[quote]hastalles wrote:
Holy shit, I’m in the first category.
This is very interesting cause I always have gravitated towards heavy, fast, and very low reps. Wanted to kill myself when I tried doing 5x5 and similar programs haha!
Thanks for posting that, CT![/quote]
going by what CT said about training history, maybe you are more slow twitch than you think, but the 80% test doesnt reflect it… something to consider! haha
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?[/quote]
I actually trained several high level crossfit athletes and to be honest they are all over the place on this test. Why? Because If you have a VERY good level in olympic lifting and gymnastics, you can pretty much pull it off regardless of fiber types. I would say that the only people who might have a disadvantage are those at the extremes. Anywhere between fast-twitch very dominant and slow twitch very dominant, you can work with.
However you will need to orient training not to fit your profile, but rather to improve your weakness. Someone who is very fast twitch dominant might need more high rep stuff like complexes and energy system work. One who is slow twitch dominant will need more strength and exposive work.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?[/quote]
I actually trained several high level crossfit athletes and to be honest they are all over the place on this test. Why? Because If you have a VERY good level in olympic lifting and gymnastics, you can pretty much pull it off regardless of fiber types. I would say that the only people who might have a disadvantage are those at the extremes. Anywhere between fast-twitch very dominant and slow twitch very dominant, you can work with.
However you will need to orient training not to fit your profile, but rather to improve your weakness. Someone who is very fast twitch dominant might need more high rep stuff like complexes and energy system work. One who is slow twitch dominant will need more strength and exposive work.[/quote]
Awesome post, thank you very much, CT.
My training partner and I did this test today. He is into the whole Crossfit thing big time. I personally like Strongman and Gymnastics better.
He did 7 reps with 80, I did 12. We used the test for the romanian deadlift.
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?[/quote]
I actually trained several high level crossfit athletes and to be honest they are all over the place on this test. Why? Because If you have a VERY good level in olympic lifting and gymnastics, you can pretty much pull it off regardless of fiber types. I would say that the only people who might have a disadvantage are those at the extremes. Anywhere between fast-twitch very dominant and slow twitch very dominant, you can work with.
However you will need to orient training not to fit your profile, but rather to improve your weakness. Someone who is very fast twitch dominant might need more high rep stuff like complexes and energy system work. One who is slow twitch dominant will need more strength and exposive work.[/quote]
Awesome post, thank you very much, CT.
My training partner and I did this test today. He is into the whole Crossfit thing big time. I personally like Strongman and Gymnastics better.
He did 7 reps with 80, I did 12. We used the test for the romanian deadlift.[/quote]
I will be honest… to me strongman + gymnastics is pretty much the same thing as Crossfit, with heavier weights and more structure.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?[/quote]
I actually trained several high level crossfit athletes and to be honest they are all over the place on this test. Why? Because If you have a VERY good level in olympic lifting and gymnastics, you can pretty much pull it off regardless of fiber types. I would say that the only people who might have a disadvantage are those at the extremes. Anywhere between fast-twitch very dominant and slow twitch very dominant, you can work with.
However you will need to orient training not to fit your profile, but rather to improve your weakness. Someone who is very fast twitch dominant might need more high rep stuff like complexes and energy system work. One who is slow twitch dominant will need more strength and exposive work.[/quote]
Awesome post, thank you very much, CT.
My training partner and I did this test today. He is into the whole Crossfit thing big time. I personally like Strongman and Gymnastics better.
He did 7 reps with 80, I did 12. We used the test for the romanian deadlift.[/quote]
I will be honest… to me strongman + gymnastics is pretty much the same thing as Crossfit, with heavier weights and more structure.[/quote]
The structure is precisely what makes all the difference to me!
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]bro1989 wrote:
Where should an aspiring Crossfit champion be located on the posted continuum?[/quote]
I actually trained several high level crossfit athletes and to be honest they are all over the place on this test. Why? Because If you have a VERY good level in olympic lifting and gymnastics, you can pretty much pull it off regardless of fiber types. I would say that the only people who might have a disadvantage are those at the extremes. Anywhere between fast-twitch very dominant and slow twitch very dominant, you can work with.
However you will need to orient training not to fit your profile, but rather to improve your weakness. Someone who is very fast twitch dominant might need more high rep stuff like complexes and energy system work. One who is slow twitch dominant will need more strength and exposive work.[/quote]
Awesome post, thank you very much, CT.
My training partner and I did this test today. He is into the whole Crossfit thing big time. I personally like Strongman and Gymnastics better.
He did 7 reps with 80, I did 12. We used the test for the romanian deadlift.[/quote]
I will be honest… to me strongman + gymnastics is pretty much the same thing as Crossfit, with heavier weights and more structure.[/quote]
The structure is precisely what makes all the difference to me![/quote]
True enough. I think that actual strongman training (events) actually trains better what Crossfit is supposed to train. Add gymnastic and olympic lifting to that and you got a very solid program.
[quote]lboro21 wrote:
[quote]hastalles wrote:
Holy shit, I’m in the first category.
This is very interesting cause I always have gravitated towards heavy, fast, and very low reps. Wanted to kill myself when I tried doing 5x5 and similar programs haha!
Thanks for posting that, CT![/quote]
going by what CT said about training history, maybe you are more slow twitch than you think, but the 80% test doesnt reflect it… something to consider! haha[/quote]
Haha, actually it’s just the opposite! I’ve been foolishly doing nothing but higher rep stuff recently. I bought into the whole “You need reps to build strength” recent fad. Probably true for most people, but DEFINITELY not true for me :\
I’m back to my heavy fast roots now! 
I wonder how few reps I’ll get at 80% after this? haha!
Oops, didn’t realize I bumped this. Sorry. 
my question is this;
When training for hypertrophy, and one is slow twitch dominant (such as in the calves and forearms, who have a natural tendency to be slow twitch for many people, for obvious reasons) would one try to grow the fast twitch as much as possible, or would one try to grow the slow twitch?
Obviously, fast twitch have a much higher potential for growth, but if they’re greatly outnumbered, could slow twitch fibers actually yield more hypertrophy?
I am hearing people advocate high rep high frequency for the calves, for that exact reason. It makes sense, but I have no idea how much hypertrophy potential the slow twitch fibers actually have. I read a study that said about 50%.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.[/quote]
You know, true motivation… that can lead to great performances must come from within. External motivation can help to a point, but it has its limit. And if someone is not passionate about the training he has to do or his sport, it is very hard to reach high levels of performance.[/quote]
true, but, how many have you found that are truly motivated, yet, perform way below what you, as a coach, thought they would?
[/quote]
I have two of them right now Well one… the other one is progressing fine, but not to the extent that she could. I’m telling you… it’s a good thing that both my parents are psychologists… I need all the tricks I learned from them in these two cases![/quote]
a wonderful advantage. i presume you have had many discussions with your parents regarding your athletes. and you have from male and female perspectives. you might say, “you were born to teach/coach”.
i had a kid who was of the worrisome type… he “overtried” i played him a song that had a line “let the angels worry”. he kept the song in his head and increased his personal best by 15 feet in the javelin. then went on to continuously perform at a higher level. that was 20 years ago. i speak with him every couple years and he always starts the conversation with," hey, coach. leave the angels to worry".
[quote]cavemandiary wrote:
my question is this;
When training for hypertrophy, and one is slow twitch dominant (such as in the calves and forearms, who have a natural tendency to be slow twitch for many people, for obvious reasons) would one try to grow the fast twitch as much as possible, or would one try to grow the slow twitch?
Obviously, fast twitch have a much higher potential for growth, but if they’re greatly outnumbered, could slow twitch fibers actually yield more hypertrophy?
I am hearing people advocate high rep high frequency for the calves, for that exact reason. It makes sense, but I have no idea how much hypertrophy potential the slow twitch fibers actually have. I read a study that said about 50%.[/quote]
When using the proper training methods it is possible for a muscle that is as low as 30% slow twitch fibers to take on the same properties as a muscle that is 70% fat twitch. It takes some time but it can be done. I’m not talking fiber changing type, but taking on fast-twitch properties.
So I do not believe in training ‘‘slow twitch muscles’’ differently.
BUT understand that muscles like calves and forearms have a VERY short range of motion. This is even more true for calves because the achiles tendon has the most powerful stretch reflex in the body which can take over the muscle itself for about 50% of the range of motion. So for that reason, not fiber dominance, calves and forearms respond well to higher reps… just because it takes more reps to accumulate enough time under load/mechanical loading to stimulate growth.
That having been said I’m not one who recommend direct calf work anyway.
CT
Do you believe that some personalities respond best by training on a day-to-day basis? My personality is the type to devise a well structured plan, but get bored with it quickly and try to revamp it. Lately I have thrown that entire school of thought out the window and started training strictly on a day-to-day basis. NO periodization, NO programming, just showing up and seeing what I can do, and always trying to be better than last time. I tend to keep the same exercises with very low reps. I train everyday, regardless of how much I actually do. There is no bench day or pull day or squat day, just basically ab lib training (to some degree).
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]cavemandiary wrote:
my question is this;
When training for hypertrophy, and one is slow twitch dominant (such as in the calves and forearms, who have a natural tendency to be slow twitch for many people, for obvious reasons) would one try to grow the fast twitch as much as possible, or would one try to grow the slow twitch?
Obviously, fast twitch have a much higher potential for growth, but if they’re greatly outnumbered, could slow twitch fibers actually yield more hypertrophy?
I am hearing people advocate high rep high frequency for the calves, for that exact reason. It makes sense, but I have no idea how much hypertrophy potential the slow twitch fibers actually have. I read a study that said about 50%.[/quote]
When using the proper training methods it is possible for a muscle that is as low as 30% slow twitch fibers to take on the same properties as a muscle that is 70% fat twitch. It takes some time but it can be done. I’m not talking fiber changing type, but taking on fast-twitch properties.
So I do not believe in training ‘‘slow twitch muscles’’ differently.
BUT understand that muscles like calves and forearms have a VERY short range of motion. This is even more true for calves because the achiles tendon has the most powerful stretch reflex in the body which can take over the muscle itself for about 50% of the range of motion. So for that reason, not fiber dominance, calves and forearms respond well to higher reps… just because it takes more reps to accumulate enough time under load/mechanical loading to stimulate growth.
That having been said I’m not one who recommend direct calf work anyway.[/quote]
Would you say that the abdominals qualify in the same category as the calves do, in terms of ROM?
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]cavemandiary wrote:
my question is this;
When training for hypertrophy, and one is slow twitch dominant (such as in the calves and forearms, who have a natural tendency to be slow twitch for many people, for obvious reasons) would one try to grow the fast twitch as much as possible, or would one try to grow the slow twitch?
Obviously, fast twitch have a much higher potential for growth, but if they’re greatly outnumbered, could slow twitch fibers actually yield more hypertrophy?
I am hearing people advocate high rep high frequency for the calves, for that exact reason. It makes sense, but I have no idea how much hypertrophy potential the slow twitch fibers actually have. I read a study that said about 50%.[/quote]
When using the proper training methods it is possible for a muscle that is as low as 30% slow twitch fibers to take on the same properties as a muscle that is 70% fat twitch. It takes some time but it can be done. I’m not talking fiber changing type, but taking on fast-twitch properties.
So I do not believe in training ‘‘slow twitch muscles’’ differently.
BUT understand that muscles like calves and forearms have a VERY short range of motion. This is even more true for calves because the achiles tendon has the most powerful stretch reflex in the body which can take over the muscle itself for about 50% of the range of motion. So for that reason, not fiber dominance, calves and forearms respond well to higher reps… just because it takes more reps to accumulate enough time under load/mechanical loading to stimulate growth.
That having been said I’m not one who recommend direct calf work anyway.[/quote]
Not sure that I understand the first part. Isn’t going from 30% slow twitch to 70% fast twitch the exact same thing?
Do you know which physiological process that makes fibers take on the charactaristics of another type? sorry if repost, got an error.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.[/quote]
You know, true motivation… that can lead to great performances must come from within. External motivation can help to a point, but it has its limit. And if someone is not passionate about the training he has to do or his sport, it is very hard to reach high levels of performance.[/quote]
true, but, how many have you found that are truly motivated, yet, perform way below what you, as a coach, thought they would?
[/quote]
I have two of them right now Well one… the other one is progressing fine, but not to the extent that she could. I’m telling you… it’s a good thing that both my parents are psychologists… I need all the tricks I learned from them in these two cases![/quote]
When I decided to go back to school to get my degree that is exactly what I thought about. I am working towards my masters in Psychology( not quite to associates as of now) I have learned so much from those classes about mindsets its not even funny.