Great, starting a debate without knowing what you are talking about... sounds like a good start.
Plus, forums like this get posts like this, by people who want to discuss a topic they admit up front that they don't have any knowledge on... so if we are to learn from someone who is totally uneducated, and that, by your opinion above, is the best place to gather knowledge, we are all in deep, deep stuff. The problems with Forums is that even those with little education are allowed to spew...(kind of like our newfound love of a 'pure democracy' as opposed to a republic...) so let's hear your opinion about something you admittedly have no idea about what you are talking... I will just pretend it is election time and I am listening to the news, people on the street, etc. Totally dim, but full of opinions.
Charlie pointed out that DB was unoriginal because AREG, while little talked about, is practiced by every elite coach in the world. Poliquin discusses it in his Principles book, and any coach worth his nuggets has told an athlete to shut it down if the athlete has had enough.... no matter what the workout says on their little piece of paper....the inverse is also true. So Charlie is exactly right, BUT, what DB has done is to make an attempt to quantify for the dim what extremely experienced coaches know by feel. In this way, a neophyte athlete or coach may be able to apply the concept without having an elite coach there with wizened eyes to watch the workout.
Actually, Plio is the eccentric, so it is PLIO-ISO-MIO = Rep, but let's move past the idea that you didn't even get the most basic concept correct. I will assume that even though you have no foundation to your argument, it is a masterpiece....
A simple class in physics would tell you that at some point, when motion is reversed, the object reaches zero velocity...no matter how brief. An object held at zero velocity, no matter how brief, is an isometric action. Now, is this the method that most coaches discuss when talking about ISO work? No, but DB merely pointed out that every aspect of a rep is variable... namely that a normal rep has a certain length of time for each phase, with the Iso portion minimized. We talk of controlling the Rep speed on Eccentric and Concentric phases, but we rarely discuss the reversal point. Why not? This is the point where the muscular and elastic action actually transitions to overcome the external resistance... maybe this point needs to be looked at... maybe not. I don't understand why this would be confusing, but this has been a struggle all of my life. I hope this helped.
Also the terminology isn't new or archaic, it is merely in line with the terminology used by the Russian authors featured in all of those books you listed as not having read. No wonder it is foreign to you. Maybe if a) the general public hadn't gone to the general public school systems so they could actually read at a level needed to understand the works in question, and b) Sportivny had glossy covers like Flex magazine, or developed a certification like the NSCA, we would all be using terms like Plio - Iso - Mio instead of Eccentric and Concentric... in the end what is accepted and used by the general public is all a matter of marketing, whether through glossy publications, or 'educational organizations'.
Where to even begin. Let's start here: First, champion coaches and premiere researchers....ha! Champion coaches are those who have rounded up the athletes who will find the best results under their particular form of training.. not the opposite. So, champion coaches recruit the most rate and reactive dominant athletes they can find, since they know that with duration work (a rate dominant athlete's NEED), the rate dominant athlete will excel. Since the athlete is naturally springy (reactive), by only doing actual sporting practice, this trait is maintained.... without meaning to, many coaches fall into a form of conjugate training by emphasizing Strength work, and just maintaining reactive qualities....
But what about the athletes who are strong, but not quick and springy? Well, we just don't recruit them...as getting them stronger does not lead to as large an increase in performance on the field. Why? Because I am training their inherent strength.... but, what is limiting the performance is something I am merely trying to maintain... rate and reactive qualities... hmmm.
So, DB MAY know how to coach an Strength Dominant, Non-Reactive athlete better, but elite coaches know what they need to: avoid those strength dominant athletes like the plague. They get a PHD in that department. Funnel the money into the recruiting budget, because our S&C coach is just some meatball who couldn't let go of the idea of hanging out in the gym....
Maybe I am wrong, maybe most S&C Coaches could have been PHD Scientists or Doctors like in the Soviet...... right.
Second, Neuro-Rate does not equal RFD and Reactivity, and Neuro-Duration does not equal Strength endurance. They equal the firing patterns generated to produce different forms of movements. Study up.
Very nice statement. Back it up. How so? Why? Your experience? With Rate Dominant or Duration Dominant athletes? Without backing, it is just an opinion of someone who is writing on a forum who admittedly has no experience using the methods in any of the NOT READ list. So you decide how much the statement is worth...
There is, much more to it. But you have to address the material as a person who understands it.... i.e. educated.
So, you are basically saying that FB players need to emphasize speed and reactive work, but you feel that it should be done on the field as opposed to the weightroom. fair enough, but how much experience do you have working the entire force curve?
In other words, why do we move concentrically all along the force curve... Strength Work, Olympic Lifts, Medicine Ball throws.... But, we don't do the same for the eccentric portion of lifts... We go straight from slow eccentrics to depth jumps, or sprinting, or whatever you decide is approved field work.....? Why? Is there no progression? Do you find that athletes respond better if they just strength train, and then do field work, as opposed to progressing them to ingrain new recruitment patterns?
Oh yeah, you don't have any experience with the system. just experience criticizing it.
Also, with so much focus on minimizing our inhibitory responses, which are RATE (Power) Specific, why is it so weird to make the step toward training Force Absorption? "We want to minimize the effects of the inhibitory responses caused by extreme levels of Force Absorption, but we don't want to progressively get the athlete able to tolerate more Force being entered into their system..."
Huh. Stunningly contradictory, but how suprised am I?
Not suprising at all considering all of the whining about basic terminology. i guess DB didn't have them at 'hello'. maybe he should have added a lot of watering and glossy pictures for the dim.
True. Charlie gets all of the best Rate Dominant athletes, so what he says is absolutely true....for his sample pool of athletes. Unfortuantely, high school coaches, and many lower level college coaches don't have the priviledge of getting the freaks... they get what comes. Now how do we train the slow footed guy who sticks to the ground? Ahhh...what a novel concept.
Who cares. Address the material by first learning about the material. This isn't STAR Magazine.
The truth is, until DB's and Schroeder's concepts are addressed by a larger portion of our S&C coaches, we will have no idea as to their effactiveness. But, when we cannot get past trying to figure out who he is, or why he says PLIO as opposed to Eccentric, this hope will probably never be realized.
What will fuel the marketing required? What will fuel the intelligence needed to even understand the why?
These are questions I do not know the answers to... nor do I know if DB's stuff is the next generation. I just know that attacking a premise with ignorance isn't doing our profession any good.