Me too!
The DVD should make everyone understand the system?I mean ??everyone! Actually, it is quite easy to understand if you really think about it. First off, it classifies all realms of plyometric work. This is something that makes our communication as coaches much more direct and clear. Too many people say…yes we do plyo’s?? There are so many different ways to do them, why not try to classify them to make it clearer? The second component that is important is the volume control through auto-regulated training. Why do people fight against it instead of trying to understand it? You?d be amazed at the results you?ll get! Believe me. Every day we go to long jump practice we believe we can beat the best in the world!
I doubt this challenge/competition comes to fruition, but if it does, I’d like to volunteer for the power trainee. I have pretty good strength for my size, but I’m not optimizing it. I was about to incorporate your methods, but your expertise with them has to be better than mine.
I’m not criticisizing the method, but the writing…specifically The Best Sports Training Book Ever as I believe it’s called. It’s a completely unreadable book…VERY poorly written. Simple as that.
The METHOD may be fantastic. The book, however, is horrible. Unless you like tearing your hair out that is. So, if your method is as great as you assert, it’s just a shame that the book does such a poor job conveying your message. That’s all I’m saying.
[quote]Nuttall wrote:
Charles Staley wrote:
Look, the Inno-Sport “system” is DESIGNED to be confusing. If there’s any value in it at all, you couldn’t tell from reading their materials.
Anything of true value can be clearly communicated to others. Inno-sport’s materials are so insanely complicated and confusing that when i first read them, I assumed it was a parody.
Hey, not everyone is “smart” enough to milk training density for what it’s worth - as if recreational bodybuilders or, especially, strength athletes really ever needed a push to cram more work into less time. Anyone who has ever coached an athlete SHOULD know this! One of the first things you have to “teach” them is that it’s okay to actually take a breather between sets.
But I’ll bite; you questioned the value of my material so I’ll call you on it. Let’s draw two guys off this thread and have you train one using EDT and I’ll train the other using Inno-Sport methods and we’ll see who comes out on top. I’d particularly like to work with a pair of power seeking athletes, but we can take guys looking to simply get bigger or stronger if you’d like. See, Inno-Sport is a system in that it can be used to effectively develop any athlete with any training purpose in mind. This is obviously a claim that EDT, or any of your other writings, can’t support - do you honestly stake claim otherwise?!
Let’s find out…
Are you going to back up your words with results or are you going to back into a corner…again?!
[/quote]
SUJO, SUJO, SUJO!!!
I am interested to know how u guys set up your hypertrophy phases
I am on: session 1 an2
session 2 ae1
I was actually very interested in the method, and I still am, but CS is right. The book is very hard to follow. I could not construct a program after reading it.
On some level a cookie cutter program example would’ve been good.
It is just not written to be understood without a translator.
Can those of you who had issues reading the work share your experiences reading Verkoshanky’s work? Or the last time you read a classical author… or a philosophical work, etc?
I think that the book could have had better descriptions to bring the majority of people up to speed. Since most writings these days are written at an eigth grade level or less, I see why there would be issues.
Try reading an engineering journal, technical write-up of an Ops Analyst, or even the works of most any Classic Author.
Magazines and newspapers have made us soft…
The fact is, that if you can read at a level that would be commesurate with all of the fancy letters after your names, the Inno-Sport system couldn’t be simpler. The principles, and how to apply them we laid out quite well… especially when the Inno-Sport site has so many resources available to help understand… no excuse really.
But my how simple it is to take a quick test to tack on more letters and make us feel important… no matter the level of material involved on the test, or whether it is even valid information any more.
But, I suppose it is easier to whine about the use of plio instead of eccentric… hey wait, doesn’t Siff do this also…or at least explain it? He must be convoluted also. The simple use of the classic russian terms for each lifting segment was enough to make ‘strength gurus’ far and wide whine like a stye full of dim-witted hogs…hmmm. I may be on to something there…
TC or Cy used to write about this: T-Mag readers being very educated, trying to drive the science behind the training, while tempering this with in the trenches experience.
It’s a Cliff Notes world. Hell, Kelly even wrote a 20-page article breakin’ it down all simple like for the front lobe mushy among us.
I had to re-read a couple paragraphs in DB’s Book, so…
I think I better start studying up on my kettlebell exam, my fifth grade level sports nutrition, and my functional progressions so I can get a few more letters after my name and feel important.
But, expand the way I view training… hell no, I would have to think then.
Brad, can you start selling DB’s book with some more pictures, and some crayons please?
Thanks.
Jumanji CSCS, MBA
Books on tape (DVD) is coming within the week. No crayons but it is colorful! Again, with all the research we do in our field, why can?t we take the time to understand it and digest it? Then, it is ok to pass on it and comment on it. Don?t pass on it before you understand the whys and the hows.
Again we will be getting the DVD out very soon.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
climbon wrote:
RJ24
I wouldn’t worry too much about setting up your next program. I would probably take at least a week or two of rest/restoration after your track season. Then I would perform some testing to determine what is your weakness. With that information in hand and being rested, it should not be hard to come up with a good program.
As far as what you have listed, I would try to limit it to two companion sessions. remember that you want your B session to build your A session and vice versa. That way you improve each session and lay the groundwork for improvement at the next session.
climbon, session 3 is the fatigue day. Just clearing things up.
RJ
[/quote]
That makes a little more sense. Are you planning on doing any upper body work? What drop offs/frequency are you planning to use?
I’ve been under the impression that DB Hammer was simply an alias made up to gain the Innosport guys a bit of notoriety and a foot in the door of guruhood.
I think Coach Staley is right. You combine the difficulty of the material (if you are trying to direct your work at athletes or coaches, you need to make the material understandable and repeatable; “Keep things as simple as possible, but not simpler” -Albert Einstein) and the characters involved (DB Hammer) you end up with a pretty big problem.
The storyline kind’ve reads like Scientology. DB Hammer shows up to wisen up the world on advanced training methodology and then disappears forever and his disciples carry on the message. Sounds crazy and I believe that DB himself (Dietrich Buchehnolz) never really existed. I believe that this was an attempt to give some credibility to the training. Interesting stuff, but questionable.
I love the whole DB Hammer/Inno-sport drama.
Brad you need to let the cat out the bag already man. Come on, you’re killing us!
[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Can those of you who had issues reading the work share your experiences reading Verkoshanky’s work? Or the last time you read a classical author… or a philosophical work, etc?
I think that the book could have had better descriptions to bring the majority of people up to speed. Since most writings these days are written at an eigth grade level or less, I see why there would be issues.
Try reading an engineering journal, technical write-up of an Ops Analyst, or even the works of most any Classic Author.
Magazines and newspapers have made us soft…
The fact is, that if you can read at a level that would be commesurate with all of the fancy letters after your names, the Inno-Sport system couldn’t be simpler. The principles, and how to apply them we laid out quite well… especially when the Inno-Sport site has so many resources available to help understand… no excuse really.
But my how simple it is to take a quick test to tack on more letters and make us feel important… no matter the level of material involved on the test, or whether it is even valid information any more.
But, I suppose it is easier to whine about the use of plio instead of eccentric… hey wait, doesn’t Siff do this also…or at least explain it? He must be convoluted also. The simple use of the classic russian terms for each lifting segment was enough to make ‘strength gurus’ far and wide whine like a stye full of dim-witted hogs…hmmm. I may be on to something there…
TC or Cy used to write about this: T-Mag readers being very educated, trying to drive the science behind the training, while tempering this with in the trenches experience.
It’s a Cliff Notes world. Hell, Kelly even wrote a 20-page article breakin’ it down all simple like for the front lobe mushy among us.
I had to re-read a couple paragraphs in DB’s Book, so…
I think I better start studying up on my kettlebell exam, my fifth grade level sports nutrition, and my functional progressions so I can get a few more letters after my name and feel important.
But, expand the way I view training… hell no, I would have to think then.
Brad, can you start selling DB’s book with some more pictures, and some crayons please?
Thanks.
Jumanji CSCS, MBA
[/quote]
Cut the bullshit propaganda. There is a difference between highly tehcnical writing and just plain shitty writing; the Inno-Sport literature is typically the latter.
And then consider your argument…if the problem is that the material is just on too high a level, then stop trying to market it to the average dumbass lifter (as this is what you’re implying we are). Just go after people with doctorates in the field. OR find a way to actually get your material across to the lay person, but don’t wave the “u kant reed” flag to the same people you’re trying to get to understand and use the material.
Watch the videos on Inno-Sport. They’re different from everything else you see or read about, for the most part.
I don’t understand how this is more effective than doing some good ol’ squats and deadlifts, but that’s why I’m not training world class athletes either.
[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
Look, the Inno-Sport “system” is DESIGNED to be confusing. If there’s any value in it at all, you couldn’t tell from reading their materials.
Anything of true value can be clearly communicated to others. Inno-sport’s materials are so insanely complicated and confusing that when i first read them, I assumed it was a parody.
hockechamp14 wrote:
I’m a little confused as to how to use the system. What’s a good way to get started in the inno-sport system? I understand the dropoff idea, but I don’t think it makes sense to use. I also understand the functions of the range from isometric to reactive but don’t understand when to use each. Thanks if anyone has suggestions.
[/quote]
Word, I also seriously doubt DB Hammer even exists.
Rick~
Why are you addressing me as if I am marketing anything? I am not Inno-Sport, I am not DB or Brad or whoever.
The insinuation was that if you have a bunch of fancy-pants letters after your name, and you are supposedly a guru of training, then the book provided a wealth of information… a wealth.
Well written? Probably not. Full of awesome ideas? Absolutely.
And if a trainer felt that there was nothing inside the book, well, I would truly have to wonder about that trainer… unless they were just training guys who wanted to add mass or strength. (But even strength is well detailed in a roundabout manner.)
To say the book didn’t provide a completely different take on reaping performance gains from training, and was somehow not in line with most of what the guys like Siff have said, would be ignorant. Very.
There is a reason why the book is so highly debated. It goes in the face of common practice in the US. (Plus, the DB Challenge was based on strength gained, not rate perfromance. Interesting since this is what most modern guys preach is king, and say they are so good at producing… hmmm.)
Now, I do feel that the book was fairly tough to read, but so was Siff, and so is Verkoshansky. But then again, I was pretty nerdy back in school, so I can understand why it was insurmountable. Written well? No. Very interesting take on training…? Yes, very.
But, if the idea that the training methodology is somehow skewed, because it was written in a manner you don’t approve of… well, try again.
From my own understanding, Inno-Sport is highly dedicated to working the portion of the force time curve that actually increases power the most within the ballistic and rate portion of the curve.
If you refer to Siff, you will see that by training MaxS and Strength-Speed, you can raise power output for the entire curve, but the biggest gains in power output near the rate end are through strength speed training.
So, MaxS and Strength Speed potentiate speed and ballistic power gains, but don’t ensure them.
For this to happen, work must continue along the curve towards rate. This conversion is basically a neuromuscular programming which increases proficiency in using your strength in a dynamic fashion. This is why classic coaches always have the age old power cycle before the season…to increase the proficiency of explosively using the new strength.
Well, the story gets better. From what I can tell, Brad and the boys asked themselves why certain athletes were so proficient at using strength and others were not… in other words, why all you white guys can’t jump… or run… and get picked last in pick-up basketball, etc.
Why is it that this athlete squats 1.5 X BW and this other athlete squats 2.0 X BW, but the first is faster, and springier… why?
The answer lies in many factors, but to keep it simple, the first is able to utilize his strength…he is proficient at converting strength to ballistic power…
So, the question then becomes, do we just squat and deadlift the second guy to death in hopes that somehow he will be faster? He will make gains, but the biggest gains will be made through proficiency, not adding more potential…
This is where Inno-Sport, IMO, feel that 99% of the Squat and Dealift guys get it all wrong.
Inno-Sport realizes that adding MaxS, if trained for correctly, is just the very beginning (and is frankly easy to do until the elite level). The secret is how to teach the athlete to utilize this strength.
This is done by systematically progressing the athlete down the force-time curve, and training both aspects of power: absorption and display.
Now, they also speak at length about how to correct a slow eccentric absorption… this is known as stiffness. Basically when you watch an athlete move along and their foot looks like a dead fish attached to their calf… they have poor PF stiffness, and need to train that region to instantly absorb and stabilize the force so it may be harnessed for display.
Simple enough, I think.
The idea of using a drop off… not so very new. Poliquin discusses it in one of his early works. It can be very effective if you train yourself as opposed to using a trainer with tons of experience who can see this happen and stop the session.
Where do I stand on the issue? I am probably somewhere in the middle, depending on the athlete. If the athlete has great strength already, I am very much in agreement with Brad. But, 95% of my clinets are so weak it is sad really. I throw a BFS beeper on them and ask them to max out, and 19/20 don’t come anywhwere near acceptable strength levels.
But, a few blocks of eccentrics, Iso holds @ the point of least leverage, 1 1/2 Reps, and Oscillatory Isos, and that very quickly rectifies itself. Most people just don’t emphasize truly heavy, and truly deep.
So I am sorry if I offended Rick James. I do agree it was convoluted… but I guess my opinion differs in that once extracted, the material was worth the effort 1000 times over.
But, I train athletes, and don’t train them to have big arms, etc. Frankly, that is pretty basic, isn’t it?
I don’t think my arms have ever been smaller, but I am 34, 6’, and can still dunk and run 90 minutes for a soccer match without issue (and I play wing Midfield). And, have a formerly ruptured achilles tendon.
Maybe I just need to squat more weight… who knows.
~The Anomaly
PS~ I also doubt DB exists, but who cares. The mass jumps on new ideas when it is spouted by some weird sketchy guy. Davies, Pavel, Furey… need I name more?
They all had very different takes on performance and fitness… worthless? Nope. Worth learning from? Definitely.
I think I remember a Bruce Lee quote… hmmm.
What do you think would be most effective for increasing strength? Eccentrics on a low box(never done)and paused reps on the bottom of single leg squats, or full ROM box squats and paused single leg squats. And as far as eccentrics go, do you want to find the most weight you can lower in 5-10 secs under control? Would this be more than the 1RM, depending on the trainee?
[quote]climbon wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
climbon wrote:
RJ24
I wouldn’t worry too much about setting up your next program. I would probably take at least a week or two of rest/restoration after your track season. Then I would perform some testing to determine what is your weakness. With that information in hand and being rested, it should not be hard to come up with a good program.
As far as what you have listed, I would try to limit it to two companion sessions. remember that you want your B session to build your A session and vice versa. That way you improve each session and lay the groundwork for improvement at the next session.
climbon, session 3 is the fatigue day. Just clearing things up.
RJ
That makes a little more sense. Are you planning on doing any upper body work? What drop offs/frequency are you planning to use?[/quote]
Upper body work will be negligible. I may do a few pull ups and some other things here or there, but it’s nothing to write about.
I plan on using 6% dropoffs for frequency and 10-12 for fatigue.
RJ