Discussing CW's Methods

Training Powerlifting
142

OK, if we go with Enoka as the definitive source on these matters I see that in a paper entitled The Steadiness of Lengthening Contractions by Christou, Tracy, and Enoka in 2001 they state:

Recent interest in the neural control of lengthening contractions was heightened by the observation (Nardone et al., 1989) that the recruitment order of motor units may deviate from that prescribed by the Size Principle (Henneman, 1957). Nardone et al. (1989) found that high-threshold motor units were selectively activated during lengthening contractions with the triceps surae muscles. Furthermore, when motor unit activity was recorded from the first dorsal interosseus while lifting and lowering a load, Howell et al. (1995) found that three high threshold motor units out of 21 recorded were selectively recruited during lengthening contractions. In contrast, a number of studies have failed to find evidence of selective activation of high-threshold motor units during lengthening contractions (Bawa & Jones,1999; Christova & Kossev, 2000; Kossev & Christova, 1998; Laidlaw et al., 2000; Sogaard et al.,1996). These results suggest that although recruitment order may be disrupted during lengthening contractions, the most common strategy is not to alter the recruitment order (Enoka & Fuglevand, 2001).

I am not clear from the last line whether Enoka has altered his position since his 1996 paper but clearly the exception to the size principle is not established beyond doubt and the more recent studies argue in favour of the principle.

Of course whether or not HTMU’s are preferentially recruited may not matter from a practical of view if the “drop catch” method is a superior method of recruitment.

I am however having difficulty in considering how this approach should be applied to hypertrophy.

RJ24 has suggested following I believe the work of Schroeder that we engage in an extended isometric following the drop catch method.

I wonder how many people have used this successfully. It has been around some time but perhaps tellingly has not become a mainstream method of training. Even if it works how many people would want to spend their time training like that?

Squattin600 you say:

  1. That the method is not an isometric at all rather a very slow eccentric (or yielding isometric as CT would call them) - My understanding is that what Schroeder proposes is an extended isometric but you or Roger may be able to clarify if we are talking about different methods here and comment on which you think is better for hypertrophy.

  2. That 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 subsequently lead to greater hypertrophy-I am not sure if it is being argued that it is the isometric /slow eccentric which is preferentially recruiting the HTMU’s. My understanding is that it is argued that they simply extend TUT once the HTMU’s have been recruited. Roger will no doubt clarify.

143

I understood the main premise of RJ’s argument to be that the stretch-shortening cycle is the best method for recruiting HTMUs. This is decidedly not the case from even the least pragmatic standpoint. The various mechanisms of stretch-shortening yield excessive fatigue. Of course we already knew this.

144

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.

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’s correct, but if you read the whole thread, you’ll find that he didn’t say anything about plyometrics producing hypertrophy. Literacy is a wonderful thing.

145

Squattin, nice post.

Peterm, I am open to the research. And you have said, even if HTMUs are not preferentially recruited during eccentric contractions the validity of the shock method is not in question.

As for my recommendations for hypertrophy, my initial argument was solely that drop-and-catch methods were better for HTMU recruitment and they could be applied for hypertrophy by adding a 30-60 second long ISO on at the end.

Getting into Schroeder’s work, there are two ways he uses ISOs. One is known as EDI, which I believe stands for eccentric-dynamic-isometric. In this method, he performs a 10 second ISO at in the stretch range and then fires off 3 reps full speed, he then repeats the process twice more in a set. This method capitalizes on the fact that subsequent isometric work immediately enhances following dynamic work. This is meant to be a hypertrophy method.

The second way Schroeder uses ISOs is in long duration isometrics. These are not combined with drop-and-catch movements. Basically, you get into a stretched position and hold yourself there for 5 minutes in one set. No one can make it to five minutes initially, but you’re supposed to try. This method works as the contraction cuts off blood flow to the working muscles creating a hypoxic environment.

Under these conditions the slow fibers have no fuel and work is done exclusively by fast fibers. Studies on similar types of training (hypoxic) have found a 27.6% increase in the volume of fast twitch fibers in only 2 weeks. Here is a post I made on that earlier:

[quote]RJ wrote

JDK, Jay Schroeder’s extended isometrics work well for this purpose. Basically, he has his athletes try to hold a split squat position for 5 minutes with as few rests as possible. And when they do have to rest, the can only take 3 big breaths and then they have to go right back down. These are to be done post exercise and can be done daily.

Here’s some scientific documentation that supports the use of long duration unloaded ISOs as used by Jay Schroeder.

There is a Japanese training method known as Kaatsu (Thibs mentioned this a while back). Kaatsu training involves lifting loads of roughly 20% 1RM for 15-30 reps while one has a tourniquet fastened over the proximal part of the limb they’re working. The tourniquet limits oxygen transport to the muscles and deprives the type I fibers of the fuel they need to contract.

Within this environment, type II fibers thrive and have been shown to increase in volume by 27.6% after only 2 weeks of training. Similarly, whole muscle cross sectional area has been shown to increase by upwards of 5% for highly trained college T&F athletes within the same time frame, while increasing strength by nearly 10%.

This is believed to happen because IGF-1 and GH levels skyrocket after performing Kaatsu training. Also, the body learns to produce more fast twitch fiber when confronted with a lack of oxygen.

Jay’s several minute long ISOs would work much the same as Kaatsu training, but instead of a tourniquet cutting off blood flow (and therefore oxygen) to the working muscles, the sustained contraction will do the job (sustained contractions over 15% MVC slow blood flow, total occlusion occurs at 50% MVC) Not only will the ISOs work to elongate the local fascia, but they will also provide functional type II fiber hypertrophy, and in large amounts too.

The only real downside to this type of training is that while absolute strength does increase, relative strength (relative to the muscle group) does not. It appears that Kaatsu, or any hypoxic training, does not affect the nervous system. This can be corrected by implementing normal training simultaneously though, or at least I believe it can.

Here are some links to relevant Kaatsu training articles:
www.kaatsu.jp/pdf/0101/02Abe.pdf

kaatsu.jp/pdf/0102/12Yasuda.pdf

kaatsu.jp/pdf/0101/04Abe.pdf

One can also get results by going to www.scholar.google.com and searching for Kaatsu.
[/quote]

Cormac, then what is the best method for maximal HTMU recruitment? I would think the method that provided the highest intramuscular force would cause the greatest recruitment, is this not true? And define excessive fatigue, as there is no such thing is volume is correctly regulated.

146

[quote]peterm533 wrote:

Squattin600 you say:

  1. That the method is not an isometric at all rather a very slow eccentric (or yielding isometric as CT would call them) - My understanding is that what Schroeder proposes is an extended isometric but you or Roger may be able to clarify if we are talking about different methods here and comment on which you think is better for hypertrophy.

  2. That 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 subsequently lead to greater hypertrophy-I am not sure if it is being argued that it is the isometric /slow eccentric which is preferentially recruiting the HTMU’s. My understanding is that it is argued that they simply extend TUT once the HTMU’s have been recruited. Roger will no doubt clarify.

[/quote]

Great post peter

Schroeder uses “extreme isometrics” wchich are also “yeilding isometrics” in CT’s language. Essentially the goal is to hold the weight in the stretch position for as long as possible.

Note there is a marked difference in yeilding/extreme isos vs overcoming/traditional isos. in traditional isos you push into an immoveable object as hard as possible. In a yeilding/extreme iso you are attemptiing to prevent the weight from falling essentially making it an eccentric movement. Just a very slow one.

From my understanding, in schroeders system, they are called extreme isos but are viewed from a neurological standpoint as very slow eccentrics.

I would say yeilding/extreme isos would be better for hypertrophy because we see that eccentric stress leads to increased tissue remodeling. And whether you like it or not during an extreme iso the weight will eventually due to fatigue (read regardless of RJ’s post about HTMU’s) begin lowering despite your best efforts to prevent it. Which means that there is an eccentric component.

Traditional isometrics (overcoming in CT’s classification) do not yeild eccentric stress at all.

Regarding your second post I think we are both right from either viewpoint. If the plyo turns on the HTMU then the iso extends the duration of their contraction following their turning on. Ie catching a falling load reverses recruitment order, as we know from plyo research. So after it’s caught the HTMU’s fire to stop the weight and then just stay contracted during the length of the hold. I think that is what you are saying. In addition to increasing TUT they, based on RJ’s study, would recruit HTMU’s and increase TUT for the HTMU due to the changein recruitment order

Thanks for posting the abstract. I’m gonna look it up this weekend

147

There is no single best method for maximal HTMU recruitment.

All that one can do is optimize their training using individualized planning - periodization. The stretch-shortening cycle permits a supramaximal stimulus for growth, however it is the epitome of minutae in the grand scheme of things because it will inevitably lead to excessive fatigue. Excessive fatigue in this case is defined as training volume which masks a trainees fitness - if used for even moderate lengths. The definition of moderate length in this case refers to an average of one half of a mesocycle, varying slightly amongst trainees and correlated positively with training age.

I already linked a study to support this, I can of course give you a plethora of these sorts of studies - but what is the use: You have already read this, over and over again, yet you continue to misinterpret the research!

Now to reiterate my argument, I believe you cannot possibly achieve impressive size and strength using your method for maximal HTMU recruitment exclusively. And I’m still waiting to see your training log appear on this site, and for the deobfuscation of this revolutionary training program of which you have claimed to have exclusive insider information to.

148

[quote]cormac wrote:
I understood the main premise of RJ’s argument to be that the stretch-shortening cycle is the best method for recruiting HTMUs. This is decidedly not the case from even the least pragmatic standpoint. The various mechanisms of stretch-shortening yield excessive fatigue. Of course we already knew this.[/quote]

I think that plyo’s are the best way to recruit HTMU’s. now the difference is that while they are the best they do not, in and of themselves, build any muscle. Which was the aim of CW’s article. In addition there is the “neural fatigue” component of plyo work which you reference. of course the fatigue could be managed by limiting the number of drops.

Say verkoshansky reccomended amax volume of 4x10 (or something like that) 2x/week. You could do 3x3 with a 60 sec iso at the end. the volume vould be only 18 plyo’s vs 80 plyo’s in a week. more than manageable. not optimal for plyo work but the goal is to potentiate HTMU’s for hypertrophy (read they do not build any muscle…people missed this part of RJ’s posts) not prepare for an athletic event… just an idea

RJ was simply saying that you may be ably to combine plyo’s with another method (extreme isos) to really hit those HTMU’s. Then he provided research showing that the slow eccentric during an extended iso actually recruits the HTMU’s. So in essence both methods ombined would target HTMU’s.

The research he provided contradicted what CW had claimed in his article.

Of course most around here came unglued and rather than discussin the theory just said “you’re skinny” or “you dont squat enough” and left it at that. Of course we know he’s 205 (I believe ben johnson was ~180) so for a sprinter he may be too big. Also we know that if he squatted 700 he would probably be the worst sprinter ever…

RJ you’re skinny and weak!

149

[quote]squattin600 wrote:

I think that plyo’s are the best way to recruit HTMU’s.[/quote]

I disagree. See my most recent post above. You probably missed it since you were typing out your own reply! :slight_smile:

[quote]
now the difference is that while they are the best they do not, in and of themselves, build any muscle. Which was the aim of CW’s article.[/quote]

Precisely the point that I am addressing. If you read, earlier in this thread, I challenged RJ to use his methods exclusively in order to build size and strength. He accepted my challenge, yet his training methodology has not yet been realized nor put into practice as far as I can see. I want a training log!

I have always been an advocate of optimizing neural efficiency through explosive lifting, because the methods are practical. This is not to say that explosive lifting is the best method to yield maximal HTMU recruitment, but it is the most practical for the average trainee.

Generally, a trainee can - without yielding excessive fatigue - incorporate a high volume of olympic lifts in their training in order to improve neural efficiency and thus yield greater opportunities for hypertrophy training. This is why I see the value of methods advocated by CW as being far superior to the methods RJ seems to consider paramount in resistance training.

150

I think where people are getting hung up is on the idea that RJ claimed plyo’s build mass. He never claimed that.

His/RJ use of them is as a potentiation method.

As far as evidence of plyo’s combined with repetition work to train HTMU’s CT wrote a book about HTMU training and one if the take home points is to include plyos to potentiate the subsequent repetition work.

151

Cormac, as I’ve said before, shock methods do not cause excessive fatigue if you have a good volume management scheme. They can be applied at a volume that mask fitness, but so can every other form of training. The trick is applying them in the right doses. For instance, I’ve been using the shock method in one form or another now for several months on end. During this time, I’ve been setting PRs almost every week.

And cormac, I never said one would use shock methods exclusively. In my initial post I claimed they should be combined wih RE training (in the form of an isometric) for hypertrophy gains. Did you miss that? You seem to have, as you keep hounding me about me saying this is the only way to do things.

Again, all I said was that shock methods were superior in recruiting HTMUs and that they COULD be applied for hypertrophy is followed with an isometric hold. They are mainly a stimulatory method setting the stage for greater gains from RE work.

As for your challenge, size and speed are byproducts of my training. I’ll use my methods to get results, but I won’t get huge with them. This would be directly contrary to my goals. Like I said, give me a year or two and I’ll show you a 100M time in the mid/low 10s and a picture of me hitting my head on a bball rim, but I won’t be huge.

Squattin, thanks for continuing to help with my case. I don’t get why people can’t see the argument for what it really is. I’m having to address claims I didn’t even make.

152

Let us begin with this direct quote from you:

I personally do not think you’ll build optimal strength and size using your approach. I think you are underestimating the role that neural fatigue will play in hindering your efforts. I understand that you have a body of research, and some supportive evidence to back you up. I challenged you to keep us informed with your progress and to keep a diary.

[quote]
As for your challenge, size and speed are byproducts of my training. I’ll use my methods to get results, but I won’t get huge with them. This would be directly contrary to my goals. Like I said, give me a year or two and I’ll show you a 100M time in the mid/low 10s and a picture of me hitting my head on a bball rim, but I won’t be huge.[/quote]

Well, this is contrary to the conditions of building size and strength like I thought we had agreed. If, in actuality,

[quote]
They will, however, cause selective recruitment of HTMUs, inhibition of slow fibers, cause fiber splitting (kind of like hyperplasia), and will teach the nervous system to put more backing behind its signals. All of these things put together set the stage for tremendous gains in size once one goes back to a normal BB training template.[/quote]

this is true, then it remains to be demonstrated. I understood this was the idea behind your program: Essentially that you were going to devise a way to predominately utilize the stretch-shortening cycle in order to increase nervous system efficiency, and then use the improved neural base for hypertrophy gains.

Now you are telling me that you did not say this:

[quote]
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.[/quote]

in reply to this:

[quote]
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. [/quote]

153

Cormac, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the issue of neural fatigue. You think it’ll be excessive while using reflexive firing methods, I do not, as long as they’re applied properly. And as for my training, I’ve been keeping an online journal for nearly 18 months now. I’m not going to link it as I don’t want the site to receive the negative traffic this thread will bring it. Squattin know where it is, but I’d ask him to not reveal the address.

As for your challenge, I misunderstood you. I’ll build strength, but it’ll be strength-speed and speed-strength, and size will be avoided at all costs. We’ll have to find someone else to make a guinea pig for size gains.

And regarding this statement:

It can all be found in “Supertraining.” The only thing that hasn’t been covered is the effect on hypertrophy, but one should be able to put 2 and 2 together. More fibers + more fast twitch fibers + more neural discharge + hypertrophy methods = great size gains.

154

[quote]
As for your challenge, I misunderstood you. I’ll build strength, but it’ll be strength-speed and speed-strength, and size will be avoided at all costs. We’ll have to find someone else to make a guinea pig for size gains. [/quote]

Misunderstanding me is okay I suppose. We can have someone else utilize your methods. You can use your brother, or a friend. Are you going to publish your methods for us to see?

I do not trust the closed source approach you seem to be taking with your programming thus far. If your methods are so great, why so secretive?

The bulk of research that I have seen myself in regards to the stretch-shortening cycle seems to conflict with your theory regarding the efficacy of your training methodology. Everything I thus far find plausible for size and strength gains seems to point to research demonstrating the superiority of explosive concentric lifts in terms of tangible results in the trenches, so to speak.

What I mean, is that one can find huge populations of olympic weightlifters whose training programs revolve around training using explosive lifts and heavy compound lifts. The fact that these lifters compete in strict drug tested federations and conform to USADA and WADA rules leads one to believe that the focus on endocrinological factors is trumped by a focus on neural factors. These groups have impressive physiques and body compositions.

However, top endurance athletes and runners, basketball players, et cetera, who utilize the stretch-shortening cycle frequently in their training are disinclined towards these muscular physiques and therefore they are not a good population to look to in terms of putting 2 + 2 together for maximal hypertrophy.

I love science but I am a pragmatist, and I feel that concrete evidence is far more substantial than the abstract. If your methods can turn a skinny untrained mess into a beast then I’d like to see it.

155

First of all, my methods are in no way secretive. In fact, how can they be secretive when I’ve been trying to explain them here for the past week? Also, my journal would show relatively little of this over the first 9 months or so of training. To get a good idea of where I’m coming from one needs to read the following:

  1. “Supertraining” by Mel Siff and Yuri Verkhoshansky
  2. “The Sports Book” by Dietrich Buchenholz (a masterpiece)
  3. Everything written by James Colbert over on the CF forums.

It’s far from a full list, but if you read and thoroughly understand the above, then you should have no problem seeing where I’m coming from.

For a test subject, my little brother will probably be good to go. He wants to be a running back so some extra weight will be good for him. I might start a log for him.

And as for olympic lifters, whether you realize it or not, they employ the methods I’ve been talking about quite extensively. What do you think the catch phase is? It’s nothing more than a drop-and-catch front or overhead squat taken to the extreme as far as poundages go. So it’s not merely explosve concentric training that’s responsible for their gains. And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against explosive concentrics, I did them today in the form of power snatches and snatch-grip DLs, I just think that they are inferior when the goal is nervous system stimulation and conditioning.

And finally, the reason you’re not finding information in the trenches on the efficacy of weighted shock methods is because you’re looking in the wrong places. As squattin has said, Jay Schroeder uses this type of training with some real freaky professional athletes. Charlie Francis thinks that sprinting makes athletes stronger. Chris Korfist and Dan Fichter use these methods and train numerous professional athletes. And as I said above, Oly lifters use them on a daily basis. So really, there is plenty of support, one just has to know where to look.

156

[quote]RJ24 wrote:
First of all, my methods are in no way secretive. In fact, how can they be secretive when I’ve been trying to explain them here for the past week? Also, my journal would show relatively little of this over the first 9 months or so of training. To get a good idea of where I’m coming from one needs to read the following:

  1. “Supertraining” by Mel Siff and Yuri Verkhoshansky
  2. “The Sports Book” by Dietrich Buchenholz (a masterpiece)
  3. Everything written by James Colbert over on the CF forums.
    [/quote]

RJ, those methods are not yours, they belong to others. You won’t give us a link to your training log which utilizes your methods - that is secretive.

Consider your earlier post, in reference to some elusive system:

[quote]Jsal, that tape was nothing but a promo for Archuleta. It doesn’t reveal anything about his system. I’ve got info from the inside and actually understand how the system works and how to apply it. Like I said, it’s too complex to be applied by those with average means. The amount of monitoring it takes (and the devices that allow one to do so) make it far too costly to the average trainee.

Basically what it comes down to though is teaching the body (as nearly all improvements are in fact controlled by the CNS) to produce maximal exertions again and again with as near perfect form (perfect intra and intermuscular coordination) as possible. It’s whole goal is to teach the body to perform only at maximal capacity, both in terms of magnitude and repeatability of efforts.

As for DB’s stuff, yeah, I love his system. The whole thing can be constructed through the works of Siff, Verkhoshansky, Bompa, and Zatsiorsky, but it took a real bright mind to collect and form a system from the information. I think of all methods as a matter of MAG, RATE, and DUR as well and cannot look at an activity without classifying it as RA or PIM or FDA.
[/quote]

You seem to imply that it takes inordinate intelligence and experience to construct a true program from an abundance of theory put forth in texts and from various whitepapers and what have you. I agree. So where is your system? If you have intimate knowledge with this elusive system in all its subtleties like you claim - then give it to us.

Olympic weightlifters utilize reversible muscle action in the recovery phase when catching a clean, true. Total volume at which even a near supramaximal stimulus for the reversible muscle action out of the hole with the clean recovery is actually used is kept very, very low however. How often do you hear of a weightlifter training the clean and jerk using a load they could not squat for several reps, hm?

I think that it is cunningly misleading for you to say that the minutae of an oly lifters training, that is the clean recovery, is what differentiates their body composition achievements from other drug-tested athletes.

157

Okay, here is where we have a misunderstanding. I do not have my own special system. I use the Inno-Sport System as outlined by DB Hammer and Brad Nuttall with a little bit of Jay Schroeder’s methods added in. “The Sports Book” lays the practical foundations for my training and all of the scientific texts serve only to allow me to understand why the methods I apply work. The only way my training is my own is that I decide how it should be applied. If you want to know how I train, learn how the Inno-Sport system works.

And regarding OLY lifters again, despite the weight being lighter than their max squats, every catch phase of reasonable weight produces higher intramuscular tension than max strength work, though the exposure to said stimulus is shorter. In this way, each and every catch is a supramaximal stimulis in terms of muscular tension. They are not fatigued by these exertions because they have built up special work capacity over years of training that allows them to handle it. The same can be done by all athletes for any task.

158

For all who are interested, I will be keeping my little brother’s log on this site under my profile’s blog. You’ll get a chance to see my training process if you want without clogging up the site where my log is being held.

159

Alright, now you’re talking. Can you divulge some details of what you have in mind for your brother? I must tell you, I need to read some of these articles from the Inno-Sport website and begin on “The Sports Book” before I draw any conclusions regarding your plans to train him.

I am going to pick up copies of “The Sports Book” and “Supertraining” so that I can gain insight into your perspective, coming from a different training background altogether. I see there are some resident Inno-Sport guys on this forum now. I don’t know what to think as of right now and I have a great deal of skepticism regarding what seems to me to be a paradigm shift in training. I’ll have at least started with reading The Sports Book by tomorrow evening and we’ll talk then.

160

Cormac,

If you try to learn the inno-sport system don;t get caught up in the terminology and other minutae. Look for the priniples and you’ll see that it’s a very common sense approach

161

Cormac, my immediate plans for my little brother are to get his strength levels up and to prepare him for reactive work in the near future. He’s currently in 7th grade and weighs 141 lbs at 5’7". His max squat is only 185 lbs right now, so he has some work to do. He also has some mobility issues around his hips, so that’s what his training is targeting now.

I’m using isometric holds in the stretch range to strengthen his hips and his hamstrings while simultaneously increasing his active ROM and I’m using them in a higher time bracket to bring about increases in work capacity. Next session will be comprised of low level reactive work, like oscillatory isometrics along with some force absorption/coordination drills. In time, we’ll work up to full out shock methods.

In regards to Inno-Sport, you have every right to be skeptical, but once you understand the book you’ll be amazed. It’s not so much that the material in TSB is all that new, but how it’s arranged and managed is.

Like Squattin said, don’t get hung up on the terminology, just focus on the concepts covered. If you have any questions on anything in the book, just ask and I’ll do my best to fill in the blanks.