PDA

View Full Version : Proper lower body training


Bob Falooley
February 4th 04, 06:12 PM
I do a full body Workout 3x a week. I do upper body excersizes 10-15 reps
for 2 sets, except BB bench which I do 6-10 reps.

For lower body I do 2 sets of 15-20 Squats, and 2 sets of 15-20 Calf raise.

I also do dead lifts 10-15 reps which hit the legs a bit.

So I do 2-3 lower body excersizes, and then 5-6 upper body excersizes. So
my feeling is I need more lower body work. (I do core work and cardio on
off days)

So what should I do to add more lower body work? I hate doing lunges, I
hate using machines, including leg press. I have never tried step ups,
those might be alright. But my question is, could I simply add more
squats, say do 4 sets of squats 2 at the beginning of the workout, and two
at the end, would that be advisable? I love doing squats, but is too much
squatting a bad thing?

Would decreasing the number of reps I do for lowerbody work help or hurt
hypertrophy?

6'2" 198 lbs, 3RM: squat/bench/dl: 225/245/295

--Falooley

Roger Zoul
February 4th 04, 07:03 PM
Bob Falooley wrote:
:: I do a full body Workout 3x a week. I do upper body excersizes
:: 10-15 reps for 2 sets, except BB bench which I do 6-10 reps.
::
:: For lower body I do 2 sets of 15-20 Squats, and 2 sets of 15-20 Calf
:: raise.
::
:: I also do dead lifts 10-15 reps which hit the legs a bit.
::
:: So I do 2-3 lower body excersizes, and then 5-6 upper body
:: excersizes. So my feeling is I need more lower body work. (I do
:: core work and cardio on off days).


Why? Assuming some of your upper body work is for your back, then most of
your workout would involve your legs and back, which is where about 2/3 of
your muscle is.

You've included squats and deads. Can't get much better than that.

I would work on the reps and weight, however.

::
:: So what should I do to add more lower body work? I hate doing
:: lunges, I hate using machines, including leg press. I have never
:: tried step ups, those might be alright. But my question is, could I
:: simply add more squats, say do 4 sets of squats 2 at the beginning
:: of the workout, and two at the end, would that be advisable? I love
:: doing squats, but is too much squatting a bad thing?
::
:: Would decreasing the number of reps I do for lowerbody work help or
:: hurt hypertrophy?

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

::
:: 6'2" 198 lbs, 3RM: squat/bench/dl: 225/245/295
::
:: --Falooley

Bob Falooley
February 4th 04, 07:42 PM
Roger Zoul wrote:


>
> Why? Assuming some of your upper body work is for your back, then most of
> your workout would involve your legs and back, which is where about 2/3 of
> your muscle is.
>
> You've included squats and deads. Can't get much better than that.
>
> I would work on the reps and weight, however.
>

I do a lot of back work. Usually 3 excercises, 2 sets a piece 10-15 reps.
I was saying I feel I need more leg work.

My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would more
squats hurt?

Work on reps and weight? please elaborate you opinnion, i don't know what
you mean.

--Falooley

Roger Zoul
February 4th 04, 07:55 PM
Bob Falooley wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::
:::
::: Why? Assuming some of your upper body work is for your back, then
::: most of your workout would involve your legs and back, which is
::: where about 2/3 of your muscle is.
:::
::: You've included squats and deads. Can't get much better than that.
:::
::: I would work on the reps and weight, however.
:::
::
:: I do a lot of back work. Usually 3 excercises, 2 sets a piece 10-15
:: reps. I was saying I feel I need more leg work.

And I'm saying that at least 2/3 of your work ought to be devoted to legs
and back. Squats count for legs and deads probalby count for both, mostly
lower back.

::
:: My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would
:: more squats hurt?

No and maybe.

::
:: Work on reps and weight? please elaborate you opinnion, i don't
:: know what you mean.

Doing 20 reps on 2 sets probaby means you're not using much weight. Upping
the weight and lowering the reps might help you reach your goal. Also,
since you mentioned hypertrophy, I pointed you to a website devoted to just
that. If you read that, you'll get some good recommendations on how to
train best for hypertrophy. Generally two sets is enough provided you build
in progressive load and proper frequency. Go read.

Bob Falooley
February 4th 04, 08:16 PM
Roger Zoul wrote:


>
> And I'm saying that at least 2/3 of your work ought to be devoted to legs
> and back. Squats count for legs and deads probalby count for both, mostly
> lower back.
>

And, So, like I said I need more leg work, what excercise best complements
the squats and calf raises and dead lifts that I am already doing?

> ::
> :: My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would
> :: more squats hurt?
>
> No and maybe.
>

I would like to get Keith or Wayne's opinnion on just adding more squats,
they seem smart.


> Doing 20 reps on 2 sets probaby means you're not using much weight.
> Upping
> the weight and lowering the reps might help you reach your goal. Also,
> since you mentioned hypertrophy, I pointed you to a website devoted to
> just
> that. If you read that, you'll get some good recommendations on how to
> train best for hypertrophy. Generally two sets is enough provided you
> build
> in progressive load and proper frequency. Go read.

I have read the HST, and performed 1 cycle, and did see results. I know
what it says about Hypertrophy, although I have heard on MFW before people
recomending squats for high reps (20) for hypertrophy, and as I am letting
my back recover from an injury, I perfer to squat small weight, and I will
progress back to "heavy" weights.

I guess I was also asking what people knew about doing high rep squats for
hypertrophy/general strength progression, I should ahve been more clear.

--Falooley


--Falooley

Hoff
February 4th 04, 08:20 PM
"Bob Falooley" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And I'm saying that at least 2/3 of your work ought to be devoted to
legs
> > and back. Squats count for legs and deads probalby count for both,
mostly
> > lower back.
> >
>
> And, So, like I said I need more leg work, what excercise best complements
> the squats and calf raises and dead lifts that I am already doing?
>

Something more quad specific, probably. Stepups, maybe front squats.

> > ::
> > :: My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would
> > :: more squats hurt?
> >
> > No and maybe.
> >
>
> I would like to get Keith or Wayne's opinnion on just adding more squats,
> they seem smart.
>
>
> > Doing 20 reps on 2 sets probaby means you're not using much weight.
> > Upping
> > the weight and lowering the reps might help you reach your goal. Also,
> > since you mentioned hypertrophy, I pointed you to a website devoted to
> > just
> > that. If you read that, you'll get some good recommendations on how to
> > train best for hypertrophy. Generally two sets is enough provided you
> > build
> > in progressive load and proper frequency. Go read.
>
> I have read the HST, and performed 1 cycle, and did see results. I know
> what it says about Hypertrophy, although I have heard on MFW before people
> recomending squats for high reps (20) for hypertrophy, and as I am letting
> my back recover from an injury, I perfer to squat small weight, and I will
> progress back to "heavy" weights.
>
> I guess I was also asking what people knew about doing high rep squats for
> hypertrophy/general strength progression, I should ahve been more clear.

The "20 rep" squats you refer to are *not* done with small weights.

Never done them myself, but pretty sure the general idea is to use a weight
you can get 10 reps with. Take whatever time between reps, but do 20 reps,
without racking the bar. I don't think they'd be recommended for recovering
from a back injury.

In any case, I seriously doubt you'd be able to do 2 sets.

Hoff

Keith Hobman
February 4th 04, 08:28 PM
In article >, Bob Falooley
> wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And I'm saying that at least 2/3 of your work ought to be devoted to legs
> > and back. Squats count for legs and deads probalby count for both, mostly
> > lower back.
> >
>
> And, So, like I said I need more leg work, what excercise best complements
> the squats and calf raises and dead lifts that I am already doing?
>
> > ::
> > :: My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would
> > :: more squats hurt?
> >
> > No and maybe.
> >
>
> I would like to get Keith or Wayne's opinnion on just adding more squats,
> they seem smart.

Appearance are deceptive, in my case. Hypertrophy is not really my thing.

But...

The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6% and doubt everyone is the
same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
sprinting.

So basically I would say you could try doing something like timing how
long it takes you to do 20 reps as fast as you can with good form and then
when you have dropped off 6% you are done your sets. And try and push your
sets up over time. Or you could use weight, but you would have to try and
keep the same cadence of reps using a metronome or something like that.
When you can't get 19 reps in the same cadence with a given weight you are
done. And of course you could incrementally add weight if you are getting
too many sets.

The idea that 2/3 of your work should be devoted to anything seems pretty
arbitrary and depends on how you are measuring. If you are using more
weight do you use overall load to determine work?

Personally my preference would be to simply do sets of 8 with a weight I
can do 20 reps with and limit the time between sets. Lift to a fast
cadence and when I can't keep the cadence I'm done my sets. 20 reps is too
much IMO.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

T
February 4th 04, 09:06 PM
Bob Falooley wrote:
> I do a full body Workout 3x a week. I do upper body excursive 10-15
> reps for 2 sets, except BB bench which I do 6-10 reps.
>
> For lower body I do 2 sets of 15-20 Squats, and 2 sets of 15-20 Calf
> raise.

You do *TWO* sets of 20-rep squats?!

What poundage?

I'll note my squat 3RM is bigger than yours and I'm a lot smaller than you.

> I also do dead lifts 10-15 reps which hit the legs a bit.

Deadlift 3RM is bigger too.

> 6'2" 198 lbs, 3RM: squat/bench/dl: 225/245/295


Add weight to the bar.

Bob Falooley
February 4th 04, 09:07 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:


>
> Appearance are deceptive, in my case. Hypertrophy is not really my thing.
>

I should not have mentioned Hypertrophy, I look at it as merly a benefit
that comes on the side when you are training right.

> But...
>
> The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
> kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
> drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6% and doubt everyone is the
> same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
> tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
> sprinting.
>

That is an interesting idea, train until your performance drops off x%. Who
is the DB Hammer charachter?

>
> Personally my preference would be to simply do sets of 8 with a weight I
> can do 20 reps with and limit the time between sets. Lift to a fast
> cadence and when I can't keep the cadence I'm done my sets. 20 reps is too
> much IMO.
>

That sounds like it would give me a much better leg workout than what I have
been doing, I will try it tonight and see how it feels, thanks for the
advice.

--Falooley

Lyle McDonald
February 4th 04, 09:56 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:

> In article >, Bob Falooley
> > wrote:


> The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
> kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
> drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6%

My hunch: he stole it from Poliquin, which is where I first read about
the concept a few years ago (he apparently got the idea from Charlie
Francis). Basic premise (and this ties into the other thread about
'sets, reps, and lack of progress') is that doing more sets once
performance has dropped below a certain point (a 5-6% weights drop for a
given rep count or 2-3 reps at the same weight) is not only worthless
but possibly negative. It's the weights equivalent of cycling's junk
miles: you're doing a bunch of volume that isn't improving fitness but
is accumulating fatigue and causing problems.


> and doubt everyone is the
> same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
> tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
> sprinting.

Francis was doing this with Johnson and his other sprinters years ago.
If during a workout their performance fell below a certain point (and,
as described in his manual, often this was a qualitative judgement: if
he felt his sprinters were having longer foot contact or what have you),
the workout was over.

If nothing else, the concept takes into account individual variability
in training capacity. Someone with good work capacity, who may *need*
more volume will get in more quality sets before hitting the drop off.
Someone who doesn't will drop off sooner.

Lyle

Bob Falooley
February 4th 04, 10:00 PM
T wrote:

> Bob Falooley wrote:
>
> You do *TWO* sets of 20-rep squats?!
>
> What poundage?
>

Not much, recovering from back injury, so I started with the bar and add
about 20 lbs a week, I am up to 115 lbs. Read on when you stop laughing.

> I'll note my squat 3RM is bigger than yours and I'm a lot smaller than
> you.
>
>> I also do dead lifts 10-15 reps which hit the legs a bit.
>
> Deadlift 3RM is bigger too.
>
>> 6'2" 198 lbs, 3RM: squat/bench/dl: 225/245/295
>
>
> Add weight to the bar.

congratulations on being stronger than me, I have only lifted regularly for
about 1.5 years now, I will add weight to the bar slowly to avoid injury.

--Falooley

Keith Hobman
February 4th 04, 10:20 PM
In article >, Bob Falooley
> wrote:

> Keith Hobman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Appearance are deceptive, in my case. Hypertrophy is not really my thing.
> >
>
> I should not have mentioned Hypertrophy, I look at it as merly a benefit
> that comes on the side when you are training right.
>
> > But...
> >
> > The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
> > kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
> > drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6% and doubt everyone is the
> > same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
> > tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
> > sprinting.
> >
>
> That is an interesting idea, train until your performance drops off x%. Who
> is the DB Hammer charachter?
>
> >
> > Personally my preference would be to simply do sets of 8 with a weight I
> > can do 20 reps with and limit the time between sets. Lift to a fast
> > cadence and when I can't keep the cadence I'm done my sets. 20 reps is too
> > much IMO.
> >
>
> That sounds like it would give me a much better leg workout than what I have
> been doing, I will try it tonight and see how it feels, thanks for the
> advice.

DB Hammer is Dietrich something or other - German trainer. He is supposed
to have worked with numerous olympic champions and world record holders in
track and field.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
February 4th 04, 10:23 PM
In article >,
wrote:

> Keith Hobman wrote:
>
> > In article >, Bob Falooley
> > > wrote:
>
>
> > The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
> > kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
> > drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6%
>
> My hunch: he stole it from Poliquin, which is where I first read about
> the concept a few years ago (he apparently got the idea from Charlie
> Francis). Basic premise (and this ties into the other thread about
> 'sets, reps, and lack of progress') is that doing more sets once
> performance has dropped below a certain point (a 5-6% weights drop for a
> given rep count or 2-3 reps at the same weight) is not only worthless
> but possibly negative. It's the weights equivalent of cycling's junk
> miles: you're doing a bunch of volume that isn't improving fitness but
> is accumulating fatigue and causing problems.
>
>
> > and doubt everyone is the
> > same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
> > tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
> > sprinting.
>
> Francis was doing this with Johnson and his other sprinters years ago.
> If during a workout their performance fell below a certain point (and,
> as described in his manual, often this was a qualitative judgement: if
> he felt his sprinters were having longer foot contact or what have you),
> the workout was over.
>
> If nothing else, the concept takes into account individual variability
> in training capacity. Someone with good work capacity, who may *need*
> more volume will get in more quality sets before hitting the drop off.
> Someone who doesn't will drop off sooner.

DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie. But Charlie was/is a great coach
- its too bad he had to be the fall guy for the drug thing. People lose
sight of the fact everyone in T&F was using something and Ben was the
fastest - and Charlie coached him. But one of Francis' key concepts was
keep it simple and less is more.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Oldman
February 4th 04, 10:44 PM
Bob Falooley wrote:
> I do a full body Workout 3x a week. I do upper body excersizes 10-15
> reps for 2 sets, except BB bench which I do 6-10 reps.
>
> For lower body I do 2 sets of 15-20 Squats, and 2 sets of 15-20 Calf
> raise.
>
> I also do dead lifts 10-15 reps which hit the legs a bit.
>
> So I do 2-3 lower body excersizes, and then 5-6 upper body
> excersizes. So my feeling is I need more lower body work. (I do
> core work and cardio on off days)
>
> So what should I do to add more lower body work? I hate doing
> lunges, I hate using machines, including leg press. I have never
> tried step ups, those might be alright. But my question is, could I
> simply add more squats, say do 4 sets of squats 2 at the beginning of
> the workout, and two at the end, would that be advisable? I love
> doing squats, but is too much squatting a bad thing?
>
> Would decreasing the number of reps I do for lowerbody work help or
> hurt hypertrophy?
>
> 6'2" 198 lbs, 3RM: squat/bench/dl: 225/245/295
>
> --Falooley

Bob add a set of squats for awhile. You can grow on 20 reps just as
easily as 5-10 reps. The hypertrophy is about the same. The good thing
about the higher rep squats is you an get the muscle growth without having
to up the poundage too much to feel you are getting a workout. You can get
a workout without injuring your back by going too heavy too soon. Try to
work into 5 sets of twenty. Do a light set of twenty breathing pullovers
to catch your breath after each set. This will help keep the rest time down
between sets because you are winded. When you do get to respectable weight
poundages in the exercise you will have large muscles with good definition.
I have done squats with sets of five and sets of twenty. The one thing
I have noticed with the lower reps is you need to add other exercises such
as front squats or hack squats to the mix in sets of 8-10 to keep the
progress fast. With the higher reps 5 sets of 20 is easily enough work. By
the way build into the extra set easily. Do a third set with 10 reps and
the next day do 12 reps etc. They are hard enough by themselves without
trying to do too much too soon. The way you can tell if you are doing
enough work on the squats is check the progress adding weight. If the
weights are always really heavy to you when you add 5 lbs. then maybe you
are not doing enough sets. Only add the 4th and 5th set if things start to
get heavy and progress slows. I added 5 lbs a workout doing these for
awhile. When I got pretty heavy and I felt my back wasn't keeping up I
added 5 lbs a week. Every 25 lb. increment I stayed at that weight and
extra week or so to let my body acclimatize to it.
I know the 20 reps builds the muscle because in 1967 a friend of mine
went to see the U.S. Senior National weightlifting championships and the Mr.
America contest was after the weightlifting. He said my legs looked better
than the Mr. Ameica winner. Nothing else did though. LOL.

Jeff Finlayson
February 5th 04, 03:25 AM
Bob Falooley wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>>Why? Assuming some of your upper body work is for your back, then most of
>>your workout would involve your legs and back, which is where about 2/3 of
>>your muscle is.
>>
>>You've included squats and deads. Can't get much better than that.
>>
>>I would work on the reps and weight, however.
>
> I do a lot of back work. Usually 3 excercises, 2 sets a piece 10-15 reps.
> I was saying I feel I need more leg work.
>
> My question was Can I get better than doing squats and deads, would more
> squats hurt?

You are doing squats and deadlifts 3 times a week. So you're fine there.

> Work on reps and weight? please elaborate you opinnion, i don't know what
> you mean.

Train with lower reps, say 8-12 reps with appropriate weights for that.
2 sets per exercise is plenty for 3X a week, provided the lifter is
getting worked (not going through the motions).

Rambo Four Sythia
February 6th 04, 04:37 AM
Bob Falooley > writes:

....
> So what should I do to add more lower body work? I hate doing lunges, I
> hate using machines, including leg press. I have never tried step ups,
> those might be alright. But my question is, could I simply add more
> squats, say do 4 sets of squats 2 at the beginning of the workout, and two
> at the end, would that be advisable? I love doing squats, but is too much
> squatting a bad thing?

What kind of squats do you do? If you are doing wide stance,
powerlifting-style squats to just below parallel, then front squats
all the way down are a very different exercise and might be nice to
try.

--
R4S

Bob Falooley
February 6th 04, 05:31 PM
Rambo Four Sythia wrote:

> Bob Falooley > writes:
>
> ...
>> So what should I do to add more lower body work? I hate doing lunges, I
>> hate using machines, including leg press. I have never tried step ups,
>> those might be alright. But my question is, could I simply add more
>> squats, say do 4 sets of squats 2 at the beginning of the workout, and
>> two
>> at the end, would that be advisable? I love doing squats, but is too
>> much squatting a bad thing?
>
> What kind of squats do you do? If you are doing wide stance,
> powerlifting-style squats to just below parallel, then front squats
> all the way down are a very different exercise and might be nice to
> try.
>

I do feet just wider than shoulder width, toes pointed out a little bit,
calves to hamms, bar high on traps.

I can do front squats, but high weight on them puts to much strain on my
back. It is also hard for me to bend my wrists back and rest the bar on
the front of my shoulders. I will work on it more when my back is
stronger.

Thanks for the suggestion.


--Falooley

Lyle McDonald
February 6th 04, 09:00 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Keith Hobman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Bob Falooley
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
>>>kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
>>>drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6%
>>
>>My hunch: he stole it from Poliquin, which is where I first read about
>>the concept a few years ago (he apparently got the idea from Charlie
>>Francis). Basic premise (and this ties into the other thread about
>>'sets, reps, and lack of progress') is that doing more sets once
>>performance has dropped below a certain point (a 5-6% weights drop for a
>>given rep count or 2-3 reps at the same weight) is not only worthless
>>but possibly negative. It's the weights equivalent of cycling's junk
>>miles: you're doing a bunch of volume that isn't improving fitness but
>>is accumulating fatigue and causing problems.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and doubt everyone is the
>>>same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
>>>tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
>>>sprinting.
>>
>>Francis was doing this with Johnson and his other sprinters years ago.
>>If during a workout their performance fell below a certain point (and,
>>as described in his manual, often this was a qualitative judgement: if
>>he felt his sprinters were having longer foot contact or what have you),
>>the workout was over.
>>
>>If nothing else, the concept takes into account individual variability
>>in training capacity. Someone with good work capacity, who may *need*
>>more volume will get in more quality sets before hitting the drop off.
>>Someone who doesn't will drop off sooner.
>
>
> DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.

Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish actually means
(Hammer, not Francis).

> But Charlie was/is a great coach
> - its too bad he had to be the fall guy for the drug thing. People lose
> sight of the fact everyone in T&F was using something and Ben was the
> fastest - and Charlie coached him. But one of Francis' key concepts was
> keep it simple and less is more.
>
I'm not so sure it was a less is more attitude so much as a 'don't
sacrifice quality for the sake of quantity'. I mean, his guys were
spending hours and hours at the track (noting that a lot of that time
was sitting around in between repeats) but as soon as the quality of the
workout declined, it was over.

Lyle

Keith Hobman
February 6th 04, 09:08 PM
In article >,
wrote:

> Keith Hobman wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Keith Hobman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, Bob Falooley
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The DB Hammer character has an idea in terms of auto-regulation which is
> >>>kind of neat. He believes that if you train every four days you train to a
> >>>drop-off of six percent. I have no idea why 6%
> >>
> >>My hunch: he stole it from Poliquin, which is where I first read about
> >>the concept a few years ago (he apparently got the idea from Charlie
> >>Francis). Basic premise (and this ties into the other thread about
> >>'sets, reps, and lack of progress') is that doing more sets once
> >>performance has dropped below a certain point (a 5-6% weights drop for a
> >>given rep count or 2-3 reps at the same weight) is not only worthless
> >>but possibly negative. It's the weights equivalent of cycling's junk
> >>miles: you're doing a bunch of volume that isn't improving fitness but
> >>is accumulating fatigue and causing problems.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>and doubt everyone is the
> >>>same, but it is a compelling idea. That there ia an ideal load and you can
> >>>tell by performance drop-off. He applies this to both lifting and
> >>>sprinting.
> >>
> >>Francis was doing this with Johnson and his other sprinters years ago.
> >>If during a workout their performance fell below a certain point (and,
> >>as described in his manual, often this was a qualitative judgement: if
> >>he felt his sprinters were having longer foot contact or what have you),
> >>the workout was over.
> >>
> >>If nothing else, the concept takes into account individual variability
> >>in training capacity. Someone with good work capacity, who may *need*
> >>more volume will get in more quality sets before hitting the drop off.
> >>Someone who doesn't will drop off sooner.
> >
> >
> > DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>
> Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish actually means
> (Hammer, not Francis).
>
> > But Charlie was/is a great coach
> > - its too bad he had to be the fall guy for the drug thing. People lose
> > sight of the fact everyone in T&F was using something and Ben was the
> > fastest - and Charlie coached him. But one of Francis' key concepts was
> > keep it simple and less is more.
> >
> I'm not so sure it was a less is more attitude so much as a 'don't
> sacrifice quality for the sake of quantity'. I mean, his guys were
> spending hours and hours at the track (noting that a lot of that time
> was sitting around in between repeats) but as soon as the quality of the
> workout declined, it was over.

Good point. Efficiency was used, but within the parameters of maximizing
performance.

Wayne S. Hill
February 6th 04, 09:08 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Keith Hobman wrote:
>
>> DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>
> Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
> actually means (Hammer, not Francis).

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.

--
-Wayne

Lyle McDonald
February 6th 04, 10:09 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>Keith Hobman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>>
>>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
>>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
>
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.

What I can't figure is whether it's just a language/translation issue or
if he's truly spouting gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
real world examples of what he's talking about would probably help.

I mean, I can sort of grok some of what he's getting at, at least in the
most general of terms. Which mainly seems to be identifying an
athlete's lacking capacity and training that; so train muscular (what he
calls frictional elements) if they are lacking there, train neural
components if that's what's lacking. But I can't make any headway beyond
that.

Lyle

Wayne S. Hill
February 6th 04, 11:42 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>Keith Hobman wrote:
>>>
>>>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>>>
>>>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
>>>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
>>
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
>
> What I can't figure is whether it's just a
> language/translation issue or if he's truly spouting
> gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
> real world examples of what he's talking about would
> probably help.

Heh: like the Russians? Adjust volume, intensity, and exercise
selection based on the needs of the trainee.

--
-Wayne

Keith Hobman
February 7th 04, 02:11 PM
In article >,
wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Keith Hobman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
> >>
> >>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
> >>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
> >
> >
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
>
> What I can't figure is whether it's just a language/translation issue or
> if he's truly spouting gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
> real world examples of what he's talking about would probably help.
>
> I mean, I can sort of grok some of what he's getting at, at least in the
> most general of terms. Which mainly seems to be identifying an
> athlete's lacking capacity and training that; so train muscular (what he
> calls frictional elements) if they are lacking there, train neural
> components if that's what's lacking. But I can't make any headway beyond
> that.

I have the same type of problem. Between the obvious language barrier and
the original need for him to be 'incognito' I basically summarily
dismissed him as another wannabe guru. But, he does have some good ideas
in there, which makes you wonder. The 'Iso-Osc' training is pretty good
for training a stretch reflex, for example.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Lyle McDonald
February 7th 04, 06:31 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:

> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>Keith Hobman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>>>>
>>>>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
>>>>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
>>>
>>>I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
>>
>>What I can't figure is whether it's just a
>>language/translation issue or if he's truly spouting
>>gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
>>real world examples of what he's talking about would
>>probably help.
>
>
> Heh: like the Russians? Adjust volume, intensity, and exercise
> selection based on the needs of the trainee.

It's got that type of uselessness associated with it too but the degree
of gibberish goes deeper. Half the time I can't figure out what he's
even saying in the first place. I suspect some of this is a translation
problem, German is a terribly literal language.

Lyle

David Cohen
February 7th 04, 06:34 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >>
> >>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Keith Hobman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
> >>>>
> >>>>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
> >>>>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
> >>>
> >>>I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
> >>
> >>What I can't figure is whether it's just a
> >>language/translation issue or if he's truly spouting
> >>gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
> >>real world examples of what he's talking about would
> >>probably help.
> >
> >
> > Heh: like the Russians? Adjust volume, intensity, and exercise
> > selection based on the needs of the trainee.
>
> It's got that type of uselessness associated with it too but the
degree
> of gibberish goes deeper. Half the time I can't figure out what
he's
> even saying in the first place. I suspect some of this is a
translation
> problem, German is a terribly literal language.

Not much nuance to "Get in the boxcar, Jew!"

David

Lyle McDonald
February 9th 04, 05:13 AM
Keith Hobman wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Keith Hobman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>DB Hammer actually is older than Charlie.
>>>>
>>>>Now if I could just figure out what 98% of his gibberish
>>>>actually means (Hammer, not Francis).
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
>>
>>What I can't figure is whether it's just a language/translation issue or
>>if he's truly spouting gibberish ala so many others in this field. Some
>> real world examples of what he's talking about would probably help.
>>
>>I mean, I can sort of grok some of what he's getting at, at least in the
>>most general of terms. Which mainly seems to be identifying an
>>athlete's lacking capacity and training that; so train muscular (what he
>>calls frictional elements) if they are lacking there, train neural
>>components if that's what's lacking. But I can't make any headway beyond
>>that.
>
>
> I have the same type of problem. Between the obvious language barrier and
> the original need for him to be 'incognito' I basically summarily
> dismissed him as another wannabe guru. But, he does have some good ideas
> in there, which makes you wonder. The 'Iso-Osc' training is pretty good
> for training a stretch reflex, for example.

I don't recall seeing that one.

I did like his bench article at elite fitness, talking about proper
scapular control. Described some movements (such as the dip shrug for
training scapular depression) that you don't see done or talked about
very often.

I might have more of an opinion on the guy if I could figure out what
exactly he was describing. Anybody know if the book he's working on is out?

Lyle

Ford Prefect
February 9th 04, 02:32 PM
David Cohen wrote:

> Not much nuance to "Get in the boxcar, Jew!"

Hmmm, never thought about it, but you could be right: Maybe its
delightfully inventive inventory of slurs for the Jew really does make
English the better language ;-)