With Philip Louis Sabatini and Monte Richard Sparkman, Jr.
|
|
In the world of strength training, there are numerous methodologies that are used to increase the performance of athletes. Olympic lifting and powerlifting tend to be the most popular philosophies for coaches to incorporate because of their focus on power and strength development.
With their proposed popularity comes a little controversy. Many Olympic lifters and powerlifters proclaim their style of training as the “method of choice” for training athletes. Each method of training elicits a unique training philosophy, program, and outcome. For instance, “Olympic-style weightlifting is an excellent training method for developing power. It consists of two movements—the clean and jerk and the snatch. The derivatives of those movements are what make up the majority of the training exercises” (Gambetta 2007). Unlike its name, powerlifting is a training method that focuses on maximum strength. “Powerlifting is centered on the three competition lifts of the squat, bench press, and the deadlift; powerlifting develops strength in almost all major muscle groups” (Piper & Erdmann 1998).
The question that many strength and conditioning professionals and personal trainers try to answer is, “Which method is best to use when training athletes?” This article will try and answer that very question with responses from two elite strength athletes. Phil Sabatini is a nationally ranked Olympic lifter who is also the football strength and conditioning coach for the Virginia Military Institute. Monte Sparkman is a nationally ranked powerlifter who is the powerlifting coach for the Virginia Military Institute’s powerlifting team. Their candid responses to the upcoming questions will be used to understand the position of each style of weight training and determine the most desirable method to use when training athletes. Therefore, each respondent will answer six questions that are designed to provide insight into the training philosophy and training methodology for each discipline of weight training.
Question 1: What is the most important aspect of training, and how does your style of training support that aspect?
Sparkman: Absolute strength is the foundation for all other strength abilities. “Absolute strength controls all strength gains. Analysis of Hill’s equation shows that speed of movement is dependent on absolute muscular strength: v = Ft/m” (Simmons 2006). From this statement, we can assume that the most important aspect of athletic development should be focused on the training of absolute strength. Powerlifting is rooted in this philosophy. Powerlifters are constantly training to develop absolute strength and explosive strength. They (powerlifters) understand that without this basic strength, training cannot progress.
Powerlifting methods make the training of absolute strength a priority. It is my view that strength and conditioning coaches across the board do the same. Too many strength and conditioning coaches are quick to implement Olympic lifting methods into their training programs without first developing an athlete with a strong foundation of absolute strength training. This opinion can be support by a statement from Vern Gambetta’s book, Athletic Development–The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning. “It has become very popular among the strength coaching community, especially in American football, to center strength training programs on Olympic lifting” (Gambetta 2007). In my opinion, this is putting the cart before the horse. You can’t develop an explosive athlete without first satisfying this common need for the development of absolute strength.
Sabatini: The most important aspect of Olympic weightlifting as it pertains to athletic performance is power specific force development or “speed strength.” Olympic style training involves “using heavy loads that are performed at a high velocity resulting in a high power output” (Hoffman, et al 2004). The term speed strength combines two very crucial attributes of athletic performance to express “power development.” An athlete’s power capacity includes “maximum strength, high load speed strength, low load speed strength, rate of force development, reactive strength, skill performance, and power endurance” (Hori & Stone 2004).
Through the training of Olympic lifts, athletes can increase their speed strength. This is done specifically because “during the pull phase of the clean and snatch as well as the drive phase of the jerk athletes extend their hips, knees, and ankle joints to push against the ground as hard and as rapidly as possible producing acceleration on the body and the barbell, which is done remarkably similar to jumping” (Hori & Stone 2004). Also, functional core strength is developed due to the large amount of overhead activity and movements with high loads away from the body’s center of gravity. Different training methods are used to increase performance by becoming stronger and faster. Specifically, different sports require different demands. One sport may ask, “How strong?” Another may ask, “How fast?” However, in terms of Olympic weightlifting, the question becomes, “How fast are you strong?”
Question 2: Specificity is an important variable within a training program. How does your method of training support the theory of specificity?
Sparkman: “Athletic activities usually require quick and powerful movements and, consequently depend on the development of explosive strength” (Siff 2003). If an athlete wants to enhance explosive strength, he must train absolute strength. The most important aspect of powerlifting is the development of absolute or maximal strength. According to Zatsiorsky, “maximal strength is regarded as a prerequisite for high movement speed” (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer 2006). This statement confirms the belief that an athlete must first develop maximal strength and make it a priority in training over high velocity movements in order to develop explosive strength.
Although Olympic lifting is the gold standard with regards to power development, I feel that powerlifting can develop explosive strength within the particular movement that the athlete is training. I believe that once that explosive strength is developed within the trained movement, it (explosive strength) can then be transferred to the field of play.
Sabatini: All sports require different amounts of muscle synchronization, balance, flexibility, and coordination as well as strength, speed, power, and metabolic development. Olympic weightlifting provides development in all these areas. While training for maximal strength can have a positive effect on performance, it can also have a “negative effect on movement speed and the ability of a muscle to display explosive effort” (Wenzel & Perfetto 1992). However, this does not mean that strength gains do not happen through training at high speeds. Wenzel and Perfetto characterized strength gains from high speed training as adaptations “due to an increase in the number of fibers recruited or a more synchronous firing of motor neurons” (Wenzel & Perfetto 1992). Also, in sports requiring short-term, explosive energy, Olympic training incorporates the necessary mechanism that will accommodate the production of the power-endurance component. This, in turn, will lead to a positive effect on athletic performance.
Question 3: Describe why powerlifting or Olympic lifting is a better approach for training athletes.
Sparkman: Powerlifting is a superior way for training athletes because it addresses this common need for developing absolute strength. Without a training foundation rooted in absolute strength, there is no potential for explosive strength development. Many strength professionals regard Olympic lifting as the method of choice for training explosive athletes. If that is the case, why are so many strength and conditioning professionals concerned with developing absolute strength? You must have the absolute strength foundation before any explosive strength development can occur.
Another reason that powerlifting training methods are superior to Olympic training methods is the trainability of the movements. “To achieve optimal return, you must consider that Olympic lifting is a sport. Those lifts have a high technical demand, but the skill is a closed skill that occurs in a narrow range of motion. The Olympic movements do produce tremendous power because of the distance the weight must travel and because of the weight and speed requirements. This power production is highly dependent on the technical proficiency of the individual lifter” (Gambetta 2007). The above quote illustrates the disadvantages and technical complications that are involved with Olympic style training. For athletes to reap the benefits of Olympic lifting, they must be sound technical lifters. Not only that but the athlete must be able to move a significant amount of weight relative to his body weight in order to produce a positive training effect. There aren’t enough qualified strength and conditioning coaches out there with the time or staff to properly give athletes the coaching they need to become proficient in the Olympic lifting exercises.
Sabatini: Olympic lifting is a better approach for training athletes, largely due to biomechanical specificity and speed of the movements. As mentioned earlier, not only do multiple movements in Olympic lifting (snatch, clean and jerk) closely mimic the movements involved in any type of athletic performance, but training the exercises does not compromise any explosive effort, much like the maximal strength training does in powerlifting. Although there is a definite initial explosive movement in maximal strength training or powerlifting, the exercises are performed at a slow velocity. Olympic lifting “may be superior to traditional powerlifting training because the exercises, while using heavy loads, are performed at a much higher velocity, which leads to a higher power output” (Hoffman et al 2004). This higher power output production could lead to a greater effect on athletic performance than the production that powerlifting could provide.
Question 4: What is the basic philosophy of your method of training? How does that affect the training of athletes?
Sparkman: The basic philosophies used in powerlifting methods are derived from the understanding that training explosive strength through the development of absolute strength is the most important component of athletic development. “All ball players run fast and slow and have quick changes in direction. This is very taxing on the central nervous system. If one wants to become more explosive, he or she must raise maximum strength” (Simmons 2005). Coaches who are using powerlifting methodologies to train athletes understand this important relationship between explosive strength and absolute strength.
It is also important to note that powerlifting methods are not just about lifting heavy weights. Plyometrics, or reactive training, is becoming increasingly popular in powerlifting training as a method to develop explosive strength. “It is essential that explosive strength play a large role in training, as it not only a means of developing absolute strength but also a method of raising physical fitness that is directed toward solving a specific sports task” (Simmons 2001). By combining absolute strength and plyomterics training methods, an athlete will have a more complete balance of the skills needed to perform at a high level on the field of play.
Sabatini: The basic philosophies used in Olympic weightlifting methods of training are based around injury prevention, power output, metabolic specificity, biomechanical specificity, high rates of force development, and muscle synchronization. Each of the fore mentioned components will directly transfer to the improvement of athletic performance. Through the training of Olympic lifting, the goal of the training session can be manipulated. For example, if the goal of the training session is to specifically train the biomechanics of a countermovement vertical jump, the majority of the exercises used throughout the training session would be cleans and snatches from the hang position and jerks. On the other hand, one can also train specific to the energy systems used in a specific sport. If a sport demands an explosive movement every 30–45 seconds such as football, the exercises performed in training would be completed specific to the interval of that sport or activity.
Also, because we know greater maximal strength could lead to greater power outputs, maximal strength must be trained. However, when incorporating Olympic lifting, maximal strength can be trained specific to the movement being performed. This can be achieved by training specifically through the use of clean pulls, snatch pulls, Olympic-style back squats, front squats, and other core multijoint exercises.
In terms of injury prevention, two critical areas to protect in athletics are the knee and shoulder joints. Due to the large amount of hamstring activity in Olympic lifting, which we know are stabilizers to the knee joint, Olympic exercises can play a major role in protecting the knee joint during performance. Also, because of the overhead activity in the training of Olympic exercises, the stabilizers of the shoulder joint (primarily the rotator cuff muscles, the trapezius, and the deltoids) are being worked, thus shoulder stabilization is accomplished in training. There are many philosophies regarding joint stabilization. However, I don’t think there is any better way to train stabilization than to stabilize.
Question 5: What are the safety concerns for your specific method of training?
Sparkman: Due to the maximal loads lifted while training for powerlifting, it is important to utilize proper lifting and spotting techniques. It is important that the spotter be of comparable strength level to the athlete he is spotting.
Sabatini: Because Olympic lifts are highly explosive, complex, open-ended movements, there is always a risk for injury. However, “missing” a lift correctly can easily avoid injury. Also, Olympic bumper plates are specifically designed to be high enough so they can “roll” over a lying body. Secondly, bumper plates are meant to be dropped, so not only does this discard the use of spotters, but it also prohibits athletes from being “caught underneath” the weight.
Question 6: Although you have defended and described your style of training, do you incorporate techniques and philosophies from other methods of training?
Sparkman: Although Olympic style lifting is viewed by many strength and conditioning professionals as the gold standard for training explosive athletes, it is my belief that in order to maximize athletic performance you must incorporate both Olympic style training and powerlifting style training. Explosive strength is crucial in just about every sport out there, but without absolute strength, explosive strength 
cannot flourish. Explosive strength and absolute strength training must be incorporated simultaneously in athletic development to maximize results. This idea can be summed up by Kawamori and Haff who studied the effects of an optimal training load for the development of muscular power. “Additionally, the development of some fitness components (e.g., maximal strength) should be a prerequisite to the development of other components (e.g., speed strength, power). Therefore, it is crucial to train different components in the logical sequence (i.e., periodization) so athletes can maximally develop muscular power toward the end of macrocycle or a yearly cycle when the most important competitions are scheduled while minimizing the risk of overtraining or injuries” (Kawamori & Haff 2004.
Coaches should not consider powerlifting or Olympic lifting as being better or worse than the other but rather as two pieces of the puzzle working together to enhance athletic performance as stated by Chui. “Rather than one or the other, it is the combination of both maximal strength training and explosive weight training, in a sequenced manner, that will elicit the best results for the strength and condition professional” (Chui 2007).
Sabatini: Within Olympic lifting, there are other facets of training that should be incorporated in order to address all components of performance enhancement. When considering that the sole purpose of the training is to enhance athletic performance, one must also consider all other attributes that my play a significant role in attaining that lofty goal. This includes training for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength and training the mechanics of sprinting, changing direction, and any sport-specific adaptations that are demanded. Since Olympic lifting is the primary method of training being utilized in order to optimize training performance enhancements, the athlete must follow a well-rounded strength and conditioning program with a wide variety of demands.
Conclusion
In a perfect world, all facets of training (i.e. power, strength, speed, agility, balance, and conditioning) would be incorporated into an athletic strength and conditioning program. Therefore, both methodologies (powerlifting and Olympic lifting) are important entities for the development of athletes. “Weightlifting (Olympic lifting) and powerlifting should not be considered competing but rather complimentary methodologies” (Chiu 2007). A well-rounded training program should not be limited to only one area of emphasis but rather should incorporate all components that are specific to the athlete’s sport or activity. Although the philosophy of training may be different, the goal of training athletes should be the same. Enhancing performance and reducing injury should always be the centerpiece of a strength and conditioning program (Baechle & Earle 2000). In conclusion, the adaptation of both major training methodologies could illicit a greater return because both parameters are being trained (maximum strength and power). It is the inclusion and variation of training variables that will give added benefit to the athlete versus the exclusion and elimination of competing methodologies and standards.
Definitions
1. Explosive strength: The ability to exert maximal forces in minimal time (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006, p. 228).
2. Maximum strength: A measure of the maximal voluntary isometric muscular force which can be produced without a time limit or limit to the amount of weight lifted (Siff, 2003, p. 106).
3. Absolute strength: The maximum strength that can be produced by an athlete irrespective of body mass (Siff, 2003, p. 1).
4. Plyometrics: Muscle lengthening under tension with the external forces acting in the same direction as the motion. Also known as eccentric muscle action (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006, p. 228).
References
- Baechle T, Earle R (2000) Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
- Chiu LZF (2007) Powerlifting Versus Weightlifting for Athletic Performance. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 29 (5):55–57.
- Gambetta Vern (2007) Athletic Development: The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pg. 188–89.
- Hoffman, et. al (2004) Comparison of Olympic vs. Traditional Power Lifting Training Programs in Football Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18:129–35.
- Hori N, Stone MH (2004) Weightlifting Exercises Enhance Athletic Performance That Requires High-Load Speed Strength. Strength and Conditioning Journal 27(4):50–55.
- Kawamori N, Haff G (2004) The Optimal Training Load For The Development of Muscular Power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18(3):681.
- Mcbride, et.al (1999) A Comparison of Strength and Power Characteristics Between Power Lifters, Olympic Lifters, and Sprinters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13(1):1.
- Piper TJ, Erdmann LD (1998) A Combined Weightlifting/ Powerlifting Program. Strength and Conditioning Journal 19:15–16.
- Siff MC (2003) Supertraining. 6th ed. Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute, pg. 145.
- Simmons L (2001) Explosive Power and Strength. Retrieved: June 28, 2008 from http://www.westsidebarbell.com/Articles%20Top%20Ten/PDF.Files/01PDF/Explosive%20Power%20And%20Strength.pdf.
- Simmons L (2005) Reactive Methods. Retrieved: June 28, 2008 from http://www.westsidebarbell.com/Articles%20Top%20Ten/PDF.Files/05PDF/REACTIVE%20METHODS.pdf.
- Simmons L (2006) Explosive Leg Strength. Retrieved: June 28, 2008 from http://www.westsidebarbell.com/Articles%20Top%20Ten/PDF.Files/06PDF/Explosive_leg_strength_NOV06.pdf.
- Wenzel RR, Perfetto EM (1992) The Effect of Speed Versus Non-speed Training in Power Development. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 6(2):82–87.
- Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ (2006) Science and Practice of Strength Training. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Philip Louis Sabatini, CSCS, is a strength and conditioning coach at the Virginia Military Institute. His main priority is working with the VMI football program. Before coming to VMI, he was a graduate assistant at Ohio University in the area of strength and conditioning.
Monte Richard Sparkman Jr., is a lecturer of physical education at the Virginia Military Institute. He is a nationally ranked powerlifter who also coaches the VMI powerlifting team.
PDF 
Jack B. Johnson Jr., PhD, CSCS, is an assistant professor of physical education at the Virginia Military Institute. He has also spent 12 years as a strength and conditioning coach at Radford University, Virginia Tech, and VMI. 
Why does it have to be one or the other? They’re athletes not powerlifters, or olympic lifters. Why not have, like, a westside template with cleans and snatchs being max effort movements?
I agree with Bob. When my snatches and cleans stall, I look to make gains in front squats, back squats, and deads. When my O-lift numbers go up, I feel a lof faster coming out of the hole on squats and such. I’s also important, IMO, to balance all the internal rotation from benching with external rotation movements such as the snatch. This could be achieved with DB/KB snatches. You don’t necessarily need the full O-lifts to get the benefit of that type of training. Hang or hang/power versions are much easier to teach. So are DB/KB variations. Plyos apply, like it was said in this article. Look at kettlebelll sport. Train to Master of Sport in the long cycle, the jerk, and/or snatch with the 32 kg bells, and tell me you’re not going to be one strong, explosive, well conditioned SOB.
BTW, on danjohn.net, there’s an article on the overhead squat. It talks about getting to 15 reps bodyweight on the OHS, that it makes you one piece, an animal. I’m trying to get there myself, and see how everything else goes.
After 25 years of lifting, the definitions of Absolute and Maximum Strength still confuse me. I’ve heard people use one or the other term and figured it was Toe-mayto/ Toe-mahto.
Maybe someone can more clearly explain the difference. Or, give an example of an exercise that demonstrates each one.
I can’t really see anywhere where the olifting coach has justified the use of olympic lifts. He just keeps beating on this strawman that nobody outside of olympic lifting trains in a dynamic way. Any lift can be dynamic if you train it with appropriate resistance (and possibly accomodating resistance), and there’s plenty of lifts you can train dynamically with less technical difficulty and injury risk than the olympic lifts.
This is a fantastic article. In total agreement that both regimens are beneficial. Additionally, power cleans and kettlebell swings and snatches make nice complements to the “Big 3″.
If it makes you stronger, it works!
A lot of ways to skin a cat.
The article concluded with Sparkman and Sabatini as well as the author agreeing that many methods must be utilized.
Reading the article would have helped.
Good Article!! I have done both powerlifting and olympic lifting, which is leagues more difficult. Your vertical increases and overall athleticism. Powerlifting doesn’t really give you much functional strength like the olympic movements or strongman. I really think a combo of strongman and olympic lifts would be perfect. Powerlifting lost it’s way in the squat turning it into a good morning basically.
Great read!
shoulder impingement, pre existing mobility and stability issues, injuries sustained in the field of play, and individuals enjoyment
several reasons why one may be better than the other – FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
I am a powerlifter, but i believe both are different, not one better than the other. I think powerlifting is better for me due to impingement syndrome and i enjoy powerlifting more.
I think a football player that hates O lifts but loves board pressed and box squats will get better results in PL than O. And vice versa if the situation is reversed.
My point is – Different, not better or worse
dis is a great article were does strongman training for example stone lifting and tire flipping, super yoke carries and pulling sleds and pushing prowlers fall into the mix?
Still blows my mind that the argument ‘oly lifts are too complicated, sport of its own, etc.’ Is still being used. There are simple progressions to teaching a younger or older athlete how to perform the movement and frankly I can get most of my kids doing hang snatches within their first month.
As far as risk any lift comes with risk. I’ve hurt myself benching more than cleaning. The coach just needs to be critical with their athletes on form. Unfortunately I was more or less self educated and probably could have saved myself a lot of injuries if I had a decent coach around. That’s mostly why I do what I do now.
Anyways, I. Incorporate both methods and have success with both. The struggle is balance.I find when we go oly heavy then we become more dynamic and fast but not as strong or defined but when I take a more powerlifting style we get strong as hell and muscular. There’s a lot of tools in the box and in the end they all build the same thing. I’m more partial to oly lifts but definitly doesn’t mean i ignore the traditional lifts.
Good article.
Football players should not be using all of the gadgets that geared lifters are using. They should olympic squat, bench, deadlift, ohp, and do chins. Everything else is gravy. Oly lifting is not needed, athletes can do box jumps and return with great results. Look at Defranco, and Chad Wesley Smith, the two best strength and conditioning coaches in the world. Neither have them doing the oly lifts.
@UTSC no disrespect but Defranco isn’t a strength coach. He’s a private strength and conditioning personal trainer. He has been around a very long time and gets great results, but he doesn’t work in a school setting with hundreds of athletes at a time. Chad is also a private trainer and has only been in business a year or two. He’s far from being one of the best strength trainers in his town – let alone the world. I’d be surprised if he has worked with more athletes than ebooks sold. I’m sure in time he’ll be good but to say he is 1 of the best is a disservice to those who really are. There are many other coaches far better than these two that use Oly lifts.
I’ve been powerlifting for about six years now. A couple of years ago I was approached by a local weightlifting coach hoping to recruit me to train Olympic lifts with him. I was intrigued, until he made a comment along the lines of “Yeah, we’ll get you away from that powerlifting bullshit.” I walked away and haven’t talked to him sense. Not only did he turn me off from the idea of training with him, I felt that as a representative of the weightlifting community, he turned me off from the sport completely for a long time.
I’m sure there are weightlifters with similar stories about powerlifting gurus. I think we should encourage debate over the multitude of training schools and their benefit for athletes. But don’t dismiss anything somebody loves enough to train year-round, 12-20 hours a week as “bullshit.” You’re not going to make any converts.
@Paul can you name some of the coaches that are better than defranco that use olympic lifts? The point isn’t that olympic lifts are useless or necessary. It’s just that they are time consuming to teach, olympic lifting is a sport in itself and athletes have several things that they need to learn which pertain to their sport, let’s not add the olympic lifts to that. Not only this, but imagine a strength coach with 20 athletes at once trying to etach olympic lifts to all of them at the same time. You then get crappy form like you see in many football programs. Leave the olympic lifts to olympic lifters. You can get the same benefits with different methods and in safer and more economical ways.
I have trained with both the top olympic lifters and powerlifters in my country.
I can confidently say that olympic lifting is the best training for atheletes.
Several of the top athletes in my country also compete in olympic lifting.
The problem is that athletes have to train together with good olympic lifters because you need their feedback on every rep or you are wasting your time.
When you train with good olympic lifters you realise pretty quickly that they are generally stronger.
whats the difference between watching shitty hang clean technique versus shitty back squat or deadlift technique?
how many videos recently on this site have been devoted to teaching someone to squat properly. it would seem to me that the squat is pretty technical as well.
if you follow a sound teaching PROGRESSION then training Oly lifts isnt as difficult as some would lead you to believe. the problem is that we are a NOW society and everyone wants results NOW. but any good coah ive talked to knows that these qualities take time to develop.
isnt wendler’s program based around, in essence, patience?
i see no reason why you cannot incorporate both philosophies intor your training.
“Still blows my mind that the argument ‘oly lifts are too complicated, sport of its own, etc.’ Is still being used. There are simple progressions to teaching a younger or older athlete how to perform the movement and frankly I can get most of my kids doing hang snatches within their first month.”
A month of absolutely zero progression in any meaningful attribute other than the ability to do a technically complex lift? Personally I’d rather have an athlete spend a session or two learning to so some more basic lifts and jumps and spend the next month adding weight to their lifts and height to their jumps. I know which gains would be more useful as an athlete too; more strength and jumping ability is obviously going to make a better athlete. Nothing to show for a month of training other than the ability to do a cool trick? Not so much.
>isnt wendler’s program based around, in essence, patience?
There’s a difference between being conservative with weight increases and dicking around for a whole month with nothing to show for it other than the ability to do a technical lift that trains nothing better than many less technical movements.
what you call “dicking around” i call coaching. we can spend some time learning basic clean technique at the beginning of each workout and still get to the meat and potatoes of a sound workout program. do you train athletes? have you ever designed a program? my program doesnt allow for a “whole month and nothing to show for it.” each training session the athlete becomes more proficient at what is being taught. its all about repetition. besides, im not training athletes to snatch 140k for a meet.
i could argue that i am conservative with weight increases for the OLY lifts as well. what’s the difference if im conservative with a hang clean versus conservative with a back squat?
my teams dont win or lose games because we hang clean.
I thought there were three methods to develop strength: Maximal Effort, Dynamic Effort and Repetition Effort. Shouldn’t one find for himself and the people he/she coaches/trains the best means to these ends?
What is wrong with using both? Why can’t one do box jumps, followed by an oly lift, followed by squats/deads, followed by some assistance work? In my experience, if volume/intensity are set appropriately and an athlete’s GPP is up to par, this is ideal. The speed movements prime the nervous system for the heavier loads to follow. No warm up will do for a set of deads/squats what some box jumps and cleans/snatches will do. Unless you’re traning specifically for power/oly lifting, It’s not one versus the other; it’s a mix and match to get the best of both worlds. Both work. Variety of stimulus is the key to continual adaptation.
@Craig:
>what you call “dicking around” i call coaching
Yeah, coaching a highly technical skill with no direct relevance to their sport. I’d call that dicking around.
>we can spend some time learning basic clean technique at the beginning of each workout and still get to the meat and potatoes of a sound workout program
So why bother with the clean work at all if you concede it’s perfectly possible to train without using the olifts?
>besides, im not training athletes to snatch 140k for a meet.
Which is precisely why you shouldn’t be wasting time teaching them a whole other sport.
>i could argue that i am conservative with weight increases for the OLY lifts as well. what’s the difference if im conservative with a hang clean versus conservative with a back squat?
I don’t think I ever said there was anything wrong with Wendler telling people to be conservative with progression, just that there’s a big difference between being conservative with adding weight so you don’t stall and being conservative in spending an entire month learing an unnecessary exercise.
Really this whole article is pretty silly. It seems to presume that “training like a powerlifter” consists of nothing but doing 1rm squat bench and deadlifts, and that there is no way to train dynamically without resporting to the olifts. When you realise how silly these assumptions are, the article kind of falls apart.
This is a great article with a lot of great feedback. One thing to consider is that we are discussing the training of ATHLETES, not Olympic lifters or powerlifters. I agree that both methodologies must be used to properly develop an athlete, and neither one should stand on its own. The main objective is not just maximum strength or explosive strength. There are many other qualities involved, but all should be targeted toward the ultimate goal of improved athleticism. What’s more athletic than the Olympic snatch? It’s the most athletic thing you can do with a barbell. Take a load from the floor to overhead in one fast, fluid movement. By their nature, O-lifts are fast movements, but this doesn’t mean they can’t be heavy. It can be both. Instead of focusing on the specific qualities we are trying to develop, we should focus on the end goal of athleticism. Incorporate all methods to make the individual a better athlete. Don’t dismiss a method because you hear its too difficult to teach.
Adam Frost, every single argument you are using against olympic lifts can be equally used for squats. Squatting is just dicking around right? Technical movement with no applicability to their sport right?
Don’t be so dogmatic. Everything has its place.
>Don’t dismiss a method because you hear its too difficult to teach.
Nobody is using that as a standalone argument. The problem is that olympic lifts, assuming they are taught correctly (even enough olympic lifters themselves often never perfect them after dedicating their lives to them), don’t train anything you can’t train with simpler movements. Being difficult to teach doesn’t automatically make something a bad form of training, but this coupled with the fact other easier to teach options can do the same thing does.
Nothing does what the olympic lifts do in quite the same way or as effectively. Keep drinking the kool aid though. Simpler movements can do similar things but nothing comes close to olympic lifts in power development.
There is a reason guys like James Smith and DeFranco in general don’t use Olympic lifts. It is absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of those movements. If presented with an athlete who was very proficient in the Olympic lifts already I guarantee you they would use them. The reason they in general do not use them is no reason to dismiss them outright and to do so would be folly.
I find it interesting that the Oly coach’s main argument justifying olympic lifting as valid for training athletes is the speed of the movements and power development. Its as if he has never heard of speed squats. Conjugate template with some mobility work, box jump variations and maybe an extra emphasis on speed work, while practicing the sport your actually training for is all you need.
@Adam Frost: Wouldn’t teaching more complex movements be appropriate in the development of an athlete? Though one might prefer not to use oly lifts, one cannot deny that they are complex movements which contribute to the overall athleticism of an individual. So,yes you can use alternative training methods to train explosiveness, which in their simplicity may be more effective depending on the the ability of the coach and other factors. But, in the end, the more complex movement, the better we develop the athlete. Complexity (simple to complex) and variety (multiple stimuli/exercises) along a continuum will be best for developing the overall athlete. Just as we encourage adolescent athletes to participate in a variety of sporting activities (to develop well rounded motor skills) and not focus on one sport, we should also embrace variety in training techniques/methods. That’s why this PL vs OL argument is so stale to me.
Pretty simple solution to this debate:
Pull up a Youtube video of Coach Sabatini and then Coach Sparkman. Ask yourself which athlete you would rather have playing on your team.
i guess i would wonder then, Adam, what relevance the bench press has to their sport? the back squat? the deadlift? i mean, how often are swimmers bending over and picking up something heavy off the floor or laying flat on a bench and pressing weight off their chest?
ive yet to see a sport other than powerlifting where one is asked to place a heavy resistance on their back.
i think the majority of people on here agree that both methodologies serve a great purpose in training. i know i utilize both and my athletes strength/speed/explosiveness/whatever has not been compromised because we olympic lift.
@ Steve Rogers, excellent find there!!!!! I’m not a big advocate of judging a coach by their looks but i gotta say Sabatini is a beast!!!!
Also i enjoyed the constant argument by Sparkmen and others in the comments that unless your training to be an olympic lifter you shouldn’t use the lifts as they are a sport in their own right and therefore demand a large time investment to learn. Therefore you should do powerlifting style lifts instead, when powerlifting is a sport as well. In fact Sabatini is a competitive weightlifter who does S&C coaching for Football, where as Sparkman, according to the intro, is a compeitive powerlifter, that coaches powerlifters to compete in powerlifting as a sport.
I really don’t care what any other coaches do, to each his own. I’m comfortable coaching the Oly lifts and use them when the athlete is capable of learning them and i have the time to invest in coaching them. This is why i COACH, sometimes though they struggle with technique or previous injuries or i don’t see them enough to warrant their use and i go for more basic variations. Its strange to me that this argument still has to take place, use what you feel comfortabl coaching and then let your athletes do the talking on the field. If your getting it right, they’ll perform, if your not you’ll probably need to rethink fast or lose your job.
Just my 10cents! Rhys
There is room for both in the training of ATHLETES. If you train to be a powerlifter, you will be a powerlifter. Maybe not the best thing for an athlete. To quote Wendler from 531.
” The point, however, is this: I was fat and out of shape. And even though I’d recently squatted 1000 pounds, I really wasn’t strong. I couldn’t move, and I couldn’t use this strength for anything other than waddling up to a monolift and squatting.”
Not that oly is the end all either. If you spend enough time perfecting your technique to be able to use heavy weight, that’s all you’ll have time for. The sport you want to improve will suffer for it.
Use a combo of power and oly lifting and spend most of your time on the sport your playing. I know that with football, MMA and field events, there is a lot more going on than just strength.
@PaulD
>Adam Frost, every single argument you are using against olympic lifts can be equally used for squats.
Incredibly technical movement that takes months to train to anything remotely approaching good technique? Nope.
Puts the body in awkward positions for the joints like the rack phase of the clean? Nope.
Can be replaced by simpler and safer lifts for the same results? Nope.
>There is a reason guys like James Smith and DeFranco in general don’t use Olympic lifts. It is absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of those movements. If presented with an athlete who was very proficient in the Olympic lifts already I guarantee you they would use them.
http://www.defrancostraining.com/ask_joe/archives/ask_joe_03-09-05.htm#question02
I gave you a choice between power snatches & box squats. I feel both work. If you’re not skilled in Olympic lifting, I strongly encourage you to box squat. It’s not worth the time to learn the Olympic lifts with all of the other aspects of training you have to perform. Learning to box squat is much faster & easier. If done correctly, it’s also a great exercise! (In my opinion, it’s even better than the Olympic lifts.)
@Nick:
Exacly what I’ve been saying.
@Josh:
>Though one might prefer not to use oly lifts, one cannot deny that they are complex movements which contribute to the overall athleticism of an individual. So,yes you can use alternative training methods to train explosiveness, which in their simplicity may be more effective depending on the the ability of the coach and other factors. But, in the end, the more complex movement, the better we develop the athlete.
I disagree that there is any inherent benefit to “complexity” in training. You could make a power snatch even more “complex” by doing it standing on a medicine ball, but this wouldn’t train anything other than your recovery ability in your hospital bed after you injure yourself!
Yes frequently more complexity means better results (i.e. free weights vs. machines), but it is fallicious to assume from this that complexity in and of itself offers anything other than difficulty training properly.
@Craig:
>i guess i would wonder then, Adam, what relevance the bench press has to their sport? the back squat? the deadlift? i mean, how often are swimmers bending over and picking up something heavy off the floor or laying flat on a bench and pressing weight off their chest?
Nothing in the gym directly mimics what you do as an athlete. Your strength becomes functional when you build it appropriately in the weight room and apply it to your chosen sport.
>ive yet to see a sport other than powerlifting where one is asked to place a heavy resistance on their back.
And I’ve yet to see a sport other than olympic lifting where one is asked to lift a barbell overhead. Neither training regeime will have technical carryover to sports, what we’re interested in is what is easier and more effective at building strength/power which we can then apply in our chosen sports.
easier is a subjective term. i find it easy to teach both. you may find it difficult. to each his own.
Honestly, while using both methods are effective, Strongman training for most athletes is superior. It’s easier to learn and provides the athlete with much more movement. Tire flipping, keg carries, loading, repetitive deadlifting all have close correlations to sports. Learning to tun with 225lbs in each hand will make you a faster football player than any stationary lifts.
Monte my man, you hit the nail on the head. Great explanations and reasoning. I dont discard olympic lifting as I certainly think there is a time and place for everything and the biggest statement you made above that should be pointed out to many strength coaches who use exclusively olympic lifting in their programs, especially at the High school level, is this
“Too many strength and conditioning coaches are quick to implement Olympic lifting methods into their training programs without first developing an athlete with a strong foundation of absolute strength training”
There are far too numerous high school coaches in my area that are implementing olympic lifting with athletes who have zero or very little foundation to begin with. The training age of the athlete must be taken into consideration with all methods, but the highly technical lifts in olympic lifting is a bit much for most young high school kids to be using when they have no foundation to work from. College athletes obviously should have a bit more foundation to work with and I can see the validity in using olympic lifts to some extent but I am still firmly of the belief that a powerlifting based program is superior. I have yet to see a kid who squats and deadlifts not get faster or more explosive using powerlifting methods, unless they are flat out loafing in the weightroom.
@Mike:
I suppose that this article kind of strawmans the powerlifting position as NOTHING BUT 1RM ATTEMPTS ERRYDAY, but I certainly think
>repetitive deadlifting
can be considered “powerlifting training”. As a side note I’ve heard of strongmen doing minimal training in this regard as low reps are a safer way to pull in training and will still have the carryover for reps.
Though definately I think many strongmen type movements can be incorporated into the training of an athlete.
It’s not the lifts that are being performed but the way one performs the lifts that develop the types of strength desired. Example: speed sq on the box or max effort sq. The question is, what gives you the best bang for the buck with the smallest learning curve.
I am a NCAA Division 1 athlete, who has trained in the off season with both a Powerlifting coach and an Olympic Weightlifting coach. My main sport is Ski Racing, which requires the ability to develop enormous power in the lower body and core, and upper body strength to aid in dynamic balance at high speeds.
2 seasons ago, I started an offseason strength and conditioning program based on Powerlifting movements. By the next winter, I was able to squat and deadlift 700 lbs, and benchpress 425 lbs, all raw.
Want to know what the carryover to my racing was: NOTHING! I was no faster, or more explosive out on the hill.
This past off season season, I decided to hook up with a local Olympic Lifting coach. The Snatch and C&J are really not that hard to learn if done with the proper progression. Over the next 9 months, I got my Snatch up to 135k and the C&J up to 166k.
On my first day gate training on the snow, I noticed a HUGE difference in explosive power and dynamic balance from the previous season. I am having the best season of racing in my life.
If you are an athlete in a sport the requires explosive strength and balance in dynamic situations, Olympic Lifting has it all over the Powerlifting movements.
@Mike:
Nice estats.
Also you’re thinking in terms of this silly idea the article focuses on where powerlifters can only do 1rm attempts and only oly lifters can train with speed. Get rid of this idea and the whole advocacy of olifting falls apart.
What a mind less article. I wonder how long it took Sabatini to get to a 190kg clean? You need to be very proficient in the O lifts to derive all the great benefits touted. Athlete’s don’t always have that amount of time to devout exclusively to O-lifting. Also, most athletes use terrible form and rarely get triple extension on the O-lifts, which negates many of the benefits. Using jumps,sprints, and med balls work. Develop O-lit progressions like RDL,squats, pulls until they are strong. If your not cleaning at least your bodyweight, get stronger. Use both methods, because both work. Any movement can be explosive, you should not be “married” to any one method. When will coaches realize this?
Agreed that Powerlifters are not limited to 1RM, but as the article states, they need other types of exercise in order to develop explosiveness – whereas olympic lifting develops both qualities – explosiveness and max strength in one lift. (for that speed – I accept that you may lift more weight slowly than you can at speed, but the article was about athletes and athleticism). Powerlifters are probably stronger, but olympic lifters are more powerful, better sprint times, better vertical jump, etc.
The article quoted Zatsiorsky that strength is the foundation for power, but if you read him closely, he insists that simply increasing max strength does NOT increase the rate of force development. To get faster requires different training. So, if you want to develop speed or power you need to train for it, not just for max strength – for athletes in speed disciplines or with light implements (javelin) a diet of powerlifting and heavy lifts would be of limited use. So, even if powerlifting is the best way to train for strength it would not necessarily be the best way to continue to train for speed or explosiveness.
It should be obvious that the different exercises will impact the body differently, not just because of differences in speed or load. Overhead lifting will have a different impact on the shoulders than Bench Pressing – the body adapts to its function and the physiques of powerlifters are different from those of olympic lifters, obviously this is most clearly seen with superheavy professionals, but even with lighter lifters there is a difference in build, just as bodybuilders are built differently from javelin throwers, who differ from strongmen.
The question should not be whether olympic lifting is better than powerlifting – strictly they are both sports with their own technical complexities – but which exercises are best for the athlete and his or her event. Zatsiorsky seems to have no problem accepting that different sports will require different qualities – maximum rate of force development versus development of maximum force, or the development of muscle mass as well as efficiency – and in addition seems to accept that all sorts of exercises may have their place in the development of a particular athlete. It seems a pity that this balance has been lost in the discussion of the article.
I powerlifted for years, then joined a boxing class. Guys I could outbench with ease hit harder than I did, because they hit faster. They hit with explosive force. That’s why I started Olympic lifting. I didn’t give up power lifting, just started O-lifting once a week.
Thanks to my deadlifts, on the other hand, a funny thing happened in the boxing club. When we jogged around the room, I was always the slowest guy, but when we ran carrying people on our backs, I ran at the same speed and was the fastest guy in the club.
Do both.
@Adam Frost -
Would you not argue that someone who coaches shitty powerlifting technique would also put their athletes at risk as well? Just as you have rambled on about the “strawman” of OL being the only way to train explosiveness, you are using the “strawman” that OL is apparently impossible to teach by someone who knows what the hell they’re doing. I can honestly say I can have an athlete doing a serviceable clean within 20-30 minutes. And by serviceable, I mean good enough that they will not injure themselves, and can use for training purposes. They don’t need to master technique any more than they need to master PL technique. Obviously we continue to refine technique throughout the course of training, just as we would with any exercise. “Putting them in possibly injurious positions to catch the clean” – only if they have flexibility issues or are using shitty technique. If it’s flexibility, stretch them out, just as you would for any other lift. If it’s technique, teach them proper receiving position.
Additionally, all of your arguments suppose that the OL are being used for one reason only, to train explosiveness. However, they also require coordination, flexibility, and the ability to absorb force, in addition to the fact that the ROM far exceeds that of any of the PL.
In closing, none of these comments are meant to bash PL. I think that BOTH methods have their place in training athletes (for the most part). Perhaps you have been jaded by an experience with a coach who didn’t know what the hell they were doing when teaching the lifts? I’m glad to see spirited debate on here, but I think we need a lot more open-mindedness as well, from both sides.
@Fred:
>Agreed that Powerlifters are not limited to 1RM, but as the article states, they need other types of exercise in order to develop explosiveness
What other exercises are you referring to?
Literally any exercise can be explosive if you train with an appropriate resistance level. Yes olympic lifts are unique in that they can’t be done slowly, but I find it amazing that many coaches who think that they and their athletes are competent enough to teach or perform the olifts respectively will turn around and say that their athletes are incapable of selecting an appropriate resistance to move fast.
First of I want to say that it is good for coaches to be passionate and involved in lifting sports themselves, however, it is when they try to overlap their passion with their duties to train their athletes for non-lifting sports that things get muddy. Please read the article on here by James Smith aka. the thinker titled ” are olympic lifts necessary. It amazes to think that coaches think they can train the technical aspect of O-lifts in a short time. There seems to be a perception about many lifts being able to transfer to the field of play. Many elite coaches, who have been entrenched in their philosophy, have started changed their philosophy about using O-lifts for power development. At the very least some have modified these lifts to make them safer. There is so much proof that guys can get more explosive without having to clean and jerk, snatch, and do cleans from the floor. I’m a perfectly example. I ran a 4.4 forty (20 split was among the top 3 out of over 100 players). I verticled in the mid 30′s and had good explosiveness in drills. Trust me if I worked more on these drills, I would have improved slightly on these stats. This was long before I O-lifted. Unfortunately I ended up herniateing a disk in a O-lifting intensive football strength program doing clean and jerks. Before this I had extensive training program that focused on strength in the weight-room and worked on explosiveness out on the field. Trust me there are many others that no one hears about that have jacked their backs doing O-lifts. I have been around many pro players who are thankful to have gotten away from their college strength coaches philosophy so they could prolong their careers. Yes there are many ways to train, but it is the wise person who asks ” is this really necessary” ? , Stevan
Both methods have their place but when looking at athleticism, O-lifters are in another league. I was all about the methods Defranco uses, but after recently graduating with a degree in exercise science I was fortunate enough to learn from multiple internships. It’s surprising how many phenomenal strength coaches are out there that don’t have the popularity of people like Defranco, Wesley, Even-Esh etc. LSU has some seriously strong guys and all do O-lifts with good form. The NSCA has done research on the topic and subjects that powerlift and add jumping and plyos do not have the same numbers as those who O-lift when it comes to power tests. I honestly think some of the big name coaches just don’t know how to teach them. Most of the guys with the highest verticals and broad jumps in this years combine all use the O-lifts. Julio Jones power cleans 315.
@Brock:
>Would you not argue that someone who coaches shitty powerlifting technique would also put their athletes at risk as well?
Certainly. However it’s a lot easier to teach them properly than to teach the olifts properly.
>“Putting them in possibly injurious positions to catch the clean” – only if they have flexibility issues or are using shitty technique. If it’s flexibility, stretch them out, just as you would for any other lift. If it’s technique, teach them proper receiving position.
The thing is that for many athletes, the rack position isn’t simply difficult due to tight muscles, but is pushing the wrists to the very limit of their natural range of motion. IMO this isn’t something you want to try to exceed just to use a certain lift.
>Additionally, all of your arguments suppose that the OL are being used for one reason only, to train explosiveness. However, they also require coordination, flexibility, and the ability to absorb force
Coordination is a very skill specific thing, and the only possible aspect of coordination from olifts that would have specificity to sports is the triple extension, at which point we’re back to the fact that the vast majority of atheltes who aren’t competitive lifters don’t even train explosive triple extension.
Flexibility is another thing that is pretty specific. I’m not saying that flexibility in general is a bad thing, far from it, but it’s a pretty big leap to go from “flexibility is good” to “we should put our athletes joints in awkward positions under weight to train this”.
And you can absorb force in pretty much any lift, this, like power development, isn’t unique to olifting.
@Brenton:
>The NSCA has done research on the topic and subjects that powerlift and add jumping and plyos do not have the same numbers as those who O-lift when it comes to power tests.
I recall readign research like this too, and I found it impressive myself, until I look back now and realise that they are comparing apples and oranges. You can’t compare an explosively done olift to a max effort powerlift in terms of power, and any reasonable test would need to use things like explosive box squats or the like with appropriate resistance.
i dont think guys like defranco are as much Anti-Olympic lift as they are about utilizing what works for their situation. some of the athletes he trains, he may only get for 4-5 weeks at a time.
i train athletes where i know i will have them for a minimum of 3 years if they stay in school.if i only have 4 weeks to prep someone for the combine, i doubt id worry about Olympic Lifts either. but i have a much longer time frame to work with.
@Craig:
Defranco: “The final “clincher” for me this past year was when THREE separate Division 1 college football players entered my program with surgically-repaired wrists due to the “catch” phase of this exercise! All three of these athletes were forced to do hang cleans during their college careers and now their training will be negatively effected forever. FYI, two of the three athletes are now in the NFL and have to deal with an injury that was 100% preventable if their coaches would have provided them with safer, more logical, exercise choices!”
Doesn’t sound to me like it’s just a case of him not having enough time to teach the olifts.
Big compound movements with jumps and sprints is all you need. You think Cushing would be a lot more explosive he started to do the olympic lifts? Maybe, but you achieve a great result by doing the powerlifts with jumping like Defranco has him doing. Olympic lifts are too hard and too long to teach. Squat, dead, bench, ohp, chins, jumps and sprints. All you will ever need.
All you Randy’s are fat, too much time with Mr. Lahey.
@ Osmosis
“After 25 years of lifting, the definitions of Absolute and Maximum Strength still confuse me. I’ve heard people use one or the other term and figured it was Toe-mayto/ Toe-mahto.
Maybe someone can more clearly explain the difference. Or, give an example of an exercise that demonstrates each one.”
Osmosis, this is what helps me: I think of these two terms in powerlifting. A lifter with an awesome lifting coeffecient is going to have better absolute strength.
So take two lifters; lifter A weighs 198lbs and squats 405lbs vs the lifter B who weighs 242lbs and squats 450lbs. Lifter A has a lot better absolute strength since in comparison to his bodyweight he is moving a lot more weight comparatively speaking. Lifter B has better maximal strength since he is able to move the greater load.
Hope that helps!
I will simply state one more time that it is not the exercise that is responsible for making one more explosive. It is the the way one performs the exercise. SIMPLY PUT BEING EXPLOSIVE COMES FROM THE BRAIN. IT NEED TO BE TRAINED. BOTH TYPES OF LIFTING HAVE THERE PLACE. OLIFTING HAS A HUGE LESRNING CURVE WHICH I THINK MAKES IT LESS POPULAR
I am just a rank beginner (from the wrong side of 40 yo) in the iron game who’s been benching, squatting, & overhead pressing for a few months. I’ve never attempted any Olympic lift, and wouldn’t want to do so without serious instruction.
I go to a big powerlifting gym and it’s just impressive as hell to see guys benching 400+ and squatting 600+. Having said that, there is something about the explosive power, coordination and grace under massive weight in Olympic lifting that powerlifting can’t match. I don’t understand why anyone who’s really dedicated to being a lifetime lifter wouldn’t want to train the Olympic lifts.
For a strength coach, I think the most important thing is to understand the physical requirements for the athlete’s sport. These requirements have to do with cardiovascular, brute strength, power, muscle endurance, flexibility, and agility. One then designs a program around these requirements. Powerlifting is one way of developing brute strength. Olympic weightlifting is one way of developing power. There are also other ways of developing these physical qualities.
With but a few rare exceptions, the single most important principle of athlete development is that of specificity. One gets better at a physical activity by practicing the activity. Thus for many sports, strength training is auxiliary training, perhaps remedial in a sense. The strength coach needs to help the athlete develop and at the same time leave the athlete with sufficient physical and mental energy so that the athlete can practice his or her sport all out.
There is also a psychological aspect in that people need to feel good about the work they do in the gym. Some athletes will just enjoy doing either powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting and the wise trainer will cater to this psychological dimension.
In that sense the powerlifting vs Olympic weightlifting debate (if there really is one) is probably better left to the powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters. Trainers need to know the sport, the past experiences of the athletes, their relative weaknesses, and be willing to experiment. There is never a best way.