Thanks for the backup decimation. Yes, what I’m preaching is nothing new and has been in practice for decades. Same thing with Chad’s work. My only problem is him constantly trying to portray it as a breakthrough, when in fact it’s common knowledge to those with a sports science library.
As for Mel Siff, yes, he is considered the greatest exercise scientist out there, but people don’t seem to want to hear his opinion unless he squats 800 lbs.
[quote]Donut62 wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
“Rally around the family with a pocket full of shells”
Humorous as always. I enjoyed your post and the information you brought forth.
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. 
If you’re being serious, thank you.
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…[/quote]
Thanks Donut. At least a respected poster is agreeing with me for once. I’ll continue to bring “new” ideas to the site when I see fit and hopefully some day they’ll inspire a civil conversation rather than a firefight.
And as for being small, I’m pretty sure I’m bigger than quite a few of the authors, but for some reason people keep thinking I weigh 150.
The stretch-shortening reflex that you are referring to has been demonstrated time and time again to not be the path to size and strength. One cannot train using this method for even a single mesocycle without progress stalling.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Sagat, but I do respect your studies, RJ24.
Could you substantiate your claim, Cormac?
I ask because there’s no reason the method I listed should not increase strength and size. It provides a great stimulus to the worked muscles in the form of supramaximal intensity, will cause muscle fiber damage, and has a significant TUT when the isometric hold is employed afterwards. Not only that, but the neural drive is enhanced by such methods. An increase in neural drive can easily be changed into an increase in strength with some specific work.
Personally, I think most athletes’ time should be spend perfecting the utilization of the SSC under all different kinds of loading. A mastery of the reflexive firing of the system is of prime importance to athletes whose sports are plyometricall driven.
Also, stagnation can be offset nearly indefinately by employing proper volume regulation (such as autoregulatory training).
It’s a shame this discussion had to leave the other thread. It may have started to open some minds over there.
Yeah, it is. I always liked a little bit of controversy myself.
I have done drop catch methods for bench and the squat and got great results in explosive power and Hypertrophy. I cycle this into my training just like I cycle in all methods I am aware of. Hypertrophy>strength>Power.
Increase muscle size
Then Increase strength
then Increase Power.
Then Repeat. Non stop progress no plateau
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
I have done drop catch methods for bench and the squat and got great results in explosive power and Hypertrophy. I cycle this into my training just like I cycle in all methods I am aware of. Hypertrophy>strength>Power.
Increase muscle size
Then Increase strength
then Increase Power.
Then Repeat. Non stop progress no plateau[/quote]
Wow, it’s nice to see someone who’s read up on the Inno-Sport system. I use it to program my training and I love it. People here aren’t receptive to it though, so it’s rarely mentioned.
It is too complicated.
What are these isometric holds after explosive lifting?
Does he use the skill (i.e. sprinting jumping ) in a complex after some 60% squats or similar?
I found I could only do up to 2 or 3 continuous cycles without lots of tendonitis. To be fair I didn’t get much stronger though, just jumped higher and broad jumped longer.
There is a good archive on this on Dr . Squat forum too, some claiming pure plyos are better for force production.
[quote]decimation wrote:
It is too complicated.
What are these isometric holds after explosive lifting?
Does he use the skill (i.e. sprinting jumping ) in a complex after some 60% squats or similar?
I found I could only do up to 2 or 3 continuous cycles without lots of tendonitis. To be fair I didn’t get much stronger though, just jumped higher and broad jumped longer.
There is a good archive on this on Dr . Squat forum too, some claiming pure plyos are better for force production.
[/quote]
At the start of the original thread I suggest doing isometric holds for time after 3 reactive reps. The reactive reps would trick the CNS into putting out a greater neural drive and the isometric would capitalize on it by fatiguing the recruited high threshold motor units.
As for the Inno-Sport system, it takes some reading. I can’t answer your questions, but The Sports Book and all the articles on inno-sport.net can. And regarding your tendonitis, this is completely avoidable provided training is conducted properly.
ok rj ante up with info from schroeder
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
SBT wrote:
If your upper body grows so fast, it’s probably time to stop typing.
Much love.
Excuse me, but what exactly are you contributing to this thread?[/quote]
Yeah, SBT, don’t interfere with him talking to himself. I mean…um…the one guy who keeps agreeing with him.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
jsal33 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Which is why I asked what you’re doing here. You don’t like the general attitude, leave. This isn’t the site for you, guy.
regarding google & muscle fiber size increases do primarily to sprint & plyometric type training:
Muscle Power and Fiber Characteristics Following 8 Weeks of Plyometric Training
JEFFREY A. POTTEIGER, ROBERT H. LOCKWOOD, MARK D. HAUB, BRETT A. DOLEZAL, KHALID S. ALMUZAINI, JAN M. SCHROEDER, and CAROLE J. ZEBASDepartment of Health, Sport, and Exercise Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045.
ABSTRACT We examined changes in muscle power output and fiber characteristics following a 3 d·wk?~H~R1, 8-week plyometric and aerobic exercise program. Male subjects (n = 19) were randomly assigned to either group 1 (plyometric training) or group 2 (plyometric training and aerobic exercise). The plyometric training consisted of vertical jumping, bounding, and depth jumping.
Aerobic exercise (at 70% maximum heart rate) was performed for 20 minutes immediately following the plyometric workouts. Muscle biopsy specimens were collected from the musculus vastus lateralis before and after training. Type I and type II fibers were identified and cross-sectional areas calculated. Peak muscle power output, measured using a countermovement vertical jump, significantly increased from pretraining to posttraining for group 1 (2.8%) and group 2 (2.5%).
***Each group demonstrated a significant increase in fiber area from pretraining to posttraining for type I (group 1, 4.4%; group 2, 6.1%) and type II (group 1, 7.8%; group 2, 6.8%) fibers, but there were no differences between the groups. Following plyometric training, there is an increased power output that may in part be related to muscle fiber size.
and
EFFECTS OF SPRINT AND PLYOMETRIC TRAININGON MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS INPHYSICALLY ACTIVE MEN
Goran Markovic?~A, Igor Jukic?~A, Dragan Milanovic?~A and Dus?~Lan Metikos?~LFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaOriginal scientific paperUDC 796.091.2:572.7-055.1
Abstract:The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of sprint and plyometric training on morphologicalcharacteristics of physically active men. One hundred and fifty one physical education students (18-24 s arrof age) were allocated into one of three groups: the plyometric group (PG; n = 50), the sprint group (SG; n = 50), and the control group (CG; n = 51). Both experimental groups participated in a training programme3 times a week for 10 weeks.
SG performed maximal sprints for distances between 10 and 50 meters, whilethe training programme in PG consisted of hurdle jumps and drop jumps. Anthropometric measurementwas performed in the week before and the week after the experiment. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in magnitude of changes in any of the analysed anthropometric variables between the groups.
However, a significant decrease (P < 0.0167) in the percentage of body fat (6.1%) was found in SG. We alsofound a significant decrease (P < 0.0167) in body mass (1%), fat-free mass (0.4%) and body mass index (0.9%) for the SG, but the magnitude of these changes was rather low.
***We conclude that the short-term explosivetraining programmes in which muscles operate in the fast stretch-shortening cycle conditions (i.e., ng,intiijumping) have a limited potential to induce morphological changes in physically active men.
study 1 vs study 2, fight!
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
ok rj ante up with info from schroeder[/quote]
First of all, Schroeder’s system follows a set progression. First one builds work capacity, increases fast twitch fiber volume, programs proper muscle firing patterns, and builds up sufficient ROM. This is accomplished through the use of extreme Isos, or isometric holds in the stretch range. Push ups and deep lunges with the front shin perpendicular to the ground, the torse upright, and the hip flexor in stretch are used.
The basic protocol is to do 5 minutes of ISO holds in each position per day. The goal is to be able to do it without breaks, but nobody can make it at first. When you’re unable to go on you stand up, take three deep breaths and then go back down. Once total time is the position is five minutes you’re done. This is done daily and all other training is excluded. Additional training interfers with the motor learning. Also, one can do the ISO holds as many times as they want per day. The more you do them, the faster you progress.
Next, the trainee learns to absorb force. This is done through various depth drops. This phase can take a while and extreme heights can be worked up to. The main thing to focus on is not to drop from a height that can’t be safely absorbed.
And finally, one trains to produce force. This is accomplished through ballistic reps, depth jumps, EMS treatments, and max effort lifts. Sport specific training then follows.
Everything in this system is done at maximal effort. There are no submax sets. Everything is as heavy or as fast as possible. Training is conducted on a daily basis and one tries to maintain a 6% decrement in performance. The longer this decrement is held, the greater supercompensation will be once one is allowed to recover.
Each method of training is aimed at producing either RFD, training various reflexes, or teaching maximal MU recruitment.
For recovery, an EMS device known as a Therastim is used. I’m not sure on the science behind it, but it’s fundamentally different than the traditional Russian Stim devices in that it promotes an atmosphere of regeneration within the targeted muscles.
That’s basically it in a nutshell.
Ok, I’ll wade into this pissing contest.
RJ24 - without a trace of humility, you started off by flat out calling Chad wrong. Since that initial post, you have continued to beat your own drum, declaring just how knowledgable you are about the topics in question.
That just doesn’t cut it. If you have a different understanding of the concepts behind Chad’s theories, then why not just put your understanding across, and ask Chad to comment on how that squares with his thinking.
Just flat out saying “Chad, you’re wrong, because I know how this works” is not the brightest way to start.
Secondly, repeatedly declaring how knowledgable you are just makes you sound like a juvenile year 1 student who, because he has just figured out what those 6 syllable technical terms actually mean, suddenly thinks he’s competent enough to start disputing with PhD’s.
The more you have to keep saying how much you know, the less you actually do. Its amazing how often this maxim gets validated in real life.
And, if you find yourself in a situation where your understanding of a subject contravenes that of a bona fide expert, first ask yourself - “is it possible that I have misunderstood something?” before immediately deciding “haha, expert is wrong, I’m right …”
Finally, if you’re upper body EXPLODES in size at the mere sight of a barbell, then perhaps you ought to be submitting articles here, rather than waving your wand in discussion threads. Sounds like you have some amazing upper body growth techniques which no-one else has heard of before. Do tell …
isr, I really shouldn’t even respond to your post, but I will. Yes, I called Chad wrong because he was. I don’t care how well regarded he is or how many degrees he has, I care about the validity of his information. The statements of his I contested were wrong, that is all that should matter.
If anyone wants to prove me wrong, then please bring research to the table. If you can do it, I will eat my words and thank you for broadening my horizons.
As for me disputing with the PhDs, yes I think I’m capable of doing so. The research I cite is not my own, but is that of people with much more experience than Chad. Again, if I were to write a legitimate paper on the subject the sources would be more than enough to give my words validity.
And I’m not even going to deal with your last comment.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Could you substantiate your claim, Cormac?
I ask because there’s no reason the method I listed should not increase strength and size. It provides a great stimulus to the worked muscles in the form of supramaximal intensity, will cause muscle fiber damage, and has a significant TUT when the isometric hold is employed afterwards. Not only that, but the neural drive is enhanced by such methods. An increase in neural drive can easily be changed into an increase in strength with some specific work.
Personally, I think most athletes’ time should be spend perfecting the utilization of the SSC under all different kinds of loading. A mastery of the reflexive firing of the system is of prime importance to athletes whose sports are plyometricall driven.
Also, stagnation can be offset nearly indefinately by employing proper volume regulation (such as autoregulatory training).[/quote]
First, I know I’m coming into this late, but I just read through the other thread and this one and thought I’d add my two cents.
Ok, so here goes, first you need to realize that CW is talking about this from a hypertrophy standpoint, not a performance standpoint. This “drop-catch” method that you speak of may in fact be a great method for improving performance.
But, honestly I think that the problem with this method is actually that it does do such a good job of recruiting the motor units. What I mean is that it produces a supermaximal stimulus and this in turn places a huge demand on the CNS.
Now at first glance, this would seem to suggest that this system would be great since MU recruitment is an important part of building muscle. But, this is an incorrect way of looking at training. You can’t just look at a single workout and determine how effective it’s going to be, because building muscle is a long term process (or at least a significant amount of muscle). So, it doesn’t really matter how effective a single workout is, or how well it stimulated the MU’s, or fatigued the fibers, or what not.
What matters is that the program allows one to continue to make steady consistent progress and improve over the long term (read years). Now, might this system allow for progress? Yeah. But generally systems that use supermaximal methods are extremely hard on the CNS/recovery systems and therefore cannot be followed for long periods of time and also don’t allow for steady, noticeable, consistent progress (in terms of load).
Of course, you may be correct that with proper volume regulation these pitfalls can be avoided. So, here’s my advice. Stick to this program, utilize it to the letter (since you said that you have inside information which would allow you to do so), get freaky huge and then come back here in a few years and post your before and after pics. If you do this then no one will be able to argue with you, you will have concrete proof that this “drop-catch” system works great for hypertrophy.
If you don’t want to do this (for whatever reason), then fine, but don’t expect anyone to believe in the efficacy of this system. And, just so you don’t think that I’m a fanboy myself (though I do respect CW and find his ideas interesting), I’ve yet to see any pics of guys who have gotten huge off of CW’s system either (IamMarqaos’s before and after pics are the most convincing evidence that I’ve seen so far that CW’s system can produce notable results).
Good training,
Sentoguy
Thanks for the comments Sentoguy. I plan on implementing my system and coming back with results later. When I have proof, that could silence the haters (god, I can’t believe I just used that term), but I doubt it.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Chad puts the CNS and HTMUs up in a pedestal. He comes to me as somewhat fundamentalistic. It’s as if he’s saying that HTMU recruitment is the only way to train. He seems to ignore the other things that contribute to muscle building (ie. hormones, endurance, hypertrophy of lower TMUs).
I’m not saying he’s wrong. In fact, he’s right. CNS and HTMUs are important in muscle building. I just wish he’d discuss how other factors come into play in regards to training.