Donut,
No, I do not own James’ Smith’s manual; however, I have spent an average amount of time reading russian text in which he pulls much of his information and discussing this information with knowledgable scholars in the hard sciences. I figured out a while ago that I cannot repeat two CNS days in a road for any substantial amount of time; it was only later that I discovered the venacular to describe such a practice.
On submaximal training, I actually did get this idea from James Smith, especially the idea not to lift as fast or lower as slow as possible, merely to exert as much effort as needed to complete the set. It was indeed novel, but upon scrutiny one can see that it does indeed make wonderful sense. If you were to attempt to lift a 60% load as fast as possible, the effort (emphasis on effort) would cease to be submaximal. Quite simple really, but something easily overlooked.
My past training methods, as far as separating CNS intensive days, were right on with his current writings. His thoughts on submaximal loading; however, are what really intrigued me. In short, I’m a big advocatee of submaximal loading and limited maximal effort work. This is, of course, depending on the lifter’s current physiological state.
[quote]Donut62 wrote:
WguitarG wrote:
It’s amusing to me to actually read the responses to Rj24’s posts. A majority of the posters logic follows this paradigm: “Chad has degree in X and X years of training experience, RJ has 2 years training experience and no degree; therefore, Chad is right.”
This is faulty logic. To explain why would be futile, because the posters this statement is directed to will not wish to even consider it’s merit or meaning. They will simply look at my avatar and say: “You have a tattoo of an angel on your back; thus, your argument is invalid” or “You can’t squat 700lb; therefore, your argument is invalid.”
Wide-open, uninhibited, and robust debate is a foundation in which our society is based (50 points for anyone who can tell me the source of that gem, without using google), and to stifle such debate by personal attacks and asking RJ24 to leave simply for questioning the validity of a writer’s argument is such a myopic and weak-minded perspective.
Also, what is the point of saying : “I have seen results using Chad’s work; thus, his program is the best.” Wonderful, great, but it does not necessarily mean it is optimal, nor works for everyone. Nor do I think the “drop-catch” method is optimal for hypertrophy. Perhaps with RJ24’s idea of incorporating an extended isometric pause squat immediately after activating the HTMU through a fast eccentric followed by short ammortization phase would work, but again, I do not think optimal for hypertrophy. For increasing vertical jump though, the drop-catch method is, for lack of a better description: “The Shit.”
Chew on this for a while: I recently designed a program utilizing submaximal loads for the bench press in which I worked up from 60% to 75% of my 1RM over a four week period, never completing more than 5 reps, and also never performing the eccentric or concentric as fast as possible, both merely under control, utilizing just enoguh energy to lift the weight.
I then proceeded to concentrate the load from 80 to 90% in one week (M:80% W:85% F:90%) utilizing the lowest volume range prescribed by Prilipen. I then intensified by performing 95% on Monday, and 110% on Fruday. The 10% increase in my bench was easy and smooth. Maximal results achieved through the utilization of submaximal weights and limited use of maximal effort training.
Optimal results for me, but that is dependaant on my current physiological preparedness. I am fairly “seasoned,” thus, a block style approach in which I accumulate, transmutate, and then intensify a load will work better than simply the nonperiodized approach of adding more weight to the bar each week.
This is in the context of athletic performance. In the context of hypertrophy, I actually think diet is thte biggest factor, but I do believe TUT should not be ignored.
Why did the above methodss work for me? For one, I have sufficient knowledge and training experience to realize my body cannot handle CNS intensive activities throughout the training year. Performing maximal effort work approximately 10-15% of the time is optimal for my physiology. Submaximal efforts result in greater gains for me, partly because I have been training for a while, thus, a block style approach is more suited to my current state. Perhaps if I wasn’t quite as seasoned, a more concurrent approach would work, but alas, I always burn out with frequent application of ME work.
In short, I encourage everyone reading this to begin to think critically and independently of any guru, author, or poster. Debate on the argument and the evidence, not the posters’ lifting or academic accomplishments. One would be amazed at the knowledge and expertise a person can absorb and analyze in a year of independent study.
Do you by any chance have James Smith’s (aka “The Thinker” on EliteFTS) High-Low manual? The liberal use of submaximal effort lifting is one of his main preaching points. I think it’s interesting that a method that was such a huge part of Eastern-Bloc training philosiphies gets really no love in comparison to ME, DE, and true RE methods.[/quote]
