DB Hammers Book

[Jumanji]

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
CoolColJ wrote:
Geez, nothing too complicated about this stuff at all, at least for me

one thing that was put forward when training using the principals is to toally ignore a quality, say DUR/strength for a period of time and go work on power. When you come back to strength work, you will off course be weaker at first, but never to where you were, when you started.

The mag/peak power is still there, if not higher as that was what you were training recently, and most probbaly muscle mass, but your DUR/strain abilities will have decayed. You can pop out a lot of peak force, but can’t sustain it for long enough for a typical strength lift.

So now you just maintain your MAG, and start work on DUR/strain, and boom since you negelcted that quality, you get big newbie gains, and you will regain and soon surpass your old bests.
Well that’s what I will soon find out, as that’s what I did recently

That’s how it is, train what your system is lacking or lagging, and you get big gains fast in that quality. Pretty much what this system and principals is all about. There’s more to it just than doing up and down reps all the time and hoping for the best…
May work fine for the freaks out there, but not so well for the rest of us

whoa, sounds like a variation of “two steps forward, one step back” to me.

also goes against what Verko, Zats, Siff wrote and taught (how would i know?).

P.S. a note on freaks and what works for them as opposed to non-freaks… the same exact stuff that works for freaks works for non-freaks. freak status is determined by rete of progress. if it works for a freak it will work for a non-freak, just slower. if it doesn’t work for a freak then it wont work for a non-freak.[/quote]

Actually in the quest for very high level athletics, freak status is determined by if the athlete is naturally reactive and naturally rate dominant. This is the basis of what DB is Talking about and exactly why you must read the book before discussing his ideas.

Since those athletes are Rate and Reactive dominant, and since 99.99999% of coaches focus on getting an athlete stronger with some doofy SAQ program to go along with it, those athletes will naturally make the most progress since DUR work is exactly what their body craves, AND most of the new strength will carryover since they have great reactive qualities.

So, indirectly you are correct. The freaks do make the most progress, but the underlying reason why they do is what the entire training system addresses exactly what their system desires, hell is begging for…they make the most progress on the standard programs out there.

So the kid who has little reactive ability, and very little rate ability, but can squat and leg press a truck is not a freak since when we prescribe MORE Strength and a little MAG work in power cleans, and then some crappy very low level power absorption drills (bag drill, quick feet BS, etc).???

I mean come on,…are we serious here?

The kid is like a steam roller, and we all think that by making him squat 800 as opposed to just 725, that will finally be the key to making him elite… whatever.

The kid needs concentrated MAG and Speed work, with a huge focus on bringing up his reactive abiltiies…first in his PF region, and then in his rear chain.

Should he do this by just exiting the weightroom and running and jumping all day?

Nope. He should progress through Force Absorption and Reactive Force Work, into Power Absortion and then Reactive Power work.

So you are right, what works for the freaks will work for the non-freaks but slower…

The non-freaks will never climb to the level of the freaks…because we are not giving them what they require…what their system is begging for…

So they are not freaks because we as coaches are prescribing a single protocol for all athletes and hoping it is what they all will respond to…

At least it is easy to hit print on the Januray Football tab of our excel spreadsheet and run off 125 copies…

J

[Chris_Aus]

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

whoa, sounds like a variation of “two steps forward, one step back” to me.

also goes against what Verko, Zats, Siff wrote and taught (how would i know?).

P.S. a note on freaks and what works for them as opposed to non-freaks… the same exact stuff that works for freaks works for non-freaks. freak status is determined by rete of progress. if it works for a freak it will work for a non-freak, just slower. if it doesn’t work for a freak then it wont work for a non-freak.[/quote]

what do you mean goes against what siff verkho and zatsiorsky wrote?

re: freaks…

i see your point but i personally dont know… never trained one… the argument is though that if someone is naturally very fast with excellent RFD ie good inherent speed you know one of those naturally powerful people that training them to increase their speed and power is best done by just training strength because the other stuff is already very very very good…

thats why jumanji was saying that looking at how someone trains a group of naturally very fast and reactive/springy athletes doesnt transfer well to average people…

Kelly mentioned the same thing ages ago too…

its kinda why boxing programs are so bad… you take freaks that are strong fast and powerful and all you really need to do is get them fit and skillfull and they are a machine…
its IMO why boxing programs for so long have managed to neglect strength, speed, power and correct energy systems work… you just get someone that has all the right tools make them very very very fit with awesome skills and they have everything…

ie the average person might be get better by improving their strength speed and reactivity as well as endurance and skill…

FWIW siff has said that stuff like concurrent training works for beginners but not elite athletes… i dont know if he was speaking of training age and experience or ‘freakyness’ though

[wufwugy]

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
what do you mean goes against what siff verkho and zatsiorsky wrote?
[/quote]
i was responding to Cool’s point in his first three paragraphs about detraining qualities.

[climbon]

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
what do you mean goes against what siff verkho and zatsiorsky wrote?

i was responding to Cool’s point in his first three paragraphs about detraining qualities.[/quote]

Technically, you wouldn’t detrain any qualities. DB using the restorative warm up before and after each training session. This is when you would do some Rate work when focusing on Duration in the workout session.

The restorative warm up is used to maintain or even increase conditioning (conditioning can be done after main exercise session), to maintain other strength qualities, and prepare your body for the work ahead (i.e. specific training session and future macrocycles).

[wufwugy]

[quote]climbon wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
what do you mean goes against what siff verkho and zatsiorsky wrote?

i was responding to Cool’s point in his first three paragraphs about detraining qualities.

Technically, you wouldn’t detrain any qualities. DB using the restorative warm up before and after each training session. This is when you would do some Rate work when focusing on Duration in the workout session.

The restorative warm up is used to maintain or even increase conditioning (conditioning can be done after main exercise session), to maintain other strength qualities, and prepare your body for the work ahead (i.e. specific training session and future macrocycles).[/quote]

sounds good.

[elukas]

“i find that i sometimes get more information out of people when i criticize what they think instead of asking them what they think. thank you for obliging me.”

I know what you mean and yes, you drew out some good clarifications (and jabs) from jumanji. But at the same time, I look at that “approach” as totally disrespectful (and I’m a total SOB).

Silverback/jumanji/theadjuster ribbed you the whole way, but many coaches wouldn’t have given you the time of day if you approached them like that.

Approaching someone with questions works too. A knowledgeable question usually draws out an elaborate answer from someone enthusiastic about a field. Once they find out you’re genuinely interested, they’ll usually gush with as much information as you could ever want.

“a note on freaks and what works for them as opposed to non-freaks… the same exact stuff that works for freaks works for non-freaks. freak status is determined by rete of progress.”

In my opinion, this isn’t true. See we’re not just talking about reactive qualities.

The real freaks not only have start out insanely rate dominant but have the body structure (leverages which will turn into explosive limbs when horsepower is added), hormonal status, recovery ability, and insertion points in place to benefit from training which many never could.

[jtrinsey]

Jumamji,

I’m really interested in learning more about this type of training. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like Thibaudeau utilizes a lot of these themes when he designs training articles for athletes, especially the iso-miometric stuff. I’m ordering his book very soon, and I’ve got plans to order a few more (Supertraining, Science and Practice…, DB Hammer’s).

For a poor college student, Christmas can’t come fast enough! Are there any other authors/sites you would recommend I take a look at until I can get my hands on some of those books? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Another question, what are your (or anybody else’s for that matter) opinions on training multiple “qualities” in the same training session. For instance, a power development complex of:

Dynamic Squats x 3 (50% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Jump Squats x 10 (20% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Depth Jumps x 10 (24")
-rest 3 mins and repeat 3/4 times-

I don’t want to highjack the thread, I’m just using what I trained with the other day as an example. Hopefully the debate will continue because I’m learning a lot.

[wufwugy]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

For a poor college student, Christmas can’t come fast enough! Are there any other authors/sites you would recommend I take a look at until I can get my hands on some of those books? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
[/quote]

google inno sport and dbhammer training forum.

[climbon]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Jumamji,

I’m really interested in learning more about this type of training. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like Thibaudeau utilizes a lot of these themes when he designs training articles for athletes, especially the iso-miometric stuff. I’m ordering his book very soon, and I’ve got plans to order a few more (Supertraining, Science and Practice…, DB Hammer’s).

For a poor college student, Christmas can’t come fast enough! Are there any other authors/sites you would recommend I take a look at until I can get my hands on some of those books? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Another question, what are your (or anybody else’s for that matter) opinions on training multiple “qualities” in the same training session. For instance, a power development complex of:

Dynamic Squats x 3 (50% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Jump Squats x 10 (20% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Depth Jumps x 10 (24")
-rest 3 mins and repeat 3/4 times-

I don’t want to highjack the thread, I’m just using what I trained with the other day as an example. Hopefully the debate will continue because I’m learning a lot.

[/quote]

Read some of the articles at inno-sport and then buy the book. CT’s books are great and he does use a lot of the same methodics (he even posted this in another forum). As fas as multiple strength qualities being trained in one session, it is fine as long as you do not combine Duration and Rate work. You can combine Duration and Magnitude or Magnitude and Rate.

If I am not mistaken, your workout looks fine because it is all Magnitude work. However, to follow DB’s system you would have to use AREG as it will determine your total number of sets.

[Jimmy_Smith]

Yeah I’m with you on this, I have the majority of the texts you mentioned and I feel that DB’s book, if understood could be of use. James Smith over @ elite just put out a book called “Hi Lo” where he merges DB’s stuff with westside, like Coach X

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Jim~

Brad Nuttal and those guys have a company called inno-sport. They are on the ‘net’.

Be prepared to learn a ton about performance training, especially for speed type athletes.

The knock on DB is that he wrote the book with the same vernacular used by Verkoshansky. Also, if you do not have a solid grasp of performance training to begin with, the first time through the book will definitely elicit a wtf response.

His ideas are solid, and have been discussed by the more elite trainers here, although in a far more watered down format.

Kelly Bagget wrote a 20 page article or so on the basics of this system. Kelly runs a 'com’pany called higher-faster-sports. He has written a number of very good articles, and has a great knack for making the complicated understandable.

You may want to start with Zatsiorsky’s book prior to DB Hammer’s, as his lays a solid foundation leading to the ‘next step’ that DB has taken with his theories.

I have read DB work at least 10 times and belong to his discussion group. Guys like ColCoolJ have found amazig results using his approach, and can probably chime in also.

I believe that at least the priciples behind DB and Jay Schroeder’s work are the next step in training strength speed athletes. I have found amazing success using some of his ideas, especially for athletes who ‘stick’ to the ground.

For a naturally rate dominant, and very elastic athlete, then the standard get strong approach is generally OK… that is why the ultra-quick kids always get the scholarships… coaches cannot define why they need the quick kids as opposed to the sronger, step slower kids, but it is because we know very well how to get kids stronger, but don’t really have a solid grasp of developing speed…

Good luck with the work.

Don’t listen to Rick. DB’s work is a great addition to your knowledge base if that is where you are on your educational quest.

Author’s would definitely recommend:

CT’s
Charlie Francis
Kelly Baggett’s Articles
Ian’s
Poliquin’s
Kenn
Bompa
Zatsiorski Methods
Siff
DB Hammer and Contributing Articles
All books by Sportivny Press

Probably in that order. This doesn’t imply that any are more advanced, but the order will help lay a foundation for lines of thinking. Notice DB is well down the line. CT’s stuff, for example, is advanced enough to get you to Olympian status, but he has the ability to simplify…a great ability.

Without a solid understanding, and frankly without being able to read above the 5th grade level, you might strugle with DB and the Sportivny works.

Good luck.
[/quote]

[Jumanji]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Jumamji,

I’m really interested in learning more about this type of training. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like Thibaudeau utilizes a lot of these themes when he designs training articles for athletes, especially the iso-miometric stuff. I’m ordering his book very soon, and I’ve got plans to order a few more (Supertraining, Science and Practice…, DB Hammer’s).

For a poor college student, Christmas can’t come fast enough! Are there any other authors/sites you would recommend I take a look at until I can get my hands on some of those books? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Another question, what are your (or anybody else’s for that matter) opinions on training multiple “qualities” in the same training session. For instance, a power development complex of:

Dynamic Squats x 3 (50% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Jump Squats x 10 (20% RM)
-rest 2 mins-
Depth Jumps x 10 (24")
-rest 3 mins and repeat 3/4 times-

I don’t want to highjack the thread, I’m just using what I trained with the other day as an example. Hopefully the debate will continue because I’m learning a lot.

[/quote]

J~

Yep, wuf and climb are both dead on. Kelly Bagget’s articles are great, CT are also, everything at inno is phenom, as are the Q&A by James Smith and Martin at Elite.

The biggest point is what ClimbOn said: Do not cross the fence…meaning the MAG barrier.

Remember, DUR work lays a foundation for MAG work…nothing more for athletes…nothing more. On the field, no one cares if: while increasing your Jump Squat and Reactive Squats your MAX Squat dropped by 10 pounds… because you will display more explosion on the field due to a lower power deficit. Meaning, you are now more powerful compared to your MaxStrength. This is why some kids can barely squat 1.5X their BW, but can soar… they are very power efficient, and probably have great reactive qualities.

Now, the drop in Squat Max can be avoided as ClombOn pointed out…easliy.

Anyway, that is all for now… I have to get some work done.

J

[jtrinsey]

Thanks so much for the help guys. I’ve been plowing through all the articles on inno-sport, but somehow missed the forums. Thanks for pointing them out. I’m still trying to figure out how to implement AREG into my training (and learning EXACTLY what it is), but I’d imagine the book will clear that up.

I have to say, most of the DB stuff is not what I was expecting. I read tons of people bashing him and was expecting some crazy, off-the-wall type training style. Basically it seems the heart of his system is : “If he’s fast, give him more endurance. If he has endurance, make him stronger. If he’s strong, make him fast.” Seems just like basic logic to me.

I do have one more question though, I understand not crossing the MAG fence, but what about different modalities (I could be using that term incorrectly) in the same workout. What I mean is, is it ok to use PIM, MIO, ISO work in the same session?

[climbon]

You don’t want to mix too many modalities into one session. And make sure that the modalities you are using fall under one category; i.e. Duration
(or tow categories Duration and Magnitude). I can’t remember any specific rules off the top of my head, but the book and/or Kelly B’s “Basic training” article covers this topic.

[jtrinsey]

Alright thanks. I still have a lot of reading to do, but you guys have pointed me in the right direction. Thanks a lot.