A new study with some interesting results that might apply to our weight program

[hawgon]

It seems that the muscle tissue of athletes who extensively weight train is not as strong as those who don't weight train.  Oh, guys with a lot of muscle are stronger, but only because they have a lot of muscle, not because of the quality of muscle.

If the study is borne out over the long run, it might be that training methods need to be tweaked a bit to concentrate on quality muscle instead of mere muscle mass.  A better combination of strength, quickness, and flexibility might be achieved by different methods than simply packing on the muscle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

[Atlhogfan1]

I think this may relate partially too with comments made by many former athletes who show a disdain to the 365 training/concentration on one sport generation encouraged by many of us and our generation.  7 on 7 football, AAU basketball, travel baseball...  Brian Jones made a comment on a recent CBS pregame broadcast about how ridiculous the offseason has become.  When he played, it was a time for the body to heal and relax and eat and get fat according to him.  Instead, we have kids on the Todd Marinovich robo player program in whatever sport we say they have to focus on.  The gen x generation has created this need for overachiever, perfection in the millenials.  I don't believe that is completely a good thing.  Not saying players should go off the rails in the offseason.  But too much manipulation to nature can't be a good thing. 

[hawgon]

It might explain why some of these beautifully muscled, huge, but lean looking athletes get pushed around, and out quicked by less "well conditioned" guys.

Also, it brings up the benefits of sprint training and the like.  And for football, consider that it might be better to be 295 than 325 if the gains in strength from the extra muscle mass are not great enough to offset the negatives associated with carrying around that much bulk.

[PorkRinds]

It must be really weird to spend so much time coming up with things to criticize our program about.  Now they are working out too much, and in too good of shape.  Makes sense...

[go hogues]

On the flip side, when most of the guys you sign are "project" type players who are undersized, you have to add a certain amount of mass to hopefully get them closer to a level playing field with the competition they'll be facing.

[Atlhogfan1]

It might explain why some of these beautifully muscled, huge, but lean looking athletes get pushed around, and out quicked by less "well conditioned" guys.

Also, it brings up the benefits of sprint training and the like.  And for football, consider that it might be better to be 295 than 325 if the gains in strength from the extra muscle mass are not great enough to offset the negatives associated with carrying around that much bulk.

Too much manipulation to nature.  There is a point where training and development can give a negative return.  I'm sure that is hard to determine in each athlete.  You have unique players like J Anderson was with the Hogs who went from a receiver to a top ten NFL pick at DE.  Programs want that.  Problem is that situation is unique.  I agree we need to perhaps find a better balance between size/strength and speed/athleticism with our program. 

[Razorfox]

I think you all are actually missing what it's saying. 

A similar concept applies to ants and other small creatures and how they are so strong for their sizes.  If you blew up an ant to 200 pounds, it would no longer be able to lift multiple times its body weight.  Do you think our players should be the size of ants, just so they can be strong for their size? 

[Wildhog]

I just want us to get faster.

[Atlhogfan1]

I think the OP is inferring our training program may not be focusing on the quality which IMO is a reach of an accusation. 

[BadHog]

Weightlifting does not win football games. We have figured that out at least.

[Fort Dweller]

Not quite sure if I'm recalling correctly, but I think it was the Stanford S&C coach who focused more on flexibility and quick twitch.  There was a video out there somewhere.

[Fort Dweller]

I just want us to get faster.

You see the Jordan jones video in the recruiting forum?

[Wildhog]

You see the Jordan jones video in the recruiting forum?

Not the new one, but that kid can fly.  Need another dozen like him.

[hawgon]

I think you all are actually missing what it's saying. 

A similar concept applies to ants and other small creatures and how they are so strong for their sizes.  If you blew up an ant to 200 pounds, it would no longer be able to lift multiple times its body weight.  Do you think our players should be the size of ants, just so they can be strong for their size?

Okay, is it better for a player to be 50 pounds heavier with all the attendant losses in quickness and flexibility for a 5% gain in strength.

That is the point.  I don't know what the actual numbers are, but the study does suggest that there is a tipping point where diminishing returns set in.  I don't know what it is.  I just thought it might apply to some of football weight training where it seems we've gotten awfully fixated on things like bench press maximums and squats and all that.  And by we, I mean the sport, not just the Razorbacks.

[Fort Dweller]

Not the new one, but that kid can fly.  Need another dozen like him.

He punted the ball and beat the rest of his team down there to make the tackle.

[Calling All Hogs]

I don't think this study is that surprising. It makes sense that, fiber to fiber, our core muscles (especially of power athletes such as sprinters) are stronger than the ones built in large mass by the body as an adaptation to lifting heavier weights.

[BadHog]

Bigger does not mean stronger. There is a big difference in body building versus strength training. I have no idea but it seems that this past off season was directed a lot toward getting "bigger" rather than stronger/faster.

[hawgon]

Another thing too, the "eating clean" thing they talked so much about is an appearance thing.  It isn't a performance thing.  Getting lean and ripped has absolutely nothing to do with performance.  In fact, lots of fat in your diet and all that will actually lead to better performance at times. 

[Razorfox]

Okay, is it better for a player to be 50 pounds heavier with all the attendant losses in quickness and flexibility for a 5% gain in strength.

That is the point.  I don't know what the actual numbers are, but the study does suggest that there is a tipping point where diminishing returns set in.  I don't know what it is.  I just thought it might apply to some of football weight training where it seems we've gotten awfully fixated on things like bench press maximums and squats and all that.  And by we, I mean the sport, not just the Razorbacks.

It's more complicated than that. 

1) It's up to the individual on where diminishing returns occur.
2) Weight helps in certain positions on the football field, if for no other reason because it's more weight for the other team to have to try to tackle, block, move out of their way, etc.
3) In order to get OL up to the weights that they are (not just Arkansas, but every team), fat and muscle are created.
4) Some positions on a football team are all about size, weight and brute strength/explosivenes, and some are not (even on a CBB coached team). 

[Razorfox]

Bigger does not mean stronger. There is a big difference in body building versus strength training. I have no idea but it seems that this past off season was directed a lot toward getting "bigger" rather than stronger/faster.

We have several key players that trained to get smaller this off-season, so you and others are reaching. 

[hawgon]

It's more complicated than that. 

1) It's up to the individual on where diminishing returns occur.
2) Weight helps in certain positions on the football field, if for no other reason because it's more weight for the other team to have to try to tackle, block, move out of their way, etc.
3) In order to get OL up to the weights that they are (not just Arkansas, but every team), fat and muscle are created.
4) Some positions on a football team are all about size, weight and brute strength/explosivenes, and some are not (even on a CBB coached team).

In all honesty, I will take quickness over every other aspect assuming the levels in things like size and strength are adequate. 

[ricepig]

We have several key players that trained to get smaller this off-season, so you and others are reaching. 

Haters gonna hate....

[Razorfox]

In all honesty, I will take quickness over every other aspect assuming the levels in things like size and strength are adequate. 

So we just need to recruit 85 cornerbacks?  I only ask because I'm pretty sure they are generally the "quickest" position. 

[colbs]

Not the new one, but that kid can fly.  Need another dozen like him.

Need more speed on the defense especially at LB.

[Wildhog]

Need more speed on the defense especially at LB.

Definitely.

[Southpointhog]

It seems that the muscle tissue of athletes who extensively weight train is not as strong as those who don't weight train.  Oh, guys with a lot of muscle are stronger, but only because they have a lot of muscle, not because of the quality of muscle.

If the study is borne out over the long run, it might be that training methods need to be tweaked a bit to concentrate on quality muscle instead of mere muscle mass.  A better combination of strength, quickness, and flexibility might be achieved by different methods than simply packing on the muscle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

This here is one of the dumbest threads yet!  Period!!  Herb is a highly educated strength and conditioning coach.  I have my colleges strength and conditioning certification and I know that this is digging deep to find something to complain about!'

This has almost left me speechless....its not Herb, its your ignorance on the subject as a whole.

[Razorfox]

I would suggest that all of you look at a side-by-side picture of an elite sprinter and an elite marathon runner.  One carries more muscle/weight than the other, but certainly is also stronger and quicker. 

[devildoghawg]

Some of the most ridiculous athletes I've ever encountered during my time in the Marine Corps weren't the ripped up hulks walking around, but the average Joes.  I could do 20 pull ups, 100 sit ups in 2 minutes, and ran a 17.10 3 mile and never had a six pack.  Sometimes overtraining does far more harm than good.

[Tyro3]

Somebody needs to tell coach Herb he's doing it all wrong!

[DeltaBoy]

When I played we were on our own to do the following during the summer break.
push ups, set up's jumping jacks 4 x 25  daily with 2 days off.
run 10 wind sprints per day
jog 2 miles per a day 5 times a week max. 
Take 1 week a month off.
Lift 3 times a week Upper body Mornings and Lower afternoons.
Captains had to report 2 weeks before 2 a days started to watch film for the season.

We didn't have this year around stuff like now.
Most of my weight lifting was doing construction work or throwing hay.

[Hogarusa]

This thread is hilarious

[WorfHog]

Somebody needs to tell coach Herb he's doing it all wrong!

Better draw straws.

[hawgon]

Some of the most ridiculous athletes I've ever encountered during my time in the Marine Corps weren't the ripped up hulks walking around, but the average Joes.  I could do 20 pull ups, 100 sit ups in 2 minutes, and ran a 17.10 3 mile and never had a six pack.  Sometimes overtraining does far more harm than good.

I've seen crusty old 30 something E-7s smoking Marlboro Reds right up to the last second before the two mile run, go out and run two 6:30 minute miles, and then come in and fire one up almost the instant they cross the finish line.

But yeah, in general the skinny little dudes would kick everyone's asses at PT. 

[BallHog1]

It must be really weird to spend so much time coming up with things to criticize our program about.  Now they are working out too much, and in too good of shape.  Makes sense...

This..thank you.

[hawgon]

So we just need to recruit 85 cornerbacks?  I only ask because I'm pretty sure they are generally the "quickest" position.

What part of "providing size and strength are adequate" did you miss?  So, applying logic, that means that I would take a quick 295 pound offensive lineman over a 330 road grader any day of the week.

[bennyl08]

I think you all are actually missing what it's saying. 

A similar concept applies to ants and other small creatures and how they are so strong for their sizes.  If you blew up an ant to 200 pounds, it would no longer be able to lift multiple times its body weight.  Do you think our players should be the size of ants, just so they can be strong for their size?

Somebody watched ant man this summer.

True, if you blew up an ant to be 200 pounds, it would no longer be as proportionately strong, but that is because it would be dead. The body's volume increases faster than the surface area. Insects don't breathe, they just have tiny holes in their exoskeleton to diffuse oxygen and such. The ant would suffocate at that size, not to mention it's legs would no longer be able to support the body.

[HognVA]

Geeeez we need to win a game.....

[Razorfox]

Somebody watched ant man this summer.

True, if you blew up an ant to be 200 pounds, it would no longer be as proportionately strong, but that is because it would be dead. The body's volume increases faster than the surface area. Insects don't breathe, they just have tiny holes in their exoskeleton to diffuse oxygen and such. The ant would suffocate at that size, not to mention it's legs would no longer be able to support the body.

Actually I haven't seen the movie, but have read about it long ago somewhere else.  In fact, here is a link that discusses it:

http://www.ftexploring.com/think/superbugs_p2.html

[NuttinItUp]

It seems that the muscle tissue of athletes who extensively weight train is not as strong as those who don't weight train.  Oh, guys with a lot of muscle are stronger, but only because they have a lot of muscle, not because of the quality of muscle.

If the study is borne out over the long run, it might be that training methods need to be tweaked a bit to concentrate on quality muscle instead of mere muscle mass.  A better combination of strength, quickness, and flexibility might be achieved by different methods than simply packing on the muscle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

I know lots of MMA fighters have started getting away from weight training because they feel it slows them down.

Basically, the thought process is that you should build muscles doing whatever it is that you want the muscles to do. So, if you build muscles while punching/grappling/etc. then those are the more beneficial muscles and allow you to move quicker.

Lifting weights just makes you better at.....lifting more weights.

[Razorfox]

I know lots of MMA fighters have started getting away from weight training because they feel it slows them down.

Basically, the thought process is that you should build muscles doing whatever it is that you want the muscles to do. So, if you build muscles while punching/grappling/etc. then those are the more beneficial muscles and allow you to move quicker.

Lifting weights just makes you better at.....lifting more weights.

This is why I'm a huge fan of Crossfit.  It's a combination of a little bit of everything; some weights (both Olympic lifting for explosiveness, but also some deadlifts/squats/bench for brute strength), some high intensity cardio with plyometrics and gymnastics mixed in. 

I'm probably 15 pounds lighter than I was at my heaviest when I focused almost purely on lifting, but I'm certainly as explosive and quicker. 

[aar0n]

I think you all are actually missing what it's saying. 

A similar concept applies to ants and other small creatures and how they are so strong for their sizes.  If you blew up an ant to 200 pounds, it would no longer be able to lift multiple times its body weight.  Do you think our players should be the size of ants, just so they can be strong for their size? 

It sure would be hard to find those ants in the turf.  Now the next question: can we use footballs relative to the size of our "players," or do we have to stick with the NCAA official football?  Our recruiting from here on out depends on the answer. 

[Ash]

This is well known in powerlifting. The type of muscle created by 'bodybuilding' type workouts where you are using high reps and lower weight breaks down the muscle that then rebuilds itself with more fibers than before making bigger muscles. Using very low reps and very high weight you stress the CNS more and will increase the efficiency of your muscle use.

[HeismanHawg]

First off. This article is a joke. It also uses the term "bodybuilder" which have steroid inflated muscles filled with water and blood. They do un godly amounts of volume to fill the muscles. They eat like cattle. They aren't even "human". It does not use the term "athlete" or "football player" to compare to "wimps". There are a million studies confirming the benefits of weight training. As well as the strengthening of the tendons and increasing bone density. Lets all pump the breaks on the "less is more" attitude.

[jvanhorn]

So we just need to recruit 85 cornerbacks?  I only ask because I'm pretty sure they are generally the "quickest" position. 

Didn't Frank Broyles recruit high school quarterbacks by the handful and then turn the majority into position players?

[S.A.D.C]

Another thing too, the "eating clean" thing they talked so much about is an appearance thing.  It isn't a performance thing.  Getting lean and ripped has absolutely nothing to do with performance.  In fact, lots of fat in your diet and all that will actually lead to better performance at times.

The fact that you put "eating clean" in quotations as if it is some type of mythological concept shows you are ignorant as to what they mean.  Eating clean isn't an appearance thing at all.  It isn't about "getting lean and ripped" at all

It is about learning and consuming the calories you need to achieve your goals (and for these guys I can promise you that is rarely ever a calorie defect a.k.a diet or "getting ripped").  It is about learning how to get the macro-nutrients (fat, carbs, protein)  in the correct ratios and the correct form.  You are right- lots of fat can be really healthy.  But its a lot better for it to come from an avocado than if it comes from a Twinkie. 

A lot of these kids come from low-income homes.  It is a fact that in general lower-income households have less education on nutrition.  They have more access to cheap foods that are highly processed.  This program has a LOT OF issues right now... teaching them to eat clean is certainly not one of them. 

[jneal56]

Another thing too, the "eating clean" thing they talked so much about is an appearance thing.  It isn't a performance thing.  Getting lean and ripped has absolutely nothing to do with performance.  In fact, lots of fat in your diet and all that will actually lead to better performance at times. 

This is an ignorant statement. Eating clean improves performance as well as helps prevent injuries. Dropping body fat and getting leaner is just a result of eating clean. Yes there are good fats and bad fats. Eating clean involves eating the good fats. Oreo cookies, (my favorite), are not good fats.

Ridiculous statement by someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the physiology of the human body. I can assure you that the dietary and strength and conditioning programs are not why we are losing. It's simple fundamentals. Eliminate all penalties and we are 4-0. Simple as that. Games may not have had the score we liked but 4-0 is pretty no matter how you look at it.

[WorfHog]

Didn't Frank Broyles recruit high school quarterbacks by the handful and then turn the majority into position players?

I'm sure that strat will work great in today's transfer happy world.

[jneal56]

This is well known in powerlifting. The type of muscle created by 'bodybuilding' type workouts where you are using high reps and lower weight breaks down the muscle that then rebuilds itself with more fibers than before making bigger muscles. Using very low reps and very high weight you stress the CNS more and will increase the efficiency of your muscle use.

There are two types of growth of the muscles called hypertrophy and hyperplasia. Hypertrophy is what they are talking about in the article. Hypertrophy means that the muscle fibers are getting larger. Hyperplasia is when the muscle fibers actually increase in numbers. I am speaking of skeletal muscle and not cardiac or smooth muscle.

Bodybuilders generally are only interested in hypertrophy. Powerlifters and strongmen alike are more interested in getting stronger and can care less if their muscles get larger or not. The latest studies in the past 7-10 years say that hyperplasia is attainable in skeletal muscle under extreme loads of weight. The old way of thinking was hyperplasia in skeletal miscle was impossible.

Our strength and conditioning program focusses on strength and not getting huge. These guys are recruited huge already so of course they're going to weigh more. Hell a couple of the lineman list weight this past offseason. Explosion and power is what our athletes work on as well as conditioning.

High reps lower weights do help strengthen ligaments and tendons, which in turn helps prevent injury. A good pogram does both.

[Overtheroadtruckdriver]

Love these types of threads.  So many experts...most of them wrong.

[BPsTheMan]

It seems that the muscle tissue of athletes who extensively weight train is not as strong as those who don't weight train.  Oh, guys with a lot of muscle are stronger, but only because they have a lot of muscle, not because of the quality of muscle.

If the study is borne out over the long run, it might be that training methods need to be tweaked a bit to concentrate on quality muscle instead of mere muscle mass.  A better combination of strength, quickness, and flexibility might be achieved by different methods than simply packing on the muscle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

this is the worst thread in the history of Hogville

you think our strength coach is into "body building"?

this thread also shows you've never been around a quality football program on any level