Am I correct in assuming the aforementioned long-duration ISOs are done while maximally contracting the involved musculature, as opposed to merely “holding” the position? For example, in the ISO lunge, I should be tensing as hard as possible, rather than simply maintaining or relaxing into the pose, correct? Or does the maximal occlusion simply occur due to the long duration of the contraction?
Also, what are your thoughts on the impulse-inertial machine? Hatfield had (has) tremendously high hopes for this ballistic training technology, even devoting an entire chapter to the subject in “Power: A Scientific Approach,” but I haven’t heard much else until seeing Schroeder utilize it with his protocols. As a sidenote, I actually got to speak to the machine’s creator, Steve Davison, for about an hour via the phone. Very bright guy. One day, I may actually be able to track one of these machines down and try it out! They’re exceedingly difficult to find, and beyond my price-range/space. Has anyone here ever used one?
During the long duration ISOs you just hold the position. DO NOT contract your muscles as hard as possible. Trust me, getting to 5 minutes is hard enough without adding strain to the exercise.
As for the impulse-inertial machines, a few coaches I talk to have nothing but love for it. It’s supposed to be fantastic at building speed of movement in unloaded situations and teaching proper firing patterns at high velocities. Unfortunately, the machine is well out of my price range so my knowledge on it is limited.
Sorry to get in here late, and no offense to anyone, but I think we all need to calm down a little bit. All RJ24 did was point out that one of Chad’s statements was incorrect. Whether or not it was is immaterial, as there is research to support both. However you may feel about his presentation, you should not criticize his facts, as he obviously has valid evidence.
I think we’re missing the fact that we should encouraging things like this. We shouldn’t take things as gospel, whether it’s from CW, CT, Louie Simmons, Boris Sheiko, or whomever. If they’re wrong, and someone notices it, they should point it out, so we can rid ourselves of an error.
In short, the only criticism I have of RJ24 is that the drop-and-catch method he recommends is probably impracticable for hypertrophy, which is what Chad was talking about. I’m sure if reactive ability were the target, Chad would have mentioned the drop-and-catch method.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
I know it doesn’t matter how much I squat, but try getting that through the thick heads of the posters here. [/quote]
But to many people, myself included, it DOES matter how much you can squat, or pull, or whatever.
I know this isn’t directly what your argument was about, but it relates. You can have all the book knowledge and research papers and lab results in the world and it doesn’t mean jack compared to real world experiences.
Unless you participated in some of the research you quote, or have used it and reproduced similar results, you’re going to lack credibility in the eyes of many. And training your 12-year-old little brother doesn’t count.
You see, without experience and time under the bar, you can’t directly relate to a lifter. If I want to increase my squat from 600 to 700, you aren’t very useful to me. Sure, you can regurgitate some Louie Simmons and Dr. Squat articles, but you have never had 500 pounds on your back, let alone 600 or 700. You don’t know what it “feels” like to hold that kind of weight.
It’s the same way, most pro sports coaches played at the highest level. The know what their sport “feels” like and can relate to their athletes.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, and you may eventually prove to be one, but understand that this is the reason people are so quick to disregard you.
Again, I realize this is directly related to your debate or CW’s methods, but it does relate to your youthful arrogance.
If he adequately understands sport science, yes, he can help you increase your squat from 600 to 700 pounds. If you disagree with him, fine, say so. But your argument is illogical.
rmccart1, thank you for your understanding. However, I would like to point out that I never said the drop and catch method was superior for hypertrophy. I said it was superior for HTMU recruitment and that it could be applied for hypertrophy by adding an isometric hold at the end of the set.
malonetd, I think a ~400 lb full squat is pretty good for a guy who’s not too interested in strength and lifts heavy about once every 3 weeks, don’t you?
And I can understand why people might not find me credible, as I’m lacking in experience, but being green doesn’t make me wrong. All I wanted was for people to take the word of experts, hence all the references. I know my own word doesn’t hold up yet, but the word of people who’ve been in the business far longer than Chad should.
[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
If he adequately understands sport science, yes, he can help you increase your squat from 600 to 700 pounds. If you disagree with him, fine, say so. But your argument is illogical.[/quote]
No, if I am experiencing something he never read about or worked directly with, he will have no idea how to help me.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
malonetd, I think a ~400 lb full squat is pretty good for a guy who’s not too interested in strength and lifts heavy about once every 3 weeks, don’t you?
And I can understand why people might not find me credible, as I’m lacking in experience, but being green doesn’t make me wrong. All I wanted was for people to take the word of experts, hence all the references. I know my own word doesn’t hold up yet, but the word of people who’ve been in the business far longer than Chad should. [/quote]
I never said you were wrong, nor did I discredit your squat. That’s not the point I’m trying to make. You seem like a bright kid with a passion for learning this stuff. I just want you to understand why many people might not be interested in hearing you talk about the experts.
The thing is, many people, especially strength athletes, are more interested in practical, hands-on knowledge as opposed to lab studies, because, well, sometimes lab results just don’t replicate themselves in the real world.
Again, I’m really not trying bash, so I hope I don’t come off this way. Who knows; down the road you may be the one I do come to to increase my squat.
Okay Malone, I’ve got you now. I’m going to keep working hard to build up the experience, and therefore trust, I need to adequately coach. Until then, I’ll still give my opinions, but won’t worry too much about whether they’re accepted or not.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
rmccart1 wrote:
If he adequately understands sport science, yes, he can help you increase your squat from 600 to 700 pounds. If you disagree with him, fine, say so. But your argument is illogical.
No, if I am experiencing something he never read about or worked directly with, he will have no idea how to help me.[/quote]
ahem You’re right, but that’s not the same thing as saying “he can’t help me squat 700 pounds unless HE can squat 700 pounds,” which is basically what you said earlier.
But then again, it’s not like increasing squat strength is not well understood, so he very well may be able to help you. I’m sorry, no matter how bad you want it to be simple and romantic, there is physiology involved, and you can’t learn physiology under the bar. Not that personal lifting experience is not important, but saying it’s the only thing that matters is as stupid as saying it doesn’t matter.
Also, RJ24, sorry I misread your first post about HTMU recruitment. Criticism withdrawn.
[quote]rmccart1 wrote: ahem You’re right, but that’s not the same thing as saying “he can’t help me squat 700 pounds unless HE can squat 700 pounds,” which is basically what you said earlier.[/quote]
It’s not “basically” what I said. It’s not what I said at all. I said he wouldn’t be able to relate to me. I don’t need him to be able to squat 700, I want him to have experience with it. I want him to have trained someone to reach 700. Or trained with 700 pound squatters. Or something along those lines. There are things about holding 700 pounds on your back that a text book can’t teach you. You can read all you want about race car driving, but until you have been behind the wheel, hitting a tight left turn at 180 mph, you really have no clue what it’s all about.
[quote]
But then again, it’s not like increasing squat strength is not well understood, so he very well may be able to help you. I’m sorry, no matter how bad you want it to be simple and romantic, there is physiology involved, and you can’t learn physiology under the bar. Not that personal lifting experience is not important, but saying it’s the only thing that matters is as stupid as saying it doesn’t matter.[/quote]
Don’t make this overly complicated. It’s more “simple and romantic” than it is complex. But I do agree with your last sentence and that’s the reason I jumped in this conversation. It seemed like RJ was claiming that his book knowledge trumped everyone else’s personal experiences.
If it were simple, all those frat boys doing triple-drop sets on the bench press three times per week would be benching 400 lbs. They’re working hard enough, why aren’t they strong?
[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
If it were simple, all those frat boys doing triple-drop sets on the bench press three times per week would be benching 400 lbs. They’re working hard enough, why aren’t they strong?[/quote]
If you really think your boys on the bench three times a week are working hard enough, I just can’t help you.
Oh I don’t know. I see plenty of people put in great effort on the bench. You can’t deny that they’re working hard (YOU can, I guess, but that doesn’t make it true), but they’re not working smart. You obviously need both, but…actually, I forget. What’s your point?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Don’t make this overly complicated. It’s more “simple and romantic” than it is complex.[/quote]
Agreed. Who was it that said “lift to get strong, eat to get big”? The Professor? That one little sentence helped me out just as much, if not more, than any of the Latest and Greatest training articles here have.
Don’t get me wrong - discussion is good, and this thread has been a solid read so far, but it never hurts to keep what really matters in mind.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
rmccart1 wrote:
If it were simple, all those frat boys doing triple-drop sets on the bench press three times per week would be benching 400 lbs. They’re working hard enough, why aren’t they strong?
If you really think your boys on the bench three times a week are working hard enough, I just can’t help you.[/quote]
[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
Sorry to get in here late, and no offense to anyone, but I think we all need to calm down a little bit. All RJ24 did was point out that one of Chad’s statements was incorrect. Whether or not it was is immaterial, as there is research to support both. However you may feel about his presentation, you should not criticize his facts, as he obviously has valid evidence.
I think we’re missing the fact that we should encouraging things like this. We shouldn’t take things as gospel, whether it’s from CW, CT, Louie Simmons, Boris Sheiko, or whomever. If they’re wrong, and someone notices it, they should point it out, so we can rid ourselves of an error.
In short, the only criticism I have of RJ24 is that the drop-and-catch method he recommends is probably impracticable for hypertrophy, which is what Chad was talking about. I’m sure if reactive ability were the target, Chad would have mentioned the drop-and-catch method.[/quote]
There are no studies that demonstrate hypotrophy from a plyometric type exercise. So saying that he has data to support this would be incorrect.
There are no studies that demonstrate hypotrophy from a plyometric type exercise. So saying that he has data to support this would be incorrect.
[/quote]
That is NOT what RJ said. RJ proposed, in essence, combining a plyometric and hypertrophy methods as a more efficicent way of targeting HTMU’s. He NEVER said that plyo’s alone will make you huge.
Research on this can be found in complexes. The plyo potentiates the subsequent method. if you add the ME method it leads to greater performance (ME) gains. In fact CW himself proposed doing some vertical jumps prior to a max squat attempt. Now if plyos are followed with a RE methos then it will lead to greater hypertrophy/RE gains. We all know this. The complex method is old. Atually this is one of the things that CT reccomends (plyo+RE) to target the HTMU’s
The use of the isometric as the RE method is what is unique, however, couple things to keep in mind…
This method is not an isometric at all rather a very slow eccentric (or yeilding isometric as CT would call them)
if the data that RJ provided is correct than the iso/slow ecc actually preferentially recruit the HTMU’s and increase their TUT, which should subsequentally lead to greater hypertrophy.
Many believe that plyos are not good for hypertrphy because their TUT is so low, tenths of a second. This may be corrected by incuding some slow eccentric work after the plyo.
So the plyo leads to maximal recruitment, and the ecc then increases the TUT for the HTMU’s
Evidence of this can be found in schroeders athletes, Archuletta is one that everyone knows but how about edgerrin james, dwight freney, todd heap, etc…
Just thought I’d explain some of the rationale behind the method
Now everyone can go back to calling RJ skinny! We all know your use of skinny proves that you really know what you are talking about.
As for my stats, I’ve squatted 680 and am anything but skinny.
