Weightlifting

[thorpedo26 0]

If anything, most 16 year old kids i've seen are stubborn and just try to stack as much weight as possible without adhering to proper form.

thats true most of the people i know are more conserned about there 1 rep max :(

[nni 0]

just stick with bodyweight exercises for a while.

[N!! 0]

If anything, most 16 year old kids i've seen are stubborn and just try to stack as much weight as possible without adhering to proper form.

Bingo! Of course, this isn't limited to 16 year olds; you can witness it any day of the week at any time in any gym in the world. My favorite gym-related query is two parts; the first part is where someone flexes their elbow to show off the biceps, then talks about how much they can bench. Um...one has nothing to do with the other.

The deal with growth stunting is based on the theory that muscle hypertrophy can fracture or prematurely close the epiphyseal plates, which regulate bone length. Is it possible to happen? Yes. Is it likely? Not really. It has to do with forces applied to undeveloped or underdeveloped bone matrix. Understand that when a child is born, he has no skeletal structure; he has a lot of cartilage that will ossify over time. In the cases of smaller bone structures like the olecranon process, that doesn't even exist yet. Bone growth takes place at varying intervals with a bunch of factors influencing it; epiphyseal plate closure is no different. The average 10-year-old kid will have a pretty well developed humerus that is still growing, well-developed radius and ulna that are still growing, and no pre-development olecranon process. That develops (normally) over the next year or two, then it ossifies. Little League pitchers who get rushed into it prematurely and start hurling away with arm-destroying techniques (as are taught by everyone with the exception of Dr. Mike Marshall and his disciples) cause irreparable damage.

Nevertheless (and I will state that I am not an expert in child physical development), I personally do not recommend weight training for kids under age 12. At around that age, I believe it would be good for parents to have vital joints x-rayed so that a biological age can be determined. If a kid is going to be playing a sport in which an enormous strain will be placed on a joint (e.g. pitching), this is absolutely vital for his long-term health.

I've become fond of jumping on an exersize bike, setting it to the "hill program" and peddling as hard as I can for as long as I can on the highest resistance level, take a break by lowering the resistance for a bit and peddling slower, then going back gung-ho again.

How does doing this compare to doing actual weight lifting with your legs like leg press?

I do like this idea; it's not terribly dissimilar from the Wingate bicycle test (which, if you're not familiar with, may you be only a spectator and not a participant. It's 30 seconds that make you hate your life). An average shift in a hockey game will last from roughly 45-90 seconds, followed by 90-240 seconds of rest. This program you describe replicates it fairly closely.

I will say this. You are most likely developing outstanding muscular oxidation in your legs, which is definitely a positive. As far as developing absolute raw skating power/strength, this is a bit lacking due to the differences in motion. If you want a killer supplemental workout to this, jump on a treadmill with an incline (10 degrees minimum, 30 degree maximum) and do the same thing. Go 90 seconds hard, 90 seconds soft, and back again. This will make sure the muscle of the lower leg, particularly the power centers of the gastroc/soleus, get some love too.

[Storm 0]

"This is Richard Sandrak, also known as little Hercules. He benched pressed 210 pounds at the age of 8 and a bodyweight of 70 pounds. He is an example of what a strenuous diet and exercise routine is capable of producing at a young age." Not my quote.

youtube video

[gman 0]

" He is an example of what a strenuous diet and exercise routine is capable of producing at a young age."

And pumping steroids in to a six year old body.

[Hockeydog 8]

That kid is screwed for life. I'm sure he'll have major physical problems at a young age.

[N!! 0]

Ah, Little Hercules. What a shame. Sandrak is now 15 years old and stands a stout 5'1". I have no doubt that he was being shot up with anabolic compounds, for a very simple reason.

Muscle hypertrophy happens with the presence of testosterone. This is why women can do the same lifting regimen that men can, yet won't develop enormous musculature (and the ones that do have unusually deep voices and Adam's apples). Testosterone production doesn't really kick in until around age 12-14. Certainly there are rare cases of extremely early development, but this does not appear to be the case.

Testosterone production tends to taper off to a minimum sometime between about age 27-30. An easy way to visually assess MLB players for steroid use is to see how many become enormous well after that point. Barry Bonds was a no-doubter in my book; he can talk all he wants about lifting and creatine and protein shakes, but it doesn't affect basic endocrinology. To achieve levels of hypertrophy to that extent at that point in life is impossible without one of two factors:

1) Unbelievably bizarre testosterone production (which seemed to be oddly absent pre-1999), or

2) A bit (or a lot) of synthetic hormone treatment

Sandrak had the opposite problem, and is in fact living proof of how too much hypertrophy can prematurely close growth plates. It's entirely possible that he'll give up bodybuilding and physically mature to a somewhat normal extent, but I doubt he'll ever hit 5'6" no matter what.

This isn't like in gymnastics, where women in their 20s who retire usually physically develop very rapidly in the span of a year (a gymnast who retires is normally about one year away from her first menstrual cycle, which is doubly odd when it's a 23-year-old).

[thefelixculpa 0]

I've been trying to come up with good exersizes with just my body weight and today I came up with one that I think is great for your legs. It probably already has a name and is widely used but I've never heard of it or seen it, so I created it in my own world :-)

- Put both your arms out on each side like you are pretending to be an airplane, then place one of your legs out in front of you as perpendicular to your body as you can without losing your balance, then while holding this position, bend your knee of the leg that is planted on the floor as close to a 90 degree angle as you can, hold it, then slowly, while still keeping your arms and other leg out, return to starting position and repeat.

I feel like this is great for balance and I get a sweet burn after doing enough of them. If there is already a name for this, don't abuse me!

[Remman 0]

It's a one-legged squat. It is a very good exercise for strength and balance. If you have trouble with balance, it can be done in between a door frame, lightly holding on to it for balance.

[Cove 38]

Stay away from machines. You are an athlete, not a body builder. Do squats with a bar and a rack.

That's interesting you would say that, because properly designed machines provide greater range of motion and lead to better flexibility, which should be the goal of all athletes.

Machines and weights each have benefits, and both should be included in your workouts if possible.

A machine cant possibly have better range of motion then your arm and a free weight.. Machines hinder your range of motion (I hurt my shoulder every time I try to bench press using a smith machine because I have no spotter)

[Trooper 8]

Stay away from machines. You are an athlete, not a body builder. Do squats with a bar and a rack.

That's interesting you would say that, because properly designed machines provide greater range of motion and lead to better flexibility, which should be the goal of all athletes.

Machines and weights each have benefits, and both should be included in your workouts if possible.

A machine cant possibly have better range of motion then your arm and a free weight.. Machines hinder your range of motion (I hurt my shoulder every time I try to bench press using a smith machine because I have no spotter)

+1000

Machines do the stabilization for you and force you into a groove that may be detrimental in the long run. Sports are performed in 3D, machines operate in 1D essentially. The lack of development of support muscles is doing to cause injury.

As for flexibility, maybe Salming can provide some actual evidence of flexibility being a goal of athletes. Unless you are having range of motion issues with the actual movements performed in your sport, flexibility is vastly overrated.

[Hockeydog 8]

yes it is, and has been blamed for groin pulls in hockey players because they spend too much time stretching those muscles and not enough time making them stronger. While flexibility is obviously a good thing, being too flexible ends up reducing the amount of force your muscles can produce.

[N!! 0]

yes it is, and has been blamed for groin pulls in hockey players because they spend too much time stretching those muscles and not enough time making them stronger. While flexibility is obviously a good thing, being too flexible ends up reducing the amount of force your muscles can produce.

Flexibility is fine, but maintaining strength through the range of motion is more important. Force applied is a result of contractile force x distance of movement; this is how a soccer-style kicker can thump a ball just as far as a straight-on kicker (much smaller muscles being used, but a much greater distance of movement).

If you're talking about the hip abductor machines, I agree that they tend to be used improperly. Then again, most machines and free weights are used improperly to begin with, but that's another story.

[Rocket 0]

by the way,

does anyone has a ProHockey off ice Manual which is not older than 2 years

I'm looking for something new! I have 2 NHL ones, one is by Ottawa and the other is a personalized manual by a NHL player

It's the best thing everyone can do to follow a training routine designed by an expert because due to so many things you have to consider if you train for hockey it's really tough to cover everything and not hurting your body by creating muscle imbalances or overtraining.

In those cases it's better to do nothing than training wrong....

however, if anyone is having such a manual I'd be more than happy about any info

I'd pay y something or we could interchange our manuals...

regards

[jcp2 2]

+1000

Machines do the stabilization for you and force you into a groove that may be detrimental in the long run. Sports are performed in 3D, machines operate in 1D essentially. The lack of development of support muscles is doing to cause injury.

As for flexibility, maybe Salming can provide some actual evidence of flexibility being a goal of athletes. Unless you are having range of motion issues with the actual movements performed in your sport, flexibility is vastly overrated.

I'm working with a trainer now and essentially, everything that I used to do in the gym (machines, free weights, sit-ups, etc) is considered inefficient. The new mantra is stability and strength within a functional range of motion, with that range of motion being greater or lesser depending on the needs of the individual and/or sport. There's no point in being flexible if there is associated reduced stability and strength. That predisposes to injury. I'm more stable on the ice now, and being bumped around doesn't affect me as much as before.

[Trooper 8]

I'm working with a trainer now and essentially, everything that I used to do in the gym (machines, free weights, sit-ups, etc) is considered inefficient.

Can you provide some more details about this statement? What is inefficient about them? Strength training is GPP work. Efficiency is how much bang for the buck you are getting. Why are free weights inefficient if your goal is to get strong?

[N!! 0]

I'm working with a trainer now and essentially, everything that I used to do in the gym (machines, free weights, sit-ups, etc) is considered inefficient. The new mantra is stability and strength within a functional range of motion, with that range of motion being greater or lesser depending on the needs of the individual and/or sport. There's no point in being flexible if there is associated reduced stability and strength. That predisposes to injury. I'm more stable on the ice now, and being bumped around doesn't affect me as much as before.

Machines are inefficient. Situps are inefficient and have no relation to the ice. Free weights? That's nuts. I'm not a huge lifter but I won't argue with the benefits of properly-utilized free weights.

The second part of what you say (flexibility simply for the sake of being flexible) is certainly true, as well as the importance of strength throughout a range of motion. I have no idea how free weights come into this at all.

If your trainer is actually preaching that free weights are inefficient, then fire your trainer and get a new one who knows what he's talking about. Ask for his credentials and verify them to be solid (ACSM or NSCA).

[Trooper 8]

Ask for his credentials and verify them to be solid (ACSM or NSCA).

While these are nice credentials to have, it takes little more than taking a pretty easy test and some $ to get them. Delve a little deeper to find out if a trainer knows what he or she is doing.

[Hockeydog 8]

I was lucky enough to train with people who got 4 year degrees in Exercise

Physiology for a while.

[jcp2 2]

I'm working with a trainer now and essentially, everything that I used to do in the gym (machines, free weights, sit-ups, etc) is considered inefficient. The new mantra is stability and strength within a functional range of motion, with that range of motion being greater or lesser depending on the needs of the individual and/or sport. There's no point in being flexible if there is associated reduced stability and strength. That predisposes to injury. I'm more stable on the ice now, and being bumped around doesn't affect me as much as before.

Machines are inefficient. Situps are inefficient and have no relation to the ice. Free weights? That's nuts. I'm not a huge lifter but I won't argue with the benefits of properly-utilized free weights.

The second part of what you say (flexibility simply for the sake of being flexible) is certainly true, as well as the importance of strength throughout a range of motion. I have no idea how free weights come into this at all.

If your trainer is actually preaching that free weights are inefficient, then fire your trainer and get a new one who knows what he's talking about. Ask for his credentials and verify them to be solid (ACSM or NSCA).

Let me clarify a bit. I used to do a lot of traditional free weight exercises like bench press, shoulder press, bicep curls, tricep curls with a fair amount of weight. I'm still using free weights in my program, but in a different context. For example, I do an iron cross push-up type exercise with a 9 pound weight in each hand. I'm doing one legged squats on an Airex stability pad in conjunction with forward dips with a 15 pound weight. I do traveling lunges with an overhead press with a 15 pound plate. The only weight that is comparable in quantity to what I might have considered as a heavy weight is straight legged dead lifts, but even then, that's only with 75-90 pounds of weight. Single arm cable pulls with 15 pounds seemed easy enough, but then I had to do them on balance disks. A lot harder. The dude in the corner standing on one leg on a Bosu while throwing a medicine ball into a rebounding trampoline. That's me. It's all pretty new to an old school "fraternity" weight lifter, but it's been working for me.

[habsmaniac 0]

What is the appropraite age to start weigt lifting? thanks

[Cavs019 708]

As soon as you learn how to read you should about be ready to start lifting.

[Hockeydog 8]

As soon as you learn how to read you should about be ready to start lifting.

Not quite.

[Cavs019 708]

I was referencing the fact that the answer to his question is one page back in this thread.

[Hockeydog 8]

I was referencing the fact that the answer to his question is one page back in this thread.

My bad, gotcha !!!! Humor sensors have been off lately.