Is there a difference in the results that will come out of squats depending on if you do them slowly or quickly? By quickly I mean just about as quickly as you can. Exploding could be another descriptive term. And by slowly I mean... not quickly Generally taking time to do the squat (not in between squats). If clarification is needed for what I mean, let me know. Thanks in advance!
The slower the motion the longer the muscles remain under load and the more muscle fibers are recruited into the movement. The FASTER the movement is done the greater the cardio vascular demand will be as the muscles become oxygen depleted. The former is better for musclular development in a "moving heavy stuff" way, the latter is better for muscular endurance. I have a write up on lifting speeds somewhere on here... it might help.
I prefer to squat slow, pause at the bottom, then try to explode up. it works for me. its been especially good for improving front squats. before i just used them as a squat accessory with fairly light weight and just banged out 3 sets of 8 fast, but doing them the same as back squats has increased how much weight i can handle immensely and helped strengthen my core a treat too.
Yes. And which you do will depend on what you want, and how much (if any) weight you are lifting. If you are under any weight, I'd advise against going fast, as you could put excessive train on the knee joint, and cause long term damage. In which case, 'fast' would mean taking approx. 2-3 seconds, and 'slow' would mean taking approx. 5-7 seconds. If you are using no weight, then 'slow' would mean 2-3 seconds, and 'fast' would be a jump squat. As was said by Bigmikey, using weighted slow squats will develop your ability to lift heavy weights, using weighted quick squats will develop endurance (so will unweighted slow squats), and jump squats will develop explosive power as well as cardiovascular endurance. Likewise, the rep range will determine the result. 1-3 reps in a set will develop your ability to be an olympic weight lifter (that is, picking up a crap ton of weight in one go). 5-7 sculpts, and builds raw strength (compared to power). 12-20 reps builds power (compared to strength). 20+ builds local muscle endurance. If you use weights, you're rep range should be inversely proportional to your weight (higher weight, lower reps) And a final thought is your end goal. Sounds obvious, but it's not. If your goal is to improve your side kick's power, I've told you enough. But, if you're aiming for increased speed, you'll need more. Google Tabatta Protocol, and add that to your program, both in your squats (body weight) and kicks themselves. I'm sure you know most of that, but I like to cover my bases when dispensing advice.
High Intensity Training by John Philbin. And I regularly do 30 in one set of squats. It's got to be proportional to the weight you lift.
I'm not sure where you got these rep ranges from, but even by reading your own words you can see something's not copacetic. Olympic weightlifters are tremendously powerful, because they can move heavy loads very fast over distance. Because the lifts are so demanding on the CNS due to how explosive they are (thus, how much power they're producing), that's why their rep ranges are low. Doing 12-20 reps is more in the endurance range of things. These are dictated by your body's energy systems. Your ATP+PC system typically only works for efforts under 10 seconds, which would include your Olympic lifts and a 100m sprint (quick, powerful movements). Once you pass that rough 10 second mark, then you're on to your anaerobic system which typically handles activity under roughly 2 minutes. Once you cross that point, your aerobic system kicks in. This is why for the explosive lifts weightlifters typically keep the reps very low on the explosive lifts to avoid tapping too much outside of the ATP+PC system.
From the book I posted about 40 minutes ago. I'd consider Olympic lifters to be strong, but I don't know about powerful. And 12-20 reps is closer to an endurance activity then doing 1-3, but then again, doing 8 lifts is closer as well.
If you're talking in physics terms, power = work/seconds. If you move 200 pounds in 5 seconds, but someone else moves 200 pounds in 2.5 seconds, their effort is twice as powerful as yours. When an elite lifter snatches 150kg from the ground to overhead in less than a second, I would say that is significantly powerful. What would you define as powerful? That might help us see where you're coming from. As far as your reference, HIT is also based on usually one maximum set. That's all well and good, but typically people need a few sets in their training for most lifts (aside from say 20-rep squats). For Olympic lifters, since their rep ranges tend to be very low, to work at a greater volume they need several sets, 8-10 or more.
I think I need you to help me understand the difference between strength and power as you see it? From where I'm at someone that can bench 550 pounds clean with no bench shirt is pretty powerful. Likewise someone that can squat 700 pounds is again, by my definition, powerful. I don't really see a distinction between strength and power. I DO see one between strength/power and endurance in both a sense of performance as well as physiology. At 20+ reps you're relying solely on a single group of muscle fibers known as slow twitch, while virtually ignoring fast twitch muscle fibers. To attain true muscular development in its most harmonious fashion reps shouldnt really exceed 12... in fact, 8 is probably better still. Its just terribly unorthodox to claim 12-20 reps is for power and I'm not seeing how thats possible from a scientific standpoint.
Power is the ability to move a load quickly. Regardless of whether or not this is a world record (as the title claims it to be), this squat of 5,175 KG takes nearly 10 seconds. It takes me nearly 1 second to do a squat. Olympic lifting, and high weight/low rep lifting in general puts a huge amount of emphasis on building strength, with little emphasis on power. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGHxoizDkh8"]YouTube - Brent Mikesell world record squat 517,5kg !!![/ame] Well, I was going off of that book, so, if you have a complaint with it, you should take that up with Mr. Philbin, not me.
So you're equating power with speed? How fast do you think that guy could squat 10% of that weight if he wanted to?
Not really. Please dont think I'm trying to be a jackass or anything, Im just trying to come to some understanding of how you've managed to wedge a little crowbar between strength and power when in actuality they are simply different sides of the same coin. Ask yourself this: by your definitions why dont they call powerlifters strength lifters? Also by your definition, a pre-contest Bodybuilder should be considered powerful because they often train with reps at the 20+ range using a quick lifting speed. Truth is a pre-contest bodybuilder is at his weakest and lifts that way to burn off intramuscular fat while bringing a hardness and shape to the muscles. Strength and power go hand in hand. According to your description the guy in your video is strong but not powerful. At that weight I doubt anyone could meet your definition of powerful but at a lighter weight, that individual could certainly meet or exceed your definition. That doesnt make him any less strong or any more powerful. The tool remains the same, its simply the fashion in which it's used that changes. I personally can still pop up 405 on a good day when my old **** is willing to play along, and I can get a decent 3 reps. However, I can pop up 225 for 12 or more with ease... if I lacked the strength I have I couldnt handle 225 the way I can and, BECAUSE I have the strength I do at 225 I have the muscular "power" to push 405. 2 sides to the same coin. You cant have power without strength no more than I can have stamina without endurance. It's symmantics...
You're again arguing with me about something I did not come up with. Even if I did accidentally mess it up.
I would definitely call those lifts strong by any means, and at those weights they will still be powerful in a way because if you're benching 550 raw, you can easily bench say 405 explosively as well. The power output of the lifts is where the difference really shows. The Garhammer studies compared powerlifting and Olympic lifting back in the 1980s and really showed the difference between the two. A 220lb powerlifter attempting an 825 deadlift had a power output of 1274 watts (determined by Power = Velocity x Force). On the other side of the coin, a 275lb Olympic lifter who attempted a clean and jerk of 572 had a power output of almost 15,000 watts. Watts are basically joules per second, and a joule is the amount of work done by a force of one newton moving an object through a distance of one meter. As a practical example, from the Internet you can compare 1000 watts to being a gram of TNT blowing up, whereas 15,000 watts would be about half an ounce (15g) blowing up. That's a pretty significant difference.
First off, when you squat that quickly, how much weight are you using? And second off, if you agree that power is the ability to move a load quickly, then why are you saying Olympic lifting doesn't emphasize power then? The Olympic lifts are all about moving a load as quickly as possible in the clean and snatch. I'm just suggesting you branch out a bit. HIT is just one of many, many ways to train and is not gospel. HIT has its detractors and though I'm not slamming it, it is wise to see where it came from. Arthur Jones, the father of HIT, also came up with the Nautilus training system. When he was popularizing HIT he basically ignored any study that went against his and some believe the main reason why he was such an advocate of HIT is due to his Nautilus gyms. By having everyone train on a HIT routine, he could technically get them in and out of there quickly and thus get more clients. Whether this was his actual goal or not is questionable, but again things to be aware of.
