September Strength & Conditioning Research Questions



  • Carolina says:

    Hi Bret! I’ve just purchased your book Strong Curves and I have 2 questions.
    Should I eat in a caloric surplus to grow my glutes? I’m a litte afraid of that bc I don’t want to gain fat. I’m 5,2″ and about 107 lbs. Not need to lose weight as you see, but I don’t mind if I lose a little more fat.
    And the second, is there a more intense option for workouts? I see that the Gluteal goddess program for advanced lifters is only three days/week, and I’m used to lift at least four.
    I really want/need massive gains on my booty!
    Thank you.

    • Grant says:

      You do not necessarily require (citation needed ;/) a caloric surplus to gain mass or strength in any muscle but it certainly is beneficial for growth. Especially if your glute group is not as strong as it should be -relative to the features surrounding or interacting with them-then a surplus is not needed.

      • Carolina says:

        Thank you!
        I was looking mainly for growth.. But I don’t want growth anywhere else :). Definitely my glutes are way weaker than any muscle group around. My quads and hams are strong and well defined. So, what should I do in your opinion? And if the caloric surplus is totally necesary, how much? ( it it’s not, I prefer to avoid it )
        Do you know any good books on the topic?

  • Jimq says:

    Bret, I have a very interesting research topic which I think you may be interested in. The following is a quote from Supertraining by Mel Siff and YV Verhoshansky considered by many to be the bible of strength and conditioning, “It is interesting to note that depth landings (i.e. depth jumps without the rebound after landing) alone can also have a significant effect on concentric and eccentric strength. This was shown by Dursenev and Raevsky (1978) who investigated the effect of depth landings from heights of 2m or more on to soft gymnastic mats Under these conditions, the subjects acquired the ability to display brief muscle tension (over periods of between 0.028-0.061 secs) of magnitude 1500-3500 kgf, i.e. over 20 times body weight for heights of up to 3.2 meters. The rationale for using this method was that weight training or other similar methods of resistance training cannot produce this intensity of voluntary effort.

    • Jimq says:

      It was found that the maximum possible height which the athletes could contemplate using produced the greatest increase in strength, although they often hesitated to attempt these extremely stressful jumps. It should be pointed out that the drop heights studied were for experimental purpose alone and it would be most inadvisable to use drops of 3.2 meters for training. It appeared that the main consideration for enhancing strength is not the type of muscle contraction, but the intensity and speed of contraction elicited by the exercise. The high risk of overload injury associated with falling from great heights should always be borne in mind, so it is important to increase the drop height gradually from fairly low levels, to limit the number of drops per session, to land on a suitably firm shock-absorbing surfaces and to pay careful attention to landing technique.”
      page 275, 5th edition

      I have been applying this methods and modifications of it for the past few years and have been very impressed with the results when compared to traditional methods of strength and power training. One thing that I do is that i use submaximal drop heights and focus on landing position. This allows me to perform more repetitions while still producing a contraction more rapid and intense than would be possible with traditional means. I perform movements like this for the lower and upper body and love the results. I would like to see what kind of results you can measure with all the equipment you have at your disposal. It would be nice to simply have a replication of the original study.

Leave a Reply


and receive my FREE Lower Body Progressions eBook!

You have Successfully Subscribed!