Technique -v- Weight

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

Now you're talking about how to teach someone to perform a lift. That wasn't the original question. Nor is it gymfreak's issue. You say the old deadlift was an entirely different lift, it kinda is but there's huge carryover . I learned to sumo at heavy weight. That's a lot more different to my convo than gymfreak's 2 convo variations.

You learned to sumo at an appropriate weight for you. Ya didn't learn to do it incorrectly for months and then try to undo all that while still working at the same intensity. Different scenario again!!

Weight is relative to ability, we can hug over that??

My solution if were talking about coaching would be to coach. Reinforce the good technique at challenging weight. A 2min YouTube video could teach someone the right way with an empty bar.

I'd disagree with the backing off once the breakdown in form emerges at a higher weight. I'd see that as an opportunity to practice.

Now, you've agreed with me, finally.

A challenging weight is one where holding good tekkers is hard, regardless of relative intensity? That's exactly the range she's working in. You said it yourself about breakdowns starting to occur at certain weights.

BUT I also think that since technical ability is so low that doing any lifts which reinforce that bad movement pattern (ie form breakdown) is a bad idea. If it was a case that she never pulled badly it wouldn't concern me as much, but the risk of slipping back to compensatory patterns and undoing all the hard work is the key issue I'm worried about.

Maybe you've a different take?

kevpants

I agree with the sentiment totally. I just find if hard to believe the weight needs to be that low. Then again you've actually coached her in person. We both agree there is an appropriate weight.

Back to your original question about weight vs technique at a higher level. I think we still differ. Your mind has been poisoned by books and barefoot runners and mine has been poisoned by my shed and bouncing all my training ideas off a family of woodlice.

Thud

while i know theoretically i should be in Hanleys camp in reality what happens for me is what Kev is saying.

Maybe is a mental thing for me but my first attempt at a new max is a bit like a test run, knees might wobble or full depth mightn't be there but once i can manage the dodgy "test run" i have the confinence to go full depth the next time and focus on stabilising the knees etc

It's probably not textbook progression but it has worked for me so far but as i've said earlier it's prob a risky game to play...

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment totally. I just find if hard to believe the weight needs to be that low. Then again you've actually coached her in person. We both agree there is an appropriate weight.

Well would you agree that the appropriate weight is where form is on the verge of breaking down? Because that’s exactly where she was training all the way thru. She couldn’t pull 60kg with good tekkers the first day.

If you don’t agree with that, and don’t agree with going too light, the only option then seems to be to use a weight in excess of that with which good tekkers can be maintained…??

Back to your original question about weight vs technique at a higher level. I think we still differ. Your mind has been poisoned by books and barefoot runners and mine has been poisoned by my shed and bouncing all my training ideas off a family of woodlice.

I think in training, and remember this is for athletes as well as strength sport competitors, the loading should be such that form doesn’t breakdown, or does so in the most minimal manner to preserve the training effect in an efficient (both from a movement and muscles utilized standpoint) and safe manner.

For strength sport guys, working at the limit is obviously necessary so injury is a possibly, but for athletes not engaged in competitive lifting, I think risking injury for PRs is a bit dumb (in the context of knowingly allowing them to use unsafe tekkers - but yes, even in solid positions positions things can go wrong)

Thud wrote: »

while i know theoretically i should be in Hanleys camp in reality what happens for me is what Kev is saying.

Maybe is a mental thing for me but my first attempt at a new max is a bit like a test run, knees might wobble or full depth mightn't be there but once i can manage the dodgy "test run" i have the confinence to go full depth the next time and focus on stabilising the knees etc

It's probably not textbook progression but it has worked for me so far but as i've said earlier it's prob a risky game to play...

I’m still confused as to how people are missing the key point here. Learning a lift or correcting massive technical flaws can’t be done at near max weights. UNLESS you’ve already got the ability to perform the lift at near maximal weights with some semblance of good form. That is to say if you’re experiencing minor technical breakdowns you can probably work on correcting them at higher intensities, but trying to correct systemic pervasive issues just can’t be done with max or near max weights.

mushykeogh

Hanley wrote: »

I’m still confused as to how people are missing the key point here. Learning a lift or correcting massive technical flaws can’t be done at near max weights. UNLESS you’ve already got the ability to perform the lift at near maximal weights with some semblance of good form. That is to say if you’re experiencing minor technical breakdowns you can probably work on correcting them at higher intensities, but trying to correct systemic pervasive issues just can’t be done with max or near max weights.

100% agree. Was reading this last night thinking people are just missing the point here.

Barry.Oglesby

Dragged out of boards retirement again.

Seeing as I was one of the ones Heskey was discussing this with I'll add me tuppence.

So form is wunnerful, just wunnerful, but let's move it off the deadlift for a minute which people seem to be getting hung up on. Thought of this thread yesterday while working with someone. There are times when more weight is better than getting bogged down with form. Partial presses might be a big no no for some people for example, but yesterday I had a guy do partial presses at 95% of 1RM for 5 with reactive medball throws afterwards.

Likewise I've never got down with the depth junkies for squatting. I'm not saying you should always be above depth, but depth can be just as valid a progression as weight in certain cases. So you can have a guy not hit depth at 100kg for 5 one week, then get to depth for 3 the next week, then 5 and so on. Again I'm not advocating quarter squats, just sayin. I think people have got so bogged down in depth that they fail to notice the myriad other things that are far more likely to cause injury- knee drift etc. I've seen people nod approvingly at max effort good mornings because the depth was okay.

I know what your point is Hedley, but I thought I'd throw those two examples in to muddy the waters and completely miss the point of the thread. Okay is everything a mess and confused now? Grand bye bye.

banshee_bones

kevpants wrote: »

By all means seek to improve technique, what I'm saying is don't get too attached or obsessed with the pretty deadlifts. The ugly ones are the big ones!

Few weeks ago I tried for a new max DL, got it to my shins and dropped it, not because I couldnt lock it out, but I freaked out because I thought to myself "christ I reckon I must look like the hunchback of notredame here" and I didnt want to potentially injure myself for the sake of it. We looked at the video and my coach and henners both pointed out that it didnt actually look that bad! There was some slight rounding of the back but not enough to make a fuss over.
I have heard before that no max effort is pretty, but I guess ya have to decide just how ugly it can be. I mean ugly reps are still "reps in the bank" right?

kevpants

banshee_bones wrote: »

Few weeks ago I tried for a new max DL, got it to my shins and dropped it, not because I couldnt lock it out, but I freaked out because I thought to myself "christ I reckon I must look like the hunchback of notredame here" and I didnt want to potentially injure myself for the sake of it. We looked at the video and my coach and henners both pointed out that it didnt actually look that bad! There was some slight rounding of the back but not enough to make a fuss over.
I have heard before that no max effort is pretty, but I guess ya have to decide just how ugly it can be. I mean ugly reps are still "reps in the bank" right?

Yeah that's what I'm getting at. I don't think I'm missing Hanley's point at all. There are two points. The "learning from scratch" or "OMG you don't know how to perform that lift what are you doing" thing obviously requires light weight.

What you're describing above is what I was talking about. Form starts to break down so everyone panics and drops back 30% in weight and tries to build back up. That person will never be strong. They might make some progress but I think they are placing needless obstacles in their path.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think the point of weight training for an athlete should be to always play it safe and have perfect form. You're training to get stronger. If you only squat with weight you can handle and with perfect form you aren't getting much out of squatting. That approach to weight training might be suitable for my 62 year old mother but not an athlete. I know there's a risk of injury with higher %s but there's a risk of being absolutely average by playing it safe.

COH

kevpants wrote: »

I know there's a risk of injury with higher %s but there's a risk of being absolutely average by playing it safe.

Quote of the century... i think i non-sexual man-love you. If you and hanley ever break up give me a brotext :pac:

kevpants

COH wrote: »

Quote of the century... i think i non-sexual man-love you. If you and hanley ever break up give me a brotext :pac:

Myself and Hanely have a guy-love that will echo through the br-ages.

But it is a br-open relationship so I'm totally open to a non-penetrative man-fling.

mushykeogh

banshee_bones wrote: »

I mean ugly reps are still "reps in the bank" right?

True, but you want to keep the ugly reps to a minimum

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

So you can have a guy not hit depth at 100kg for 5 one week, then get to depth for 3 the next week, then 5 and so on. Again I'm not advocating quarter squats, just sayin. I think people have got so bogged down in depth that they fail to notice the myriad other things that are far more likely to cause injury- knee drift etc. I've seen people nod approvingly at max effort good mornings because the depth was okay.

Your still working on technique though, 5 week, 3 the next , 5 the next again, thats a concentration thing and you keep on greasing the groove. If the goodmorning thing is going on, or knee drift over and over then you got to pull it back. Its not going to be perfect but your keeping the bogey ones to the minimum, on any exercise. I can chase the numbers with an athlete with dire form, the numbers can keep going up but eventually something will go arse over tit. Then you have an injured athlete with brutal form, so what have you gained? Now you have to rehab them and get em back to learning a better technique/fix the weaknesses.

kevpants wrote: »

What you're describing above is what I was talking about. Form starts to break down so everyone panics and drops back 30% in weight and tries to build back up. That person will never be strong.

If you need to drop back by 30%, then your form is beyond muck and your only waiting for an injury. Any 5 to 3 rep stuff should be pretty good form, not perfect maybe but certainly nothing that will make you wince, look away and say " jesus hes going to snap in two".

kevpants wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but I don't think the point of weight training for an athlete should be to always play it safe and have perfect form. You're training to get stronger. If you only squat with weight you can handle and with perfect form you aren't getting much out of squatting. I know there's a risk of injury with higher %s but there's a risk of being absolutely average by playing it safe.

Couldnt disagree more about that squat statement. The technique has got to be there. you should still be getting massive benefit from a squat done with good technique, even more so in terms of stabilisers than you will from doing a really crappy one with an extra 20-30 kg.
The last thing you want is the committee or the coach/perfromance director calling you wanting to know why jonny goldenballs cant compete in the biggest competition of the year because he is in a jocker after his gym training. That doesnt mean you train him "average" or play it safe. You train him as hard as you can with as good as technique as possible.

Scuba Ste

kevpants wrote: »

Yeah that's what I'm getting at. I don't think I'm missing Hanley's point at all. There are two points. The "learning from scratch" or "OMG you don't know how to perform that lift what are you doing" thing obviously requires light weight.

What you're describing above is what I was talking about. Form starts to break down so everyone panics and drops back 30% in weight and tries to build back up. That person will never be strong. They might make some progress but I think they are placing needless obstacles in their path.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think the point of weight training for an athlete should be to always play it safe and have perfect form. You're training to get stronger. If you only squat with weight you can handle and with perfect form you aren't getting much out of squatting. That approach to weight training might be suitable for my 62 year old mother but not an athlete. I know there's a risk of injury with higher %s but there's a risk of being absolutely average by playing it safe.

I don't get this at all. Are you saying you can never hit max weights with good form? That's just not true. Most if not all lifters I know that can squat well have very similar technique with just the bar and with their max weight. I think your focusing on perfect form too much. I can't think of any vids posted in the amazing feats thread where lifters form breaks down too much and they're all max attempt competition lifts.

I think you are missing the point. Working on good technique doesn't mean staying at sub max weights, you push the weight up the same as you would normally. You get better at 70%, then 75%, 80 and so on until you've drilled it enough that it doesn't break down horribly at 100%. It doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to be adequately stable that you don't go from straight back, knees out, chest up to knees in, round back and falling forward over the space of 10kg.

I really believe you won't much get better if you don't have basic decent technique. It's good technique not just because it's less likely to cause injury but because it's the strongest position to complete a lift. In the two examples above which technique do you think will be more successful. I think the guy who holds his positions better has a better chance of making a lift consistently.

I see where your coming from that you don't necessarily have to cut 30% or more from your numbers but that would depend on the lifter and where their form breaks down. I think in gymfreak's case she couldn't lift 50% without rounding her back so that's where she started working, now she's up to 65% and still improving. That is progress by any measure.

Hanley

Scuba Ste wrote: »

I don't get this at all. Are you saying you can never hit max weights with good form? That's just not true. Most if not all lifters I know that can squat well have very similar technique with just the bar and with their max weight. I think your focusing on perfect form too much. I can't think of any vids posted in the amazing feats thread where lifters form breaks down too much and they're all max attempt competition lifts.

I think you are missing the point. Working on good technique doesn't mean staying at sub max weights, you push the weight up the same as you would normally. You get better at 70%, then 75%, 80 and so on until you've drilled it enough that it doesn't break down horribly at 100%. It doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to be adequately stable that you don't go from straight back, knees out, chest up to knees in, round back and falling forward over the space of 10kg.

I really believe you won't much get better if you don't have basic decent technique. It's good technique not just because it's less likely to cause injury but because it's the strongest position to complete a lift. In the two examples above which technique do you think will be more successful. I think the guy who holds his positions better has a better chance of making a lift consistently.

I see where your coming from that you don't necessarily have to cut 30% or more from your numbers but that would depend on the lifter and where their form breaks down. I think in gymfreak's case she couldn't lift 50% without rounding her back so that's where she started working, now she's up to 65% and still improving. That is progress by any measure.

Totally agree with this. Especially the bolded part.

Barry.Oglesby

Kev and Mushy you guys have different viewpoints.

mushy is talking about getting guys progressively stronger for sport and that whole balancing act of performance versus overload and injury, and kev is coming at it from a stronger is always better viewpoint.

Don't hate each other, respect each other and see eye to eye. It's what Jeebus would want.

Hanley

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Dragged out of boards retirement again.

Seeing as I was one of the ones Heskey was discussing this with I'll add me tuppence.

Give your dog your keyboard, only sure way to keep you away.

So form is wunnerful, just wunnerful, but let's move it off the deadlift for a minute which people seem to be getting hung up on. Thought of this thread yesterday while working with someone. There are times when more weight is better than getting bogged down with form. Partial presses might be a big no no for some people for example, but yesterday I had a guy do partial presses at 95% of 1RM for 5 with reactive medball throws afterwards.

I better the partial presses were done with "good" form tho. Form and ROM aren't necessarily the same.

What was the reactive med ball throw anyway - toss it to him, he catches and throws back?

Likewise I've never got down with the depth junkies for squatting. I'm not saying you should always be above depth, but depth can be just as valid a progression as weight in certain cases. So you can have a guy not hit depth at 100kg for 5 one week, then get to depth for 3 the next week, then 5 and so on. Again I'm not advocating quarter squats, just sayin. I think people have got so bogged down in depth that they fail to notice the myriad other things that are far more likely to cause injury- knee drift etc. I've seen people nod approvingly at max effort good mornings because the depth was okay.

I'd agree with this. And would also say rack pulls can be a good progression to full DLs for the same reason.

I know what your point is Hedley, but I thought I'd throw those two examples in to muddy the waters and completely miss the point of the thread. Okay is everything a mess and confused now? Grand bye bye.

Mudley.

Thud

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Don't hate each other, respect each other and see eye to eye. It's what Jeebus would want.

I hear he was good at rolling big rocks but what could he Deadlift and what was his tekkers like?

mushykeogh

Thud wrote: »

I hear he was good at rolling big rocks but what could he Deadlift and what was his tekkers like?

He could hold a pretty mean crucifix by all accounts.

mushykeogh

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Kev and Mushy you guys have different viewpoints.

mushy is talking about getting guys progressively stronger for sport and that whole balancing act of performance versus overload and injury, and kev is coming at it from a stronger is always better viewpoint.

Don't hate each other, respect each other and see eye to eye. It's what Jeebus would want.

I love you all, im like the dalai lama.

Hanley

mushykeogh wrote: »

He could hold a pretty mean crucifix by all accounts.

Got absolutely nailed attempting the dismount tho.

gymfreak

Only catching up on this thread now. Some really interesting points of debate!