Hi. I purchased and have been reading “black book of training secrets” and looked at the section talking about muscle fiber dominance and different tests for determining them.
Where did You place on these? , such as reps with 80% of 1rm with different bodyparts, dip speed/turnover for jerks and vertical jump ect. and how does it effect your own training ?
Thanks.
[quote]Field wrote:
Hi. I purchased and have been reading “black book of training secrets” and looked at the section talking about muscle fiber dominance and different tests for determining them.
Where did You place on these? , such as reps with 80% of 1rm with different bodyparts, dip speed/turnover for jerks and vertical jump ect. and how does it effect your own training ?
Thanks. [/quote]
Well, instinctively I always gravitated toward low reps and explosive work. So I do not think that I chose the type of lifting that was best for me based on fiber percentage, but that this type of training chose me.
Which brings up a theory of mine: I think that people who are naturally of a higher fast twitch ratio naturally tend to gravitate toward low reps, explosive movements (even on regular lifts) and big basic exercises involving a lot of muscle mass.
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.[/quote]
You know, true motivation… that can lead to great performances must come from within. External motivation can help to a point, but it has its limit. And if someone is not passionate about the training he has to do or his sport, it is very hard to reach high levels of performance.
i wonder if the physiological type affects the psychological? hmmm.
what have you found?
and if this is true, then, ,
we have agred from experience, that, one can, to a vertain extent, train slow twitch fibers to work like fast twitch.
could that affect the psychology of the athlete?
i presume it would.
WOW. thats some stuff!
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.[/quote]
You know, true motivation… that can lead to great performances must come from within. External motivation can help to a point, but it has its limit. And if someone is not passionate about the training he has to do or his sport, it is very hard to reach high levels of performance.[/quote]
true, but, how many have you found that are truly motivated, yet, perform way below what you, as a coach, thought they would?
[quote]domcib wrote:
i wonder if the physiological type affects the psychological? hmmm.
what have you found?
and if this is true, then, ,
we have agred from experience, that, one can, to a vertain extent, train slow twitch fibers to work like fast twitch.
could that affect the psychology of the athlete?
i presume it would.
WOW. thats some stuff!
[/quote]
I think that it is impossible to dissociate the physiological and the psychological… studies have shown that a simple mindset change can affect hormone levels. And that hormone levels or fatigue state can also affect confidence, motivation and interest.
So it is not crazy to think that certain psychological profiles naturally go with a specific physilogical type
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
yes. i have found that also,But, you said something different. i understood you to say effectively, “different physiologigal types will naturally gravitate towards a certain type of training”
duno if i said that exactly how i meant it, but i think you will understand.
i never thought of that concept.
as a high school throwing coach, i had kids who competed on the national level, and those who were, lets say, not so “talented”.
side by side, their work ethic was equal. technically, they were very close, yet, performance wise, thye were mIles apart.
it was very challenging to me to try to understand. i leaned on the side of psychological and invented ways to motivate.
it seemed i could motivate, yet, level of performance was not as i expected.[/quote]
You know, true motivation… that can lead to great performances must come from within. External motivation can help to a point, but it has its limit. And if someone is not passionate about the training he has to do or his sport, it is very hard to reach high levels of performance.[/quote]
true, but, how many have you found that are truly motivated, yet, perform way below what you, as a coach, thought they would?
[/quote]
I have two of them right now 
Well one… the other one is progressing fine, but not to the extent that she could. I’m telling you… it’s a good thing that both my parents are psychologists… I need all the tricks I learned from them in these two cases!
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
Can you post a link to this article by Poliquin. I’ve been searching for it and can’t seem to find it. Would love to read it though.
Thanks!
i am truly intrigued with your theory. it makes perfect sense. its so simple. i would like to continue this discussion some more, but right now, i gotta get some sleep. next 2 days will be a real grind.
[quote]miked512 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
that is a great theory. you just opened my mind to the answers i asked myself in my years of coaching, training[/quote]
Well, I know for a fact that different personalities respond better to different types of training. Poliquin wrote about it in his article about the four signs and training. People didn’t pay much attention to it because it was a bit esoteric with chinese signs and stuff like that, but the basic concept is sound: different psychological profile will respond better to certain types of training.[/quote]
Can you post a link to this article by Poliquin. I’ve been searching for it and can’t seem to find it. Would love to read it though.
Thanks!
[/quote]
juat read the post about your parents. you got me rolling… lol.
no wonder you are so analytical. you are blessed.
That makes sense…thanks for sharing that article…I think you & I have the same psychological mental type CT…no wonder I like your programs so much!
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]domcib wrote:
i wonder if the physiological type affects the psychological? hmmm.
what have you found?
and if this is true, then, ,
we have agred from experience, that, one can, to a vertain extent, train slow twitch fibers to work like fast twitch.
could that affect the psychology of the athlete?
i presume it would.
WOW. thats some stuff!
[/quote]
I think that it is impossible to dissociate the physiological and the psychological… studies have shown that a simple mindset change can affect hormone levels. And that hormone levels or fatigue state can also affect confidence, motivation and interest.
So it is not crazy to think that certain psychological profiles naturally go with a specific physilogical type[/quote]
you have me immersed in thought on this. i will respond in the next few days.
Christian,I read Poliquin divided athletes into fast-twitch dominant and slow twitch dominant based on whether they lifted less or more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1rm.Yet,almost all of the explosive athletes I trained with or observed were lifting more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1 rm ( Dls, squats,presses).
What are yours assessment standards via 80% 1rm reps?
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Christian,I read Poliquin divided athletes into fast-twitch dominant and slow twitch dominant based on whether they lifted less or more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1rm.Yet,almost all of the explosive athletes I trained with or observed were lifting more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1 rm ( Dls, squats,presses).
What are yours assessment standards via 80% 1rm reps?[/quote]
It wasn’t as clear-cut as 5 reps. Fred Hatfield used a similar test with 85%. But it was more of a continuum rather than a clear-cut separation.
I have attached a table from my first book (The Black Book of Training Secrets) giving a more spectrum-like interpretation of that test.
Now here are two things to consider:
Training history will affect results. For example, if someone always did higher reps in his training, he will naturally be more efficient at higher reps and as such his results might give a more “slow twitch” interpretation than he really is… the opposite is also true.
EXTREME fast twitch dominance (1-3 reps with 80%)and very fast twitch dominance (4-6) is not necessarily a great condition to be an elite athlete. Most sports require at least some endurance and capacity to maintain a high level of power and force output. As such the best athletes tend to be slightly fast twitch dominant, not extremely or very dominant. The first two categories are well suited basically for high performance in the 100m sprint, olympic lifting, powerlifting, jumping and throwing events.
Holy shit, I’m in the first category.
This is very interesting cause I always have gravitated towards heavy, fast, and very low reps. Wanted to kill myself when I tried doing 5x5 and similar programs haha!
Thanks for posting that, CT!
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Christian,I read Poliquin divided athletes into fast-twitch dominant and slow twitch dominant based on whether they lifted less or more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1rm.Yet,almost all of the explosive athletes I trained with or observed were lifting more than 5 reps with their 80 % 1 rm ( Dls, squats,presses).
What are yours assessment standards via 80% 1rm reps?[/quote]
It wasn’t as clear-cut as 5 reps. Fred Hatfield used a similar test with 85%. But it was more of a continuum rather than a clear-cut separation.
I have attached a table from my first book (The Black Book of Training Secrets) giving a more spectrum-like interpretation of that test.
Now here are two things to consider:
Training history will affect results. For example, if someone always did higher reps in his training, he will naturally be more efficient at higher reps and as such his results might give a more “slow twitch” interpretation than he really is… the opposite is also true.
EXTREME fast twitch dominance (1-3 reps with 80%)and very fast twitch dominance (4-6) is not necessarily a great condition to be an elite athlete. Most sports require at least some endurance and capacity to maintain a high level of power and force output. As such the best athletes tend to be slightly fast twitch dominant, not extremely or very dominant. The first two categories are well suited basically for high performance in the 100m sprint, olympic lifting, powerlifting, jumping and throwing events. [/quote]
as a throwing coach, one of our cycles was 4 or 5 x 5 with 75-80% ofmax. interesting!
