Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to Program Power Cleans for Bridge 3.0

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How to Program Power Cleans for Bridge 3.0

    Hey BBM team,

    I really like power cleans, and want to incorporate them into the Bridge 3.0, in spite of knowing that they are not particularly useful for driving up the deadlift.
    I want to "keep power production constant with increasing strength," whatever that means haha.
    When I was doing the Texas Method in November 2018, I was able to rack 1@154lbs@8.5.
    In my first week of the Bridge 3.0, I did 5x5 Power Cleans at very light weights (max 115lbs; I ramped up the weights). I had not lifted in 3 months and just wanted to work on the skill aspect of the movement.

    How can I incorporate power cleans into the Bridge 3.0 without it bringing detrimental impacts on active recovery?
    Set x reps x RPE scheme would be greatly appreciated!

    Kind Regards,

    A Huge Fan of RPE Training

  • #2
    Originally posted by eddiemun0503 View Post
    Hey BBM team,

    I really like power cleans, and want to incorporate them into the Bridge 3.0, in spite of knowing that they are not particularly useful for driving up the deadlift.
    I want to "keep power production constant with increasing strength," whatever that means haha.
    It doesn't mean anything- it's 100% made up. Your ability to produce force at high velocities depends on training force production at high velocities. Increasing overall force production at slow velocities can help to a degree, provided the velocity where you want to display this force isn't too high, as then muscle fiber adaptations are opposite of what you'd want.

    Originally posted by eddiemun0503 View Post
    When I was doing the Texas Method in November 2018, I was able to rack 1@154lbs@8.5.
    In my first week of the Bridge 3.0, I did 5x5 Power Cleans at very light weights (max 115lbs; I ramped up the weights). I had not lifted in 3 months and just wanted to work on the skill aspect of the movement.

    How can I incorporate power cleans into the Bridge 3.0 without it bringing detrimental impacts on active recovery?
    I would not program power cleans for you in this context.

    If you had to do them, I would do an EMOM with 1 power clean on the minute every minute for 12 minutes starting at ~70% or so and add weight every 2 successful makes. That said- and I cannot stress this enough- I would not program power cleans for you.

    Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
    ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

    Comment


    • #3
      Dear Dr. Feigenbaum,

      Thank you for the speedy response. May I ask why exactly you would discourage power cleans for me in this context?
      What is inhibiting me from benefitting from the inclusion of this movement?
      I guess, to be honest, I still have the Rippetoe dogma in my head about the "wondrous benefits" of power cleans over rows, and more specifically to the deadlift.
      I have read numerous posts about you and Dr. Baraki talking about how rows are better than power cleans for carryover to the deadlift and muscle hypertrophy, but I'm still having a hard time moving on from the Starting Strength model.

      Kind Regards,

      Eddie Mun

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post

        It doesn't mean anything- it's 100% made up.
        God bless you. This particular word-string of utter bullshit particularly annoys me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by John Hanley View Post

          God bless you. This particular word-string of utter bullshit particularly annoys me.
          *Internet high five*
          Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
          ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by eddiemun0503 View Post
            Dear Dr. Feigenbaum,

            Thank you for the speedy response. May I ask why exactly you would discourage power cleans for me in this context?
            What is inhibiting me from benefitting from the inclusion of this movement?
            I guess, to be honest, I still have the Rippetoe dogma in my head about the "wondrous benefits" of power cleans over rows, and more specifically to the deadlift.
            I have read numerous posts about you and Dr. Baraki talking about how rows are better than power cleans for carryover to the deadlift and muscle hypertrophy, but I'm still having a hard time moving on from the Starting Strength model.
            So the thing is it would appear that you aren't very good at power cleans and I don't think that it's actually training your high velocity strength that well. Since I don't think it does much for strength or hypertrophy in the first place AND you're not very well trained in them- I wouldn't program them for you unless that was the only way you would actually train.

            I understand what you mean about the model you're moving away from. If it helps, the entire thing is completely fabricated. This doesn't need to be a pissing match or anything and I would just move on.
            Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
            ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

            Comment


            • #7
              Dear Dr. Feigenbaum,

              Until now, I've never had anyone tell me I was bad at power cleans. My former SS coach used to say I was the most explosive trainee he has ever met (then again, he probably has never trained athletes).
              I just plugged in my old deadlift 5RM into the Bridge calculator, and I got somewhere between 323lbs and 333lbs for my e1RM.
              Upon calculation, I realized my best power clean was only 46~47% of my deadlift (sigh). I don't know how you knew my power clean was below average (because my deadlift e1RM could easily have been 240lbs or less), but your thoughts are liberating! Now, I don't have to worry about finding gyms that don't have bumper plates. Thank you for your detailed answer!

              Kind Regards,

              Eddie Mun

              P.S. What do you mean when you say SS is "fabricated?" Do you mean not based on scientific evidence? I'm slowly beginning to see the benefits of autoregulation of the RPE concept versus the anecdotal(?) evidence of the SS model.

              Comment


              • #8
                Jordan: I'm aware that you don't really like power cleans in general, and think they're a bad choice for strength athletes, but would you still say they're a somewhat less bad choice for some people based on genetics?

                Like, if someone can power clean 2 plates or more when they first pull 405x1 on the DL, is it any less poor of a choice compared with a less explosive person?

                Or is there just no truth at all in that other paradigm?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I’m gonna jump on here to ask for clarification.

                  Let’s say someone is just straight bad at power cleans, but wants to develop their high velocity strength - either for the hell of it, or to help out in something like shot put, or any other ”power event”.

                  What would you have them do instead of power cleans? I guess the answer would change depending on whether they just want to train high velocity strength for it’s own sake, or if they have some specific goal (i.e. getting better at shot put, for example).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by eddiemun0503 View Post
                    Dear Dr. Feigenbaum,

                    Until now, I've never had anyone tell me I was bad at power cleans. My former SS coach used to say I was the most explosive trainee he has ever met (then again, he probably has never trained athletes).
                    To be fair, I never said you were "bad" at them. Rather, I said you weren't very good at them. Given your deadlift and power clean ratios, I think this is pretty accurate. You may indeed be the most explosive trainee that particular SS coach has ever met.

                    Originally posted by eddiemun0503 View Post
                    P.S. What do you mean when you say SS is "fabricated?" Do you mean not based on scientific evidence? I'm slowly beginning to see the benefits of autoregulation of the RPE concept versus the anecdotal(?) evidence of the SS model.
                    Correct. The main tenets of SS include:
                    1) Mechanical models for each exercise that are purported to use more muscle mass than other styles of lifting, which has not been corroborated by any literature on the topic. In fact, only evidence to the contrary exists. Example: "Low bar squats recruit more muscle mass than high bar squats because you can use more weight on them." This has not been verified by any study that I'm aware of looking at motor unit recruitment directly (sEMG) or indirectly (calculated net moment joint). Rather, existing data suggests approximately similar amounts of motor unit recruitment at similar relative loads and effort levels.

                    2) A heavy reliance on the biomedical model for pain/injury, which has a great potential to do harm both directly and indirectly. Example: "If you let your knees slide forward in the squat that can cause (will cause?) knee pain." This is overly reductionist, not reliably true, and portends bad outcomes (like pain and injury ironically) to people in that community. It also cultivates "perfectionist" attitudes towards technique, which is ACTUALLY correlated with pain and injury in the literature- something that can't be said for knee slide in this example. None of their pain management strategies or injury "rehab" techniques are based in science, quite the opposite actually.

                    3) The programming models are fraught with errors we have already discussed in great detail in our programming podcasts, articles, etc. ad nauseam. Linear progression is suboptimal compared to other models of periodization, hyperspecificity early on in training blunts physical skill acquisition and impairs training outcomes, progressive overload isn't well established within any of the programs recommended, overly dogmatic views on programming specifics (reps, sets, intensity, volume) that do not comport with existing literature, etc.

                    I think that to the extent The Program gets more people lifting weights- that's good, but that's about it. It wouldn't be my first choice, especially if the user has to participate in the present-day community.

                    Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
                    ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evanther View Post
                      Jordan: I'm aware that you don't really like power cleans in general, and think they're a bad choice for strength athletes, but would you still say they're a somewhat less bad choice for some people based on genetics?
                      I want to be very clear here. I don't like power cleans for people wanting to improve low velocity strength (e.g. powerlifters) or people who aren't trying specifically to improve high velocity strength (e.g. sprinters, throwers, football players, etc.)- though I think there are better ways to train the latter.

                      In any event, no- I do not think the genetic makeup of an individual independent of their goals/needs influences my decision here.

                      Originally posted by Evanther View Post
                      Like, if someone can power clean 2 plates or more when they first pull 405x1 on the DL, is it any less poor of a choice compared with a less explosive person?

                      Or is there just no truth at all in that other paradigm?
                      It is meaningless if their goals are to improve their deadlift strength, especially when you consider the training resources could be better spent......deadlifting.
                      Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
                      ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Goat View Post
                        I’m gonna jump on here to ask for clarification.

                        Let’s say someone is just straight bad at power cleans, but wants to develop their high velocity strength - either for the hell of it, or to help out in something like shot put, or any other ”power event”.

                        What would you have them do instead of power cleans? I guess the answer would change depending on whether they just want to train high velocity strength for it’s own sake, or if they have some specific goal (i.e. getting better at shot put, for example).
                        Depends on context, specifically training history, sporting goals, training resources, etc.

                        That said, half squats/quarter squats, hip thrusts, nordic hamstring curls (or equivalent), and any lighter weight, lower skill movement with similar joint angles, muscle lengths, and contraction type as the test would be better than the power clean at improving performance in the test.
                        Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
                        ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post

                          To be fair, I never said you were "bad" at them. Rather, I said you weren't very good at them. Given your deadlift and power clean ratios, I think this is pretty accurate. You may indeed be the most explosive trainee that particular SS coach has ever met.



                          Correct. The main tenets of SS include:
                          1) Mechanical models for each exercise that are purported to use more muscle mass than other styles of lifting, which has not been corroborated by any literature on the topic. In fact, only evidence to the contrary exists. Example: "Low bar squats recruit more muscle mass than high bar squats because you can use more weight on them." This has not been verified by any study that I'm aware of looking at motor unit recruitment directly (sEMG) or indirectly (calculated net moment joint). Rather, existing data suggests approximately similar amounts of motor unit recruitment at similar relative loads and effort levels.

                          2) A heavy reliance on the biomedical model for pain/injury, which has a great potential to do harm both directly and indirectly. Example: "If you let your knees slide forward in the squat that can cause (will cause?) knee pain." This is overly reductionist, not reliably true, and portends bad outcomes (like pain and injury ironically) to people in that community. It also cultivates "perfectionist" attitudes towards technique, which is ACTUALLY correlated with pain and injury in the literature- something that can't be said for knee slide in this example. None of their pain management strategies or injury "rehab" techniques are based in science, quite the opposite actually.

                          3) The programming models are fraught with errors we have already discussed in great detail in our programming podcasts, articles, etc. ad nauseam. Linear progression is suboptimal compared to other models of periodization, hyperspecificity early on in training blunts physical skill acquisition and impairs training outcomes, progressive overload isn't well established within any of the programs recommended, overly dogmatic views on programming specifics (reps, sets, intensity, volume) that do not comport with existing literature, etc.

                          I think that to the extent The Program gets more people lifting weights- that's good, but that's about it. It wouldn't be my first choice, especially if the user has to participate in the present-day community.
                          Dear Dr. Feigenbaum,

                          Thank you for clarifying! Your explanation has helped put to rest the troubles I had of letting go from the SS methods. Thank you for the detailed answers. I look forward to making more GainzZz through the BBM templates.

                          Kind Regards,

                          Eddie Mun

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Jordan,

                            Originally posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
                            Correct. The main tenets of SS include:
                            1) Mechanical models for each exercise that are purported to use more muscle mass than other styles of lifting, which has not been corroborated by any literature on the topic. In fact, only evidence to the contrary exists. Example: "Low bar squats recruit more muscle mass than high bar squats because you can use more weight on them." This has not been verified by any study that I'm aware of looking at motor unit recruitment directly (sEMG) or indirectly (calculated net moment joint). Rather, existing data suggests approximately similar amounts of motor unit recruitment at similar relative loads and effort levels.

                            2) A heavy reliance on the biomedical model for pain/injury, which has a great potential to do harm both directly and indirectly. Example: "If you let your knees slide forward in the squat that can cause (will cause?) knee pain." This is overly reductionist, not reliably true, and portends bad outcomes (like pain and injury ironically) to people in that community. It also cultivates "perfectionist" attitudes towards technique, which is ACTUALLY correlated with pain and injury in the literature- something that can't be said for knee slide in this example. None of their pain management strategies or injury "rehab" techniques are based in science, quite the opposite actually.

                            3) The programming models are fraught with errors we have already discussed in great detail in our programming podcasts, articles, etc. ad nauseam. Linear progression is suboptimal compared to other models of periodization, hyperspecificity early on in training blunts physical skill acquisition and impairs training outcomes, progressive overload isn't well established within any of the programs recommended, overly dogmatic views on programming specifics (reps, sets, intensity, volume) that do not comport with existing literature, etc.

                            I think that to the extent The Program gets more people lifting weights- that's good, but that's about it. It wouldn't be my first choice, especially if the user has to participate in the present-day community.
                            1. If I understand correctly, LBBS is still the staple lift in BBM's programs. What factors affect BBM's exercise selection, prioritizing LBBS over HBBS?

                            2. On your point 2 above, do you mean the SS book's analysis (copy of the page attached) about the force on the patella and hamstring engagement is completely wrong? Or is it nuanced? Interested in hearing a more holistic view from you.

                            3. Can't agree more on the issue about the programming models (point 3). I listened to your porgramming podcasts 3 times. Each time I understood it a bit more. This stuff takes time for a layman to sink in. Thanks for all the resources!

                            Thanks

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sciomako View Post
                              1. If I understand correctly, LBBS is still the staple lift in BBM's programs. What factors affect BBM's exercise selection, prioritizing LBBS over HBBS?
                              It's not. We don't prioritize LBBS over HBBS unless someone prefers to squat low bar.


                              Originally posted by sciomako View Post
                              2. On your point 2 above, do you mean the SS book's analysis (copy of the page attached) about the force on the patella and hamstring engagement is completely wrong? Or is it nuanced? Interested in hearing a more holistic view from you.
                              It's 100% fabricated and only loosely related to facts. I reject their model about forces on the knee and their (forces) implications entirely.

                              Originally posted by sciomako View Post
                              3. Can't agree more on the issue about the programming models (point 3). I listened to your porgramming podcasts 3 times. Each time I understood it a bit more. This stuff takes time for a layman to sink in. Thanks for all the resources!

                              Thanks
                              Thanks man!
                              Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
                              ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X