Topic: An important decision about my training...

[ViKtoricus]

I would love to hear your opinions on this.

Several hours ago I did my usual "volume" workout. My snatch felt slightly off, my clean+jerk felt VERY off, while my front squat felt fine.

I am currently in this stage where I am now doing 6 training sessions a week and I noticed that that my recovery is somewhat slower compared to the days when I did 5 (but of course, I simply have to let my body adjust to it).

Here's what I noticed (correct me if I'm wrong). My lats are lagging behind. Although I don't really like using hypertrophy as the main indicator of strength improvement, I am going to point out that after 12 weeks of my training, my thighs, deltoids, and trapezius muscles have had the most significant size improvement. My lats however, have barely grown.

I often feel like they have to work extra hard whenever I support a weight overhead, even more so than my shoulders.



Now I know there is more than one way to skin a cat, but what training approach do you think I should pick?

Should I stick to my training program as it is and simply let the minor things fix themselves? Or will a change (slight or not, temporary or permanently) be necessary?



Thanks in advance.

[ViKtoricus]

My current exercise selection in my routine: Snatch, C+J, Front Squat, Back Squat, Romanian deadlift, power versions, and snatch pulls.

I hope that helps.

[Andy Dick]

Seems like no one wants to touch this one.  1. Determine if your lats are weak or over fatigued.  2. If weak fit lat work in one day, you are training 6 days a week now you should be able to find a day to fit it in.  Remember it is a supplemental lift so you do not need to do a ton of volume with it.

[Matt Erdman]

Pendlay rows or bench supported rows.

[Albert B. Gonzalez]

since when has "size" become a strength indicator?

[ViKtoricus]

Pendlay rows or bench supported rows.

Cool. I think I should replace pulls with pendlay rows.



And Andy, I think you are right. I should see if they are fatigued or weak.

[Matt Erdman]

since when has "size" become a strength indicator?

I think it can be a great indicator. For instance if you look at your quads and the VMO is very small compared to other muscles, it makes sense that it is likely weak as well. If lats are small compared to traps and lower back, then they be weak.

It used to be typical that muscles suspected to be weak would be trained directly, then we decided to train movements not muscles, now many coaches think they can just train snatches and cleans and all imbalances will disappear. In absence of good testing for muscle weakness/imbalance for weightlifters, I think that relatively small muscles can safely be assumed to be weak.

[Shaun Le Conte]

since when has "size" become a strength indicator?

It definitely a strength indicator - all else equal, a larger muscle is a stronger muscle. I remember a chart in my very distant copy of the Weightlifting Encyclopedia showing rapidly diminishing returns due to gains in neurological efficiency, and then subsequent increases coming largely from hypertrophy. My memory is hazy and I don't know what data that graph was based but maybe somebody could have a look.

I think the bigger question is whether a weightlifter should care about the size of his lats. They have a role to play in keeping the bar close to the body in the snatch. If video or observation shows that keeping the bar close is a problem it might be useful. I do think that a load of snatches and cleans is the right direction, but repeating those same movements when more variety could be done instead, can lead to repetitive strain.

Also, I think there is some psychological advantage to having a "harmoniously developed physique" as T. Bompa might say - whether the extra muscle is needed in the sport or not (though making weight could be more difficult).