I don't really understand the light weight high rep **** michaelmcla. Train for maximal strength or for speed and set a personal record every time you touch a weight. Stick to the compound basics: deadlift variations, squat variations, bench, rows, pullups, chinups, dips, military press, etc.
The light rep high weight does have a place in a 'complete' workout programme. You will find that a high rep low weight protocol will help with muscular endurance by raising the lactate threshold of a given muscle group. Take someone with the musculature of Shannon Briggs for example, in the main he struggles with 2 aspects - conditioning and muscular endurance. Clearly, a training programme for him would limit the amount of max strength workouts as he clearly has enough of this. A good trainer would develop a programme for him which would revolve around anaerobic conditioning drills and high rep low weight resistance training. Both of these facets would enable him to punch harder, for longer. Moral of the story - Every aspect of physical training has its place in a complete training programme. Adjustments need to be made according to the specific set of needs for each individual.
Wouldn't anaerobic endurance (lactate system) benefit much more by doing sports specific conditioning? Why anyone would choose high rep low weight lifting over heavy bag drills is beyond me. I'm not saying you suggested that bodi, I understand your point about its theoretical use.
Good question - with a yes and no answer. You are correct in saying specificity is very important, infact, I would go as far to say as it is the most important aspect of any training programme. I have lost count of the amount of times people have come to me saying "i'm super strong, I lift weights every day but I can't punch hard, why can't I punch hard", my answer is always, if you want to learn to punch, you have to punch. That's all well and good for a beginner, but if we were to stick to punching the heavy bag, we would plateau rather quickily, and never reach our true potential. This is where what I believe is the second most important aspect of training comes in to the equation - variation. I believe that you need to constantly 'shock' your muscles to reap the best rewards. For example, if one of my fighters was having trouble maintaining his punch output because of a lactate buildup in his shoulders, I could prescribe him a programme which would include hundreds of punch out drills. Personally, I wouldn't do this. I have found better success by prescribing a routine that would include, punch out drills, medicine ball slams, medecine ball throws (varying weights of med balls for both), hitting a tyre with a sledge hammer, and I would mix up the volume by varying between intervals and density training. Clearly, if you want to be a boxer, your primary tool is a punch bag, that is a no brainer; however, there are several other modalities that can serve as a 'supplement' to your heavy bag training. If you use all of these modalities, it is my belief that you will elicit better gains because your muscles will never plateau.
I agree weights can have it's place in boxing. I agree that you need to constantly shock your muscles in different ways. I don't agree that a BOXER should ever do high reps/low weights; there is always a better way for his sport. IE:
When you say weights, what do you define this as? I use weights with my fighters as part of their conditioning routines, but I certainly don't subscribe to the bodybuiling type routines. For conditioning with wieghts I use things like dumbell/kettleball swings, high knee dumbell presses, burpee clean and press, dumbell thrusters and seesaw press. All of which use a very moderate weight and are performed for intervals. This type of protocol fits in with the low weight high rep scheme, but not necessarily in the traditional sense. These type of drill are of major benefit to a boxer, but again, I only use these types of drills as a supplement to the specific boxing training.
I agree with the conditioning weights part (complex interval training). 95% of the posts on here about weight-lifting is based on the traditional sense and I naturally assumed you meant that. Honest mistake, I share the same thoughts as you when it comes to this thread then. Crosstraining is something that I am very big on and practice every day that I can. My argument was against high reps of basic bodybuilding exercises (which is what I thought you were defending).
Simple misunderstanding guys. I thought that this must have been the case as you clearly know what you are talking about, so I figured that I mustn't have established what I meant when I used the term 'weights'. When I get new guys coming to trains with me they all expect to be doing curls, bench presses and such like, you should see the look on their faces when I set them of with dumbell swings and hang cleans! I would never advocate any type of bb routine for an athlete.
