Discussing CW's Methods

cormac · November 13, 2007, 5:21am

RJ, I truly look forward to reading it. I certainly will not argue that I am biased - it’s human nature; you are also biased in your views. I am certainly not close-minded, nor biased to the point of sectarianism. I will consider DB’s points thoughtfully. I just hope that they are concise and accurate, not obfuscated by misuse of terminology.

I must say, I think that Lorisco is a knowledgeable individual with an understanding of the matters at hand and he makes valid points. RJ, you must accept the fact that this is a discussion on an internet forum - your credibility will always be questioned. Your character and expertise is perhaps the most important premise to be considered altogether. The fact is that this isn’t The Rhetoric of Argument 101, this is T-Nation. This is the reason smart guys go to University for years and years. Not you - nor anyone else here - is afforded the right to assert anything without taking the chance of being flamed into all oblivion.

If this thread is going to continue to be an open discussion/debate of training methods then you should not use this ploy to stifle people who have every right to argue their points. We are not in academia here. If someone is going to append “and you are just a know-it-all kid with no formal education whatsoever” to every post that they make, then so be it. They are entitled to do so, as long as this is not the cornerstone of their argument.

squattin600 · November 13, 2007, 5:44am

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Since we are talking about hypertrophy, I believe this has not been shown to be that effective. To break this down for you, you have the motor unit which is composed of a neural function and a contractive protein portion. The theory is that by activating the neural function prior to lifting it will causes more of the HTMU’s type IIB fibers to be activated. Good theory. And while this has been shown to give short term strength increases, the long-term effects on strength seem to diminish the longer you use it. But, this is strength, not hypertrophy. Like I previously stated, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates increases is muscle cross-sectional area by this method. It sounds good, but hasn’t really played out in the real world.

Eccentrics by themselves already preferentially target the HTMU’s, just less of them then a load educed concentric contraction. This is old news and why CW doesn’t focus on eccentrics, because while they target the HTMUs, they target much less of them than a load induced concentric contraction.

But will a Plyo before an eccentric allow it to target more HTMU’s than normally would be the case? I don’t know. I don’t think there is any studies that have looked at that yet. But if I was to find out, I wouldn’t ask a guy who has no experience or formal training like you appear to be doing.

If you have been able to achieve a 680 squat, then you should know better than to listen to a newbe who has neither the knowledge base nor experience to give any advice.

[/quote]

First thing, RJ is a bright kid. He may overanalyse things a bit but he is smart. Of course when I was younger I overanalyzed a bit. I’m sure you did too.

Regaring complexes, man people here take things too literally and too seriously. you are absolutely correct, complexes dont play out over the long term as they are a way to break past current abilities (that whole tricking the CNS idea/supramaximal intensity). They are an effective short term plan to spur adaptation.

RJ never said only do complexes like this forever.

I believe he would say everyting is cycled/periodized and this method may be effective for a 3-4 week training block.

Thinking about what you had posted about CW’s use, concentric uzing a higher total # of HTMU you may be right.

Regarding the plyo before an eccentric. not many people have expermented with this idea yet. By the extremely negative reaction here I dont belive that majority of people on T-Nation had heard of such a thing. So dont expect a lot of research.

I do know that CT uses plyos before repetition method exercise to fire up the CNS to train more HTMUs.

regarding my squat. I am getting older by the day and have been around the block a few times. While RJ’s stable of athletes is small he does raise questions which challenge current dogma and I admire that. Hopefully someone went the the journal of applied physiology and looked at RJ’s research and looked at the research presented to the contrary and learned something. This is what moves us forward.

peterm533 · November 13, 2007, 6:56am

Roger,

I wouldn’t say that I am stuck on “the whole hypertrophy thing”. Really it is just a comment on the second part of the training model you outlined.

I think that dynamic/reactive/shock/plyometric methods or some of them are to a greater or lesser extent used in most sports.

The use of isometrics appears to be a defining feature of the Innosport/Schroeder methods.

You have stated both that they “should” or “could” be used for hypertrophy when combined with RE work. My point is simply that if this was a productive method you would have thought that the natural drive to adopt more effective methods of training would have culminated in a more widespread use of the system.

jtrinsey · November 13, 2007, 6:59am

The biggest problem with this thread is that it’s in the wrong place. Contrary to popular belief, the T-Nation forums are not a place where “new ideas are presented and dogma is challenged” or whatever used to be the catch-phrase. The articles on T-Nation do a pretty good job of that I think, but the majority of forum posters are about as close-minded as can be.

For the most part, there isn’t too much wrong with that since the “regular guy” need only worry about consistent effort in some sort of half-decent plan to get good results. However, I believe that those looking to compete at the highest level possible in athletics do need to search out new methods and explore them.

By definition, newer methods have not been proven extensively, if they were, they’d be “time-proven” methods. At one point the concept of lifting submaximal weights quickly to get stronger was considered foolish- not anymore.

The Inno-Sport methods introduced by “Deitrich Buchenholz” have a lot of merit. James Smith at EliteFTS (and University of Pittsburgh) has stated that he finds them to be a sound and logical training system. I do not think they are the end-all, be-all, as no system is, but they definitely have merit. I do not like Deitrich Buchenholz’s writing style at all, he seems like a hype-artist and occasionally says things that are quite simply false. However I can say the same things about a couple very prominent T-Nation authors who still have plenty of valuable information to contribute.

However, when it comes down to it, I could care less about what the theory says, I care about producing results. So I look guys implementing the Inno-Sport system such as Dan Fitcher’s NHL players and Chris Korfist’s high school track athletes (or is it the other way around? I always get them mixed up) and see that the system works.

I look at James Smith’s application of auto-regulation in his training manuals. I see Charlie Francis discuss auto-regulation in his training system. I attempt (with great difficulty at the moment) to figure out the concepts behind Mark McLaughlin’s training system. I look at what has worked in my own training and the athletes I work with. This combination helps me get a feel for what is legitimate and what is not. The greater amount of “legit” information I get from one source, the more I tend to trust it.

The phrase the “cutting edge” exists for a reason. One must not look blindly toward theory for new methods, but just beyond those already in place. An easy example can be seen in powerlifting, box squats have been a staple for years but it seems to me that fairly recently many top powerlifters are having success with cycling in softer foam boxes or pads.

That is an instance where you look at an existing training method and look for an extension or modification. Draw inspiration from training theory as well as personal logic and intuition.

I think to coach athletes (including oneself), there must be a blend of training theory, personal logic and intuition and experience. Moreover, I believe you can learn from anyone; even an idiot might have something worthwhile to say once in a while.

Those who would disregard all of Roger’s thoughts without considering if anything is of use, simply because of his age/experience, are foolish. Likewise, those who would instantly believe what Roger is saying, simply because he throws around pubmed abstracts, are equally as foolish.

Lorisco · November 13, 2007, 7:00am

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Since we are talking about hypertrophy, I believe this has not been shown to be that effective. To break this down for you, you have the motor unit which is composed of a neural function and a contractive protein portion. The theory is that by activating the neural function prior to lifting it will causes more of the HTMU’s type IIB fibers to be activated. Good theory. And while this has been shown to give short term strength increases, the long-term effects on strength seem to diminish the longer you use it. But, this is strength, not hypertrophy. Like I previously stated, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates increases is muscle cross-sectional area by this method. It sounds good, but hasn’t really played out in the real world.

Eccentrics by themselves already preferentially target the HTMU’s, just less of them then a load educed concentric contraction. This is old news and why CW doesn’t focus on eccentrics, because while they target the HTMUs, they target much less of them than a load induced concentric contraction.

But will a Plyo before an eccentric allow it to target more HTMU’s than normally would be the case? I don’t know. I don’t think there is any studies that have looked at that yet. But if I was to find out, I wouldn’t ask a guy who has no experience or formal training like you appear to be doing.

If you have been able to achieve a 680 squat, then you should know better than to listen to a newbe who has neither the knowledge base nor experience to give any advice.

First thing, RJ is a bright kid. He may overanalyse things a bit but he is smart. Of course when I was younger I overanalyzed a bit. I’m sure you did too.

Regaring complexes, man people here take things too literally and too seriously. you are absolutely correct, complexes dont play out over the long term as they are a way to break past current abilities (that whole tricking the CNS idea/supramaximal intensity). They are an effective short term plan to spur adaptation.

RJ never said only do complexes like this forever.

I believe he would say everyting is cycled/periodized and this method may be effective for a 3-4 week training block.

Thinking about what you had posted about CW’s use, concentric uzing a higher total # of HTMU you may be right.

Regarding the plyo before an eccentric. not many people have expermented with this idea yet. By the extremely negative reaction here I dont belive that majority of people on T-Nation had heard of such a thing. So dont expect a lot of research.

I do know that CT uses plyos before repetition method exercise to fire up the CNS to train more HTMUs.

regarding my squat. I am getting older by the day and have been around the block a few times. While RJ’s stable of athletes is small he does raise questions which challenge current dogma and I admire that. Hopefully someone went the the journal of applied physiology and looked at RJ’s research and looked at the research presented to the contrary and learned something. This is what moves us forward.

[/quote]

Squat, I see your point. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t have it in for RJ. I’m just trying to help him a bit. When I was young and just starting to train I wish someone would have come to me and say; STFU and listen, learn what it is you don’t know and stop spitting out data. Data will get you looking like a lab coat! It is the application of laboratory data and empirical experience that is what counts. Not what you read and therefore think you know.

Good training.

Lorisco · November 13, 2007, 7:08am

[quote]Roger Nelsen wrote:
Lorisco, I’ll point this out again. Your argument that I am unqualified and therefore my writings are rubbish is a fallacious one. Just like I pointed out to another poster, this is an ad hominem abusive fallacy.

Now please, go away and leave this thread alone unless you have something constructive to add, because lord knows you haven’t added anything of value as of yet.

[/quote]

Pipe down junior! Since you appear to not be bright enough to know when to listen and receive good advice, I guess there is really nothing else to say.

So good luck to you and you be sure to let us all know when your theories have produced some actual muscle on that huge frame of yours.

Big_EG · November 13, 2007, 7:33am

[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]

I’m not diametrically opposed to what you’re saying. Can you provide me with a reference, scientific or anecdotal, where world class athletes in a speed or power sport obtained great results using PRIMARILY high velocity eccentrics? Most of the evidence of CW’s writings can be found in the work of Abadjiev who created the Bulgarian weightlifting program that produced world records unexplainable with or without drug use.

Saltman · November 13, 2007, 10:41am

RJ:

What specific positions does Schroeder employ with long-duration ISOs? Is it just the deep lunges and stretch position of the push-up, or are there others? Is there any attempt to increase the range of motion (e.g. push-up position on blocks; deep lunges with the leg elevated)?

After 5 min. is reached, is that when the force absorption protocols (depth drops for upper and lower body) are employed?

system · November 13, 2007, 10:50am

Big EG, please re-read the thread up to this point. I never said high velocity eccentrics were meant to comprise the bulk of training. People seem to think I’m advocating this method over all others, but that is simply not true. All I claimed was that it better recruited HTMUs than fast concentrics.

Saltman, those are the primary positions Schroeder uses. And the rule of thumb is you can move on to absorption drills once you can do each hold for 5 minutes with an extra 30% BW attached. I think this standard is ridiculous, but Jay would beg to differ.

shadyniner · November 13, 2007, 10:54am

[quote]Roger Nelsen wrote:
Big EG, please re-read the thread up to this point. I never said high velocity eccentrics were meant to comprise the bulk of training. People seem to think I’m advocating this method over all others, but that is simply not true. All I claimed was that it better recruited HTMUs than fast concentrics.

Saltman, those are the primary positions Schroeder uses. And the rule of thumb is you can move on to absorption drills once you can do each hold for 5 minutes with an extra 30% BW attached. I think this standard is ridiculous, but Jay would beg to differ.[/quote]

From the thread at charliefrancis.com, it looks as though Jay employs the iso holds exclusively until you can hold each position for the 5 minutes. Does his training at this initial stage include anything else, or is it just the holds? Do the holds help with work capacity, or does his trainees need a solid base to begin this?

system · November 13, 2007, 10:59am

Shadyniner, in Jay’s system one is supposed to do holds and only holds until the standards are reached. This is for a number of reasons.

Holds teach proper position and build full functional ROM
Holds cause large amounts of fast twitch fiber hypertrophy
Holds help program proper muscle recruitment patterns
Hold build flexibility endurance and work capacity

All of these things are essential before beginning Jay’s actual training.

adarqui · November 13, 2007, 12:15pm

someone wrote:

someone else wrote:

in regards to 1RM’s, studies have been shown that depth jumps prior to 1RM attempts have increased the 1RM.

Acute effects of plyometric exercise on maximum squat performance in male athletes

"
ABSTRACT
This study examines the acute effects of plyometric exercise
on 1 repetition maximum (RM) squat performance in trained
male athletes. Twelve men (mean age SD: 20.5 1.4 years)
volunteered to participate in 3 testing sessions separated by
at least 6 days of rest.

During each testing session the 1RM
was assessed on back squat exercise. Before all 3 trials sub-
jects warmed up on a stationary cycle for 5 minutes and
performed static stretching. Subjects then performed 5 sub-
maximal sets of 1ï¿½??8 repetitions before attempting a 1RM lift.

Subjects rested for at least 4 minutes between 1RM trials.
During the first testing session (T1) subjects performed a
series of sets with increasing load until their 1RM was de-
termined. During the second and third testing sessions sub-
jects performed in counterbalanced order either 3 double-leg
tuck jumps (TJ) or 2 depth jumps (DJ) 30 seconds before each
1RM attempt.

The average 1RM lifts after T1 and testing
sessions with TJ or DJ were 139.6
29.3 kg, 140.5
25.6
kg, and 144.5
30.2 kg, respectively (T1
DJ; p
0.05).
These data suggest that DJ performed before 1RM testing
may enhance squat performance in trained male athletes.
"

verkhoshanksy’s application of the stimulation method is similar, but he first provides a tonic exercise (back squat), which then has an effect on a developing exercise (depth jump, single leg hops, jump squats, weighted jumps).

have any of you seen him use any variations, that utilize a ME lift as the developing exercise?

anyway, brief explanation of verkhoshanksy’s stim method:

to employ the hyper excitability of the CNS created by breif powerful muscular tension, to enhance the subsequent specific work, in order to develop explosive strength & the reactive ability of the neuro muscular apparatus.
any irritant which stimulates muscle activity, however short term, leaves traces in the nervous system. the trace phenomenon remains for some time after the stimulation has ceased. These traces can have a significant effect on the subsequent muscular activity; in particular, enhance the magnitude of this activity. For example,the preliminary isometric tension has a positive effect on the subsequent dynamic work. This effectiveness of this preliminary tension is up to 20% higher in comparison with the work conducted without preliminary isometric tension.

peace

undeadlift · November 13, 2007, 9:57pm

[quote]cormac wrote:
… this is a discussion on an internet forum - your credibility will always be questioned…[/quote]

Yup. All our credibilities will be questioned, even contributors’ credibilities. There’s a reason why the internet isn’t a reliable research source, abeit its efficiency and because of its efficiency.

undeadlift · November 13, 2007, 9:58pm

[quote]adarqui wrote:
in regards to 1RM’s, studies have been shown that depth jumps prior to 1RM attempts have increased the 1RM.[/quote]

Pretty cool. I wonder what would happen if PLs do these during comps.

Hold_Up · November 13, 2007, 10:36pm

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
adarqui wrote:
in regards to 1RM’s, studies have been shown that depth jumps prior to 1RM attempts have increased the 1RM.

Pretty cool. I wonder what would happen if PLs do these during comps.[/quote]

Haha…Fred Hatfield, whom is thoroughly knowledgeable of Verkhoshansky’s methodologies would do something similar before some of his lifts.

I personally do some type of plyometric (jump) movement before heavy lifts on my heavy (maximum effort type) workouts.

This stuff is nothing new under the sun as many have mentioned. I’d speculate that the iso holds are more a beginner type process for development…or a unique break in monotony. Move the weight explosively.

Saltman · November 13, 2007, 10:37pm

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=602715

This article on Shroeder says he also uses squats (one and two-legged). While I do understand the descriptions for the most part, certain portions remain vague. For example, with the one-legged squat off the bench, won’t some forward lean of the torso be permissible in order to keep balance (similar to a pistol)?

Also, is the two-legged squat performed flat-footed with an emphasis on the balls of the feet or with the heels actually raised (as with some of the squat drills on the Archaletta dvd)?

squattin600 · November 13, 2007, 9:49pm

[quote]adarqui wrote:
someone wrote: