[quote]RJ24 wrote:
I still think being judged by my age or experience is unfair.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, you seem like a smart guy who really tries, but you have to understand that your experience counts for much more than your sources. Read as much as you want, but real-word personal trail and error will teach you much more than all your reading will. I’m all for absorbing knowledge, but it all means bupkis unless you have gone down in the trenches and done the work yourself.
This isn’t some personal attack, but I do have to side with the crowd who dismisses you because of your age and experience, because they do have a very good point.
I forgot to mention in my long post above that “the pattern of neural activation determines the quantity and quality of contractile proteins and metabolic proteins.” This according to Mel Siff. He also states, “the behavior of muscle would also appear to be determined by the activity of the nerve fibers which supply it.”
What this basically means is that the type of signals you tell your CNS to send to the muscles will affect their myosin and actin isoforms and their glycolytic and oxidative enzymes, meaning nerve stimulation determines what type of fiber your MUs contain.
Methods dependent upon reflexive firing (plyometric methods) send a signal that tell the muscle to contract at extreme velocities and forces. In time, these signals will cause a shift towards faster fiber types. And as we all know, fast twitch fibers have the greatest potential for hypertrophy.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
I still think being judged by my age or experience is unfair.
I’m sorry, you seem like a smart guy who really tries, but you have to understand that your experience counts for much more than your sources. Read as much as you want, but real-word personal trail and error will teach you much more than all your reading will. I’m all for absorbing knowledge, but it all means bupkis unless you have gone down in the trenches and done the work yourself.
This isn’t some personal attack, but I do have to side with the crowd who dismisses you because of your age and experience, because they do have a very good point.
[/quote]
Brant, you don’t seem to understand that I don’t have to rely on my own experience when I can rely on the experience of those who’ve been doing this for decades. I don’t need to spend years of trial and error finding what works and what doesn’t. People have already done that for me. The body of sport science literature that’s out there pretty much has all the answers, it’s our job to learn and apply them.
I am 40 years old and started training in the 8th grade.
RJ is correct on all his points. In the last 5 years my training knowledge has been able to grow greatly from reading the best sources I can get my hands on. It is the info that matters not the source. If the info was not good I have enough personall knowledge and experience that my bullshit meter would go off.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Can you summarize your point of this thread and whatever principals you are trying to get across? Try in under 6 sentences if you can I have low attention span. If you go over a little I’ll still read though, just in parts.
The point of this thread was that CW said moving fast during the concentric of a lift was the best way to recruit HTMUs. I said that eccentrics (more specifically drop-and-catch methods) were superior in this regard. I also pointed out that the size principle does no apply during eccentric contractions.
That’s basically it, minus the research and the flaming.
[/quote]
ooookay… let me clarify, so YOU(heh) are saying that bar speed during the lowering part of the lift(essentric)is as important if not more more important than the lifting (concentric)phase?
if so, yet again, louie simmons has been preaching that for a while, that is one of the reasons he recommends bands in training, that they increase eccentric bar speed almost automatically.
and he probably got that from someone else too. lol
RJ24, the idea that the stretch-shortening cycle yields excessive fatigue in strength training is covered in great detail by Zatsiorsky in Science and Practice of Strength Training. I strongly recommend buying that book, and I will even venture to say that without reading it you are absolutely and positively out of your domain when you criticize experts like Waterbury. Also, a simple search for “stretch shortening cycle” on Google returns this: Neuromuscular fatigue after maximal stretch-shortening cycle exercise - http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/84/1/344.pdf
Which discusses the high neural demand for recovery from this type of training. Of course we know that fatigue masks fitness.
Obviously I agree that this type of training allows a supramaximal stimulus leading to relatively high damage of muscle tissue. Of course, like I said, this is not revolutionary stuff here - trainers have been aware of this for mechanism of strength training for decades, have implemented it, and have refuted its feasibility to be used for moderate length durations in even highly trained, elite level athletes. I am referring of course to strength athletes, ie. Olympic Weightlifters, Shotputters, Linemen, Powerlifters, Strongman Competitors, etc.
You kind of remind me of the skinny bastards at my technical university gym, who would ask me to assist them in performing negative curls and explain to me the fascinating, breakthrough scientific principles of “eccentric negative training methodology”. Good luck to you in your endeavors, though, I pray you can at least put a little bit of muscle on that upper body of yours!
RJ what Brant is trying to say is DESPITE your sources experience is not only necessary but required. Your sources only worked with a select group of people with a select exercise history. There are far too many functions of exercise as well as body types and training history for a study to be applicable in all situations.
Take your example of a sprinter never plateauing, that is either completely false or you only know of one slow sprinter. In fact many sprinters reach there peak speed a year or 2 after college and go up and down .3 seconds for the rest of their career. Now if you take a sprinter who never lifted weights and introduce him to even basic routine he will improve. If you take someone with a basic routine and introduce him to drop and catch he may improve. If you take a person and introduce him to fast concentric he may improve even more. But that won’t apply to the next sprinter who played football all his life also and already has strong legs, he may need more flexibility.
Another good example is jsal he said he was training since 8th grade if for 20 years he didn’t do isometrics then YES it may pack on size for him.
Your sources are only good for verifying their exact variables. If you want tear down Chad’s example you would have to find a source for his study make sure both examples have identical variables then go from there. Do you have any source that say going as fast as you can on a heavy concentric will not recruit maximum muscle fibers?
I know nothing of your background I know about studies and that they go back and forth all the time. I also know that 4 years of structured studying anatomy, nutrition, kinesiology will provide a far better background then studies.
How did this drop and catch method effect you and your lifts?
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
I don’t have to rely on my own experience
Head explodes[/quote]
I’m saying! Here’s another analogy, it’s like a guy telling Eric Clapton you’re wrong man your method of playing guitar is quite simply wrong and I can do it better. With Eric responding by saying well mate play me some notes and let’s see what you are talking about and the guy saying well, I can crank out a poor two or three cords of Smoke On the Water only, but I’ve seen Eddie Van Halen in concert twenty one times and I read Guitar World every month, from cover to cover, and that’s all the proof I need to show you Eric.
HT, yes, that’s what I’m saying. And again, I’m not claiming any of this is new.
Cormac, the test subjects were not highly conditioned trainees. Of course reflexive firing methods are fatiguing, they put a huge drain on the CNS. The trick to implementing them is to monitor decay in performance and stop once a certain level is reached (the actual level should be dependent up the type of training as well as the individual).
And what’s with the comments on my upper body? I’m 6’ tall, weigh 205 lbs, and (as I found out yesterday) can do 4 chin ups with 100 lbs attached to me. That sounds pretty strong to me (especially since I don’t train to do it). Please correct me if I’m wrong. It appears as if a bad picture can be the blame of a lot of this.
Airtruth, what you’re talking about has nothing to do with plyometrics, it has to do with reaching the limits of one’s abilities. Sprinters reach a speed and their times oscillate because they can no longer go any faster. And as for 4 years of study, I’ve probably read more than getting a degree in exercise science would have required at this point. So, as far as I’m concerned, I’m saving money by not taking the classes.
Brant, what you’re doing is called a logical fallacy, more specifically an ad hominem abusive. You’re skirting around the premises I’ve laid out and are instead attacking me. This is an invalid means of argument. I won’t respond to your posts after this point.
I can tell your efforts to counter peoples remarks are wearing thin. If you cannot wrap your head around the abuse then let me put it to you this way.
Show us one, just one person in the history of man that has built size and strength using your methods exclusively. You do not have to retort immediately, I will give you three years to use yourself as a test subject.
By this time I theorize that it is more likely that you:
No I’m not talking about reaching the limits of one’s abilities. Just as you’ve done with many other posts you took what you want out of it. Despite the fact that I gave you 3 seperate examples. I am talking about plateuing which is different then reaching the limit of your ability.
And it has ton to do with plyometrics. People actually plateu pretty quickly under plyometrics alone. Some athletes actually man basketball players don’t gain anything or go down from only using plyometrics.
So I’m guessing if you needed brain surgery you’d rather somebody who read a million internet articles then a surgeon who went to medical school?
Cormac, you’re on. I’ll accept your challenge, and I won’t need three years to do it myself. 2 should more than suffice.
As for others, Adam Archuleta (of Jay Shroeder fame) has used methods similar to the ones I’m speaking about. This resulted in a 500+ lb bench press and 600+ lb squat at around 200 lbs along with a 39" vertical leap and 4.3 second 40yd dash. Jay Schroeder also trains a number of other athletes in the NFL.
Also, Dan Fichter and Brad Nuttal use similar methods and each work with numerous athletes in both the NHL and the MLB, among other sports. So I’m not pulling the effectiveness of these methods out of my ass.
And just to clarify, I’m not suggesting to only use the methods I outlined. They are just tools with which one can accomplish a job. I still believe in regular lifting and did it just yesterday. Everything has its place and time.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
No I’m not talking about reaching the limits of one’s abilities. Just as you’ve done with many other posts you took what you want out of it. Despite the fact that I gave you 3 seperate examples. I am talking about plateuing which is different then reaching the limit of your ability.
And it has ton to do with plyometrics. People actually plateu pretty quickly under plyometrics alone. Some athletes actually man basketball players don’t gain anything or go down from only using plyometrics.
So I’m guessing if you needed brain surgery you’d rather somebody who read a million internet articles then a surgeon who went to medical school?
[/quote]
Basketball players plateau from using only plyometric variations meant to train speed-strength. If they used plyometric variations to train for strength (such as oscillatory isometrics) this this plateau could be avoided. Similarly, I’m not advocating only using plyos. Like I said, they are just a tool.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Brant, what you’re doing is called a logical fallacy, more specifically an ad hominem abusive. You’re skirting around the premises I’ve laid out and are instead attacking me. This is an invalid means of argument. I won’t respond to your posts after this point.
[/quote]
No, I first tried to show you something that you aren’t willing to understand. Then I was blown away by your response. I wasn’t commenting about your “argument,” I really don’t give a damn about that. I even said “This is not a personal attack.” I was making a statement about your entire mindset and approach to lifting.
Oh, and don’t try to look like billy badass by acting injured and taking the high road by not responding.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Okay, why is everyone attacking me?
[/quote]
Because you questioned an author and when you do that you become a target for his/her fanboys.
Its pretty sad how RJ24 is giving a creditable point of veiw and just gets shot down because goes against what CW said. Theres not even a debate; when you guys could’nt prove him wrong or even put up a reasonable agrument you go straight to numbers,regardless of the fact that he had good reasons for training the way he does.
“I KANT MIGHT NOT PROVE YOU WRONGS BUT I BET I CAN BENCH MORE DAN DU!!”
Personally I do beleive that CW is right in stating that lifting fast is a dam good way to progress but someone should’nt get attacked the way RJ did just for stating a different opinion.
These debates are good for the lifting scene, it helps it grow but thats not going to happen as long as anyone who thinks differently is immediatley silenced. "
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Similarly, I’m not advocating only using plyos. Like I said, they are just a tool.
And now, fuck it, I’m out.
[/quote]
Really, so you mean that your arguments against CWs method in the beginning were merely attention seeking? If you are, right now, conceding that your methods are to be used only very infrequently for short microcycles spread out in a periodized routine in order to offset fatigue then you are not even taking a unique stance at this point. You are simply agreeing with everyone that has criticised you!
You are starting to show your true colors - and like you remarked earlier, it is clear that all you intended to do here is create controversy. You criticised CWs ideas as “boring” and overhyped. Well, unfortunately there are very few breakthroughs left in this field, and you are certainly not one of the scientists on the revolutionary forefront of modern biomechanics and kinesiology. The idea of training using the stretch-shortening cycle is not outstanding interesting or particularly novel either. So stop attention whoring, for everyones sake.
At least CW puts forth a system for trainees that uses ideas (not his ideas, but irrefutable and practical ideas nonetheless) on a routine basis. Essentially CW’s methods are applicable throughout the majority of sessions in a given program, while yours are not. You are essentially arguing that microscopic, theoretical details should take precedence over the macroscopic, pragmatic details in debate over the principles of periodization. I say you’re a bullshitter.
The System that you refer to is shrouded in mysteriousness, although you claim to have “insider information”. There is something in my computer science field that is referred to as Vaporware. As of right now, this obscure program constitutes the exercise science equivalent of Vaporware.
F0rG3tNikeDoMe are you another 19 year old that needs pampers. Oh my bad your not hurt your the one doing the cuddling.
Little tootsie wootsie went and got his Mommie thats so cute.
You ever stop and think maybe you can’t see the debate because like him your blinded by www.latestinternetresearchfad.com. I’m waiting to see waves of new lifters blasting past the current record holders by drop catching bench presses in the gym for a workout.
Sorry to alert you to a little fact, but people use shit that works. At one point in time board presses were new to the lifting community. They were quickly adopted and used why? Because they worked.
So now we have an internet guru professing how good his knowledge of a method is without even describing gains on someone he trained, or himself. Trying to not defend his thinking, but declare another person who has more proof, way of thinking is wrong.
The majority of people he has argued against are interested in gaining muscle, and the only proof he has given them is… Okay well he doesn’t have proof but he has a picture of himself that he says is just a bad camera shot.
