A New Approach to Weightlifiting (thoughts appreciated)

[UvBnDatsyuked]

Stronglifts 5x5 should be the starting point. Squats. Deadlifts. Rows. Presses. Bench. Big weights grow muscle and strength and work the heart and lungs too.

Unless you're putting up big numbers on those basic lifts, complicating things isn't going to help.

Simplefit I think is a solid beginner program, better than nothing for sure. Pushups, pullups, squats. No it's not complete but it's the basics.

Good guide. 5x5 is a great program. Works for the vast majority of people I know that have done it or do it.

I forgot to add one very important thing. Keep track of everything. Write down a training log. Write down weight gain. Take measurements. What you eat.

The most important thing to write down is Strength gains (set up a basic test for all major muscle groups and test yourself every three weeks or so) If you see huge gains/improvements with a specific three week period, then make sure you keep doing what you did that previous three weeks. Some people have found that the lower rep/higher weight workout skyrockets their strength. I for one see the most improvement with 10 reps to 14 reps. I would never have known this if I didn't write down everything.

 

[Guffaw]

this advice is horrible.

"take a week off" might be ok, if the guy is overtrained. it's unlikely that he is, and if he is, he might need to take 3 months off.

"switch things up"? there's no indication that he needs a programming change. and going from barbell curls to incline dumbell curls is very similar to switching from white shoelaces to black shoelaces on your road games. i can't think of two more worthless exercises for the average player.

and finally, going for super volume to the tune of 4 sets to failure with no rest is quite possibly the biggest injury risk he can take on. it's also pretty LOL that you said "take 10-15% of the weight off", then proceeded to prescribe sets of 225-215-200-185.

Know it all. I have a degree in exercise physiology and wouldn't think of coming in here and insulting people

 

[Guffaw]

NHL players are almost all doing completely bodyweight based exercises these days. The heavy lifting for bigger muscles is actually quite counterproductive if you're trying to become a better hockey player.

Maybe for upper body or players that aren't lacking size and strength in the upper body, but not for legs.

That is the heart of it though. OP what are your goals from a weight lifting program?

-Better athlete?
-Bodybuilding? Get bigger for aesthetic reasons?
-Stronger? Impress people in the gym?

Your going to train differently depending on which one of those is your main goal. Packing on pounds of muscle on your upper body is almost counterproductive if your a quick forward looking to become a better player.

Hockey players train for strength, power, explosiveness, agility, balance, endurance, and mostly use multi joint movements that will most closely replicate on ice situations. For example, lateral raise on an upside down bosu ball starting in a low athletic position and ending on your toes(athlete) vs. seated and stationary(body builder).

An athletes training is functional. Your training to do something better.

Bodybuilders train to look good. Period. Silly if your a 39 year old married guy like me, but I was there once.

 

[newfr4u]

Know it all. I have a degree in exercise physiology and wouldn't think of coming in here and insulting people

congrats on graduating. i am sure you worked very hard.

Maybe for upper body or players that aren't lacking size and strength in the upper body, but not for legs.

That is the heart of it though. OP what are your goals from a weight lifting program?

-Better athlete?
-Bodybuilding? Get bigger for aesthetic reasons?
-Stronger? Impress people in the gym?

Your going to train differently depending on which one of those is your main goal. Packing on pounds of muscle on your upper body is almost counterproductive if your a quick forward looking to become a better player.

Hockey players train for strength, power, explosiveness, agility, balance, endurance, and mostly use multi joint movements that will most closely replicate on ice situations.

incorrect. there's significant evidence that upper body strength as well as other types of strength is very beneficial for athletes in general and hockey players in particular.

 

[Pittsburgh Proud]

Each muscle group needs 48 hours of rest in between lifting for full recovery.

 

[Eaglepride*]

Kudos if you can do 4x times a hard workout for the same muscle group. My workout basically contains 4x gym and 1x MA (muay thai) problem with the new routine would be:

Training a muscle means you are creating a rift in the fibrous, rebuilding this takes time, by doing the same workout you will not speed up the heal process = starting to gain muscle by recreating the fibrous.

What I'm doing right now I mixing up my routines it used to be:

1 - biceps, triceps (weak point still)
2 - legs, back
3 - abdominal
4 - shoulders, balance
5 - MT

this week I did 5 - 3 - 2 - 4 - 1, next week its going to be - 3 - 5 -1 -2 - 4 don't know if it will make a difference just an approach of not letting my body get any sort of weekly routine, so different rifts on different days & weeks.

Going to write a review come 2012 about how it went for me.

 

[Guffaw]

congrats on graduating. i am sure you worked very hard.



incorrect. there's significant evidence that upper body strength as well as other types of strength is very beneficial for athletes in general and hockey players in particular.

Please read my post. "Packing on pounds of upper body muscle" and "strength" are not necessarily the same thing.

Functional, usable upper body strength will help you win puck battles, faceoffs, may improve your shot, ability to knock players off the puck, etc. An upper body like the meat heads at my gym only makes it easier for me to skate around them. It often decreases their flexibility, raises there center of gravity, and slows them down.

If you want a simple example, look at elite NHL players in street clothes. Average upper body, big legs. You'll see a few Scott Stevens types, but they are normally defensive defensemen or checking forwards. Crosby, Malkin, Gretzky, Mario, Giroux, Jagr, Modano, you could go on and on. From the waist up you can barely tell these guys ever touched a weight. There's a reason for that.

You would do better stating your opinion and moving on. Picking apart everyone else's opinion makes you look like your trying to prove something.

 

[Guffaw]

Each muscle group needs 48 hours of rest in between lifting for full recovery.

This can be true, but really depends on how hard you're hitting it, your age, recovery ability etc.

If you're blasting your legs with squats, lunges, extensions, curls, calves, plyometrics, etc. etc. you wont be ready in 2 days. I can barely walk 2 days later. For me it's each body part once a week.

My work/game schedule doesn't allow me to follow this as closely as I would like, but this is my routine.

1-Push(chest, shoulders, tris), stretching
2-Cardio
3-Pull(back, bis), stretching
4-Cardio
5-Legs, stretching
6-Cardio
7-Rest

 

[newfr4u]

Please read my post. "Packing on pounds of upper body muscle" and "strength" are not necessarily the same thing.

Functional, usable upper body strength will help you win puck battles, faceoffs, may improve your shot, ability to knock players off the puck, etc. An upper body like the meat heads at my gym only makes it easier for me to skate around them. It often decreases their flexibility, raises there center of gravity, and slows them down.

If you want a simple example, look at elite NHL players in street clothes. Average upper body, big legs. You'll see a few Scott Stevens types, but they are normally defensive defensemen or checking forwards. Crosby, Malkin, Gretzky, Mario, Giroux, Jagr, Modano, you could go on and on. From the waist up you can barely tell these guys ever touched a weight. There's a reason for that.

You would do better stating your opinion and moving on. Picking apart everyone else's opinion makes you look like your trying to prove something.

first of all, stop putting mario/gretzky into the same group of as crosby/malkin, etc. the eras have changed. absolutely gone are the days of athletes skipping the gym.

secondly, are you freaking serious? crosby and malkin are absolute beasts in the gym and LOOK like it. and i am not talking about seeing veins on their biceps. jagr is another guy who started pushing a lot of weight way before it was required by the teams. just google their shirtless pictures.

and furthermore, you are talking about extremes. i am fairly confident that noone on this board is in any danger of looking like a body builder or packing on the same amount of upper body. body builders work on their bodies for decades, with no interruption from silly things like playing hockey. if they tried to stay to a body-building program while skating 2-3 times a week and they would not look like they do. it's really meaningless if you think you can skate around them.

but make no mistake that putting on muscle mass will improve your strength. greatly! your comment that hockey players don't need upper body strength only discourages people from going to the gym.

i could keep on nit-picking (for example, even extreme muscle mass does NOT decrease your flexibility; flexibility comes from working on your flexibility), but the main point is that anyone trying to get better at hockey SHOULD do a basic strength program at the functional lifts for ALL ATHLETES.

ETA: just did a google search for "hockey player turned bodybuilder" and this is what came up http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/xxx_hockey/ impressive.

 

[UvBnDatsyuked]

Please read my post. "Packing on pounds of upper body muscle" and "strength" are not necessarily the same thing.

Functional, usable upper body strength will help you win puck battles, faceoffs, may improve your shot, ability to knock players off the puck, etc. An upper body like the meat heads at my gym only makes it easier for me to skate around them. It often decreases their flexibility, raises there center of gravity, and slows them down.

If you want a simple example, look at elite NHL players in street clothes. Average upper body, big legs. You'll see a few Scott Stevens types, but they are normally defensive defensemen or checking forwards. Crosby, Malkin, Gretzky, Mario, Giroux, Jagr, Modano, you could go on and on. From the waist up you can barely tell these guys ever touched a weight. There's a reason for that.

You would do better stating your opinion and moving on. Picking apart everyone else's opinion makes you look like your trying to prove something.

Since you have a very high interest in hockey and fitness, I'm sure you seen NHL combine pics of Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Landeskog, Biggs. If you had you would see that they have lifted a few weights. Crosby was shown the other day in his UnderArmour before his first game back, and as you guessed it he has an impressive upper body size. He is not like the average person.
(Not sure why you are comparing this generation with players drafted in 80's/90's. Times have changed like you wouldn't believe. The days of getting in shape AT training camp are over. You come to training camp in shape and with more strength and with younger players, more size than the pervious season. Bring up Gretzky as an example is pretty funny stuff)

Upper body size will probably never reach levels of football players but it is for sure moving away from the way NHL players were in the 90's/80's/70's. Seeing combine pics of Hall and Seguin, I can really see NHL players moving towards body types of NFL defensive backs.

The S&C coaches in hockey today are still promoting large lower bodies gained by the big exercises like DL, Squat, etc but they are also push upper body strength and size for injury prevention and athletic usefulness.

S&C coaches like Mike Boyle and Roger Takahashi are having their players improve upper body size and strength.

 

[Pittsburgh Proud]

This can be true, but really depends on how hard you're hitting it, your age, recovery ability etc.

If you're blasting your legs with squats, lunges, extensions, curls, calves, plyometrics, etc. etc. you wont be ready in 2 days. I can barely walk 2 days later. For me it's each body part once a week.

My work/game schedule doesn't allow me to follow this as closely as I would like, but this is my routine.

1-Push(chest, shoulders, tris), stretching
2-Cardio
3-Pull(back, bis), stretching
4-Cardio
5-Legs, stretching
6-Cardio
7-Rest

For your upper body lifts I would suggest Bi's and Tri's, Chest and back. This way you get opposite pulls and pushes and get the best workout for your muscles. Definitely saw a big improvement in what I could do by the end of my workout. I had to take a strength and resistance training course for my coaching minor and this was highly recommended.

 

[md3k*]

Make sure your core is the strongest part of your body and you strengthen postural muscles or else squats/deadlifts can really do some damage on your back. If I could turn back time I would have been assessed by a physiotherapist and even done some yoga before I even touched a weight

 

[Guffaw]

Since you have a very high interest in hockey and fitness, I'm sure you seen NHL combine pics of Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Landeskog, Biggs. If you had you would see that they have lifted a few weights. Crosby was shown the other day in his UnderArmour before his first game back, and as you guessed it he has an impressive upper body size. He is not like the average person.
(Not sure why you are comparing this generation with players drafted in 80's/90's. Times have changed like you wouldn't believe. The days of getting in shape AT training camp are over. You come to training camp in shape and with more strength and with younger players, more size than the pervious season. Bring up Gretzky as an example is pretty funny stuff)

Upper body size will probably never reach levels of football players but it is for sure moving away from the way NHL players were in the 90's/80's/70's. Seeing combine pics of Hall and Seguin, I can really see NHL players moving towards body types of NFL defensive backs.

The S&C coaches in hockey today are still promoting large lower bodies gained by the big exercises like DL, Squat, etc but they are also push upper body strength and size for injury prevention and athletic usefulness.

S&C coaches like Mike Boyle and Roger Takahashi are having their players improve upper body size and strength.

Please reread my post. I never said any player shouldn't lift weights for their upper body. What I'm saying is gaining bodybuilder type size in the upper body should not be the goal if you want to become a better player. Obviously there are exceptions depending on if you are playing full contact, what your weight and strength are now, and what type of player you are. Some hypertrophy will occur as a result of training, but your goal as a player isn't to build a big upper body.

Today or yesterday, what's the difference? Show me an elite player that comes even close to resembling a bodybuilder in the upper body. If you find one I'll find 100 that's don't. Anything more than you need wil make you slower, less agile, will throw your balance off, raise your center of gravity, and make you a less effective player.

An 18 yr. old NHLer that's 6'2" 160 lbs probably needs to gain some size in his upper body, but he's the exception. He's playing full contact, 82 games a year against guys that are up to 80 lbs. heavier and much stronger.

A defensive back's upper body isn't even close to a bodybuilders. D backs are the best athletes on the field which is why they aren't built like running backs, linemen, linebackers, or body builders for the same reasons hockey players aren't.

 

[Guffaw]

For your upper body lifts I would suggest Bi's and Tri's, Chest and back. This way you get opposite pulls and pushes and get the best workout for your muscles. Definitely saw a big improvement in what I could do by the end of my workout. I had to take a strength and resistance training course for my coaching minor and this was highly recommended.

I'm not saying your wrong, but it's not for me.

My training has become more compound, more linked strength, hockey type movements. I'm not isolating muscles when I do push movements or pull.

Again, training for body building and training for a sport are going to be much different. You don't isolate or do anything seated in hockey so I don't do it when I train unless I'm rehabbing an injury.

 

[Whiplash27]

I haven't hit the gym in a while, but I always did

Chest/Tris (bench, flys, dips, push-ups, skull crushers, etc)
Back/Bis (deadlift, rows, lat pull-downs, pull-ups, curls, etc)
Legs/Shoulders (squats, calf raises, leg extensions, etc)

Something like that with abs in two of the days depending on when I'd go. I hated doing shoulders on chest day because the chest workouts would kill my shoulders, so I would do them on leg day instead. I only would go to the gym 3 times a week, I'm too busy to go 4 or 5 times a week.

I always feel that someone should do Back/Bis & Chest/Tris instead of Bis/Tris & Chest/Back. Most of the compound chest workouts do your chest and triceps (bench press for example), just as most compound back workouts hit your back and biceps (rows, pull-ups among others)

Anyway, it was working well for me at the time, but at the end of the day, what's going to work for one person may not for others.

 

[newfr4u]

guffaw,

i repeat NOONE is in any danger of getting an upper body like a bodybuilder or a defensive back. NOONE! not a 6'2" 160lb rookie is hardly an exception. and WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ELITE PROSPECTS! we are talking about someone who wants to play better in his rec league! not even 240lb former junior players are in any danger of looking like arnold, or ray lewis, or brian orakpo. btw arnol's competition weight was 250lb at 6'2" with sub 8% body fat. nowadays, bodybuilders are even bigger and 3-5" shorter. if you find a non-pro hockey player at 250lb, he is usually a big fatty.

as a hockey player, you expend way more calories and do way too much other stuff for your lifts or even lean muscle to progress at the same rate as a bodybuilder or a football player. you seem to think that getting your press to intermediate levels of strength is counterproductive because of balance. it's not. if you get your bench to 245 and squat to 365 while putting on 15-25 lbs of LBM on your body, it will not significantly move your center of gravity. mind you those numbers are not something an average hockey player would do overnight. those sorts of gains can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. and CoG is something hockey players can move lower with skating axioms like knee-bend, and keeping your butt low.

kudos on your point on isolation exercises, and most of advice in this thread is to stay with compound lifts. that does not prevent you from workout on upper body. the bench press, or chin-up/pull-ups are not isolation exercises, as i am sure was covered in your exercise degree.

 

[UvBnDatsyuked]

Please reread my post. I never said any player shouldn't lift weights for their upper body. What I'm saying is gaining bodybuilder type size in the upper body should not be the goal if you want to become a better player. Obviously there are exceptions depending on if you are playing full contact, what your weight and strength are now, and what type of player you are. Some hypertrophy will occur as a result of training, but your goal as a player isn't to build a big upper body.

Today or yesterday, what's the difference? Show me an elite player that comes even close to resembling a bodybuilder in the upper body. If you find one I'll find 100 that's don't. Anything more than you need wil make you slower, less agile, will throw your balance off, raise your center of gravity, and make you a less effective player.

An 18 yr. old NHLer that's 6'2" 160 lbs probably needs to gain some size in his upper body, but he's the exception. He's playing full contact, 82 games a year against guys that are up to 80 lbs. heavier and much stronger.

A defensive back's upper body isn't even close to a bodybuilders. D backs are the best athletes on the field which is why they aren't built like running backs, linemen, linebackers, or body builders for the same reasons hockey players aren't.

Say what you want but no one here is pitching training and looking like a bodybuilder. You are putting words into people's mouth for some reason. You are the only one bringing up body building.
And yes I did reread it a couple times when I first saw it and couldn't believe it
Your exact words were "Packing on pounds of muscle on your upper body is almost counterproductive if your a quick forward looking to become a better player." That is as close to bullsh*t as someone can get and the only comment of yours I was posting about.

 

[newfr4u]

oh snap. i like you.

 

[Guffaw]

Say what you want but no one here is pitching training and looking like a bodybuilder. You are putting words into people's mouth for some reason. You are the only one bringing up body building.
And yes I did reread it a couple times when I first saw it and couldn't believe it
Your exact words were "Packing on pounds of muscle on your upper body is almost counterproductive if your a quick forward looking to become a better player." That is as close to bullsh*t as someone can get and the only comment of yours I was posting about.

Read and learn. From a former NHL strength and conditioning coach that knows 100X more than you ever will.

"Even in the NHL, I have observed aspiring players with far too much upper-body bulk, which changes their center of gravity and interferes with fluid performance of skills. Training like a bodybuilder or like those whom you see in a health club serves one purpose- to develop bigger muscles. Bigger and stronger is good, but for hockey a massive upper body relative to the core and lower body is counterproductive. Bigger and stronger is useful only if is achieved with a lifting style that makes one a better athlete, not just a better weight lifter. The goal is to train movements, not muscle. Hockey players need a strong core, big powerful, quick legs, and a strong upper body without excessive mass that will inhibit puckhandling and slow them down."

Balance, power, speed, agility, linked strength, flexibility, anaerobic and aerobic capacities. Improve those and you'll become a better player. Or keep training like everyone else in the gym and watch the guy that trains for hockey skate around you.

 

[Guffaw]

oh snap. i like you.

You don't have to like me, but at least read my posts before you respond. I'm talking about gaining upper body mass for the sake of gaining it. You're distorting my argument by saying strength. I never said strength was counterproductive.

 

[newfr4u]

You don't have to like me, but at least read my posts before you respond. I'm talking about gaining upper body mass for the sake of gaining it. You're distorting my argument by saying strength. I never said strength was counterproductive.

if you figure out a way how to add pounds of muscle without adding strength, please bottle it and sell it.

 

[newfr4u]

Read and learn. From a former NHL strength and conditioning coach that knows 100X more than you ever will.

"Even in the NHL, I have observed aspiring players with far too much upper-body bulk, which changes their center of gravity and interferes with fluid performance of skills. Training like a bodybuilder or like those whom you see in a health club serves one purpose- to develop bigger muscles. Bigger and stronger is good, but for hockey a massive upper body relative to the core and lower body is counterproductive. Bigger and stronger is useful only if is achieved with a lifting style that makes one a better athlete, not just a better weight lifter. The goal is to train movements, not muscle. Hockey players need a strong core, big powerful, quick legs, and a strong upper body without excessive mass that will inhibit puckhandling and slow them down."

Balance, power, speed, agility, linked strength, flexibility, anaerobic and aerobic capacities. Improve those and you'll become a better player. Or keep training like everyone else in the gym and watch the guy that trains for hockey skate around you.

i don't know where you getting this stuff from, or who is this guy is, but chances are if he hasn't worked in an organization in the last decade, he is on the wrong side of this argument. there are plenty of laughable S&C coaches out there.

here's a question, how do you think body builders got to their levels? do you think they started with isolation exercises, or do you think they gained a ******** of strength and LBM using basic compound lifts first and then dieted down to look ripped?

 

[Guffaw]

if you figure out a way how to add pounds of muscle without adding strength, please bottle it and sell it.

Are you serious? Other way around genius. You can add ALOT of strength, power, and endurance without adding significant size. That's the goal. Linked strength gained by performing multi joint hockey specific movements, not hypertrophy gained by performing bodybuilding type movements(skull crushers, seated curls). Relative strength goes way up and you get a faster/better athlete.

This has been an interesting debate, but your ignorant, you have tunnel vision, and I'm going to let you argue with someone else. Arguing on the internet with a closed mind is about the biggest waste of time I can think of.

FYI, the passage that I quoted came from a book written in 2007 by a former NHL strength and conditioning coach. Let me know when your book comes out.

 

[UvBnDatsyuked]

Read and learn. From a former NHL strength and conditioning coach that knows 100X more than you ever will.

"Even in the NHL, I have observed aspiring players with far too much upper-body bulk, which changes their center of gravity and interferes with fluid performance of skills. Training like a bodybuilder or like those whom you see in a health club serves one purpose- to develop bigger muscles. Bigger and stronger is good, but for hockey a massive upper body relative to the core and lower body is counterproductive. Bigger and stronger is useful only if is achieved with a lifting style that makes one a better athlete, not just a better weight lifter. The goal is to train movements, not muscle. Hockey players need a strong core, big powerful, quick legs, and a strong upper body without excessive mass that will inhibit puckhandling and slow them down."

Balance, power, speed, agility, linked strength, flexibility, anaerobic and aerobic capacities. Improve those and you'll become a better player. Or keep training like everyone else in the gym and watch the guy that trains for hockey skate around you.

Typical post by you. You're fighting paper dragons. No one here is telling anyone to gain excesive weight in upper body, train like a bodybuilder. I agree that machines serves no purpose. Big lifts (DL, Squat, Overhead press, etc) are key. Isolation on small groups do not help. Powerful, full body lifts help the athlete, etc.
Good luck to you

 

[newfr4u]

Are you serious? Other way around genius. You can add ALOT of strength, power, and endurance without adding significant size. That's the goal. Linked strength gained by performing multi joint hockey specific movements, not hypertrophy gained by performing bodybuilding type movements(skull crushers, seated curls). Relative strength goes way up and you get a faster/better athlete.

This has been an interesting debate, but your ignorant, you have tunnel vision, and I'm going to let you argue with someone else. Arguing on the internet with a closed mind is about the biggest waste of time I can think of.

FYI, the passage that I quoted came from a book written in 2007 by a former NHL strength and conditioning coach. Let me know when your book comes out.

it's actually relatively easy to make very slow marginal strength gains while not adding any weight. lift but don't eat! genius! it actually works if you are carrying a ton of fat already. however, if you are weak and underweight, that's the second best way of staying weak and underweight (the best way is of course not lifting and not eating).

you must have missed that particular lecture in your class, so i can't call you ignorant. just oblivious.

why can't you just name the book you read it from? did the guy work in the 80's or something?

ah yes, thank god for google. the quote is from Complete Conditioning for Ice Hockey, Twist 1997. It's actually a great book, even if a little outdated. Nice of you to give us a reprint date and ignoring the paragraph right above your quote and right below!

Fitness: Adding general strength and muscle mass is where it all starts. General strength is about tuning up the body and providing a foundation. Players are less susceptible to injury and can tolerate greater amounts of advanced hockey-specific training when they develop a base of strength throughout the entire body, taking care of any weak links in the kinetic chain.

note how in that chapter, he writes three paragraphs for each conditioning aspect (Agility and Reactivity, Whole-body strength and power, etc.), and each paragraph describes different stages of development (Fitness, Athleticism, and Hockey specificity)? How many people here do you think are professional athletes? very few. so why give them a passage that applies to people who are already at elite fitness levels? why not give them the first stage of development, when they simply need to develop strength AND muscle mass, just like the book YOU quoted?

once the people you train can bench upward of 150 kilos, you can start telling them they are getting too bulky. until then stop discouraging people from working towards being a better player.