Author Topic: question about sheiko (Read 3118 times)

tbombz · « **on:** January 12, 2009, 09:02:13 AM »

boris sheiko...googled it... russian strength coach..

how and when did he come up with this routine and why did it become popular ?

QuakerOats · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2009, 09:04:50 AM »

my guess is that it has a lot to do with the total tonnage lifted in the workout, by doing MANY sets at 80-85 percent of your max you lift a total of a lot of pounds for the whole workout, the Russians have been basing the success of training programs on TOTAL TONNAGE LIFTED for the workout for decades.

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:36:34 PM »

Now you caught me on my other computer, and I don't have the links to the articles that compare the training methods.

Here's one article that gives a pretty good overview of Sheiko training:
http://www.criticalbench.com/Sheiko-Training.htm

I'll try to remember to post more info later.

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2009, 04:17:24 AM »

Looks like no one knows much about it...

I don't either... but I found another article that compares sheiko with a couple other popular training methods for bench press. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/500_the_hard_way

QuakerOats · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:14:48 AM »

Quote from: ripitupbaby on January 13, 2009, 04:17:24 AM

Looks like no one knows much about it...

I don't either... but I found another article that compares sheiko with a couple other popular training methods for bench press. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/500_the_hard_way

actually it's nothing new Rip, everyone wants to think they're following the "latest, greatest" training method but like i said it's something the Russians have been doing for DECADES, basing the workout on MANY sets of 80-90% of max to achieve a very high total # of pounds lifted for the workout, Olympic Lifters have done it more than powerlfters but it also works for powerlifting.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:24:05 AM »

Great articles, both of them.

I think Sheiko will only get bigger with time.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:28:59 AM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on January 13, 2009, 06:14:48 AM

actually it's nothing new Rip, everyone wants to think they're following the "latest, greatest" training method but like i said it's something the Russians have been doing for DECADES, basing the workout on MANY sets of 80-90% of max to achieve a very high total # of pounds lifted for the workout, Olympic Lifters have done it more than powerlfters but it also works for powerlifting.

+1

What I think is new to many Western lifters is how poundages for a whole period is laid out.

The total amount of poundage lifted is counted, like Olympic Weightlifters do.

It becomes easier to measure how hard you workout.

DK II · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:37:32 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on January 13, 2009, 06:28:59 AM

+1

What I think is new to many Western lifters is how poundages for a whole period is laid out.

The total amount of poundage lifted is counted, like Olympic Weightlifters do.

It becomes easier to measure how hard you workout.

i do that all the time to measure my WOs.

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2009, 07:40:38 AM »

I'm really liking the fact that I don't have to "think" about my workouts too much in terms of how much weight to use for each of the sets. It's all prescribed in the training layout, you just do the math.

I also love the fact that despite the high volume and brutality of the workouts themselves, I can do them by myself for the most part (except for unracking the bench) and don't need to rely on a spotter for every set.

Geo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:07:51 PM »

Quote from: ripitupbaby on January 13, 2009, 07:40:38 AM

I can do them by myself for the most part (except for unracking the bench) and don't need to rely on a spotter for every set.

why can't you unrack the weight ?

what are you ?.....some kind of sissy ?

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:25:57 PM »

the beauty of sheiko is the confidence it instills in you. after you've done 4-6 sets of two with 80-85% of your max, you get to a point where you're so sure you'll nail it that you feel better going up to 100% or so. plus your form becomes impeccable.

tbombz · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:40:26 PM »

so the sheiko program is one that was designed based off of what the russians found to be the best method 'anectdotally'..... is there a strength training program for powerlifters that has been designed purely on the science of gaining strength ?

like....yates got his method for lifting for hypertophy off of what he found through personal experience... while somebody like charles poliquin goes purely off of what the science of hypertrophy says..... is there a "poliquin" of powerlifting ? (purely science based routine)

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:42:43 PM »

sure, lots of people have tried to "study" their way to a successful program. guess what? guys like smolov, sheiko, and coan continue to produce more results through their programs than guys who try to "science" it.

get off the "if it didn't come with a medical trial, it's crap" wagon. sheiko produces amazing results for lifters of all levels of experience. you're trying to discount it because it wasn't drafted by some dude in a lab coat.

tbombz · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:48:38 PM »

Quote from: MisterMagoo on January 13, 2009, 03:42:43 PM

sure, lots of people have tried to "study" their way to a successful program. guess what? guys like smolov, sheiko, and coan continue to produce more results through their programs than guys who try to "science" it.

get off the "if it didn't come with a medical trial, it's crap" wagon. sheiko produces amazing results for lifters of all levels of experience. you're trying to discount it because it wasn't drafted by some dude in a lab coat.

my next question was goin to be "how does the anectdotal routine compare to the science based routine"

because ive been noticing that more of the anectdotal stuff works better than the science based stuff.

it would be nice if you didnt assume you know me.

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2009, 03:52:11 PM »

sorry, going off your reputation. every argument i've ever had with you was rooted in you telling me that whatever i said had no scientific evidence and then you come in with something you googled five minutes prior.

point is anecdotal seems to work better for most lifting routines. and sometimes i think some of these routines lead to "over-thinking" it because they use such bizarre progressions and intervals of percentages. sheiko's good, but others do things like "use 62% of your 1RM for two sets and then 70% for the third set" as though 62 would work but 63 wouldn't.

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:15:05 PM »

Quote from: Geo on January 13, 2009, 03:07:51 PM

why can't you unrack the weight ?

what are you ?.....some kind of sissy ?

The best kind of science is that which is learned through observation and experimentation. It's all about trying things out to figure things out. Incorporating anecdotal information is all part of it. I'm sure there are training programs based on scientific research and statistical analysis, but the science of gaining strength can never really be an exact science.

Geo · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2009, 07:27:26 PM »

Quote from: ripitupbaby on January 13, 2009, 06:15:05 PM

The best kind of science is that which is learned through observation and experimentation. It's all about trying things out to figure things out. Incorporating anecdotal information is all part of it. I'm sure there are training programs based on scientific research and statistical analysis, but the science of gaining strength can never really be an exact science.

would someone care to translate this rhetoric ?

tbombz · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2009, 08:37:35 PM »

Quote from: ripitupbaby on January 13, 2009, 06:15:05 PM

The best kind of science is that which is learned through observation and experimentation. It's all about trying things out to figure things out. Incorporating anecdotal information is all part of it. I'm sure there are training programs based on scientific research and statistical analysis, but the science of gaining strength can never really be an exact science.

im beginning o agree to a point.

the thing is = science is always changing. some of what used to be scientific fact , is now proven not to be fact at all. ideas and opinions and theories are constantly changing. somethings are concrete, but i think the best way to find the best way of doing things, is probably more through trial and error than it is through research and development. althoug both play a part.

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:45:30 PM »

Quote from: tbombz on January 13, 2009, 08:37:35 PM

im beginning o agree to a point.

the thing is = science is always changing. some of what used to be scientific fact , is now proven not to be fact at all. ideas and opinions and theories are constantly changing. somethings are concrete, but i think the best way to find the best way of doing things, is probably more through trial and error than it is through research and development. althoug both play a part.

i'm a man of science, but in this instance let me play devil's advocate.

i'm a strength coach and i have a training program. i have no idea why it works, i just know it does. i don't know a nucleotide from a nuclear bomb, all i know is that after 20 years of coaching lifters, i've figured out what methods yield the best results.

i'm a scientist and i know everything there is to know about muscle tissue, hormones, and the central nervous system. after years of studying, i've figured out what type of training on each muscle with what kind of nutrition and how much rest will yield the best results.

now, the scientist may learn a year later that something he based his findings on was, in fact, incorrect and that's why his program wasn't working like the data showed it should. as you said, science is always changing. the coach's program, however, will not suddenly lose its effectiveness because of a new discovery in the field of genetics.

science is a good supplement, but trying to design a training program from your desk just won't work because the human body is far too complex to work with that way.

tbombz · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2009, 11:12:38 PM »

exactly what i was getting at

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2009, 03:13:35 AM »

Quote from: Geo on January 13, 2009, 07:27:26 PM

would someone care to translate this rhetoric ?

Why can't you understand what I'm sayin' ?

What are you ? .... some kind of retard ?

QuakerOats · « **Reply #21 on:** January 14, 2009, 07:30:58 AM »

Quote from: ripitupbaby on January 13, 2009, 06:15:05 PM

The best kind of science is that which is learned through observation and experimentation. It's all about trying things out to figure things out. Incorporating anecdotal information is all part of it. I'm sure there are training programs based on scientific research and statistical analysis, but the science of gaining strength can never really be an exact science.

100% correct.

ripitupbaby · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2009, 01:41:59 PM »

Another thing I like about the program is that it gives you a little flexibility to change up some of the exercises and work weak/trouble areas. Even though the majority of the program is squat/bench/deadlift in relatively simple format, Sheiko recommends that you mix up the GPP exercises and try some different things, and select exercises to work your weak areas, just so long as what you select has a benefit for your squat, bench, and/or deadlift.