Reading time: 6 – 10 minutes

Since attending a conference over strength and power development I have been looking for a good reason to talk about what I experienced. The speakers were mostly strength and conditioning coaches from high schools around Texas. There was also a college coach who had some great stuff to regarding training at the University of Texas. As a football player at heart it was exciting to see how a top notch strength & conditioning program was put together or at least an overview of what a top notch strength and conditioning program looks like.
These coaches had very interesting things to say about their strength and conditioning programs. Considering the state of my high schools strength and conditioning program I was completely amazed. The extent of there programming and the actual application of certain exercises blew my mind. However, there were some things that made my body cringe in fear. Seeing those things has had my mind racing and I am not at a point where I would like to get it out. My fear or lack of approval if I am allowed that was with regards to the use of the Olympic lifts in their programs. It is not the Olympic lifts that I do not approve of but rather the manner in which they were used. The form for some of these kids was beyond horrible it was terrifying. I must also add that it was not just the o-lifts that were horrible it was all of them. So since that conference I have been thinking about how the programs were set up and the possible pro’s and con’s of that type of programming and during this time a came across an article on training economy. The article essentially talked about training time and making good use of if. The author claimed that due to time the o-lifts were not a good choice to use in any program that aims to improve the performance of athletes other than Olympic lifters.
So I must admit up front that I am a member of the o-lift faction. I believe without a doubt in the validity of the o-lifts and or their variations as a primary contributor to positive sports performance. Now on a short note before I continue I must state that I acknowledge the differences in opinion between coaches and their coaching philosophies just like I accept the differences people have with regards to their political views. Even if those views are completely wrong. I am only kidding about that last statement. This controversy almost borders on ferocity as religious differences. However as coach I am attempting to justify the Olympic lifts or at least a statement of purpose. I guess you could say my personal manifesto. So without further adieu I believe that the Olympic lifts and their variations are superior to basic plyometric and dynamic effort exercises alone.
There are many reasons coaches argue against the use of the Olympic lifts in their programs, however I only with to talk about one or at least the main argument. The primary argument against the Olympic lifts and the close variations has to do training economy. Now considering what I saw at that conference, which was basically young men, exhibiting horrible motor patterns or what I typically refer to as “motor morons” attempting to demonstrate a very complex movement would have most people agreeing that the Olympic lifts are a horrible idea as a part of sport specific training program. However, I see that as a way to argue my point for the Olympic lifts.
‘How?’ you might ask. Well not only were the Olympic lifts horribly executed, but the other lifts were executed horribly as well. Most of the errors in execution had to do with motor inefficiency, or basically the body’s ability to do things simply, kind of like going around as opposed to going in a straight line to get to a certain point. As a coach I know that the beginning of a training program is when the greatest results happen in the shortest amount of time. Programs at this time could come straight from a muscle & fiction magazine or your five year old sister could have written it and the likelihood is that you would have still improved. So knowing that beginners or “motor morons” can improve on little to nothing due to enhanced neural efficiency then why the rush to do heavy box squats or heavy Olympic lifts? You have to develop the motor patterns necessary to complete even basic movements in order to do them right then why could you not incorporate the o-lifts?
What I am trying to get at is, how can you make an argument about training economy not allowing for the utilization of the o-lifts due to there complexity and the amount of time it would take to teach the lifts yet still having time to teach the other lifts. I can agree that the o-lifts do take a bit of time to teach, but we are not developing Olympic weightlifters. We are trying to bring up specific athletic abilities. In all actuality we are not talking years to reach a point of development in which the benefits of the o-lifts are reaped. We are only talking the time it takes to reach a level of proficiency in with the lifts and their variations can be used safely. The Olympic lifts and their variations take close to the same amount of time to teach and to develop proper motor patterns as a proper squat.
Specifically, I am talking about the hang power clean and or the hang power snatch and progressing to the point where an athlete can do a snatch and a clean, possibly even a clean jerk or clean & jerk. Well if you think a “motor moron” can execute a heavy back squat safely or deadlift correctly I would say you are quite mistaken. To assume or argue that the time taken to learn these “basic movements” pale in comparison to the o-lifts would be a misstatement. The time it takes to become efficient enough to safely squat and deadlift heavy is about the same amount of time it would take to get to a point where the power clean and the power snatch from the hang or the floor could be utilized safely.
“KB snatches and cleans are safer and quicker to teach than the o-lifts and the benefits are reaped quicker than if you were to use the o-lifts”. ‘Really!’ and this person pulls that skill from where? Lets just agree that you would have to teach that to them too. Whether or not KB movements are easier to learn and are as effective as the o-lifts is debatable. I will agree that teaching the clean does present a special challenges and that is primarily the flexibility through the wrists. But I would argue they need to address flexibility and coordination throughout the body and especially the wrists, especially if you are a football player. So while you are teaching the posture in the squat why could you not work flexibility in the wrists with some front squats which reduce the compression of the spine and might be a little safer for our “motor morons”.
What I am trying to say essentially has to do with the need to teach athletes how to move and perform lifts safely and efficiently. You can not say that the o-lifts are not viable and still throw a kid in the cage and ask him to move heavy weight especially a box squat without first teaching correct form. After seeing what I saw at that conference I would argue many coaches especially at the high school level are impatient when it comes to adding weight to the lifts without first addressing the functional needs of the athlete. If increasing neural efficiency accounts for the greatest part of a beginners gains and it can be achieved through just about any method why could you not teach the o-lifts and there variations while you were teaching them how to squat, deadlift, jump, run and bench correctly?