D. Buchenholz's Training Book

Bigger Stronger Leaner Powerlifting & Strength Sports
1

I was just wondering if anyone else has read this book? I just finished reading it my second time and was looking for a little discussion about it…

In my opinion, it was hard read, but that’s not due to content in the book; it has more to do with the DB’s own terminology and his knack for turning a simple sentence into an awkward, broken sentence… Overall though, some of the theories and exercises presented in the book were outstanding. His system is very unique and unorthodox, but seems to make fairly good sense. I was just wondering what anyone else had to say about it?

I’ve got a fairly good understanding of his system, and was thinking about giving it a try for a year…

2

I think i read through the whole thing (i dont even remember i probably did it last year). I agree most of the content was understandable just the only thing i got lost with was his terminology. If you go to inno sport u can click on “knowledge” and go to the “miscellaneous” section and scroll to the bottom article by kelly bagget. he pretty much explains the whole book. KB’s explanation clears up ALOT of information.

I will also agree that his methods are very different then everything else ive read about. I think that AREG is actually a fabulous way to regulate volume but i will admit setting initials and stuff like that is kinda time consuming, and not the easiest thing in the world. I started an AREG-type workout last week and plan on finishing about next week.

I think i have a pretty good hold on his system. Pretty much its all about training your weaknesses and keeping your strengths. In the book theres plenty of different exercise “types” (i forgot what their called- OI, ISO, MIO, etc. are all examples) all which address your weakness in a different way.

One of the things i feel the book did not go into much detail is their recommendations for getting big and adding muscle. They breifly mention the AE-1 and AN-3 bracket but say its not too important other than for size gains. I feel size is pretty important to some athletes, especially to younger athletes looking to put on some muscle.

Another negative about the book is how it doesnt go into how to incorporate conditioning, and stuff like that. In the off season if youre a RATE dominate/DUR deficient athlete than chances are you arent doing much running, which can affect your conditioning for your sport. I read somewhere that work should be done for 3-4 weeks to improve your weakness, and then 1 week to maintain your strength (it was something like that). When i said strength it didnt necessarily mean weight room strength, it meant “best ability” or “strong point”

I think that since there isnt much general knowledge to the public about DB’s methods so it seems “really weird”. I think that if more people understood it a bit better it wouldnt seem as obscure.

You said in your post how you were looking for discussion. If you had any questions i can try to help you out as best i can (i turned 15 the beginning of this month so i can only help so much. You probably know more than i do.)

3

Actually, I would take the contrary point of view and say that DB’s or the “Inno-Sport” system is actually NOT that unorthodox. This is my opinion on how the Inno-Sport system developed: Somebody (we’ll leave that discussion for later) read through Supertraining, Science and Practice, etc. etc. and devised a training system around it. Renamed some shit (although some of the terms are in those texts) and made it into a training system. The only “revolutionary” thing is AREG, which I think you have to take in context.

Even the Inno-Sport book says that each athlete has to aim to find their own individual drop-off. I also think the drop-offs (and most of the book) applies mostly to intermediate-level athletes. Do you think a 10.00 sprinter could seriously run sprints until he gets down to a 10.4 range (4% DO) without injuring himself? I’m not sure and there’s been a lot of talk about this on the CF forum, by Charlie himself as well.

With that said…

I do think it’s a GREAT system for the intermediate-level athlete. I would say that I use the Inno-Sport system to structure my workouts as I actually think that, once you learn it, the terminolgy is easier to use. I think it’s easier to say “MIO Pull-Up” then “Pull-ups from the dead hang, emphasizing the concentric portion, dropping down once you get to the top with no eccentric.” I like the fact that it is a system with a systematic plan, focusing on improving certain qualities while maintaining others (can anybody say “conjugate system”?). I like how the focus is on managing volume and it has gotten me to pay a lot more attention to how much I can handle and when to push myself more and when to back-off sometimes.

I’ve gotten great results from using this program, although I’m sure I’d get great results from any competantly designed program.

After all, what’s the differnce between saying:
Day 1: DUR An-2 Upper
Day 2: Off
Day 3: DUR An-1 Lower
Day 4: Off
Day 5: DUR An-1 Upper
Day 6: Off
Day 7: DUR An-2 Lower
Day 8: Off

or

Day 1: SE Bench
Day 2: Off
Day 3: ME Squat/DL
Day 4: Off
Day 5: ME Bench
Day 6: Off
Day 7: SE Squat/DL
Day 8: Off

… Which is a template that James Smith presented on EliteFTS and there are others very similar to that in his training manual.

I like their 4:1 or 6:2 frequency:fatigue cycles. I like to use either 4 or 6 sessions to try to improve a quality and then spend either 1 or 2 fatigue sessions dedicated to maintaining an existing quality.

Right now, my goal is to maintain reactivity and speed (MAG and RATE) while improving maximal strength. As a reflection of that, my current training blocks look like:

Monday: DUR An-1, Total Body
Thursday: DUR An-2, Total Body
Monday: DUR An-1, Total Body
Thursday: DUR An-2, Total Body
Monday: MAG An-1, Total Body

I have a log on a couple of other forums, but for example, on my most recent DUR An-1 day, I worked up to a maximal single on box squat, then dropped the weight down about 40 pounds and hit 4 more singles at that weight, at which I felt form was deteriorating so I stopped. I also worked up to a new PB on weighted fat-bar pull-ups, then dropped it down about 15 pounds and banged out a few more singles (6 to be exact). On the sixth I wasn’t quite able to get my chin all the way over the bar so I called it quits. Next week I’m going to try to beat my PB in each of those exercises, either by setting a better initial or by getting another rep before drop-off. Usually I’m able to do so. One other thing I like is doing things in circuit fashion rather than just straight through.

The Inno-Sport system is not a revolution, it’s not a magic bullet that is going to make you an Olympian if you can’t squat 225 right now, but it is a good training system. The thing I like most about it is it gets you to pay attention to what YOU as an INDIVIDUAL (individual-specific, not sport-specific!) need, which gets into that whole “instinctual training” thing that so many people (such as Dave Tate) talk about.

4

Ah, the once every six weeks DB/Inno-sport thread … good to see it. Even though it isn’t my preferred training methodology, I think it is important … sort of like meta-ethics.

So, I have a question: one of the methods is an “accelerated/accelerating” loaded plyometric … AMRT maybe? … but the idea is that you slingshot the person to the ground, release the band, and let them jump. Now, my question is this … band tension decreases exponentially (or so, it’s a fairly complex equation … and no, that simple stretch equation in your physics book won’t do it). So, after the initial acceleration … in particular, after you land, the acceleration phase (from gravity and the band) is basically over.

So, what’s the difference between jumping from a higher box without the band and jumping from the lower box with a band?

I’m sure the claim will be made that the additional acceleration towards the ground (while the feet are on the ground) requires a greater overcoming force for the jump back up. But, I’d like more than a hand waving argument here.

As you may have guessed, my hunch is that there isn’t much of a difference – or, that the difference is minimal (in particular, not enough to justify the hassle of setting up bands, having people release them, etc. etc.).

Regards,
Mark

5

Ahh,

The band discussion happens almost as frequently as the DB/Inno discussion

I will approach the band concept (AMT) from another angle, psychological

Perhaps the benefit of using AMT method is the fear factor. Soviets have noted that even qualified/prepared athletes fear large drops, and thus can affect form and increase risk of injury.

Perhaps, the bands achieve the same effect without the psychological tbreakdown that can occur when dropping from 10 feet

As far as JTrin’s talk about AREG and sprinters and CF…

Not to get into a thorough discussion but here goes

  1. Sprit workouts would be stopped at 1-3% drop off. I would guess that if you kept detailed journals and worked to the elite levels, you would notice that as your qualification rose you would respond better and better to smaller drop offs (elite would be closer to 1% while beginner would be closer to 3%)

  2. There are many ways to set DO. By % or even by technique. CF would terminate a sprinters workout if their footstrikes fell harder than the previous set. Sounds like using technique as a drop off

Finally, I’d like to say that I think using AREG is great for beginner-intermediate athletes because as JTrin said, it helps you with the “breakthrough” factor. You start noticing when your workout is suffering and you get a much beter idea when to reel it in and when to keep going.

The more attention you pay to DO and the more attention you pay to your body, the better you’ll get at knowing instinctively when enough is enough

6

[quote]Feanor76 wrote:
Ah, the once every six weeks DB/Inno-sport thread … good to see it. Even though it isn’t my preferred training methodology, I think it is important … sort of like meta-ethics.

So, I have a question: one of the methods is an “accelerated/accelerating” loaded plyometric … AMRT maybe? … but the idea is that you slingshot the person to the ground, release the band, and let them jump. Now, my question is this … band tension decreases exponentially (or so, it’s a fairly complex equation … and no, that simple stretch equation in your physics book won’t do it). So, after the initial acceleration … in particular, after you land, the acceleration phase (from gravity and the band) is basically over.

So, what’s the difference between jumping from a higher box without the band and jumping from the lower box with a band?

I’m sure the claim will be made that the additional acceleration towards the ground (while the feet are on the ground) requires a greater overcoming force for the jump back up. But, I’d like more than a hand waving argument here.

As you may have guessed, my hunch is that there isn’t much of a difference – or, that the difference is minimal (in particular, not enough to justify the hassle of setting up bands, having people release them, etc. etc.).

Regards,
Mark[/quote]

The method you’re referring to is AMT or “auxometronics.” Personally I have no experience with this method as it’s supposed to be a method for advanced athlete and apparently requires quite a bit of building up to.

I think the theory behind it is the bands are supposed to trick your nervous system into higher output, aka release the same force, but faster. At least I think that is the idea and I’m not exactly sure if there’s any research to back that up or not.

As I’ve said before, it’s not a method I’m concerned with right now. Once I’m box squatting 500+ and start getting really proficient at regular depth landings and depth jumps I might look into a method like that. There is a guy on the DB forum who is a pretty advanced athlete (something like 38"+ standing vert, squats over 2.5x bodyweight, etc.) who is experimenting with them rigth now and says he’s having good results, he might be the guy to ask about them.

7

I think maybe I am cuckoo, but didn’t Poliquin describe AREG in his 21 principles book?

Since I am living in a 12x14 room right now waiting for my new place to be built, i would have to go dig out my books from storage… so, any guys who, like me, feel the urge to read every freakin book about training ever, please back me up here…

Been awhile, but I am pretty sure I saw it there years ago…

Anyone?

8

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
Finally, I’d like to say that I think using AREG is great for beginner-intermediate athletes because as JTrin said, it helps you with the “breakthrough” factor. You start noticing when your workout is suffering and you get a much beter idea when to reel it in and when to keep going.
[/quote]

And this is EXACLTY what I think taking your training to the next level is all about and also what seperates the elite coaches from the average Joes.

The key to everything is managing fatigue and balancing intensity and volume and the subsequent recovery. The great coaches know how to be PRO-active in regards to this (ie, stopping an athlete BEFORE they reach a level of fatigue that is undesirable and also being able to plan ahead in advance what an athlete needs), rather than RE-active, which is what the DB system is all about.

However, I think you must learn how to be re-active before you can be pro-active, because you have to start somewhere, to be able to get a judge for how your body reovers and what your work capacity is like.

I think this is what he is talking about when he discuses factorized work cycles- knowing approximately what level of fatigue you can tolerate over what period of time and dispersing volume/intensity in such as way as to wave-load and get that cumulative effect- much like the training of some olympic lifters I believe?

9

[quote]squattin600 wrote:

I will approach the band concept (AMT) from another angle, psychological

[/quote]

Great thought, squattin600. It also points to another slight difference … you can use a constant height with different band tensions.

Thanks for the thought.

Regards,
Mark

10

Jumanji…

I remember too that Poliquin made such comment on drop-off.

Poliquin like the 7%/5days and King prefer to stop much before that level of drop-off, maybe more around 2%, even less.

See Poliquin answer Here

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459301

A: Thanks for the compliment. As far as your problem, please note that the 7% rule generally applies to training for maximal strength (loads of 85% of maximum or more) . In classical body building training, I recommend approximately a 20% drop-off.

That was back In july 1998…

Just to continu the discussion, I have some questions/comments…

Track season start in October

Here is my plan, come back from two injuries so It’ll start somewhat progressive…(Hams+groin pull both second level pull). Much because of overtraining on a Mondo indoor track.

Sunday:rest
Monday:Track/plyo
Tuesday:Weight
Wednesday:Tempo+core(read abs/lowerback)
Thursday:Track/plyo
Friday:tempo+core
Saturday:Jumps+weight

so
H-H-L-H-L-H-nil

No other choices, my coach is free monday-thursday for track and only saturday morning for jumps.

Block #1-Iso (An-2) functional 4 weeks
OI (An-2)
Block #2 PIM+MIO (An 1-2)/ DUR 4 weeks
PIM+MIO (An-2)/ Rate
MIO (An-1) / MAG

Block #3 Frequency 3 weeks
FDA (An-2)MAG
Fatigue 1 week
Same as block #1

Block #4 Frequency 3 weeks
REA (An-2)MAG
Fatigue 1 week
Same as block #1

much wanted peak…is (Here)

Okay, I have maybe too much work for the An-2 bracket, some tips would be nice here, just want to avoid any useless mass. I do a lot of Rate An-1/2 on track/fast drills and MAG An 1-2 plyo.

So, my second question is DB said that PIM(DUR) disturb the nervous system adaptations and will lead to sub-optimal gains If used together with Rate method, particulary in the SPP phase. One method teach to maintain high motor units recrutment for fairly long period of time and the other teach to give-up fast on the contraction but also to turn-on very fast (RFD Rate of force development).

DB Hammer told us that EMS can be used to maintain a good level of strength during the SPP phase. If It’s not an option ISO have been said to do well without compromising quickness.

So, why ISO so different?
ISO seems great because It’ll take the tendons out of the equation…but I need more argumentation on that level.
Great for rehabilitation purpose, but won’t do anything magic in the SPP with top shape individuals except maybe avoid excess work in the connective tissues.

Mel Siff also state that ISO are much different in Supertraining, but I have failed to see the very reason why ISO aren’t as harmfull as PIM in developpement of RFD. Unfortunatly I don’t have the book with me since I am in University. If I remember correctly the comments of stiff are more regarding the circulatory system, namely vasoconstriction vs dilatation and internal pressure resulting of both methods, but that isn’t enough yet to justify the DB comment.

Also I think very too little have been said about the comp period in the DB Hammer book.

Somebody have a comments?

adonail
Lighting Fast

11

Holy Cow, Monster post

First a question… and remember I am not a “DB” newbie. My brain just might not be working

what is PIM+MIO?

Now I agree too much work in the AN-2 Bracket. Even CF does minimal work in aN-2. Save for some BB’ing work in early GPP, and the SE component (couple long sprints on Wednesday)

Also, remember that, technically in the DB world, the aim is to not combine DUR and RATE into the same workout. so they can co-exsist in the same cycle.

Ideally you would want to avoid combining RATE and DUR in the same cycle because… I may diosagree with the neural confusion theory… So here is Squattin’s official theory for why we do not want to combine RATE and DUR in the same cycle…

Concentration of Efforts

The goal is concentrated loading. If you have rate mag and dur in the same cycle then your program is very spreat out. then if you are training an-1 and an-2 you are training a peak capacity and work capacity. So you are training everything at once, which means youll gain a little in everything, but not a lot in anything.

I believe this is a principle in the conjugate sequence system. Concentrated efforts/block training. You will gain more by pushing up strength, then pushing up power, then strength, then power.

Why? you’ll gain strength faster, then you’ll gain power faster.

So block A - strength feeds block B - power, which feeds the next strength block

Hmm… Might be the smartest idea I ever had. might be the dumbest, but I really think that is the best reason for not combining the two

Also remember strength roots power - it kind of represents “potential”.

Next remember MAG is only An-1 (under 10 seconds)

So your REA An-2 MAG is actually a RATE workout. WHY? MAG is a PEAK in output, so by definition you cannot maintain that peak output for a very long time. So mag always ends in the AN-1

Next PIM disturbs the CNS by teaching deceleration at the extension (ie toe off in a jump vs top of a squat), where in mag/power movements you want acceleration at extension

ISO in the stretch develops strength throughout the ROM without teacing deceleration at toe off.

Now I do not want to debate this because I am explaining “his” rationale. I have my own opinion, I’ll let you make up your own mind. As Dan John would say , try them both and let me know what you think

I dont see companion sessions. For example a FDA An-1 on day 1 would pair with a RA An-1, and (optional)RFI An-2 on day 2

or in normal speak

Speed squats on Day 1
Depth jumps and some low intensity plyos (ladder drills, dot drills, flying sprints) on day 2

Well my brain is fried. I hope someone got something out of my ramblings

[quote]adonail wrote:
Jumanji…

I remember too that Poliquin made such comment on drop-off.

Poliquin like the 7%/5days and King prefer to stop much before that level of drop-off, maybe more around 2%, even less.

See Poliquin answer Here

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459301

A: Thanks for the compliment. As far as your problem, please note that the 7% rule generally applies to training for maximal strength (loads of 85% of maximum or more) . In classical body building training, I recommend approximately a 20% drop-off.

That was back In july 1998…

Just to continu the discussion, I have some questions/comments…

Track season start in October

Here is my plan, come back from two injuries so It’ll start somewhat progressive…(Hams+groin pull both second level pull). Much because of overtraining on a Mondo indoor track.

Sunday:rest
Monday:Track/plyo
Tuesday:Weight
Wednesday:Tempo+core(read abs/lowerback)
Thursday:Track/plyo
Friday:tempo+core
Saturday:Jumps+weight

so
H-H-L-H-L-H-nil

No other choices, my coach is free monday-thursday for track and only saturday morning for jumps.

Block #1-Iso (An-2) functional 4 weeks
OI (An-2)
Block #2 PIM+MIO (An 1-2)/ DUR 4 weeks
PIM+MIO (An-2)/ Rate
MIO (An-1) / MAG

Block #3 Frequency 3 weeks
FDA (An-2)MAG
Fatigue 1 week
Same as block #1

Block #4 Frequency 3 weeks
REA (An-2)MAG
Fatigue 1 week
Same as block #1

much wanted peak…is (Here)

Okay, I have maybe too much work for the An-2 bracket, some tips would be nice here, just want to avoid any useless mass. I do a lot of Rate An-1/2 on track/fast drills and MAG An 1-2 plyo.

So, my second question is DB said that PIM(DUR) disturb the nervous system adaptations and will lead to sub-optimal gains If used together with Rate method, particulary in the SPP phase. One method teach to maintain high motor units recrutment for fairly long period of time and the other teach to give-up fast on the contraction but also to turn-on very fast (RFD Rate of force development).

DB Hammer told us that EMS can be used to maintain a good level of strength during the SPP phase. If It’s not an option ISO have been said to do well without compromising quickness.

So, why ISO so different?
ISO seems great because It’ll take the tendons out of the equation…but I need more argumentation on that level.
Great for rehabilitation purpose, but won’t do anything magic in the SPP with top shape individuals except maybe avoid excess work in the connective tissues.

Mel Siff also state that ISO are much different in Supertraining, but I have failed to see the very reason why ISO aren’t as harmfull as PIM in developpement of RFD. Unfortunatly I don’t have the book with me since I am in University. If I remember correctly the comments of stiff are more regarding the circulatory system, namely vasoconstriction vs dilatation and internal pressure resulting of both methods, but that isn’t enough yet to justify the DB comment.

Also I think very too little have been said about the comp period in the DB Hammer book.

Somebody have a comments?

adonail
Lighting Fast

[/quote]

12

Nice posts guys, too add something else in the ring… here’s a post that CT made a while back in the CF forums.

The most CNS-demanding neural drive is thus duration-dominant and high magnitude. The second most demanding being a rate-dominant high magnitude drive. The third most demanding is a rate-dominant low magnitude drive while duration-dominant low magnitude work is the least demanding on the CNS, which is why it?s often used as a restorative method following a period of CNS demanding work.

Higher rate of progress by avoiding opposite types of drive within a single session

For maximum results you should not mix rate-dominant and duration-dominant exercises within the same training session. This would lead to sub-optimal neural adaptations, which would impair both short and long-term progress. I have myself been guilty of using a mixed approach; the Canadian Ascending-Descending program is such an example. It did produce good results, better than traditional strength training, so at first I did not question the validity of the approach. However as I improved my understanding of the neural processes involved in training I came to the conclusion that separating rate and duration work would bring the fastest results. And it did. It takes a big man to recognize his mistakes, and I fancy myself of being relatively big! So although a mixed approach will produce good results, separating rate and duration work into different sessions will lead to an even faster rate of improvement.

I find the following combination to work very well:

Two methods in one session

  1. maximum effort concentric ? repetitive effort concentric
  2. maximum effort eccentric ? maximum intensity isometric
  3. submaximal eccentric ? maximum duration isometric
  4. high intensity absorption ? dynamic effort concentric

Three methods in one session

  1. maximum effort concentric ? repetitive effort concentric ? maximum duration isometric
  2. maximum effort eccentric ? maximum intensity isometric ? submaximal eccentric
  3. high intensity absorption ? ballistic isometric ? dynamic effort concentric

Four methods in one session

  1. max effort concentric ? repetitive effort concentric ? max duration isometric ? max intensity isometric
  2. max effort eccentric ? submaximal eccentric ? max duration isometric ? max intensity isometric
  3. overspeed eccentric ? high intensity absorption ? ballistic isometric ? dynamic effort concentric

Hopefully he is ok with me posting that up there because I thought it’s great stuff and definitly I try to use it as a road-map in my training.

Despite that fact that CT is really into bodybuilding training now, if you look at some of his older (aka, 1-3 years ago) stuff, he’s got some AWESOME speed/strength training stuff out there. I highly recommend you guys pick it up, some of it is very similar to what the Inno-Sport guys are preaching (I’ve always kind of theorized that CT might actually be DB…), only I think he teaches it better and has a little bit more of a “traditional” spin so it’s a little more accessible sometimes.

13

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

From CT:
Higher rate of progress by avoiding opposite types of drive within a single session

[/quote]

Humm, so, if you’re doing a OLAD type program (which is essentially MAG work right … multiple sets at percents of 2-5RM?) then this would recommend against fast movements (plyos/absorption) as part of a (vigorous – DJ warm-up is the workout style) warm up? What about Olympic movements (strength-speed … MAG/RATE maybe)?

Ugh. I’m definitely not a Inno-Jedi.

Regards,
Mark

14

[quote]Feanor76 wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:

From CT:
Higher rate of progress by avoiding opposite types of drive within a single session

Humm, so, if you’re doing a OLAD type program (which is essentially MAG work right … multiple sets at percents of 2-5RM?) then this would recommend against fast movements (plyos/absorption) as part of a (vigorous – DJ warm-up is the workout style) warm up? What about Olympic movements (strength-speed … MAG/RATE maybe)?

Ugh. I’m definitely not a Inno-Jedi.

Regards,
Mark[/quote]

He’s referring to not crossing the “MAG barrier”, ie iether mixing MAG and DUR or MAG and RATE in the same session, but not DUR and RATE. DUR being max-strength or strength-endurance work, MAG being strength-speed down to speed-strength work and RATE work being pure speed work.

So you might do plyos/olys (MAG) along with an ME lift (DUR). Or you might do those same plyos/olys along with speed work such as 10m flys. However, you wouldn’t do the ME lift with the flys.

“Inno-Jedi”… good one, did you think of that yourself?

From CT:
“I personally like autoregulatory training. I’ve been using it in the past and even designed an autoregulating powerlifting program a while ago.”

Ho damn… maybe you should go in his locker room thread and call him an Inno-Jedi too? James Smith uses drop-offs in his training manual. Is he an Inno-Jedi? Poliquin has used drop-offs, is he an Inno-Jedi.

http://elitefts.com/documents/brakes.htm

Band depth drop: Stand on a plyo box with two partners standing on the side of the box. Attach two bands to a weight belt. The partners should stand on the bands about 12 feet in front of the box where you will land. Step off the box and land with the ass back, the knees pushed out, and the shoulders over the knees while keeping the shins as vertical as possible. Emphasize a soft landing. Let the muscles do the work, not the joints. Progressions include increasing the height of the box, using a heavier band, landing in a split or unilateral position, and adding a reactive jump after the landing with or without having the partner let the band go at the bottom of the jump.

Oh shit, EliteFTS has gone Inno-Jedi too!!!

15

I think you’re overthinking it

Quick lifts (Oly/DE work) would fall under MAG as well as plyos

Then there is DUR work which is basically the ME and RE methods and finally RATE which is like flying sprints, agility ladders, dot drills, etc…

Then basically in inno-speak a block can combine DUR and MAG or RATE and MAG but not DUR and RATE

To make this simpler look at the following example.

So for a DUR/MAG split you could do

Day 1 (DUR) ME Squt/DL
Day 2 (MAG and DUR) DE Squat and RE work for Glute/ham

Look familiar? that’s the WSB template

You could also do the following

Day 1 (MAG) DE squat
Day 2 (MAG and RATE) Plyo’s and sprints

so if it helps MAG is kinda synonymous with power. think Oly’s, DE method and plyos

[quote]Feanor76 wrote:
Humm, so, if you’re doing a OLAD type program (which is essentially MAG work right … multiple sets at percents of 2-5RM?) then this would recommend against fast movements (plyos/absorption) as part of a (vigorous – DJ warm-up is the workout style) warm up? What about Olympic movements (strength-speed … MAG/RATE maybe)?

Ugh. I’m definitely not a Inno-Jedi.

Regards,
Mark[/quote]

16

I skimmed through the last few posts, and im not sure if this has been stated yet. Basically, DB’s DUR (strength) work is meant to help you hold onto tension longer. It “tightens” your muscles. Isometrics are the most DUR least RATE exercise because theres no movement, and all youre doing is sustaining tension. DB’s RATE (speed) work is basically trying to teach your body how to release tension. Things like RFI’s are the most RATE least DUR because they teach your body to rapidly “turn on and off” meaning you are releasing tension rapidly.

17

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Feanor76 wrote:

Ugh. I’m definitely not a Inno-Jedi.

“Inno-Jedi”… good one, did you think of that yourself?

[/quote]

jtrinsey,

Hey there buddy. Deep breath time. I was making a bit of a joke – at myself.

Having read the offense you took to it, I thought about why it would be offensive … and I realized that it is quite close to the HIT-Jedi phrase that is bandied about. I didn’t intend that relationship.

I could have said “my Inno-fu is bad”. I could have said “I’m not in touch with my inner Inno”.

Or, I could have said, “Jesus, I’m stumbling around here with the terminology. I read the DB book about six months ago, didn’t take notes, and remember very little. I’m probably making most of this up. I hope noone else reads this and has my confusion confuse them. Because, damn, I’m confused myself.”

We’ve had at least one productive discussion before. I hope this won’t stand in the way of future productivity.

Regards,
Mark

18

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
I think you’re overthinking it

[/quote]

Most likely, I’m overthinking because of under-understanding. I just haven’t put enough time in with the DB terminology to do the conversions “in my head”.

I seem to recall the ultimate RATE example being tapping a finger as fast as possible … no muscular tension required/all (repeated) speed of neural impulse … off/on/off/on.

So, would low intensity plyos … like line hopping, slalom jumps, ankle hops, … be considered more RATE … or are they still MAG?

I can see how DE/Oly/heavier plyos (with longer rebound phase) fall into MAG.

Are “grinding” max efforts going to fall into DUR? Or will they be, by definition, just MAG within different work brackets (An1 versus An2)?

Look, really, thanks for humoring me, but I just need to sit down with the book again, and come back when I’ve come up with a tentative translation scheme.

Thanks squattin.

Regards,
Mark

19

MAG only exists in the An-1 bracket. DUR is anything that is strength oriented.

MAG is anything that is power oriented (think rate of force development, plyos, strength speed, speed strength, etc). RATE is… I guess someone else said your ability to turn on and off muscular stiffness or something like that.

I’m a powerlifter. I kind of turned off my brain when he started talking about RATE…

20

[quote]Feanor76 wrote:
squattin600 wrote:
I think you’re overthinking it

Most likely, I’m overthinking because of under-understanding. I just haven’t put enough time in with the DB terminology to do the conversions “in my head”.

I seem to recall the ultimate RATE example being tapping a finger as fast as possible … no muscular tension required/all (repeated) speed of neural impulse … off/on/off/on.

So, would low intensity plyos … like line hopping, slalom jumps, ankle hops, … be considered more RATE … or are they still MAG?

I can see how DE/Oly/heavier plyos (with longer rebound phase) fall into MAG.

Are “grinding” max efforts going to fall into DUR? Or will they be, by definition, just MAG within different work brackets (An1 versus An2)?

Look, really, thanks for humoring me, but I just need to sit down with the book again, and come back when I’ve come up with a tentative translation scheme.

Thanks squattin.

Regards,
Mark
[/quote]

Think of everything on a continuum.

Strength–>Power–>SPEED

Now using Inno speak

DUR–>MAG(STR-sp)–>MAG(SP-str)–>RATE