or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ligety commercial

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Ligety commercial, 3 hours in the weight room,4 hour in skis,2 hours of plyos everyday

post #2 of 16

But skiers don't do dead lifts, back squats or lunges.Thumbs Up

post #3 of 16

Seeing Ligety doing the Nyquil commercials a la Drew Brees was funny.  Skiing makes the big time.

post #4 of 16

All of the made for Olympics commercials and especially anything Vonn does totally exaggerate the volume of training actually completed by WC skiers. 

 

Total volume of a training day, including sitting around, rest between sets and reps, rest between runs on the hill followed maybe by a short game of basket ball may get the elite easily up to 5-6 hours of "training" a day, but with only 2-3hrs MAX actually work happening in that time.

 

Not to mention the huge variation in volume and intensity across the whole pre-season and in-season period, no two weeks or days would ever be identical.

 

Never like how things get sensationalized and simplified for the "public". 

post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post
 

All of the made for Olympics commercials and especially anything Vonn does totally exaggerate the volume of training actually completed by WC skiers. 

 

Total volume of a training day, including sitting around, rest between sets and reps, rest between runs on the hill followed maybe by a short game of basket ball may get the elite easily up to 5-6 hours of "training" a day, but with only 2-3hrs MAX actually work happening in that time.

 

Not to mention the huge variation in volume and intensity across the whole pre-season and in-season period, no two weeks or days would ever be identical.

 

Never like how things get sensationalized and simplified for the "public". 


What? You mean he doesn't work out 9 hours a day? 

post #6 of 16

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not...but no of course not, no body puts in 9hrs of solid physical activity in a day at an intensity that is high enough to create meaningful adaptions in any area of fitness needed for Alpine ski racing. (basic aerobic work aside)

 

Spending 9hrs between the gym and hill is possible but like I said at least 50%+ would be spent resting between various efforts!

 

I do hope you were being sarcastic :D 

post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post
 

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not...but no of course not, no body puts in 9hrs of solid physical activity in a day at an intensity that is high enough to create meaningful adaptions in any area of fitness needed for Alpine ski racing. (basic aerobic work aside)

 

Spending 9hrs between the gym and hill is possible but like I said at least 50%+ would be spent resting between various efforts!

 

I do hope you were being sarcastic :D 


The whole thing was meant as a bit of sarcasm

post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
 

But skiers don't do dead lifts, back squats or lunges.Thumbs Up


 One of the adaptations to the new skis this year actually has been to de-emphasize, even more, lifting heavy.  Basically skiers have to go with fitter and lighter to be competitive because conditioning is at a higher premium than ever.

post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPlank View Post
 


 One of the adaptations to the new skis this year actually has been to de-emphasize, even more, lifting heavy.  Basically skiers have to go with fitter and lighter to be competitive because conditioning is at a higher premium than ever.

 

 

I think you are taking the whole "we emphasis muscular endurance now" line from the USST a bit too literally. Yes there is an greater emphasis on ME and specific conditioning for GS because of the new regs, but context is crucial here. You are talking about Elite athletes with years of heavy lifting behind them. The strength foundation a guy like Ligety has would never be gained by lifting light and hig reps...ever! Taking their current approach and applying it to say a junior or young athlete with poor strength would be totally the wrong approach.

 

Regardless, the USST guys in all disciplines still do at a minimum a maintenance load of heavy Max Strength (MxS) lifting. The rule of thumb is "you can't maintain what you don't have". And you can't compare apples and oranges. 

 

And yet again I'm not sure if Paul Jones' post was sarcasm. Of course skiers DL, squat and lunge. They are staples!

post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post
 

 

I think you are taking the whole "we emphasis muscular endurance now" line from the USST a bit too literally. Yes there is an greater emphasis on ME and specific conditioning for GS because of the new regs, but context is crucial here. You are talking about Elite athletes with years of heavy lifting behind them. The strength foundation a guy like Ligety has would never be gained by lifting light and hig reps...ever! Taking their current approach and applying it to say a junior or young athlete with poor strength would be totally the wrong approach.

 

Regardless, the USST guys in all disciplines still do at a minimum a maintenance load of heavy Max Strength (MxS) lifting. The rule of thumb is "you can't maintain what you don't have". And you can't compare apples and oranges. 

 

And yet again I'm not sure if Paul Jones' post was sarcasm. Of course skiers DL, squat and lunge. They are staples!

If by noting that they've de-emphasized max strength, and that it's been a very long time since max strength has been a main focus, I'm taking that literally, then yes.  

post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPlank View Post
 

If by noting that they've de-emphasized max strength, and that it's been a very long time since max strength has been a main focus, I'm taking that literally, then yes.  

Max Strength training being what exactly in your definition?

post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post
 

Max Strength training being what exactly in your definition?


As in, the USST really doesn't care if it's athletes keep getting stronger once they are "strong enough."  They collectively have ok max lift numbers, not great, even if you compare them to college track sprint athletes.  They spend a lot more time trying to develop the ability to apply force in ways relevant to athletic performance.  Which weight room numbers don't really correlate to.

 

For specifics, if you're a girl and can squat low 200s and deadlift mid-200s, they will not be concerned with moving those numbers up and will be much more focused on things like ability to accelerate and decelerate, aerobic base, anaerobic endurance, etc.  Those numbers seem like a lot to many people reading this, I'm sure, but in terms of world standards they are not elite numbers.  Because elite numbers are not needed, and in fact there's growing thought they are counterproductive.

post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPlank View Post
 


As in, the USST really doesn't care if it's athletes keep getting stronger once they are "strong enough."  They collectively have ok max lift numbers, not great, even if you compare them to college track sprint athletes.  They spend a lot more time trying to develop the ability to apply force in ways relevant to athletic performance.  Which weight room numbers don't really correlate to.

 

For specifics, if you're a girl and can squat low 200s and deadlift mid-200s, they will not be concerned with moving those numbers up and will be much more focused on things like ability to accelerate and decelerate, aerobic base, anaerobic endurance, etc.  Those numbers seem like a lot to many people reading this, I'm sure, but in terms of world standards they are not elite numbers.  Because elite numbers are not needed, and in fact there's growing thought they are counterproductive.

Perfect then we agree! 

 

This is my profession and your reasoning is spot on, my point was though that any athlete will need MxS work to get to a point of appreciable strength before they can even start to thing about rate of force production and transfer of training etc...

 

We are on the exact same page, but there is plenty of talk about the shift to Muscular Endurance work of the Elites and I thing it could easily send the wrong message to the average skier and junior/young racer that Strength is not important. Your average-joe would benefit far more from some heavy work once they have a good movement foundation then specific ME work.

 

I'm interested to know though how the change in S&C coaches at USST in the past 2 seasons has changed all aspects of their prep? Do you know?

post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post
 

...

 

 but there is plenty of talk about the shift to Muscular Endurance work of the Elites and I thing it could easily send the wrong message to the average skier and junior/young racer that Strength is not important. Your average-joe would benefit far more from some heavy work once they have a good movement foundation then specific ME work.

 

I'm interested to know though how the change in S&C coaches at USST in the past 2 seasons has changed all aspects of their prep? Do you know?

 For S&C, I think the overall talk of changes is exaggerated.  New guys need to brand themselves, and there has been some of the usual 'things were pretty slack before, now we are worked out by ass-kickers' talk.  But, there'd been move away from unstable surfaces and move away from heavy weights for a long time.  Some new calisthenics now...

 

I'd separate average joes (usually overweight, out of shape, bad technique, generally not really going to get into much better shape) from juniors (athletic, good technique, dedicated etc.).  Juniors may be too young to benefit physically/hormonally from too much ME/tolerance work.  Average Joe, not, but for another reason.  After they have a good aerobic base developed and are old enough, I completely agree that juniors benefit from enough weight work to get them "strong enough."  Average Joe?  Not so sure, but only because Average Joe doesn't have the cardio, doesn't have the movement foundation, and would do better spending time towards those ends.  Long-distance runners and other examples of people who should prioritize the strength are out there, but probably not average. 

post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPlank View Post
 

 For S&C, I think the overall talk of changes is exaggerated.  New guys need to brand themselves, and there has been some of the usual 'things were pretty slack before, now we are worked out by ass-kickers' talk.  But, there'd been move away from unstable surfaces and move away from heavy weights for a long time.  Some new calisthenics now...

 

I'd separate average joes (usually overweight, out of shape, bad technique, generally not really going to get into much better shape) from juniors (athletic, good technique, dedicated etc.).  Juniors may be too young to benefit physically/hormonally from too much ME/tolerance work.  Average Joe, not, but for another reason.  After they have a good aerobic base developed and are old enough, I completely agree that juniors benefit from enough weight work to get them "strong enough."  Average Joe?  Not so sure, but only because Average Joe doesn't have the cardio, doesn't have the movement foundation, and would do better spending time towards those ends.  Long-distance runners and other examples of people who should prioritize the strength are out there, but probably not average. 

We could list endless "groups" that would benefit greatly from MxS work! I do think though average Joe would benefit from it too, average Joe who skis not average joe who channel surfs only! They can easily work aerobic foundation, movement quality and strength concurrently. MxS for average joe doesn't involve much more then body-weight initially!

 

Glad to hear the USST have moved away from extensive unstable surfaces work. The body of literature against for anything but rehab is HUGE!! I still see the likes of Mancuso dancing on all sorts of daft looking mats on pads on balls etc... waste of time! The French are on the money for their tech skiers now, great S&C program, maybe to much emphasis on dryland volume in season, but solid simple stuff and lots of input on regeneration from INSEP, their national high perf organisation.

post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condition View Post

...

 

Glad to hear the USST have moved away from extensive unstable surfaces work. The body of literature against for anything but rehab is HUGE!! I still see the likes of Mancuso dancing on all sorts of daft looking mats on pads on balls etc... waste of time! ...

The Mancuso stuff is sort of like the photos of Vonn squatting more than the entire men's speed team combined, or talk of Vonn running 8x400 at 52 for the 8th interval.  Obviously Vonn has run intervals and Mancuso does some unstable-surface stuff, but the publicity machines can take that and run with it. 

 

Did you hear about the 3m depth jumps onto astro-turf that Mancuso did to prep for Verbier?  j/k.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: