Good lifting numbers?

What position do you play? Sounds like you should be playing football with those numbers!

Certainly great weight room numbers. This is hard to get across sometimes, but while the ammount of weight you lift is certainly important, even more important is how you move that weight.

I understand you provided your max effort lifts for that sole purpose. I am not 100% sure of your training protocol, but baseball players should not spend a great deal of time performing 1 rep max attempts.

I keep my athletes in the 2-5 rep range at an intensity of 40-65% for major lifts to foucs on speed strength and force production. These are two of the most critical aspects of strength for the baseball player.

Keep up the good work. Your numbers suggest that you are a very strong individual. Just be sure that strength is translating onto the field.

Thanks for the replies,

I only do max lifts every 4 weeks.

Week 1-10X,8X,6X for each excercise
Week 2-8X,6X,5X
Week 3-8X,5X,3X
Week 4-6X,5X,3X,Max

Each week I go with heavier weight until I build up to my max.

Franchise, I play 3rd and pitch and actually put off football this year so I could concentrate on baseball.

Those are some excellent numbers and the reps seem pretty good also. Keep working hard and don't forget to work your core hard also with some medicine balls so that your whole chain is strong.

Flamethrower, those are excellent numbers and it also seems you have a good idea of what you're doing in the weight room as far as your routine. The one thing I would add to your program is dynamic movements --> med ball, agilities, plyos, boxes, etc......

JMO, but the power clean numbers are probably a little low.

cbg, you are absolutely correct, power cleans are by far my worst lift.... can't stand em'

Thanks for the responses

just wondering how hard you throw?

A true 185 power clean, done correctly, is pretty good im my opinion for a 190lb high school athlete. And I have been around some of the best in the world. Keep up the good work.

I top out at 83

I agree with Jon Doyle's statement earlier, you should not be concerned about your 1 rep max's. I try to deter all of my athletes from performing 1RM's. Form and technique at the HS is the most important. I would start some multi-reps.

I think the numbers also need to reflect what you are wanting to accomplish. If you'd want to be a pitcher, for example, you wouldn't want to be a muscle bound goone but more long and lean. (David Wells and a few others are the exceptions)

quote:

Originally posted by obrady:
I think the numbers also need to reflect what you are wanting to accomplish. If you'd want to be a pitcher, for example, you wouldn't want to be a muscle bound goone but more long and lean. (David Wells and a few others are the exceptions)

Why does everyone think a baseball player will be muscle bound if they lift heavy weights or train intensely? Being muscle bound is more a result of genetics as it is a result of heavy training, in my opinion.....

It is a myth that you can make muscles "long and lean" A muscle cell can either get bigger or smaller, it cannot change structure.

Being "muscle-bound" is a result of improper training protocols.

It's VERY easy to stay away from this and be strong, fast, powerful and flexibile if you know what your doing.

Yeah, nice numbers. Good powerclean too but make sure you're doing them in true O-Lift style. Maybe that's why they aren't up to your other lifts. If you keep improving, you're going to be one big and strong dude. Keep it up.

BTW around what BF% are you at?

Let me clarify, to me long and lean means fit and tone, not building excess mass.

quote:

Originally posted by obrady:
Let me clarify, to me long and lean means fit and tone, not building excess mass.

That sounds more appropriate obrady. Your initial post made it seem that strength training was inappropriate for pitchers.

I want to clarify my post as well, in response to Jon Doyle's response. I stated that being "muscle-bound" was primarily a result of genetics. I stand by that. But I also agree with Jon that improper training can lead to being "muscle-bound." Maybe not in the sense of sheer bulk and mass, but by over-training certain musculature while neglecting other areas of the body or not including a variety of training methods.

16%, trying to get down to 12% or so.

Maxx,

Can you clarify what you mean about "muscle-bound" being genetics?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Doyle:
Maxx,

Can you clarify what you mean about "muscle-bound" being genetics?

Sure.....

Maybe "muscle-bound" is the not the best of terms to keep using in this instance, but what I was trying to imply is that most athletes, with the exception of "elite" athletes, do not have to worry about bulking up or adding so much muscle mass that it will inhibit their playing ability.

In your post, I believe you were stating that the improper training protocols would leave a player muscle bound because they were overemphasizing certain body parts or lifts while neglecting other important muscles, tendons, and ligaments--hence neglecting whole body training.

My point about genetics was that the average person is not going to get so big from lifting that it would impair their performance. Kind of the same lines as many females do not want to lift because they are afraid of "bulking up." Yet, most females do not have the genetic capabilities to get "huge."

I hope this makes sense. What are your thoughts on this Jon?

Maxx,

The "average" person has to worry about becoming "muscle-bound" MUCH more so than your world-class athlete. Here's why...

Muscle-bound does not mean having muscles so big the athlete can't move. It basically means poor range of motion, both static and dynamic, within the joints.

This is a HUGE problem with the American athlete. So much so that it typically takes months, if not years, to detrain an athlete from a poor training protocol into one where he/she moves effortless and efficiently. The world-class athletes typically do this naturally.

Go to any gym or any HS weight room across the country and you will see poor training protocols, little - if any- ROM work and hardly and pre-hab movements.

Take one look at an average baseball player's hip, Shoulder, Ankle and torso ROM and you will quickly see why there are so many injuries. The sad thing is this is EASILY avoided.

So again, being muscle-bound comes from poor training protocols and poor lifestyle habits (poor posture throughout everyday life).

You are correct when you mentioned women rarely can "bulk" However, it is due to improper hormonal make-up, not genetics.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Doyle:

Muscle-bound does not mean having muscles so big the athlete can't move. It basically means poor range of motion, both static and dynamic, within the joints.

Take one look at an average baseball player's hip, Shoulder, Ankle and torso ROM and you will quickly see why there are so many injuries.

So again, being muscle-bound comes from poor training protocols and poor lifestyle habits (poor posture throughout everyday life).

Again, I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I speak of muscle bound, I'm speaking of extreme muscle mass. When you say muscle-bound, you are speaking of poor ROM within the joints as a result of poor training methods and poor habits. I totally agree with what you are saying, we are just giving different definitions for the same term.

So let me ask you then, is there a point where the athlete trains properly and has excellent ROM, but builds so much mass that it limits his/her performance?

quote:

You are correct when you mentioned women rarely can "bulk" However, it is due to improper hormonal make-up, not genetics.

You are correct, but hormone levels are a result of genetic disposition--the two are interlinked. Your genetics cause your hormones to be created and activated. Your genetics also control how much of a certain hormone you release. In turn, your hormones cause things to happen within your body.

Maxx,

I have yet to see an athlete using proper training methods put on too much muscle and become muscle-bound. And I have seen athletes put on up to 73 pounds in a few years time (not a baseball player)

Everyday I see athletes use improper methods who put on 3-10 pounds of muscle and become muscle-bound.

Again, it all goes back to protocol. I do agree that some people are born with more "bend" in their athleticism. Thos who cannot "bend" easily have a tougher time overcoming this, but it certainly can be done through repetition.

Have you witnessed extreme muscle development that caused an athlete to become muscle-bound? If so what did his training look like?

Your statement about genetics and hormones is somewhat true, but misleading. Of course genetics and hormonal environment are related, but the sole reason why women cannot get "huge" is because they are women and do not release large amounts of testosterone. There are plenty of women with good genetics that are strong and athletic, but simply lack hormones to put on large amounts of muscle mass.

Then those women who choose take anabolic steroids and have absolutely no problem putting on muscle.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Doyle:

I have yet to see an athlete using proper training methods put on too much muscle and become muscle-bound. And I have seen athletes put on up to 73 pounds in a few years time (not a baseball player)

Everyday I see athletes use improper methods who put on 3-10 pounds of muscle and become muscle-bound.

Again, it all goes back to protocol. I do agree that some people are born with more "bend" in their athleticism. Thos who cannot "bend" easily have a tougher time overcoming this, but it certainly can be done through repetition.

Have you witnessed extreme muscle development that caused an athlete to become muscle-bound? If so what did his training look like?

Jon, I really like your explanation here. The more I think about it, the more I believe that baseball players I know who put on a lot of mass would fall into the category of what you are talking about. I guess when I think about adding mass and genetics, I think about bodybuilders and powerlifters. I realize that their training programs are not designed to improve athletic performance in a particular sport. So, if they were trying to play baseball, would their performance be limited by their mass, or their training protocol, or both?

quote:

Your statement about genetics and hormones is somewhat true, but misleading. Of course genetics and hormonal environment are related, but the sole reason why women cannot get "huge" is because they are women and do not release large amounts of testosterone. There are plenty of women with good genetics that are strong and athletic, but simply lack hormones to put on large amounts of muscle mass.

Then those women who choose take anabolic steroids and have absolutely no problem putting on muscle.

I agree 100% with this!

I think that when the average person refers to "muscle-boundness", they mean that one's muscles have become so large that they inhibit ROM...this is ridiculous is most cases, besides your elite steroid using genetic freak bodybuilder.

jsorb, that's what i was referring to, but Jon Doyle was referring to lack of range of motion due to improper training--both i think are valid points of discussion!

When the term "muscle-bound" was coined in reference to baseball, it simply meant a player became stiff and less athletic... or elastic.