The NSCA advocates the philosophy of training explosively to develop explosive power. This means, after a strength base is developed, plenty of Olympic lifting and plyometrics. They also are fond of sport-specific movements with weighted implements and medicine balls. As a personal trainer who works with high school and college athletes, I was convinced, and when done with proper instruction and supervision, this type of training seemed to show good results and zero injuries.
However after reading some articles by the Princeton strength coach,
I am wondering if I am putting my athletes at unnecessary risk of injury for the sake of miniscule gains in power. Matt Brzycki is a HIT advocate. He claims that plyometrics and power cleans are dangerous, and that there is no such thing as sport-specific training, except for playing that sport.
Note that I am not talking about “altitude jumps” from 5-9 feet, or spending every single second in the weight room doing the Olympic lifts instead of basic strength developers like squats, incline pressing, chinups etc. etc., or sending some high school freshman to do barbell snatches on his own, so please don’t go there in your response.
I know that this is not a bodybuilding question, but there seem to be quite a few knowledgeable people on this forum who could help me out.
Most of what I have read suggests that explosive training is great, but most of what I read on the subject, appears in the Strength and Conditioning Journal, so I may be looking from a narrow viewpoint. When I read what Matt Brzycki had to say, I guess it shook me up a little. On that site they give a list of teams that use HIT and not explosive lifts, but I could give one just as long of teams that train based on the NSCA platform. How does Charles Poliquin train his Olympic athletes? What about Ian King? I don’t think they read the forum, but if any of the Testosterone staff knows their basic philosophy, I would like to hear it. Thank you.