This is why most of us will never be an olympic athlete. (vid)

[DaTruth1]

They are used mostly to aid recovery though just like in most sports. You have a point though since you see lifters put up huge prs in the gym and some mess up on the platform but they still are stronger they just can't make it happen when it matters. Look at russian lifter Maxim Matveev he puts up a casual 190kg snatch in the gym but only 170kg on the platform. He is stronger then the 170kg lift he did but for w/e reason can't reproduce when he needs too. Then you have guys like steiner who said he prs at meets-like how he won in 08 by surprise since noone expected that pr-

Yep. I am surprised that so many people think steroids are used solely add strength...

[Soiren]

I think that discussion about whether or not a lifter should focus on getting his squat/pull strength up in the first or not in the first place is a case of demagogy. Because it depends. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, efficiency (meaning the ability to transfer his squat/pull strength into classic lifts numbers) is number 1. And if a person have poor efficiency (meaning that most likely they have poor technique on classic lifts, on strength lifts or both) he should work on it (technique work) first, putting strength work at maintenance. And then, when the gap between his front and his lifts becomes smaller, they can emphasize squat work (or pulls for that matter) more.
When a lifter should put an accent on classic lifts (like 70-80% of reps) or strength lifts (like 50%-70%) is determined by his coach. But the general tendency is that the closer a lifter to WRs in his class, the more classic lifts he generally does in proportion to squats.

At least that's how the things are done in Russian weightlifting circles now. It is common sense though - you work the weakest link in chain, whether it's technique or strength.

[dbk1]

I think that discussion about whether or not a lifter should focus on getting his squat/pull strength up in the first or not in the first place is a case of demagogy. Because it depends. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, efficiency (meaning the ability to transfer his squat/pull strength into classic lifts numbers) is number 1. And if a person have poor efficiency (meaning that most likely they have poor technique on classic lifts, on strength lifts or both) he should work on it (technique work) first, putting strength work at maintenance. And then, when the gap between his front and his lifts becomes smaller, they can emphasize squat work (or pulls for that matter) more.
When a lifter should put an accent on classic lifts (like 70-80% of reps) or strength lifts (like 50%-70%) is determined by his coach. But the general tendency is that the closer a lifter to WRs in his class, the more classic lifts he generally does in proportion to squats.

At least that's how the things are done in Russian weightlifting circles now. It is common sense though - you work the weakest link in chain, whether it's technique or strength.

so its a continuing circle? working on technique and strength in turns?

[Soiren]

so its a continuing circle? working on technique and strength in turns?

kind of. Russians swear by block periodization. Each macrocycle (assuming that by the end of previous a lifter had achieved close to the maximum of his "strength potential", i.e. efficiency) usually starts with emphasis on strength (pulls, squats, muscle snatches, pp), then it proceeds to more specific work (hang work, from blocks, with pause, etc, based on weakness of the lifter) with not-as-much squats, and then tapering and BAM - lifter is ready to compete.
If you, for example, have a PL switched to OL (or just a strong person), then as a novice he will spend much more time on lifts then a novice without some sort of strength base, who is going to squat a lot (in addition to lifts). So, as i said, it depends.