T Nation

Discussing CW's Methods


I am not quite done yet. So, I created this thread.

It can be traced back to here:


Oriensus wrote:

Thank you, I try my best to conduct myself in a courteous manner, but it gets difficult.

And no, I have not misinterpretted the size principle and neither has Chad. He is absolutely correct under isometric and concentric conditions, but he did not know it functioned differently under eccentric conditions.

I provided evidence to support this earlier in the thread. Having a degree in a subject does not guarantee you'll know everything. Hell, with as much as I read, I could be well on my way to a degree in neurophysiology as well. :slight_smile:


And Maximus, yes, I picked up sprinting a bit over a year ago. Before that I was a typical Playstation-raised teenager.


Sorry, but I don't see Chad referring to eccentrics at all when discussing the size principle and it's not in your quote.

Stop looking things up on the net and quoting them here, it's pathetic!

What you have just described is a good plyometric rep, which does not work the muscle fiber part of the MU as much as the neural connection. The increased force is from a neurological reflex, not MU recruitment. Plyometrics have not been show to cause any increases in muscle CSA, only increases in strength due to increases in neural innervations.

Now run along and search the net for plyometrics.

Ps - If that is you in your avatar, you might want to wait to offer strength training advice until you weight at least 150lbs! "


Lorisco, Chad said that my information was bunk and that I had nothing to back it with. I then stated how the size principle worked to support my statement.

And I'm not just looking for these things on the web. I have binders of studies and a library of books. And please, stop the insults.

Finally, yes, plyometric movements are the most neurally draining of all methods, but they still have quite an impact on the musculotendon system. When weight is added to the plyometric actions, intramuscular force exceeds that found in traditional weight work. This extreme force causes adaptation.

PS, about my weight, I'm 6' tall and weigh 205 lbs. Maybe the picture is misleading (it really is) but I'm quite large, for a sprinter at least.


"Rally around the family with a pocket full of shells"

Humorous as always.


And my posts do have a tendency to stir things up, don't they.

Also are you being sarcastic? I honestly can't tell. My sarcasm detector is temporarily overheated due to the flames. :slight_smile:

If you're being serious, thank you.


You should really stop posting on the Strength Sports forum. Instead, you should create a website and start charging people for your expert advice. Posting on here is like giving away your intellectual property for free! A super smart, super strong, and super fast genetic freak such as yourself should cash in on all of those abilities.

FYI: In one of the above sentences I wasn't being sarcastic.


Why the personal attacks? What do you have to gain from making fun of me?

Does it make you feel good about yourself to tease people? Do you get some sort of satisfaction out of knowing you spit an insult in the face of someone who's been nothing but respectful and courteous?

If so, keep doing your thing. Far be it for me to stop you.

Have a nice day. :slight_smile:


I do not understand why anyone would rag on credible info.


Me neither. The general attitude on this site frustrates me to no end.

I don't mind people questioning me on my sources, but when they resort to personal attacks for no reason I just don't get it. It's behavior like this that makes our society a burden to live in.


RJ let them all stick to 10x3 and plateau. I choose to continue making gains and learning still after 25 years of training.


Yeah, I like to think of each training movement and method as a tool. Some people see 10x3 as a system whereas I see a moderate volume rep recommendation best suited for neither max strength nor functional hypertrophy.

Still though, Chad does have some interesting ideas.


If your upper body grows so fast, it's probably time to stop typing.

Much love.


I have been around here from day 1 and I have found that they do say the same thing over and over here in a slightly different way. I thought it was wrong when they went to daily articles. Quantity over quality is never the right choice.


Excuse me, but what exactly are you contributing to this thread?


RJ24,I'm no expert, but Verkhoshansky, Zatziorsky, etc.. say you should stop lifting conventionaly in favor of these ballistic excentrics?
I think shock methods are to be used in certain times within a periodized program, not as the cornerstone of a program.

And even if you prove by scientific A+B that a method can recruit more motor units, that doesnt mean its better for size and strength, it should be practiced first...

You never hear Thib, or other author posting in Chad's article to say "this is not bad, but my methods are better than his", so it was pretty much arrogant to post that you came to the conclusion that a method that is not done by powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc.. is the ultimate method to get bigger and stronger. You need some very spetacular results (with yourself and training others)to back up that kind of claim.


No, they don't say this, nor did I say that you should give up regular lifting. All I said was that there was a superior method (which is not my method) for high threshold MU recruitment.

Chad says lifting fast is the best way to increase MU recruitment, well he's right, but only sort of. MU recruitment is higher with a fast eccentric and ammortization phase than it is during a fast concentric.


The spectular results are displayed by countless power athletes at the olympics.

I do enjoy Chad's artice and find them useful but he keeps repeating the same artice all the time, i.e,. the size princile. Apart using the size principle as a rationale for the training method, what is new? Practically every olympic power athlete has used these methods. What is new about compensatory acceleration and low rep, high set training anyway. This stiff is as old as the hills, there is nothing new. Olympic lifters have been training like this for decades.

On a side if the slow twitch muscles are activated first too, why is endurance training necessary?

Isn't Mel Siff the greatest exercise scientist without having world class lifts himself (i think I read he was a pretty decent lifter)?


No I am. I was being light hearted at the fact that you maybe had hoped to get a serious discussion about your ideas. Outright dismissal of your post for being small is foolish. If that was the case quite a few contributors to this site should be ignored. You are correct in what you posted, backed it up with solid research, and I for one appreciated your contribution.

If we can't argue about serious training information, and sit idly by when you believe something is incorrect, what the hell is the point of a forum. Oh wait...