thanks for jumping to the conclusion that because i didn’t read the books that i dont have any knowledge or experience of that which is confined in said books.
actually, in retrospect i shouldn’t have mentioned the fact that i haven’t read the books. initially, i had a purpose for that which i was going to follow up, but because i think faster than i type it must’ve been lost in translation or whatnot.
partly, why i mentioned it in the first place has to do with my desire to figure out if i want to purchase DB’s book, and in order to figure that out i desired getting a more solid opinion about DB’s stuff. i find that i sometimes get more information out of people when i criticize what they think instead of asking them what they think. thank you for obliging me.
remember how i said that i bought CFTS and got bored halfway through? i got bored because i was presented with very little new information. before purchasing CFTS i spent a ton of time perusing CF archives in order to find out if i wanted to learn Francis’ methods. i decided that i dug Francis, and promptly bought the book. only to find out that i’d come across nearly everything in the book on his forum.
dont get me wrong, the book’s great, as are many others, but for aforementioned and other reasons i tend to not like reading theory books when i can converse or witness conversations about the theories in said books. being uneducated about the content of certain books and not reading the books dont always go hand in hand.
WRT PLIO-MIO, thank you for pointing out my mistake with PLIO-MIO. it’s a good point, but for the purposes of this discussion it’s not worth dwelling on. especially since it was a cut-and-paste-esque mistake.
WRT AREG, IIRC, DB has dissected AREG into a numbers system. like i said, this may equate with what happens with beginners and intermediates, generally. but the numbers are irrelevant when applied to advanced and elite athletes who have little more progress to make.
WRT ISO, never does somebody performing a rep try to isometrically contract. they’re only trying to lower or raise. the fact that there is an almost infinitesimally short period of apparently isometric contracting doesnt’ negate the fact that it’s minutiae and impractical to isolate and address.
WRT rate and duration = such n such, since rate doesn’t equal RFD and reaction, and duration doesn’t equal strength endurance then what DO they equal? or how are they defined?
P.S. you made many other good points that i agree with or dont care to disagree with at this time. besides, why would you want to be subjected to the rantings of an uneducated internet quarterback, such as myself?[/quote]
I do not want to start or continue any arguments, but I do want to share my opinions/answers to a couple of your comments.
DB doesn’t give a lot of attention to the ISO during a regular rep. He is only mentioning that it occurs (as was mentioned in a previous post).
AREG probably will lead to greater gains in beginners and intermediates, just like any other system/technique, since they have the greatest range of improvement. However, maybe using AREG would lead to even greater gains in peformance in advanced and elite athletes. Maybe we are too content with some progress and keeping an open mind to AREG would lead to more world records, etc. Of course this is merely conjecture at this point and only time will tell what leads to the best gains for advanced and elite athletes.
From personal experience, DB’s methods do produce results. My lifts have gone up, increased vertical jump and faster sprint times (I’m not exceptionally strong or fast and admit there was plenty of room for improvement). Most of the results correspond well with the AREG numbers and what improvement would be expected. This will not continue forever as there is always an end point, but it is possible that AREG/DB could “extend” my end point further down the line.
[quote]climbon wrote:
I do not want to start or continue any arguments, but I do want to share my opinions/answers to a couple of your comments.
DB doesn’t give a lot of attention to the ISO during a regular rep. He is only mentioning that it occurs (as was mentioned in a previous post).
AREG probably will lead to greater gains in beginners and intermediates, just like any other system/technique, since they have the greatest range of improvement. However, maybe using AREG would lead to even greater gains in peformance in advanced and elite athletes. Maybe we are too content with some progress and keeping an open mind to AREG would lead to more world records, etc. Of course this is merely conjecture at this point and only time will tell what leads to the best gains for advanced and elite athletes.
From personal experience, DB’s methods do produce results. My lifts have gone up, increased vertical jump and faster sprint times (I’m not exceptionally strong or fast and admit there was plenty of room for improvement). Most of the results correspond well with the AREG numbers and what improvement would be expected. This will not continue forever as there is always an end point, but it is possible that AREG/DB could “extend” my end point further down the line. [/quote]
IMO opinion AREG as its set out looks excellent for beginner and intermediates which is the vast majority of people reading the board…
if you listen to pendlay etc a linear approach with out all the frills is best for beginners - intermediate…
a lot of guys prefer concentrated loading, for advanced athletes
the fatigue sessions arent enough to warrant being called concentrated loading or a high volume fatigue week/period, but are probably a nice compromise for beginners/intermediate…
does anyone really know what DB does with the advanced guys anyway? there was a lot of talk about factorization etc, which he used for his advanced lifters but he never really outlined it…
one method that could be useful for advanced lifters looking to do concnetrated loading but still wanting to use AREG as a guide would be to, strive for a x% drop off not at the end of each training but say the start of training…
ie factorize it and arrange it however you want and during a high volume ‘stress/fatigue’ phase… when you go into a training and youve reached x% you know that youve induced the appropriate fatigue and then you can go into your recovery/easy weeks etc
thanks for jumping to the conclusion that because i didn’t read the books that i dont have any knowledge or experience of that which is confined in said books.
actually, in retrospect i shouldn’t have mentioned the fact that i haven’t read the books. initially, i had a purpose for that which i was going to follow up, but because i think faster than i type it must’ve been lost in translation or whatnot.
partly, why i mentioned it in the first place has to do with my desire to figure out if i want to purchase DB’s book, and in order to figure that out i desired getting a more solid opinion about DB’s stuff. i find that i sometimes get more information out of people when i criticize what they think instead of asking them what they think. thank you for obliging me.
remember how i said that i bought CFTS and got bored halfway through? i got bored because i was presented with very little new information. before purchasing CFTS i spent a ton of time perusing CF archives in order to find out if i wanted to learn Francis’ methods. i decided that i dug Francis, and promptly bought the book. only to find out that i’d come across nearly everything in the book on his forum.
dont get me wrong, the book’s great, as are many others, but for aforementioned and other reasons i tend to not like reading theory books when i can converse or witness conversations about the theories in said books. being uneducated about the content of certain books and not reading the books dont always go hand in hand.[/quote]
I agree with evrrything you said here, but in this case, you do not understand all that DB is getting at with his theories, and you haven’t had experience working an athlete through a progression of hyper - strength - force absorption - force production - power absorption - power production, or you would know that it works amazingly well. You may be right on some level in saying that it is impossible to QUANTIFY a dropoff in elite athletes, as I have never coached an Olympic athlete. I have never extended past DI athletes, and their careers post collegiate. As an aide, I am actually more interested in coaching the athletes who are not genetic freaks, as they have been told by dumb asses their whole lives that speed in purely genetic. I can tell you that it isn’t. Now, are the very most elite times? Yes, probably. I do not know how much ground DB’s stuff can make up.
For example: over the past sixteen weeks I have been working with the son of a DII Basketball Coach. I also write the workout for his team. The son was a three year BFS devotee, never missing a workout…coach’s son type. I had the coach run some diagnostics on the kid, and I felt that in order to springboard his performance, we actually needed to do more DUR work, but on muscle groups that we too weak to function correctly while he moved. He was typical, quad dominant, but little reactive ability. He was nailed to the floor at 6’ with a running touch 6" below the rim. The month was a 4:1 Frequency - Fatigue cycle that immediately added 6 pounds of muscle (7 total), and his squat jumped 65 pounds. Three weeks. All he needed was some concentrated Iso work and some PIM 1 1/2 Bulgarian Squats to reteach those glutes / hips that they are the bad boys, not those dinky quads. We also did many rehabilitaive restorative drills to bring up his glute activation, and tons of pull-through, 45 Degree, Around the World type stuff to synch the rear chain. We then went to Force Absorption and Production for a phase, and I started him progrssing through very low level Altitude Work. I had primed his soft PF tissues during the DUR work, so we were ready to slowly enter into Plyos. Plus, he could now squat over 1.5X his BW, so following all of the cut-in-stone advice (which I always do with on-line clients to ensure liability is not an issue!!), he was ready for plyos.
Anyway, we went through 4 more 4:1 F-F cycles, and now he is down for the next week tapering for practice, which starts the day afeter Tanksgiving. He added 45 more pounds to his squat (now at 1.7X BW), even though we never did any Circa Max work, or Iso work. We have done Wave Loaded Reactives, after Force Drop Absorptions, and have worked through two waves of Altitude Drops / Depth Jumps using 3weeksAlt - 3weeksDepth-3WeeksOff-2WeeksAlt - 1Week Depth.
He can now run and hang from the rim off two feet and 1-foot. Oh, that was another issue, he was basically a total 2-foot jumper (I am sure engrained by so much squat work). We corrected that by doing many Split Squat type movements throughout the cycle. BTW, if I told you his speed improevements in the 30 and the Pro Agility, you’d probably call me a liar…as I am sure they ar enhanced by actually doing the tests and getting better at the specisfic test. I ask him every time we talk: you sure you didn’t fall the first time? Nope, and they ran the tests 3X. So while we all talk numbers here, his on the court performance improved from the overall 15 pound weight gain and hike in performance that accompanied the retraining of his NeuroDynamic System.
OK, back to the topic at hand.
The other thing I find interesting is that you freely admit that you spend HOURS on CF’s forums figuring out if the book is worth the cash. This like what my dear mother-law-does. She is always talking gas prices, and will drive across town to save 10 cents per gallon at Sam’s. She has a 15 gallon tank, and since she goes to Sam’s on Sat morn, she waits in those pump lines for 15 minutes to save $1.50 cents. So she is saying to the whole world that her free time is worth $6 / hour. But, she charges $55 / hour as an OT. This is why she doesn’t have 25 OT’s working under her and she isn’t a multi-millionaire in an area where she EASILY could be…kinda dim.
I would suggest that you find some people you trust the opinions of, and get a reading list…then quit being Dutch (I am Dutch, and we are REALLY frugal people…so no PC nonsense…I am Dutch and Swede…so shut it!!) and sack up to knock out the books. How many hours did you jack around when the e-book was $30? Maybe I will invite you down for Thanksgiving and you and my mother-in-law can talk about all of the pennies you saved by giving up hours of your life you will never, ever get back. Oh-well, we all decide on how we spend our one go-around on this planet. It’s your free time…what is it worth?
True, but not. I just figure all this is game when you are going to openly criticize someone who had the sack and the determination to take his ideas, put them into a 200 page book, and lay them out there for the whole world to see. If you are going to talk about something you haven’t even read yet, I suggest you get your ducks lined up correctly. Someone who was reading your post as a source of ‘education’ as you tried to point out was SUCH A GOOD IDEA (yeah right!) would now be confused. So if you are going to run your sewer, get your facts straight. You are theoretically now an educator of those who are considering buying the work.
Actually, his % compensation numbers falter as we approach the realm of human possibility, but the front-side drop-off method is still a very viable way to quantify when an athlete has experiences a certain level of CNS fatigue for the day. See last post about an athlete who doesn’t have a wizened old coach watching his/her performance daily…how do they know…and don’t say by feel. That is total crap as CNS fatigue is often not felt…
So, if you are so much the authority, how does an athlete know?
Because right now, you are the cynical little trite in the board room with all criticisms, but no solutions…
So sack up and offer solutions. Or is all you have to offer is conjecture about something you haven’t read?
AREG is a way to quantify when you are done for the day…and it is very good at doing that.
Wrong again. Man, you are on a roll. (Call him butter!)
In looking through the much heralded here (and rightly so, I own every product he has made, $ well spent)work of CT, I bet I could find a dozen methods where the ISO portion of the rep was manipulated in some way to produce a training effect. In fact, I bet if CT takes the time to read this thread, he could sit down this afternoon and crak a 10-page article on when and why it is appropriate to do so…
There is a reason for it, even if it is outide the bounds of your training focus. There are many things guys like Tate and Louie do that would probably leave me scratching my head, but I train Power athletes, not Pure Strength guys… I certainly am not going to say that some point they have contended is important is not just because I currently do not address it…instead Imight really do some research into why they thought it was an important point.
[quote]WRT rate and duration = such n such, since rate doesn’t equal RFD and reaction, and duration doesn’t equal strength endurance then what DO they equal? or how are they defined?
P.S. you made many other good points that i agree with or dont care to disagree with at this time. besides, why would you want to be subjected to the rantings of an uneducated internet quarterback, such as myself?[/quote]
True, I appreciate you saving the ink in my red pen.
Chris Aus has this incorrect below also, but it is easy to do.
DUR does not equal Strength endurance. The set is DUR, and Strength Endurance is merely a subset of DUR work. Basic set theory really. Back to the public school rant agin…ugh.
Dog does not equal Rottie. But, Rottie is an element of Dog. But so are Newfoundlands, boxers, etc.
So, DUR work is characterized by a shallower slope on both sides of the muscle recruitment graph with a DURATION period where peak contraction is held over the course of moving a weight. It is not an impulse with sharp angles on both side with little DURATION of the contraction (rate and S-S work). In fact, we don’t want any DURATION of the contraction during speed strength movements, or we want it minimized as much as possible.
So with that being said: Duration is the set, ISO work, Repetition Method, Submaximal Work, Circa Max Work are all elements within the set. (Basic 6th grade math stuff we should probably all review prior to posting.)
Your squat Max is often determined not by the fact that you can generate 800 pounds of force, but that you can generate the force over the DURATION of the lift…say 3-9 seconds. That is why I have 160 pound high jumpers who can quarter squat their asses off, but many times cannot maintain peak tension long enough to have a “respectable squat” according to many posters on this site. But, is this action I want to train into the CNS of my high jumpers when they can squat enough to create the physical changes in the tendons, ligaments, and muscles, to sustain high level jump training? Hmmmmm.
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
climbon wrote:
I do not want to start or continue any arguments, but I do want to share my opinions/answers to a couple of your comments.
DB doesn’t give a lot of attention to the ISO during a regular rep. He is only mentioning that it occurs (as was mentioned in a previous post).
AREG probably will lead to greater gains in beginners and intermediates, just like any other system/technique, since they have the greatest range of improvement. However, maybe using AREG would lead to even greater gains in peformance in advanced and elite athletes. Maybe we are too content with some progress and keeping an open mind to AREG would lead to more world records, etc. Of course this is merely conjecture at this point and only time will tell what leads to the best gains for advanced and elite athletes.
From personal experience, DB’s methods do produce results. My lifts have gone up, increased vertical jump and faster sprint times (I’m not exceptionally strong or fast and admit there was plenty of room for improvement). Most of the results correspond well with the AREG numbers and what improvement would be expected. This will not continue forever as there is always an end point, but it is possible that AREG/DB could “extend” my end point further down the line.
IMO opinion AREG as its set out looks excellent for beginner and intermediates which is the vast majority of people reading the board…
if you listen to pendlay etc a linear approach with out all the frills is best for beginners - intermediate…
a lot of guys prefer concentrated loading, for advanced athletes
the fatigue sessions arent enough to warrant being called concentrated loading or a high volume fatigue week/period, but are probably a nice compromise for beginners/intermediate…
does anyone really know what DB does with the advanced guys anyway? there was a lot of talk about factorization etc, which he used for his advanced lifters but he never really outlined it…
one method that could be useful for advanced lifters looking to do concnetrated loading but still wanting to use AREG as a guide would be to, strive for a x% drop off not at the end of each training but say the start of training…
ie factorize it and arrange it however you want and during a high volume ‘stress/fatigue’ phase… when you go into a training and youve reached x% you know that youve induced the appropriate fatigue and then you can go into your recovery/easy weeks etc[/quote]
Very true Chris…seems like factorizing and some of the stuff CW has been espousing about training a muscle almost every day may fall somewhat in line… although DB is attempting to measure (successful or not) the CNS fatigue, where Chad lays it out cleanly in amethod that alternates the demands imposed on both systems (CNS and muscular).
I agree that DB could do us all a favor and really delve into the topic further…but, there are far more topics I would rather him cover first…
Anyway, good points here, although if you look at the end of my Wuf response, you will see where I try to clear up DUR defienition…
[quote]Jumanji wrote:
I agree with evrrything you said here, but in this case, you do not understand all that DB is getting at with his theories, and you haven’t had experience working an athlete through a progression of hyper - strength - force absorption - force production - power absorption - power production, or you would know that it works amazingly well. You may be right on some level in saying that it is impossible to QUANTIFY a dropoff in elite athletes, as I have never coached an Olympic athlete. I have never extended past DI athletes, and their careers post collegiate. As an aide, I am actually more interested in coaching the athletes who are not genetic freaks, as they have been told by dumb asses their whole lives that speed in purely genetic. I can tell you that it isn’t. Now, are the very most elite times? Yes, probably. I do not know how much ground DB’s stuff can make up.
For example: over the past sixteen weeks I have been working with the son of a DII Basketball Coach. I also write the workout for his team. The son was a three year BFS devotee, never missing a workout…coach’s son type. I had the coach run some diagnostics on the kid, and I felt that in order to springboard his performance, we actually needed to do more DUR work, but on muscle groups that we too weak to function correctly while he moved. He was typical, quad dominant, but little reactive ability. He was nailed to the floor at 6’ with a running touch 6" below the rim. The month was a 4:1 Frequency - Fatigue cycle that immediately added 6 pounds of muscle (7 total), and his squat jumped 65 pounds. Three weeks. All he needed was some concentrated Iso work and some PIM 1 1/2 Bulgarian Squats to reteach those glutes / hips that they are the bad boys, not those dinky quads. We also did many rehabilitaive restorative drills to bring up his glute activation, and tons of pull-through, 45 Degree, Around the World type stuff to synch the rear chain. We then went to Force Absorption and Production for a phase, and I started him progrssing through very low level Altitude Work. I had primed his soft PF tissues during the DUR work, so we were ready to slowly enter into Plyos. Plus, he could now squat over 1.5X his BW, so following all of the cut-in-stone advice (which I always do with on-line clients to ensure liability is not an issue!!), he was ready for plyos.
Anyway, we went through 4 more 4:1 F-F cycles, and now he is down for the next week tapering for practice, which starts the day afeter Tanksgiving. He added 45 more pounds to his squat (now at 1.7X BW), even though we never did any Circa Max work, or Iso work. We have done Wave Loaded Reactives, after Force Drop Absorptions, and have worked through two waves of Altitude Drops / Depth Jumps using 3weeksAlt - 3weeksDepth-3WeeksOff-2WeeksAlt - 1Week Depth.
He can now run and hang from the rim off two feet and 1-foot. Oh, that was another issue, he was basically a total 2-foot jumper (I am sure engrained by so much squat work). We corrected that by doing many Split Squat type movements throughout the cycle. BTW, if I told you his speed improevements in the 30 and the Pro Agility, you’d probably call me a liar…as I am sure they ar enhanced by actually doing the tests and getting better at the specisfic test. I ask him every time we talk: you sure you didn’t fall the first time? Nope, and they ran the tests 3X. So while we all talk numbers here, his on the court performance improved from the overall 15 pound weight gain and hike in performance that accompanied the retraining of his NeuroDynamic System.
Jumanji
[/quote]
and that’s why i ask you questions and attentively read you posts. dont glaze over the point i made previously about how sometimes i try to learn not by asking questions but by criticizing.
i come to forums like this for three, and only three reasons: 1) learning, 2) enjoyment, 3) time killing. even if i sound like i’m trying to teach somebody something or whatnot i’m actually doing those three things.
as for your other points, the only one i want to address is that you equate some of my postings in this thread with sewer, and that i shouldn’t be posting such because it could lead inquisitors astray. im not going to explain to you why this is wrong. you’re gonna hafta figure that one yourself.
[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
climbon wrote:
I do not want to start or continue any arguments, but I do want to share my opinions/answers to a couple of your comments.
DB doesn’t give a lot of attention to the ISO during a regular rep. He is only mentioning that it occurs (as was mentioned in a previous post).
AREG probably will lead to greater gains in beginners and intermediates, just like any other system/technique, since they have the greatest range of improvement. However, maybe using AREG would lead to even greater gains in peformance in advanced and elite athletes. Maybe we are too content with some progress and keeping an open mind to AREG would lead to more world records, etc. Of course this is merely conjecture at this point and only time will tell what leads to the best gains for advanced and elite athletes.
From personal experience, DB’s methods do produce results. My lifts have gone up, increased vertical jump and faster sprint times (I’m not exceptionally strong or fast and admit there was plenty of room for improvement). Most of the results correspond well with the AREG numbers and what improvement would be expected. This will not continue forever as there is always an end point, but it is possible that AREG/DB could “extend” my end point further down the line.
IMO opinion AREG as its set out looks excellent for beginner and intermediates which is the vast majority of people reading the board…
if you listen to pendlay etc a linear approach with out all the frills is best for beginners - intermediate…
a lot of guys prefer concentrated loading, for advanced athletes
the fatigue sessions arent enough to warrant being called concentrated loading or a high volume fatigue week/period, but are probably a nice compromise for beginners/intermediate…
does anyone really know what DB does with the advanced guys anyway? there was a lot of talk about factorization etc, which he used for his advanced lifters but he never really outlined it…
one method that could be useful for advanced lifters looking to do concnetrated loading but still wanting to use AREG as a guide would be to, strive for a x% drop off not at the end of each training but say the start of training…
ie factorize it and arrange it however you want and during a high volume ‘stress/fatigue’ phase… when you go into a training and youve reached x% you know that youve induced the appropriate fatigue and then you can go into your recovery/easy weeks etc
Very true Chris…seems like factorizing and some of the stuff CW has been espousing about training a muscle almost every day may fall somewhat in line… although DB is attempting to measure (successful or not) the CNS fatigue, where Chad lays it out cleanly in amethod that alternates the demands imposed on both systems (CNS and muscular).
I agree that DB could do us all a favor and really delve into the topic further…but, there are far more topics I would rather him cover first…
Anyway, good points here, although if you look at the end of my Wuf response, you will see where I try to clear up DUR defienition…
Good job.
J[/quote]
youre a picky bugger but yeah thats fair enough, simplifying something to a point where i can be bothered writing it out is difficult
I have read some of the stuff on the website and have no doubt that it works but it took me like 3 times reading and rereading until i had a splitting headache to figure some of the shit out. Again, its probably a great system, but theres gotta be a better way of getting this stuff across,thereby making it easier to actually implement and progress on the theories.just my 2 cents.
I have to say, just the fact that this thread is inspiring such a debate has inspired me to purchase DB’s book!
In the meantime I’m still wading through his articles on inno-sport. I must say it’s making my head spin. Jumanji, I’m sure I’ll have some questions for you when I get the book.
I worked with DB for several months over email. I had a hard time with his duration workouts. I was training for maximum strength. In each of the duration workouts I would train 1 set to failure, drop my AREG % and the continue sets until failure again. So much traiing to failure seemed to tap my nervous system so that I could not make progress. Any one else experience this using hisa protocals?
I was motivated to start liftinng after discovering AREG. it took me quite a while to read the article on it by Kelly over and over again till i fianlyl got the hang of it. Then i bought the book and realized its not a simple book that beginners can understand =D. But anyway, it had significantly jumpstarted by weight training skills. A lot of interesting stuff.
thats a pretty good point re: training to failure and something that i initially had a problem with I dont think that you have to though…
I spoke earlier about how some people like to use periods/blocks/cycles/weeks of ‘harder’ and ‘easier’ training depending on how its set out… if you follow the system as its outlined (the whole system isnt known but theres a lot of info out there) there really isnt scope for that…
so every session for a PIM duration workout atleast you hit failure on 2 sets per exercise…
This doesnt have to be the case however… You dont even have have the last rep an MVC necasserily…
Theoretically you can just use the same AREG methods used for the mag work but with the duration %'s and rep speed whatever…
just say you hit the gym and for whatever reason are doing sets of 3 want to train duration so you know typical strength training… if you want to AREG it without going to failure you can time the sets…
For Prime
set 1 = 100 units of weight (for simplicity) in 10 seconds
set 2 = 94 units of weight in 8.5 seconds
set 3 = 94 in 9.6 seconds
set 4= 94 in 10 seconds
6% drop can stop there if using the frequency training
At first I followed a lot of what the stuff said, now i just keep the principles in mind when I do/plan things…
Geez, nothing too complicated about this stuff at all, at least for me
one thing that was put forward when training using the principals is to toally ignore a quality, say DUR/strength for a period of time and go work on power. When you come back to strength work, you will off course be weaker at first, but never to where you were, when you started.
The mag/peak power is still there, if not higher as that was what you were training recently, and most probbaly muscle mass, but your DUR/strain abilities will have decayed. You can pop out a lot of peak force, but can’t sustain it for long enough for a typical strength lift.
So now you just maintain your MAG, and start work on DUR/strain, and boom since you negelcted that quality, you get big newbie gains, and you will regain and soon surpass your old bests.
Well that’s what I will soon find out, as that’s what I did recently
That’s how it is, train what your system is lacking or lagging, and you get big gains fast in that quality. Pretty much what this system and principals is all about. There’s more to it just than doing up and down reps all the time and hoping for the best…
May work fine for the freaks out there, but not so well for the rest of us
Make sure you eat a lot of protein for your needs. That’s the mistake I made for a long period of time. As soon as I fixed that, the gains are where they should be now!
Add some restorative work and CNS recovery work on off days and your golden. Leave nothing to chance.
there are plenty of ways to organise things, I don’t exactly follow the templates as they are layed out all the time, but I used the principals. And it’s working just fine.
[quote]CoolColJ wrote:
BTW Jumanji - I love your posts, very good reading!
[/quote]
I am piecing through all of the stuff on the Forum you moderate, as I waited forever to get approved under Jumanji and Silverback, but finally got in as ‘TheAdjuster’.
I have incorporated many of the principles into my PPT presentations I give to coaches, and it is going well…very dim lights start to flicker, heads shake, questions are asked, answers are reworded, and the lightbulbs start to glow brighter and brighter… it is funny to adress issues that have been right in coaches faces for years, but no one ever addressing why they exist.
I actually wanted to talk to you about my graph I have been piecing together. Shoot me a PM here or there, because I would love some input.
That’s a good idea Chris however PIM (up and down reps) training would only be a small part of a DB program. If you are doing ISO Prime I don’t know how you can avoid failure. Also, I have found timing to be a pain. I have video taped ever lift in many sessions. After each lift you go to the camera and measure the exact time from start to end. This is very tedious but how else are you going to measure it on your own especially when you are trying to figure out if you are within 6% time parameter of a 6 second lift.
I did get several valuable things from DB’s training. I love reactive work for power especially on the squat. It made me feel much more comforable on a full snatch. I also like the pronate/supernate triceps extension exercise. He opened my eyes to a lot more training variation.
I see similarities between Westside, DB and Chad W. You see training sessions that rotate between at least 2 training modalities, For example, on Westside you rotate between a max force day and a max strength day with occasional high reps replacing the max strength. DB’s programs usually alternate between two training modalities depending on training goals. On Chad’s programs you see him rotating with 3 or more sometimes since he leans more to the high volume side of training.
I have a similar problem with Westside training by going to failure on each max effort day. My best progress happens when I keep myself from failure. I have been training for 17 years and have competed in powerlifting so I have learned to atain a very high level of focus in my sessions. Too much focus (ie training to failure) and strain leads to excessive nervous system taxaction with me.
[quote]Seattle_Lifter wrote:
That’s a good idea Chris however PIM (up and down reps) training would only be a small part of a DB program. If you are doing MAG ISO I don’t know how you can avoid failure. [/quote]
Not sure what you mean by avoiding failure during MAG work. MAG wouldn;t be trained to muscular failure. It would be technical breakdown or reaching % drop off.
DUR work is the only work done until failure. Rate and MAG are not
[quote]CoolColJ wrote:
Geez, nothing too complicated about this stuff at all, at least for me
one thing that was put forward when training using the principals is to toally ignore a quality, say DUR/strength for a period of time and go work on power. When you come back to strength work, you will off course be weaker at first, but never to where you were, when you started.
The mag/peak power is still there, if not higher as that was what you were training recently, and most probbaly muscle mass, but your DUR/strain abilities will have decayed. You can pop out a lot of peak force, but can’t sustain it for long enough for a typical strength lift.
So now you just maintain your MAG, and start work on DUR/strain, and boom since you negelcted that quality, you get big newbie gains, and you will regain and soon surpass your old bests.
Well that’s what I will soon find out, as that’s what I did recently
That’s how it is, train what your system is lacking or lagging, and you get big gains fast in that quality. Pretty much what this system and principals is all about. There’s more to it just than doing up and down reps all the time and hoping for the best…
May work fine for the freaks out there, but not so well for the rest of us
[/quote]
whoa, sounds like a variation of “two steps forward, one step back” to me.
also goes against what Verko, Zats, Siff wrote and taught (how would i know?).
P.S. a note on freaks and what works for them as opposed to non-freaks… the same exact stuff that works for freaks works for non-freaks. freak status is determined by rete of progress. if it works for a freak it will work for a non-freak, just slower. if it doesn’t work for a freak then it wont work for a non-freak.
