be aware of the general relationship between force production and

velocity of movement. Generally, as velocity increases the ability to

generate force decreases.

Consider the following, " ...power is maximal when the magnitudes of force and

velocity are optimal-- about one third of maximal levels of velocity and

about one half of maximal force. As a consequence, the maximal power equals

approximately one sixth of the value that could be achieved if one were able

to exert both highest force and highest velocity simultaneously... " Quoted

from Science and Practice of Strength Training by Zatsiorsky.

Yes, power is a function of force production but also simultaneously a

function of velocity. Along with increased velocity comes attendant

increases in momentum. Maximal power is about 17% of the simplistic product

of maximal force produced under nearly isometric conditions and maximal

velocity produced under conditions of nearly no external load.

As to the comment that no net force is necessary to maintain acceleration;

that's simply " bad " physics. It is best to remember that as physics is the

basic science underlying all phenomena; if its " bad " physics, its not " good "

anything! Anything in the universe of logos that is. Mythos may be excused

in this discussion, unless your beliefs are taking precedence over science.

Do check out Zatiorsky's little book if you haven't seen it and are open to

learning the scientific basics of strength training.

Boardman

Chicago USA

[Guest guest]

> Power and strength are different qualties, even though they are

related.

>

> Strength is the ability to produce force (no mention of time),

measured in

> newtons

>

> Power is the rate of doing work (includes time), measured in watts

> (work = force * distance, measured in joules)

>

> A simple (perhaps simplistic) example may help illuminate the

difference

>

> Athlete X can lift 100 kgs (equivalent to 980 newtons)

> Athlete Y can lift 80 kgs (equivalent to 784 newtons)

>

> It takes X 10 seconds to lift the 100 kgs to a height of 1 metre

from the

> ground, whilst it only takes Y 5 secs.

>

> Which is stronger?

> Ans: X as 980 N > 784 N

>

> Which is more powerful ?

> Ans: Y, as we'll demonstrate using 's correct formula for

power.

>

> Power of X = 980 * (1/10) = 98 watts

> Power of Y = 784 * (1/5) = 159 watts

>

> So, let us be clear that when we discuss power and strength we are

talking

> about different physical entities.

>

> Regards, Britton

> Dublin, Ireland

>

The example above is somewhat misleading, because it may be possible

that X can lift 80Kg in 4 seconds, thus be also more powerful than Y.

My point is that power is a function of load, not to mention a

function of the weight's height (since it has a different velocity at

each height).

Micky Snir

Redmond, WA

[Guest guest]

Britton writes:

Power and strength are different qualties, even though they are related.

Strength is the ability to produce force (no mention of time), measured in

newtons

Telle--

This is scientific horse manuere--I've argued this with Mel for decades --

lay on the floor and have someone set a 500 weight on your forehead -- no

newtons! -- plenty of force. What about isometrics?

If there is no movement-- there is no strength? No force?

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

>>Telle--

This is scientific horse manuere--I've argued this with Mel for decades --

lay on the floor and have someone set a 500 weight on your forehead -- no

newtons! -- plenty of force. What about isometrics? <<

Isn't the force cause by acceleration due to gravity, which is being opposed by

the head? Even though there is no 'net' movement, it doesn't mean that each part

isn't accelerating/generating force, does it?

Driscoll

Supertraining Moderator

Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian

B.Sc. Exercise Science and Nutrition

M.Sc. Exercise Rehab. and Nutrition/Dietetics

AEP AMS APD CSCS

MAAESS MSDA

BEFITting Image Training and Nutrition

Supertraining Australia

[Guest guest]

Driscoll writes:

<< Isn't the force cause by acceleration due to gravity, which is being

opposed by the head? Even though there is no 'net' movement, it doesn't mean

that each part isn't accelerating/generating force, does it?>>

Telle--

OK! Wheres the Newtons? or even acceleration ?--which as I understand it from

my egg head scientist relatives is partly a function of change in distance!

Jerry

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

I think we've reached a common (mis)perception that " weight " and " mass " are

the same physical entity, and unfortunately that's not the case.

1) Weight = Mass * Acceleration due to particular gravitational field (g)

Notice how similar it is to the following

2) Force = Mass * Acceleration

The similarity is simply because (1) is a special case of (2).

When you ask how heavy I am, generally you wish to know my mass, and I answer

that I'm 90 kilograms (or the equivalent in lbs). If you asked what my weight

was, strictly speaking I should tell you that my weight is 90 kgs * 9.8

metres per second = 882 newtons. The key idea is that my mass stays constant

but my weight can change depending on the particular local value of g

(everybody knows that g has different values on other planets, or even the

moon, but it also slightly varies on earth depending on how far from the

earth's centre you are, with greater values at the poles and the lowest

values on the equator (Does this mean that you can lift greater mass on the

equator than if you're at the North Pole?)).

To Telle's point, well I think that 's answer is spot on!

Regards, Britton

Dublin, Ireland

> >>Telle--

>

> This is scientific horse manuere--I've argued this with Mel for decades --

> lay on the floor and have someone set a 500 weight on your forehead -- no

> newtons! -- plenty of force. What about isometrics? <<

>

> Isn't the force cause by acceleration due to gravity, which is being

> opposed by the head? Even though there is no 'net' movement, it doesn't

> mean that each part isn't accelerating/generating force, does it?

>

> Driscoll

> Supertraining Moderator

> Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian

> B.Sc. Exercise Science and Nutrition

> M.Sc. Exercise Rehab. and Nutrition/Dietetics

> AEP AMS APD CSCS

> MAAESS MSDA

> BEFITting Image Training and Nutrition

> Supertraining Australia

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This topic about the olympic lifts not being good for anything other than the

olympic lifts is directly related to motor learning. It also ignores a

great deal of biomechanics and exercise physiology research. Anyway, I

would like to share my thoughts and ideas on this topic of specificity, of

training and the transferability of strength and conditioning exercises and

drills to actual movement skills or sport.

According to Morford and Rivenes (two motor learning experts)

the topic of specificity is not generally contained in our textbooks.

Additionally, when one examines the research it is never about strength and

conditioning principles, but must be interpreted from the literature to apply

to this field. On the surface this topic seems rather simple, but as you

really delve deeper, it is very complex. In my opinion, this is one of the

most misunderstood principles (at this point it's even called a law) in our

fields.

Anyway, Dr. Rivenes presented a paper entitled specificity and motor

performance: an old problem revisited. By the way, he presented this in 1985

(calling it an old problem) and today nearly 20 years later it is still a

problem. His paper is a review of literature and describes the problem. I

happen to disagree with his wording and interpretation on many aspects, but I

think part of this has to do with the fact that it is 20 years old. Anyway,

let me share some quotes from the paper:

" motor performance is dependent upon highly specific attributes "

in other words there is " no such thing as general abilities "

" specific activities do not contribute to a general physical fitness "

" While it is not uncommon for an athlete to have developed a number of

competencies in various sports, any notion that such an athlete has a general

ability to learn new skills is not in keeping with the evidence. Nor can an

individual be accurately described as having " poor balance " , being " very

agile " , or possessing " good rhythm " . In each of these examples, performance

has been found to be highly specific in nature. "

Anyway, it's a long article and I couldn't find it on the web to share the

whole thing. The bottom line from this article, if taken as an absolute, is

that motor performance does not transfer. If you want to get good at doing

something, then do the specific activity. Great, if we buy into that, then

most of us are out of jobs. However, I don't think it's such a black and

white issue.

In reality, I think some of this research is misinterpreted for the practical

setting. Much of the research presented in the paper I just discussed is

used by the HIT crowd (review www.cyberpump.com for explanations on this

training philosophy). Basically the HIT people think that nothing directly

transfers from the weight room to the field or court so you might as well

only work on strength. They think strength is strength is strength so do it

in the safest way possible...which they typically consider machines, but some

will do squats and deadlifts etc. They don't believe in any other sport

specific training other than playing the actual sport. In some ways this

groups is correct, but it is my claim that they are misinterpreting the

research.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the so called " functional

training " group. This group tends to do a lot of " mimicking " of sport /

movement skill and typically tries to simulate and overload certain aspects

of skill. Basically this group believes much of these training exercises

will transfer over and help with the sport or movement skill. It is also my

claim that this group is misinterpreting the research...if they are even

looking at the research. It's a quick way to make money...look at those who

are following the functional training stuff...usually individuals associated

with private companies, those selling videos, doing lectures, selling

equipment etc. Kinda suspect eh!

Okay, so we have the two extremes. How should we really interpret the

research. I believe the motor learning research is divided between movement

skill and motor qualities. I don't believe there is any research showing any

movement skills transfer to other movement skills without taking into

consideration motor qualities. Motor qualities on the other hand have been

shown to transfer repeatedly in the research. Now if you stop and think,

many exercises have combinations of both movement skills and motor

qualities. I feel we should understand the research and only be focusing on

the motor qualities in the context of dynamic correspondence (see

Supertraining by Siff and Verkhoshansky).

Let me try to use a few examples to illustrate the difference between a

movement skill and motor quality.

Standing on a swiss ball is a movement skill. It does not transfer to

anything other than standing on a swiss ball.

Dribbling a soccer ball is a movement skill and doesn't transfer to anything

other than dribbling the soccer ball.

Surfing is a movement skill and won't make me a better snowboarder....and

snowboarding won't make me a better skateboarder.

Doing an olympic lift for sport performance is training for specific motor

qualities such as rate of force development, maximum power (during the second

pull....thinking about the dynamic correspondence to understand why this is

useful) etc.

Doing a squat is training a specific motor quality...perhaps

strength-endurance, or max-strength, or strength-speed etc. depending on how

this exercise is manipulated.

Our goal when working with people to improve sport performance or movement

skill should be to overload the body in a way that is consistent with the

principle of dynamic correspondence and develops specific motor qualities

(but not movement patterns) in the most efficient manner.

In most cases, so called " functional training " never really does this.

Interestingly, you won't see many Division I strength and conditioning

departments or professional strength and conditioning departments doing many

foo-foo exercises on swiss balls, one-leg balance drills (remember balance is

a movement skill not motor quality), etc. Most motor qualities are best

developed using the same exercises that have been around for over 100 years.

This includes using explosive movements such as the snatch, clean and jerk,

plyometrics, etc. as well as classic strength building exercises such as the

squat and deadlift. Interestingly, most quality strength and conditioning

departments utilize all these exercises.

Thanks for listening to my thoughts,

Gabe Rinaldi

Los Altos, CA

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Again,they are not different qualities.Power is a

> function of force(strength):Power=force times

> distance/time.You are operating under a false

> assumtption.

>

> Trakas,

> Chicago,USA

You are wrong. Force and Power are different qualities. If they were

mathematically equivalent then they would have the same units. Force

is measured in Newtons (N) and Power is measured in Watts (W) so I

don't know how you can believe they are the same qualities.

To say that they are the same qualities is the same as saying an

orange and an apple are the same because they both came from a tree.

Matt Jordan

University of Calgary

Canada