Weightlifting

[N!! 0]

If you watch a hockey game on TV and see the camera in the locker room showing players getting ready you will notice that the players don't really have huge chests, other than what they naturally came with. The above statements make sense to me.

A huge problem has been the idea that hockey players need to follow a similar workout to football. And a bigger problem there is that in the football world, the bench and bicep exercises are still regarded as relevant when they literally mean nothing.

Believe me, I coach offensive line and can tell you how little the pectoralis major matters in blocking. Anterior deltoid? Of course. All three heads of the triceps brachii? You'd better believe it. Flexors and extensors? Without a doubt. The biceps brachii? Ummm....I don't teach holding, so no (at least not to the extent that it's normally focused on in the weight room).

[-brady2 0]

If you want to become the most well-conditioned hockey player possible, think about what you do during a game, during a period, or during a shift. Think of what muscles are guaranteed to be used and what won't ever get used. Work what is important, don't waste your time on what isn't.

I think that it's a bad idea to neglect certain muscles in training for hockey i.e. biceps, traps, etc. By not training these muscles it could impede your training progress for other parts of your body. Like for example if you don't train your back, its harder for you to improve your chest. Although some muscles shouldn't be trained as hard or as frequently as others all should be trained nonetheless.

Also if done properly with good form, the bench press is a very good multiple muscle upper body workout, and is a good indicator of overall upper body strength. They do use it as a conditioning test at the NHL combine and team training camps.

For speed and agility aren't the hip muscles and upper quads/lower abs(?) very important?

Don't get me wrong; every muscle in the body is important and certainly needs training. I'm speaking more against the idea that what's important for one thing must be vital for everything.

The problem that I have with the bench press is that true "proper form" (the method that doesn't cause AC joint strain) is inefficient. In order to prevent the irregular force on the AC joint, it is necessary to (while lying flat) never let the elbow drop below the acromioclavicular line. This means that the bar will never end up closer than 9-15" above the chest. Frankly, that's inefficient. The fact that the NHL and NFL combines use this and seem to believe it meaningful simply says that those who put the program together have zero creativity and zero concern for a very important joint.

The other problem with doing the bench is something that I'm sure you've seen experienced weightlifters have, and that is a fractured scapula. The reason is that the amount of force going both ways with the bench actually peels muscle off the scapula; over time, the bone itself literally becomes paper-thin until a fracture is inevitable.

In the world of economics, the marketplace gravitates toward efficiency. The world of conditioning should really be no different. The bench press is inefficient because the negatives far outweight the positives. The initial enormous strength gains seen in the first six to eight weeks of a lifting program are the result of the body laying new neural pathways to make the movement more efficient, not because of actual muscular strength increase. Anything that you do over time will become more efficient until it is maximized (the so-called "muscle memory"). A bench press helps you bench press; it doesn't help you become a better hockey player/football player/ballerina.

I don't see how having a stronger upperbody could possibly make you a worse hockey player.

One has nothing to do with the other. The bench press does more damage in the process of a relatively pointless exercise than it produces positives.

If you can tell me what movements in a game of hockey rely heavily on the pectoralis major versus those that use anything involved in movement of the shoulder joint, then we may be getting somewhere. The bench press causes damage to the every part of the shoulder joint with the tradeoff of a negligible benefit, and that's a benefit that works better on the cover of Muscle & Fitness than in an actual sport.

A defenseman pinning someone against the boards? Pretty key on a shifty guy who could burn you with speed.

[N!! 0]

A defenseman pinning someone against the boards? Pretty key on a shifty guy who could burn you with speed.

That's an isometric hold that involves various muscles, ranging from the triceps brachii to everything in the shoulder to the subclavius to the trapzius I.

In any case, you're talking about benching (and destroying your shoulder) for the actual on-ice benefit of....pinning and holding someone against the boards. If you're that gung ho about it, be my guest.

[-brady2 0]

A defenseman pinning someone against the boards? Pretty key on a shifty guy who could burn you with speed.

That's an isometric hold that involves various muscles, ranging from the triceps brachii to everything in the shoulder to the subclavius to the trapzius I.

In any case, you're talking about benching (and destroying your shoulder) for the actual on-ice benefit of....pinning and holding someone against the boards. If you're that gung ho about it, be my guest.

I'm not gun ho about benching every day, my workout more consists of squats, leg press, leg curls, various sorts of rows, chin ups, pull ups, shoulder shrugs, military press clean and jerks, etc etc

not many olympic lifts in season though, too much risk for pulling a muscle.

and example of todays workout would of been

seated shoulder press

shoulder shrugs

calf raises, leg curls

squats

pull ups

chin ups

close grip pushups,(instead of tricep extensions or kickbacks, just switching it up)

50 cruches, 50 trunk twists, 50 sit ups, 50 leg raises(our trainer is crazy about core)

preacher curls

seater wide grip lateral pull downs

[Chadd 916]

A defenseman pinning someone against the boards? Pretty key on a shifty guy who could burn you with speed.

That's an isometric hold that involves various muscles, ranging from the triceps brachii to everything in the shoulder to the subclavius to the trapzius I.

In any case, you're talking about benching (and destroying your shoulder) for the actual on-ice benefit of....pinning and holding someone against the boards. If you're that gung ho about it, be my guest.

Not to mention the fact that a strong core is probably the most important thing to have when pinning somone along the boards. Generate that force from your legs on up and not from the top down.

If you get ripped up top you should be able to really cross check the living hell out of someone. ;)

[Cavs019 708]

I appreciate the expertise, but is "destroy" truly the operative word here? I'm in no place to put my intelligence up against yours on the matter but many people seem to bench their entire lives without complaining of shoulder issues. Obviously my sample is small because its purely anecdotal discussions I've had with older people I know.

[biff44 0]

Haven't read the whole thread. However, the gist of some recent posts seems to be: "what are the minimum number of exercises to do to get into hockey shape?"

That is not a good way to think. Let me give you a few reasons why:

1) Physics. Your body is set up so pretty much EVERY muscle in the body has an opposing muscle right next to it. If you raise up your leg, there is an opposing muscle to pull it back down. If you wind up and shoot a hockey puck (the opposing muscle lifts the stick), the other muscle drives the stick down to propel the puck.

What happens if you only train the muscle that does most of the work in hockey. For instance, those muscles that shoot the puck, and not train the muscles needed to raise the stick back? Well, the first set of muscles gets bigger and bigger. They start pulling the bones forward, and there is only a weak muscle in your back trying to keep the bones in the right place. Eventually, you are walking hunched over like some knuckle dragging Gorilla, and your BONE JOINTS get pulled all out of position by the front-of-the-body muscles. When the bones get pulled out of position at the joints, all sorts of heck breaks loose: you wear grooves in your cartilage, nerves get pinched and you have great pain.

2) Taking a hit. So you are tooling down the ice, winding up on a net with a goalie out of position, and out of nowhere someone deals you a classic hip check. You go for big air, and land on the ice like a tumbling package of flesh and bones. Remember all those weak muscles you forgot to train? Well they are not there to help keep your bones from snapping around like a rag dolls. A few hours later in the Emergency room, the doctor tells you about the various ligaments and tendons that are strained or torn and how many months you will be out of action. IF you had a bunch of balanced muscles, the tendons and ligaments on the normally "weak" side would be twice or more as tough, and you probably would have been skating again after sitting out a shift!

A common weight room problem is that one's body tends to do certain exercises well, and other ones poorly. For me it is leg muscles. I can squat enourmous weight, I can leg raise 500lbs, I can calf raise 240 lbs. But I can not do a chin up! So, when I was young what did it work out the most? you guessed it, leg muscles! I was going for that extra 20 pounds. I was an idiot. I should have found every weak muscle in my body and trained it twice as hard as the ones that were naturally strong! I would have been 4X the athelete!

[N!! 0]

Not to mention the fact that a strong core is probably the most important thing to have when pinning somone along the boards. Generate that force from your legs on up and not from the top down.

If you get ripped up top you should be able to really cross check the living hell out of someone. ;)

You know, a cross-check is the only motion in hockey that's remotely similar to a bench press; maybe benching will help you snap your stick over someone's back.

[N!! 0]

Haven't read the whole thread. However, the gist of some recent posts seems to be: "what are the minimum number of exercises to do to get into hockey shape?"

That is not a good way to think. Let me give you a few reasons why:

1) Physics. Your body is set up so pretty much EVERY muscle in the body has an opposing muscle right next to it. If you raise up your leg, there is an opposing muscle to pull it back down. If you wind up and shoot a hockey puck (the opposing muscle lifts the stick), the other muscle drives the stick down to propel the puck.

Except you're not talking about uniplanar, unijoint, or symmetrical movements in hockey.

The most important muscle/muscle group in the upper body in hockey is that around the shoulder for a variety of reasons. The deltoid is a multipennate muscle, meaning that it needs to be worked through entire ranges of motion rather than isolating. More on that later.

What happens if you only train the muscle that does most of the work in hockey. For instance, those muscles that shoot the puck, and not train the muscles needed to raise the stick back? Well, the first set of muscles gets bigger and bigger. They start pulling the bones forward, and there is only a weak muscle in your back trying to keep the bones in the right place. Eventually, you are walking hunched over like some knuckle dragging Gorilla, and your BONE JOINTS get pulled all out of position by the front-of-the-body muscles. When the bones get pulled out of position at the joints, all sorts of heck breaks loose: you wear grooves in your cartilage, nerves get pinched and you have great pain.

A bit of an extreme case here. First, you're talking about muscular hypertrophy. Second, you're talking about the relationship between agonist and antagonist; in isolation exercises done improperly (with no true eccentric phase) you may see something like this. As for your "eventually" scenario...come on.

2) Taking a hit. So you are tooling down the ice, winding up on a net with a goalie out of position, and out of nowhere someone deals you a classic hip check. You go for big air, and land on the ice like a tumbling package of flesh and bones. Remember all those weak muscles you forgot to train? Well they are not there to help keep your bones from snapping around like a rag dolls. A few hours later in the Emergency room, the doctor tells you about the various ligaments and tendons that are strained or torn and how many months you will be out of action. IF you had a bunch of balanced muscles, the tendons and ligaments on the normally "weak" side would be twice or more as tough, and you probably would have been skating again after sitting out a shift!

Again, an extreme case to the point of being dang near impossible. Breaking bones as a result of hitting the ice after a hip check would need the following scenarios:

1) Being completely unprotected by equipment

2) Hitting every single part of the body exactly at the same time and at exactly the same force on the ice (which, in the real world and not the world where a T-1000 is shattered and then melts together to reform, can't be done)

3) Would require many years of a diet in which calcium was literally not consumed and instead was replaced by phosphoric acid, thus rendering said player in an osteoporotic condition at an unheard-of age

A common weight room problem is that one's body tends to do certain exercises well, and other ones poorly. For me it is leg muscles. I can squat enourmous weight, I can leg raise 500lbs, I can calf raise 240 lbs. But I can not do a chin up! So, when I was young what did it work out the most? you guessed it, leg muscles! I was going for that extra 20 pounds. I was an idiot. I should have found every weak muscle in my body and trained it twice as hard as the ones that were naturally strong! I would have been 4X the athelete!

Now you're getting somewhere. This is why I don't recommend getting training advice from anyone who hasn't played the game of hockey or at least is a passionate fan IN ADDITION to actually being able to explain the enormous physiological differences that are required and result from the difference between football and hockey.

Unfortunately, too many trainers and other self-proclaimed experts have a "one size fits all" mentality because they lack the proper background and proper certification. If you're looking for a personal trainer, find someone with an ACSM or NSCA certification; they actually monitor who gets certified very closely. There are no mail-in exams there.

I appreciate the expertise, but is "destroy" truly the operative word here? I'm in no place to put my intelligence up against yours on the matter but many people seem to bench their entire lives without complaining of shoulder issues. Obviously my sample is small because its purely anecdotal discussions I've had with older people I know.

I'll stand by "destroy". Most older guys that I know come from the much older school of training, taking knowledge from Charles Atlas and other older wrestlers, etc. I don't take issue with most of that because of the amount of other training that was suggested as well as various general methods. Most would be quite proficient in gymnastics, for example; try to imagine Shaun Alexander in a tutu if you must.

Most of the younger guys (40 and under) were raised on a hybrid of the Arnold/NFL style training, to say nothing of a variety of commercials that emphasize an almost homoerotic side of conditioning (a bunch of sweaty guys wearing no shirts or compression shirts, extreme close-ups of the chest, etc). To most, the look trumps the actual functional benefits. This is why the older guys don't shave their chests, splash water on themselves, howl wildly while lifting, or throw down weights; the younger guys tend to have a monopoly on that.

[hockechamp14 0]

What happens if you only train the muscle that does most of the work in hockey. For instance, those muscles that shoot the puck, and not train the muscles needed to raise the stick back? Well, the first set of muscles gets bigger and bigger. They start pulling the bones forward, and there is only a weak muscle in your back trying to keep the bones in the right place. Eventually, you are walking hunched over like some knuckle dragging Gorilla, and your BONE JOINTS get pulled all out of position by the front-of-the-body muscles. When the bones get pulled out of position at the joints, all sorts of heck breaks loose: you wear grooves in your cartilage, nerves get pinched and you have great pain.

A bit of an extreme case here. First, you're talking about muscular hypertrophy. Second, you're talking about the relationship between agonist and antagonist; in isolation exercises done improperly (with no true eccentric phase) you may see something like this. As for your "eventually" scenario...come on.

He makes a good point, even though he may not understand completely what's going on. Someone who does all quad dominant work from playing hockey and "hockey specific training" is just begging to pull/strain a glute or a hammy from being unbalanced and overstretched through the posterior chain.

I'll stand by "destroy". Most older guys that I know come from the much older school of training, taking knowledge from Charles Atlas and other older wrestlers, etc. I don't take issue with most of that because of the amount of other training that was suggested as well as various general methods. Most would be quite proficient in gymnastics, for example; try to imagine Shaun Alexander in a tutu if you must.

Most of the younger guys (40 and under) were raised on a hybrid of the Arnold/NFL style training, to say nothing of a variety of commercials that emphasize an almost homoerotic side of conditioning (a bunch of sweaty guys wearing no shirts or compression shirts, extreme close-ups of the chest, etc). To most, the look trumps the actual functional benefits. This is why the older guys don't shave their chests, splash water on themselves, howl wildly while lifting, or throw down weights; the younger guys tend to have a monopoly on that.

If you think the bench press destroys your shoulders without any further comment you're wrong. The main reason people mess up their shoulder is because they don't know how to bench properly. The bench press shouldn't be feared.

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1053531&cr=

[-brady2 0]

Too the guy talking about the upswing and downswing, isn't that essentially why most workouts balance push and pull muscles?

[N!! 0]

He makes a good point, even though he may not understand completely what's going on. Someone who does all quad dominant work from playing hockey and "hockey specific training" is just begging to pull/strain a glute or a hammy from being unbalanced and overstretched through the posterior chain.

I guess it depends on what the defintion of "hockey specific training" is.

If you think the bench press destroys your shoulders without any further comment you're wrong. The main reason people mess up their shoulder is because they don't know how to bench properly. The bench press shouldn't be feared.

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1053531&cr=

Excellent link; thanks for posting it. I do want to point out one part of what this guy wrote though:

"As you lower the bar, keep the upper arms at a 45-degree angle to the torso; tuck the elbows instead of letting them flare out. It's well documented that the elbows-flared ("bodybuilder-style") bench markedly increases stress on the glenohumeral joint. Also, keep your wrists under your elbows instead of letting them roll back."

Notice that this refers to keeping the elbow no further below the acromioclavicular line, which is what causes the problems to both that joint and the glenohumeral as well. But then, this particular technique isn't what passes for a regular bench press that can be seen in any gym or weight room around the world. If the movement prescribed here were what was being used, I wouldn't take issue with it. What I've been referring to in this thread is what Mr. Cressey refers to as a bodybuilding-style bench.

That said, there's still no movement in hockey that closely replicates this. ;)

[biff44 0]

Bench pressing is fine. But for every minute you spend bench pressing, you should spend an equal minute with something like a seated row! If not, in 6 months you will have a trashed body!

[Hockey* 0]

Are none of you guys reading what N!! (the guy who probably knows twice as much if not more then most of you, on this issue) is saying?

[Cavs019 708]

Yea we are, it's great having someone with this much expertise on board as there are clearly a wealth of fitness related questions.

Your contributions on the other hand.

[Hockeydog 8]

N!! is a blessing to have on this board. I thank you for your continued posts.

Please keep the info coming because a good many of us are listening!

I was doing research on the internet and came across a site that talked about functional or body weight training ( not Fury), and in that article the author/expert stated that he has seen male gymnasts whose only fitness training was gymnastics be able to bench at least 2x their body weight the first time they ever touched a barbell. Keep in mind these guys go about 130-150 lbs tops. That is 300lbs in the bench, with no bench training at all! And it's safe to say those guys are pretty functional athletes with massive flexibility and balance. I'd bet they would fare well pinning the average beer leaguer/ house player to the boards if they could skate.

[-brady2 0]

I don't plan on doing gymnastics to build up functional strength...

[gman 0]

I don't plan on doing gymnastics to build up functional strength...

Too bad. It would help.

[thefelixculpa 0]

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?

[Trooper 8]

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

a- A leg press is not time well-spent in the weight room. Squats involve far more muscles, develop inter-muscular coordination, and require control of the weight in three dimensions

b- It doesn't compare. How can pedaling on a bike with a light load compare to increasing strength with heavy loads? Does a marathon runner look like a sprinter?

[Hockeydog 8]

I don't plan on doing gymnastics to build up functional strength

Not suggesting everyone start doing gymnastics. Just trying to make a point that you can become extremely strong without doing benches. That being said, I have been looking at ring training

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

kids aren't supposed to lift weights until they are like 16 or something, if kids lift to soon then they can damage growth plates and stunt growth and other sorts of bad stuff.....but technically athletes should lift with free weights because it promotes using stabilizer muscles instead isolating the muscle, also athletes should work on flexibility too. being flexible is important because it will help prevent injury so don't just focus on lifting, work on stretching exercises as well

[Hockeydog 8]

kids aren't supposed to lift weights until they are like 16 or something,

There has been much debate about this, and I think many experts say they can, with some limitations, lift weights- board experts weight in !!

Besides, if kids just played their sport and did push-ups and pull-ups and other bodyweight exercises before they turned 16 they would still be very healthy.

If I could go back to my youth and know what I know now, I would do gymnastics, at least for a while. That and I'd learn to skate at a MUCH earlier age !!

[thorpedo26 0]

kids aren't supposed to lift weights until they are like 16 or something, if kids lift to soon then they can damage growth plates and stunt growth and other sorts of bad stuff.....

i beleave that is a myth?

[Cavs019 708]

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.