Jump to content

Number Of Reps To Gain Stegth On Coc Grippers


Jeremy Sipple

Recommended Posts

Who gives a damn if other points of veiws diesagree with John. If your way is so much better how come there aren't guys no setting the #4 or pros all over the place. There are plenty of guys with better genetics than John but i'd put money on it that few are stronger. He knows how to train for the best all around results. Period. As far as his style working for only him this is simply not true. There have been others that have trained in the same manner and have developed hand strength that perhaps only a select few on this board could truly appreciate.

Well, I give a damn, for one. :D

There is no such thing as "my way". I have not given a single piece of precise info on how to gain strength the optimal way. Everything I've said is quite general. And from those general, well known fundamentals (show me a powerlifter doing 50 rep or even 30 rep squats as the staple of his routine), I have experimented to find what works best for me.

People aren't nosetting the 4 for a slew of different reasons, I imagine. Genetics? Injuries? How should I know?

Best all around results? Now that's something entirely different, and not what I've been discussing. I've been discussing the fundamentals about strength and endurance training, not how to train for both optimally.

I'm not questioning John's ability or strength or endurance or training methodology for himself.

I'm questioning his reasoning and theories behind it.

And if I wouldn't respect him, I wouldn't be having this discussion. :)

And in what manner are we talking about? I still have not one statement regarding how John trains, and what results that training has yielded for him, or others.

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • nagual

    39

  • John Wood

    18

  • Wannagrip

    12

  • speedy

    12

I don’t know bout all them big fancy terms, but seems to me, there are three ways of gaining on the grippers.

First - If you do 10 reps on X gripper, and can’t get Y gripper, keep going on reps with X till you get 11, or 12, or whatever it takes till you get Y gripper.

Second, constantly trying Y gripper or a harder one, or file X gripper to make it harder.

Third, squeeze harder, train harder

I think there is a lot of over thinking, and under working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about HIT is the emphasis on hard training and recouperation. That's 90% of the equation right there. The drawback is its oversimplification which might make you miss out on the other 10%. Sure you can get very strong using the HIT approach, but very few top olympic lifters or powerlifters train that way, and it's not because they're all stupid.

If we're going to talk about individual results, consider Joe Kinney whose training is about the polar opposite of John Wood's approach. What they have in common is hard training and emphasis recouperation :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we're going to talk about individual results, consider Joe Kinney whose training is about the polar opposite of John Wood's approach.  What they have in common is hard training and emphasis recouperation :)

.....and to think, both guys did their thinking by themselves, and performed trial and error to see what worked best for them as individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know bout all them big fancy terms, but seems to me, there are three ways of gaining on the grippers.

First - If you do 10 reps on X gripper, and can’t get Y gripper, keep going on reps with X till you get 11, or 12, or whatever it takes till you get Y gripper.

Second, constantly trying Y gripper or a harder one, or file X gripper to make it harder.

Third, squeeze harder, train harder

I think there is a lot of over thinking, and under working.

You have a point. However, if I would have stuck to your advice, I wouldn't have gotten anywhere, since even low-reps with grippers didn't get me anywhere (perhaps on a gripmachine it would have, but not on a spring-mechanism such as a gripper). I had to experiment a lot, and much thanks to the gripboard I found a routine that yielded in astonoshing gains (for me, atleast :D).

In fact, some of the premises I found to be true for me in regards to grip training, to a large extent held true in regular strength training aswell. I had almost given up the notion of becoming "strong" because results came very slow. I now know that I simply had to find an optimal routine, which suited my, I guess, genetic predisposition.

My routine is basically frequent and low volume workouts. Frequency depends on recuperation, and since volume is low, and recuperation fast, for grip workouts it's several times a day.

The first couple of "workouts" in the day are easy, kind of warm ups. And the last few in the evening are hard, and all out negatives or/and static holds (usually do one until gains stop, then the other). When I start getting weaker from one day to the next (which is usually after a week of daily training), I rest for about 2-3 days, and then begin anew.

This routine allowed me to close the RB260 from parallell in a choke in about 2 weeks with my right hand. When I started I could barely move the handles one mm from parallell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read most of this and there are a few things that I want to comment on.

First,

"If bodybuilders musles were largely a result of sarcoplasmic fluid increase, wouldnt  they "deflate" significantly (by a quarter to a third)when they dry out before a show? "
The reason why this doesn't happen is because the cellular fluid that is in the sarcomere is intracellualar and bodybuilders get rid of extra cellular fluid. The reason why they can do this is because they dehydrate very quickly with diuretcs and the body does not have time to reach equlibrium. They first get as much fluid in them as possible filling up both the ICF and ECF, and then with the quick dehydration only get rid of the ECF leaving their muscles full of fluid.

Second is just one big observation. We actually have three fiber types. Fast twitch, slow twitch oxidative (fat) and slow twitch glycolytic (sugar). The last one there (glycolytic) is an intermediate fiber. This is not like if you do 5 reps you only use fast twitch, but if you go up to 15, your body senses this and you only use slow twitch. What dictates fiber use is intensity, high intensity you MAINLY use fast twich (at very high intensities only fast twitch) and at low intensity you MAINLY use slow twitch. Think of this as a big continum, at one end is fast, middle is the intermediate fiber and at the other end is slow and intensity will dictate where you are on that continum.

For most exercises you use all the fibers. With a gripper, if I take my trainer and squeeze out as many reps as I want I will first engage my slow twitch and intermediate because my trainer is easy for me. But as I get up to 30 or 40 or whatever my max is, the last fibers that will be trained is my fast twitch, since at that level my intensity is extremely high there. And my last squeeze will probably be only fast twitch fibers.

No, "we" haven't established that you are getting stronger, if you go from 30 reps with the #1 to 50. You have not offered one single piece of information to back that claim.

This is the most ridiculous statement ever. OF COURSE YOU HAVE GOTTEN STRONGER! If you can do 30 reps in 30 seconds, and then you do 30 reps on 25 seconds you also have gotten stronger. Your body is doing more of a workload (reps x weight / time) so therefore you have gotten stronger. There are many workout routines that have you time your workouts and factor that in because time makes a big difference.

As far as those adaptations that were mentioned about increasing mitochondria and whatnot, that is also on a continum. The reason why you have mitochondria is for less intensity work. So if you do mainly endurance work you'll have more mitochondria vs someone who does little.

Also the statement that John Doe is strong, so he must know what he is talking about is BS. That is like saying because that scientist over there (who studies muscle growth) must know nothing because he isn't big or strong like a bodybuilder or powerlifter. Just because you can follow a routine and find out what works best for you when pumping iron doesn't not mean at all that you have any idea what is going on at a small scale like the cellular scale.

To finish, your body basically adapts to the training you put it through. You don't train for a marathon by running sprints and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that those arn't valuable tools to use in a routine. Just pick up your gripper, squeeze, and squeeze harder the next time. Pick a routine that works for you. Most routines will generaly be the same, but they still need personalization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, "we" haven't established that you are getting stronger, if you go from 30 reps with the #1 to 50. You have not offered one single piece of information to back that claim.

This is the most ridiculous statement ever. OF COURSE YOU HAVE GOTTEN STRONGER! If you can do 30 reps in 30 seconds, and then you do 30 reps on 25 seconds you also have gotten stronger. Your body is doing more of a workload (reps x weight / time) so therefore you have gotten stronger. There are many workout routines that have you time your workouts and factor that in because time makes a big difference.

As far as those adaptations that were mentioned about increasing mitochondria and whatnot, that is also on a continum. The reason why you have mitochondria is for less intensity work. So if you do mainly endurance work you'll have more mitochondria vs someone who does little.

Also the statement that John Doe is strong, so he must know what he is talking about is BS. That is like saying because that scientist over there (who studies muscle growth) must know nothing because he isn't big or strong like a bodybuilder or powerlifter. Just because you can follow a routine and find out what works best for you when pumping iron doesn't not mean at all that you have any idea what is going on at a small scale like the cellular scale.

To finish, your body basically adapts to the training you put it through. You don't train for a marathon by running sprints and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that those arn't valuable tools to use in a routine. Just pick up your gripper, squeeze, and squeeze harder the next time. Pick a routine that works for you. Most routines will generaly be the same, but they still need personalization.

Aah... I agree with basically all of what you say, but if you notice in my previous posts, I declared my definition of strength.

So this statement is true or false depending on your definition. From your explanation, it is obviously true. But if you were (as I have been) defining strength as the maximum force you can generate during one contraction, then it is not true.

I know this debate is largely confusing because of definitions, and that I really should be using the term "max strength" or "limit strength" or something, to avoid misunderstandings. I will try to do that from now on.

So to reiterate: You have in the above scenario not increased your maximum strength.

This is however debatable, because as you say, when exhausting all of your available slow-twitch muscle fibre, the fast twitch take over. But I don't believe this type of training is the most effective, since the fast twitch probably gets involved sooner than at the last 2-3 reps. At that point, so much of the muscle is exhausted, that you won't be able to generate as much force as you could with a stronger gripper you can only do a few reps with. But I won't comment it further, until I've based my hunch on facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this debate is largely confusing because of definitions, and that I really should be using the term "max strength" or "limit strength" or something, to avoid misunderstandings. I will try to do that from now on.

Yes, it is partially my falt for not reading every post, as I am impatient and lazy haha. But from now on we should say max strength or 1RM.
So to reiterate: You have in the above scenario not increased your maximum strength.

This is true to a point. 15-20 reps is still low enough to increase max strength. You will not increase it as quickly as doing low reps, but your 1RM will still increase. The usage of fast twitch fibers at the end of your set of reps will still cause a gain in 1RM, since you are training the fast fibers at the end. If you go to exaustion at any time, you are training your fast fibers, which will increase (ever so slowly) your 1RM.

This is however debatable, because as you say, when exhausting all of your available slow-twitch muscle fibre, the fast twitch take over. But I don't believe this type of training is the most effective, since the fast twitch probably gets involved sooner than at the last 2-3 reps. At that point, so much of the muscle is exhausted, that you won't be able to generate as much force as you could with a stronger gripper you can only do a few reps with. But I won't comment it further, until I've based my hunch on facts.

You are correct here. I do not know the mechanics behind it either, but doing 15 reps will not increase 1RM as well as higher intensity training. This is why powerlifters use poundages close to their 1RM, and why negatives work. If that was true, then you could just get a 100 lb dumbell set and do thousands of reps on it to increase your 1RM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true to a point.  15-20 reps is still low enough to increase max strength.  You will not increase it as quickly as doing low reps, but your 1RM will still increase.  The usage of fast twitch fibers at the end of your set of reps will still cause a gain in 1RM, since you are training the fast fibers at the end.  If you go to exaustion at any time, you are training your fast fibers, which will increase (ever so slowly) your 1RM. 

Right. I said just this in my post where I was talking about what approximate rep ranged yielded in terms of 1RM strength and/or muscular endurance. In the above scenario I was talking about 30-50 reps, which is a low enough intensity to not benefit 1RM strength significantly.

You are correct here.  I do not know the mechanics behind it either, but doing 15 reps will not increase 1RM as well as higher intensity training.  This is why powerlifters use poundages close to their 1RM, and why negatives work.  If that was true, then you could just get a 100 lb dumbell set and do thousands of reps on it to increase your 1RM.

Precisely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip
This is why powerlifters use poundages close to their 1RM

My take is this is mainly a nervous system and specificity reason why you have to go to doing doubles/triples/singles prior to a contest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why powerlifters use poundages close to their 1RM

My take is this is mainly a nervous system and specificity reason why you have to go to doing doubles/triples/singles prior to a contest.

Right. Singles, doubles and triples work the CNS to a great extent, and as you say, neural adaptation (specificity, if I'm not getting my facts mixed up).

On a sidenote, one thing that is noteworthy is that eccentric reps are less energy expensive than concentric reps. They are however tough on ligaments, tendons etc and can raise blood pressure. But the CNS get's more work from "full reps".

I was quite some time ago wondering about why I always liked negatives better, they felt "easier", until I learned that the body (I guess for evolutionary reasons) handles negatives more energy efficiant.

I'm simply lazy, and like to get as much work done with as little (percieved) effort as possible. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

"Too many coaches have bought the package hook, line and sinker that one has to use a barbell or dumbbells in a manner that mimics the bodily movements of a sport in order to best benefit from resistance training. If anything, they miss the point that a skilled movement is specific or it's not specific. It can't be "almost specific." Training with a barbell in order to complete a movement that's "just like" one done on the field will, at best, add some strength to the athlete's involved bodypart, just as any other exercise would which also works that bodypart, and at worst, would cause interference of the athletic skill that one wanted to enhance."

Dr. Ken

To provide some insight into what specificity really is. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Too many coaches have bought the package hook, line and sinker that one has to use a barbell or dumbbells in a manner that mimics the bodily movements of a sport in order to best benefit from resistance training. If anything, they miss the point that a skilled movement is specific or it's not specific. It can't be "almost specific." Training with a barbell in order to complete a movement that's "just like" one done on the field will, at best, add some strength to the athlete's involved bodypart, just as any other exercise would which also works that bodypart, and at worst, would cause interference of the athletic skill that one wanted to enhance."

Dr. Ken

To provide some insight into what specificity really is. ;)

I'm guessing that at an elite level this is true enough, since here, every inch, every ounce counts. But from personal experience I would say there is some transferrall of specificity.

And from an evolutionary standpoint, total specificity (i.e. you have to train lifting a barbell to be able to lift a barbell) would be useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Too many coaches have bought the package hook, line and sinker that one has to use a barbell or dumbbells in a manner that mimics the bodily movements of a sport in order to best benefit from resistance training. If anything, they miss the point that a skilled movement is specific or it's not specific. It can't be "almost specific." Training with a barbell in order to complete a movement that's "just like" one done on the field will, at best, add some strength to the athlete's involved bodypart, just as any other exercise would which also works that bodypart, and at worst, would cause interference of the athletic skill that one wanted to enhance."

Dr. Ken

To provide some insight into what specificity really is. ;)

I agree totally. Hence why football quarterbacks don't practice with a 20 lb ball, and baseball players don't swing a 15 lb bat.

Also this is why athletes who don't "squat" or "bench" specifically in their sport still do the gym lifts for training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

You are joking right? So, I can become a better free throw shooter by taking a barbell and mimicking free throws in the weight room? :rolleyes

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are joking right?  So, I can become a better free throw shooter by taking a barbell and mimicking free throws in the weight room?  :rolleyes

No, that's not what I said.

I'm saying that up to a point, that might be true. At an elite level, however, I don't think it would do much good, from a skill perspective.

But evolutionary speaking, it makes no sense whatsoever that specific movements would only apply to one singular movement, and not to any other, similar, movement.

That would be counterproductive for us as a species.

(However, it could be said that as children or infants we learn general motor skills that later on can be used as a base for all other, specific, motor skills.)

For instance, I am an ok skater, but also snowboarder and surfer. Both surfing and snowboarding came fairly naturally to me, but that was after I had aquired significant skill on the skateboard.

The movements are similar, but not the same.

This is no proof, I know, but it seems to me that "up to a point" there is skill transferral between similar movements. But could I become a pro snowboarder by only skating?

No!

On a sidenote, there seems to be evidence to suggest that general strength training shortly before skill training, improves the effectivity of the skill training. Almost as the nervous system gets "primed".

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thing called skill transfer. Learning to ice skate will help you rollerblade and vice versa. Just like someone who only benches could probably do pretty well with the JM press, even though they have never done one. Part of the skill in benching will help someone do another similar skill.

You can even have transfer between left and right sides. If you only workout one side, you will get stronger on the other. This has been proven over and over again in studies. Also learning to do a skill righty will aid in doing it lefty. Much better than doing it lefty alone.

A thrower of anything will be able to throw something else well. A javelin thrower would be able to throw a football, baseball and shot put better than the average man because of the transfer of his skill with the javelin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure its skill thats actually tranferred?

Yes. I had a class a year ago that talked about skill transfer. Depending on how similar the skills are determins the amount of transfer. Two things very similar will transfer very well, such as country and city driving. Things like throwing a shot put and baseball you'll have less transfer. Because of having a small backround in the skill, you will pick things up quicker.

If you had to pick someone to teach how to play football, most would pick a rugby player or some other athete; the closer to the sport of football, the better person to choose. The athlete would have better hand-eye coordination, he could read the players better, CNS would be trained to use those muscles, and tackle better etc...

If there was no transfer, since rugby and football are different skills, it would take just as long to teach a rugby player football as a powerlifter or figure skater and that isn't true. (I choose to use powerlifter as an example to show that it isn't just because an athlete has good muscle mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about practicing shooting free throws with a heavier basketball? Would that be a good way to increase your shooting accuracy/range?

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about practicing shooting free throws with a heavier basketball?  Would that be a good way to increase your shooting accuracy/range?

Well, it might. This depends on how much the skill relies on the exact weight of the object/objects associated with the movement.

Some shotputters train with a slightly heavier implement, to gain strength and skill. If it were to be too heavy, skill transfer would be less, and defeat the purpose.

But in the case of a basketball, I don't know. I'm guessing, no, since controlling the ball should be a lot more dependant on skill than strength. Maybe it could help with shooting range, but not accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But what about the conjugate method?

I believe the conjugate method relies more on effective overload of the muscles involved in the lift you are training for (or around), and not as much skill, per se.

The conjugate method might work well enough for powerlifting (probably debatable, not getting into that), but wouldn't work for weight lifting that well, since weight lifting relies on skill a lot more than powerlifting does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
king crusher

i think throwing a heavy basketball for practice would be WORSE for accuracy.

nothing would be better then the nba regulation ball. imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems this thread has gotten a bit off track. :D

Is the matter at hand exhausted already (no pun intended) ? ;)

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.