all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Strength vs Power

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Tarzan

Tarzan

Level 6 Valued Member
I won't take offence if Steve pulls this down as it is heresy to the StrongFirst philosophy in many regards.

But does anyone here train with any consideration for developing power as an adjunct to strength ?

Look through my training log & you'll see what seems to be a complete contradiction to many of the strong first principles in regards to rep ranges, especially as I normally only do a few sets where pure strength is my focus. My overall strength is certainly compromised by that style of training, but there is a method to my madness. My main focus is really on developing punching power and delivering strikes that will be effective.

This is framed mostly in a martial arts/ boxing context where raw strength is more of a pre-requisite to developing power - if you are not strong chances are you just can't hit hard.

My background was originally martial arts where we mostly focused on strength endurance & then I moved on to first un-coached MTB riding and I later moved into road and then to fully supervised track cycling and weight training.

When I was track cycling we would focus on pure strength at the start of the cycle and then move on to developing power which occurs at higher rep ranges and lighter weights performed at a much quicker rate. I just don't see that too much here, it all seems to be framed either in a context of pure strength vs hypertrorphy, It's like a piece of the puzzle is missing in some regards.

I have zero interest in getting big but living in a ghetto where justice is often dealt out at 3 am by groups of teenagers with baseball bats (it has happened to me twice since I've lived here) I need to be able hit hard and fast.

Are we missing something for the fighting arts with the 5 or less reps format in regards to martial arts/boxing ?
 
Hello,

@Tarzan
I think that regarding fighting, one needs both power and strength. Basically, S&S can be a good option because this program incorporates both. For instance, I noticed good results in terms of strength, power and conditioning by alternating swings + bent presses / swings + GUs. Maybe this can be the "simple way to be ready for anything anytime".

However, it is possible to separate them, with strength / core strength / inner strength (D. John):
How to Build Anaconda Strength | T Nation

Or a proper periodization (D. John):
Armor Building | T Nation

MMA can be an interesting example because we need endurance, strength, conditioning, power and mobility / flexibility. So, here is an article about SF principles applied to this MA:
S&C Training for MMA With Simple & Sinister

I perfectly understand that you do not want to "bulk" without strength or losing speed, mobility and coordination. Then, some "functional hypertrophy" by playing on the pace for the negative phase can be interesting:
Mass That Works – Build Some Functional Hypertrophy - STRENGTH SENSEI

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
@Tarzan, what addresses your particular needs doesn't need to be the same as any general program. Once strength is sufficient, it's good to build other attributes that you need on top of it.

-S-
 
Cheers guys!

I started thinking about power a few weeks ago when I ran into an old cycling mate & he told me all the pros are using watt/power meters these days. When we got access to a dynamometer and started interpreting the results it changed the way we trained in the gym.

When I first started weight training for cycling (before we got the dynamometer) our programs were so close to StrongFirst principles it's remarkable. That's partly what drew me to this forum.

Then after we got the dynamometer we started to see some interesting results creeping in. People who trained purely in a StrongFirst format in regards to tension and rep ranges (we used 4-6 reps back then) were undoubtedly the strongest guys in the gym and always the fastest off the line in a race but some of the smaller guys who were road cyclists were putting out more watts at top speed and they tended to more of their work in higher rep ranges.

So we added some higher rep/higher speed work to their programs and their output in watts jumped up over a period of just a few weeks.

All our cyclists began their season with basically what we do here to build a strong base and then when it got closer to showtime we'd start adding power specific training. So the StrongFirst principles were the base of the work with a bit of a twist thrown in after we'd built a good base of strength.
 
Torque x RPM = horse power. Some engines are built for torque and low and rpm while others are built for lower torque at high rpm to achieve the same horse power. Both have pros and cons. I'm not racing a diesel truck and I'm not towing with a Ferrari but I wouldn't want to get hit by either one on the highway.

There are literally thousands of arguments on the internet about the ballistic comparison of a small fast bullet vs a large slow bullet. Both are effective with the same energy and why the debate still continues.

I think with acceleration being a squared value in the equation of force that speed changes have a more dramatic effect on power and therefore focusing on the ballistic contraction of muscle fibers would improve results.
 
What seems to be the contradiction here? You mention in your post that "strength is a pre-requisite" and "the cycle begins with strength training". Isn't this what SF is all about? Strength first, eg. PttP, and then the individual goes on to train "sport specific" which is in your case, hitting hard and fast. Or am I totally missing your point here? In that case I apologize.
 
Bro Mo said:
Torque x RPM = horse power. Some engines are built for torque and low and rpm while others are built for lower torque at high rpm to achieve the same horse power. Both have pros and cons. I'm not racing a diesel truck and I'm not towing with a Ferrari but I wouldn't want to get hit by either one on the highway.

There are literally thousands of arguments on the internet about the ballistic comparison of a small fast bullet vs a large slow bullet. Both are effective with the same energy and why the debate still continues.

I think with acceleration being a squared value in the equation of force that speed changes have a more dramatic effect on power and therefore focusing on the ballistic contraction of muscle fibers would improve results.
Click to expand...

Acceleration is not squared:
F = m * a

I guess you meant kinetic energy and velocity:
Ek ~ velocity^2
 
Hello,

@Tarzan
Are you after an "all-in-one" training ? This would be a training that do simulaneously strength and power.
For instance, it would be something like alternating between 2 ballistics and 2 grinds (Swings / Snatches & Get ups / Bent Press). As long as one works with 1 of each category per session, I guess it could work.

Or would you "prefer" doing periodization ? (such as described below)
https://www.isatori.com/articles/classic-strengthpower-periodization/
A Simple Guide to Periodization for Strength Training

If then we consider bodyweight training, things can get more "complicated". If I were in your shoes, I'd try something like:
- Slow motion squat (or difficult squat variation (pistol, weigthed, etc...)), then a plyo squat.
- Slow motion push up (or difficult push up variation (OA, OAOL, etc...)), then a plyo push up.
- Slow motion pullup (or difficult pull up variation (weighted, uneven, etc...)), then a plyo pull up.
Doing so, if you can reduce the rest to the minimum without sacrifying form, it can also give you some conditioning.

Of course, this is just an idea and I am not an expert !

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Just that the acceleration has a squared variable = m/ s^2. However, for this conversation, kinetic energy is even more relevant and an even better formula to consider.
 
Tarzan said:
I won't take offence if Steve pulls this down as it is heresy to the StrongFirst philosophy in many regards.

But does anyone here train with any consideration for developing power as an adjunct to strength ?

Look through my training log & you'll see what seems to be a complete contradiction to many of the strong first principles in regards to rep ranges, especially as I normally only do a few sets where pure strength is my focus. My overall strength is certainly compromised by that style of training, but there is a method to my madness. My main focus is really on developing punching power and delivering strikes that will be effective.

This is framed mostly in a martial arts/ boxing context where raw strength is more of a pre-requisite to developing power - if you are not strong chances are you just can't hit hard.

My background was originally martial arts where we mostly focused on strength endurance & then I moved on to first un-coached MTB riding and I later moved into road and then to fully supervised track cycling and weight training.

When I was track cycling we would focus on pure strength at the start of the cycle and then move on to developing power which occurs at higher rep ranges and lighter weights performed at a much quicker rate. I just don't see that too much here, it all seems to be framed either in a context of pure strength vs hypertrorphy, It's like a piece of the puzzle is missing in some regards.

I have zero interest in getting big but living in a ghetto where justice is often dealt out at 3 am by groups of teenagers with baseball bats (it has happened to me twice since I've lived here) I need to be able hit hard and fast.

Are we missing something for the fighting arts with the 5 or less reps format in regards to martial arts/boxing ?
Click to expand...

A great deal of punching/striking power is the initial burst followed by a relaxing of antagonist muscle and then a tightening up just before impact. A lot of strength is not needed, motor unit recruitment drops off as speed of a limb increases anyway, so only the initial burst is really important. While having more mass in the limb does = more landing force at a given speed, it seldom means more speed.

In my experience raw strength is not really a prerequisite for punching power - speed, angular momentum and combined mass (pushing off floor, using every joint to help acceleration, line up body mass behind strike or rotate tight around fixed point) is more important IMHO. Don't get me wrong, being stronger doesn't hurt as long as you can relax into your strikes. But speed, technique and timing are way more important, esp when talking about bare knuckle where you don't even want to hit with everything you've got most of the time. At some point all you're going to do is more efficiently break your metacarpals.

Relative to how it is commonly described, I'm not very StrongFirstian in my training approach either, although the length and breadth of SF covers just about every training dynamic. I always mingle higher rep or plyo variants in with my lower rep work, and for me lower rep is 5-6 minimum. My park bench programming is basic:
push/squat,
pull/hinge
and I alternate grinds and higher rep/ballistic/plyo on subsequent workouts. Example, one workout I might do sandbag back squats with everything I can balance across my shoulders, the next I'll do Zircher jumping squats with 60lbs cradled in my arms.

For punching speed I don't do much of it anymore but used to do a fair amount of isometrics/yielding iso while running the dog - crossing pull and push with the dog leash across my back to hit the pecks and front delts, or twisted up tight around my hands to hit my upper back and rear delts respectively. This made a huge improvement to my punching speed, I cannot recommend it enough. At one point I could lay in jab/cross combos on a double ended striking bag, the cross landing before the bag could rebound away from the jab. Heavy and light double stick drills helped as well.

A lot of the up-front SF mentality seems geared more toward grappeling traditions than striking styles, but with strength you can get a lot more out of your supplemental work too.
 
Last edited:
Hello,

+1 for technique and relaxation as mentioned by @North Coast Miller
Bob Sapp is extremely strong, but not that powerful because he is slow and poorly coordinted, even if he has a huge muscle mass. However, Fedor Emilyanenko is extremely powerful due to his fluidity, technique, speed and breathing. Even if he carries more fat

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
My father was a boxer and he nearly was approved of Olympics long time ago. I prolly was a disappointment by choosing football and swimming as my main hobbies as a kid. I practiced boxing in the army though.

Now I want to make things right. My dad died to leukemia few years ago, but I know he's watching me. I won't let him down. Despite my back problems I still want to be in shape, I owe it to my Dad. So I'll try different bodyweight routines and try to find a way that does not irritate my spine. Any suggestions? I'm desperate.
 
Are S&S swings not inherently power? Low weight (relative to your deadlift) done at high speeds.

I think any person looking for specific power development could always benefit from SF strength programming as part of a periodization scheme to then increase power output.
 
Hello,

IMO, S&S swings generate power, and endurance as well. It seems there is some kind of "optimal weight" though:
Power Production ?

I noticed that heavy swings transfer well to snatches. For instance, swinging 32 for long time, which was 50% of my bdw gave me the snatch test without working for it. However, I am not sure the snatch test can give the Simple standard for swings. Simple also gives (in general, including me) a close (or even more) to 2X bdw deadlift which is about strength.

Nevertheless, regarding power for punching, snatches may be a good "specific approach"

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
For specific punch power development I believe you are better off with an entirely different tool - a medicine ball and a jumprope are going to work better than any kettlebell exercise. And bag work of course.

You can augment with KB for general strength, endurance, general power production, but you have to get a lot more specific with your methods and tools when the goal becomes more specific.

Periodizing is always a good option.
 
masa said:
My father was a boxer and he nearly was approved of Olympics long time ago. I prolly was a disappointment by choosing football and swimming as my main hobbies as a kid. I practiced boxing in the army though.

Now I want to make things right. My dad died to leukemia few years ago, but I know he's watching me. I won't let him down. Despite my back problems I still want to be in shape, I owe it to my Dad. So I'll try different bodyweight routines and try to find a way that does not irritate my spine. Any suggestions? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...
Bodyweight?

1. pushups
2. squats
3. running/jogging and similar (walking too if you like!)
4. chinups

There are the four wheels of your cart for you.
 
Tarzan said:
I won't take offence if Steve pulls this down as it is heresy to the StrongFirst philosophy in many regards.

But does anyone here train with any consideration for developing power as an adjunct to strength ?

Look through my training log & you'll see what seems to be a complete contradiction to many of the strong first principles in regards to rep ranges, especially as I normally only do a few sets where pure strength is my focus. My overall strength is certainly compromised by that style of training, but there is a method to my madness. My main focus is really on developing punching power and delivering strikes that will be effective.

This is framed mostly in a martial arts/ boxing context where raw strength is more of a pre-requisite to developing power - if you are not strong chances are you just can't hit hard.

My background was originally martial arts where we mostly focused on strength endurance & then I moved on to first un-coached MTB riding and I later moved into road and then to fully supervised track cycling and weight training.

When I was track cycling we would focus on pure strength at the start of the cycle and then move on to developing power which occurs at higher rep ranges and lighter weights performed at a much quicker rate. I just don't see that too much here, it all seems to be framed either in a context of pure strength vs hypertrorphy, It's like a piece of the puzzle is missing in some regards.

I have zero interest in getting big but living in a ghetto where justice is often dealt out at 3 am by groups of teenagers with baseball bats (it has happened to me twice since I've lived here) I need to be able hit hard and fast.

Are we missing something for the fighting arts with the 5 or less reps format in regards to martial arts/boxing ?
Click to expand...
I lived in the crummy part of a Canadian city for 8 years and I know a bit about the world of baseball bat "justice" - the neighbour was handicapped by it and one of our judo beginners was whacked in the head and beat up by one.

Striking as the sole thing in your arsenal is a bit of a problem, seen LONG AGO all over the world. The problem is twofold: 1. Even though striking is powerful in a fight (obviously), it can be hard to actually hit someone well and with force before they close with you and you grapple. 2. Striking at them and keeping your distance means they can strike back at you too. This is where all the forms of wrestling the world over come from - you learn to knock people onto the ground really fast - maybe take the wind out of them, but at least it stops their hitting at you. It's also training in getting away from people's grips. It's also very quick - you can throw a non-wrestler onto the ground in seconds. Ground fighting like in BJJ is secondary but also important so you can get up if knocked down yourself. The few times I had to fight to protect myself and family members (totally 100% within my rights!) while I lived downtown, I quickly threw the guys down - yes, I had a lucky sense of if they were armed with knives or not - not of course, and they were nice enough not to get up and continue the fight - certainly not really "hard core" fighting by any means, but at least I didn't have to hurt anyone for real. That's another good thing about wrestling (I happen to do judo which is a kind of wrestling) - you don't have to hurt people for real if you don't want to.

Anyhow, what do Karate guys do to get hard punches? They hit hard things. Makes sense.
 
North Coast Miller said:
For specific punch power development I believe you are better off with an entirely different tool - a medicine ball and a jumprope are going to work better than any kettlebell exercise. And bag work of course.

You can augment with KB for general strength, endurance, general power production, but you have to get a lot more specific with your methods and tools when the goal becomes more specific.

Periodizing is always a good option.
Click to expand...
Yes, because the legs provide the spring behind the punches more than anything else, if I'm understanding it correctly.
 
Kozushi said:
Bodyweight?

1. pushups
2. squats
3. running/jogging and similar (walking too if you like!)
4. chinups

There are the four wheels of your cart for you.
Click to expand...
Thanks!:) I've already started similar looking regimen. No chinups yet though, my back is not ready yet. I start walking soon.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom