If anyone is interested, there is an interesting thread regarding the Evo-Sport system (not Inno-Sport) that explains the differences between our traditional fitness-fatigue models of training, and this remarkably different method that Jay Schroeder and others promote:
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=14287
The shock method is used throughout these programs mainly in order to disinhibit the protective mechanisms of the nervous system, and iso holds are used to increase the rate coding capacity of neuron firing for movements in specific, ‘weak’ positions effectively to increase work capacity. Not terrible ideas, but the Evo-Sport system is still remarkably obscure.
These articles highlight some of the characteristics of the Inno-Sport method, developed by Dietrich Buchenholz (aka ‘DB Hammer’):
http://www.inno-sport.net/Dietrich%20Buchenholz.htm
http://www.elitefts.com/documents/pick_your_poison_db_hammer.htm
As you will discern, many, many astute scholars of kinesiology, neurology, and exercise science consider this guy to be something of a bullshitter. In order to fully understand his methodology I intend to buy the book, “The Sports Book” - if only to reinforce my confidence in the methods that I currently use for training.
I think it’s worth putting this astute musing on the authenticity of DB Hammer’s expertise out there for all to consider:
Several new articles have appeared today on Dave Tate’s website
http://www.elitefts.com/ including three by an anonymous contributor known
as “DB Hammer”. The articles are all far too long to reproduce here, but
some supertrainers will surely have some comments to make about them. They
can be found at
"http://www.elitefts.com/documents/pick_you...n_db_hammer.htm
… but some (myself included) may find that the “for the boys” writing
style makes it rather difficult to decipher exactly what he/she is trying to
say.
The first of these articles is an anti-Olympic lifting article. The
following extract and other paragraphs suggest that the author believes that
Olympic lifts are advocated because they somehow mimic sporting movements
(the idea that one can train only with Olympic lifts and still improve the
main sporting activity).
You are probably now wondering how I can be so certain that Olympic
movements are inappropriate for the majority of sports training purposes if I
also advocate keeping as many training management tools in your shed as
possible. First off, it takes way too long to learn how to perform the
movements properly. This should wave red flags everywhere, in terms of
correspondence carryovers, and that should be enough to keep you from
administering such work. Remember, there would not have to be such a drastic
learning phase if there is a Correspondence to the training movement and the
end product in the first place. If your are still unsure what I mean, train
exclusively on Olympic lifts and a rotation of their variants for a few
months and see where that leaves your sporting growth. Like I said before,
Zero-Correspondence is a terrible thing to be involved in, for much more than
just the lack of performance growth, too- injuries come to mind as another."
Any comments on these articles? >>
*** First of all, I would suggest that “DB Hammer” read the article
“Functional Training Revisited” which I wrote in the Oct 2002 Strength &
Conditioning Journal of the NSCA to scientifically analyse this popular myth.
This author clearly is labouring under the very common misconception that one
uses Olympic training lifts and their many variations because their movement
patterns are believed to mimic those of other sports, which is largely
incorrect.
One uses those types of movements because you can use them to enhance the
motor qualities that one uses in any given sport. If we are to accept what
he/she has written, then we also should drop the bench press, squat and
deadlift, as well as almost all bodybuilding exercises as forms of
supplementary training because they do not imitate many sporting movements
either in motor structure or motor qualities. If one is to be totally
pedantic and equally rigid, then we should point out that the only precisely
sport specific movements are those which occur in each individual sport, so
that ALL supplementary training is redundant and “poisonous.” In applying
any supplementary exercise, it is not simply the exercise which has to be
examined, but the manner in which it is used and integrated into the general
and specific preparation phases of the long-term programme.
As for his argument that “it takes way too long to learn how to perform the
movements properly”, as I have said before, the Olympic lifts (or power lifts
or any bodybuilding exercises, for that matter) are not rocket science and a
competent coach can teach almost anyone how to execute the lifts (certainly
the “power” versions of them) quite competently in a few sessions.
Let’s dispel the massively exaggerated myth that learning the Olympic lifts
is such a difficult motor task. I manage to teach those lifts to mere
beginners in one session at my Supertraining Camps. Does anyone think that
these lifts are more difficult to learn than the tennis serve, the swimming
butterfly stroke, the sprint start, the hurdles, the high jump, the baseball
pitch, the baseball strike, the gymnastic basic saltos, skateboarding tricks,
riding a horse, throwing a javelin, kicking a drop kick in rugby and many
other basic movements in many sports? Now I am not stating that it is easy
to master a maximally heavy attempt - we all know that this can be very
difficult, but so is a maximal attempt in all sports.
As for the following comment: “If your are still unsure what I mean, train
exclusively on Olympic lifts and a rotation of their variants for a few
months and see where that leaves your sporting growth”, many years ago I
began weightlifting solely to improve my track and field performances and
definitely not as a separate sport. The fact is that, with no other change
to my sprint training. my 100m time dropped from 11.4 to 10.8 secs after
about a year, which is not any great performance if one is to be a good
sprinter, but I was delighted that my stagnant sprint time actually improved
that much (I gave up sprinting because my performance in weightlifting was
improving even more and the men who lifted were so helpful and inspiring to
me). Subsequently, during my coaching days, I have noted large differences
in the performances of many different athletes in different sports who
incorporated weightlifting into their overall preparation.
Generally, it seems that those who militate against the use of Weightlifting
exercises (remember that several types of squat and pulling hybrids are
weightlifting variations!) and their variations as a form of supplementary
have not mastered the best way to integrate such exercises into the long-term
conditioning programmes for other sports. It is not primarily a problem of
the exercises, but of the coach.
So much for that one extract- let’s examine a few more paragraphs from that
article which are replete with emotive language, self-proclaimed expertise,
unsubstantiated claims, plenty of pseudo-scientific jargon (which look like
they were drawn from my “Guru Terminology Kit” cited in our archives) and
some serious misconceptions about muscle physiology.
DB Hammer wrote:
<But for those of you who are tired of chasing your performance-tails, be
warned, there are better ways. You, too, can be faster than a cracked-up
unicorn; powerful enough to skip baseballs like rocks along McCovey Cove
“just like Barry”; strong enough to finally pull that rolled-up Supertraining
book out of your ass; and big enough to actually get a full write up- in some
trendy newsstand bodybuilding magazine- strictly on The Curvature of (your
name)s Butt Cheeks (or whatever your personal goals are). >
Mel Siff:
*** Don’t just state that there are better ways or claim that your special
methods are superior to all others; provide the scientific and practical
evidence. I have no idea what the lavatorial remark about “Supertraining” is
meant to imply, but this style of expression is far more fitting to Testo mag
or some cheap crude comic than any site associated with Dave Tate or
Westside. There are several other examples of this unprofessional and anal
pseudo-journalism and they do not serve to enhance the credibility or
professionalism of its author.
DB Hammer:
<That’s right; for those of you who have realized that common knowledge isn’t
the cure; for those of you who are dizzy from the spin that media puts on
everything in the training world. For those of you who are unabashed to
pursue greater knowledge, this following information will help all of you
balance out some of your options a bit better for next time’s purposes.
Consider the following information to be like an all expenses-paid trip to
train under the scrupulous-scrutiny of Dave Tate and Louie Simmons as they
happily murder your sorry soul to oblivion for two solid weeks-that’s right,
boys, it just can’t get any better!..>
Mel Siff:
*** Our friend seems to be implying that what he offers is equal to at least
two weeks of personal tutelage under Louie Simmons and Dave Tate - and
possibly beyond that - after all, he proclaimed “…it just can’t get any
better!”. Sound like one very humble coach!
DB Hammer:
<So, locate the underlying deficiency (Neuro-Dynamic Efficiency) and you will
be able to perpetuate growth much further into your future sporting
endeavors. It is like cooking; you can keep mixing ingredients together and
sometimes you will hit and sometimes you will miss, but the goal in training
is to know why you hit or miss- this is how you produce long-standing
results. Anyone can get it right some of the time, but in today’s fierce
competitions, and especially if you entered this world with inferior athletic
traits, you must eliminate future errors early on in your training career.
This is done via specific ND deficiency location. Trust me on this one, any
drunken Scottish chap in a kilt can dance the jig, but not all of them even
know where to start when their sober. >
Mel Siff:
*** Whenever one tries to establish some sort of special credibility by the
use of guruesque jargon which is not supported by any scientific proof, the
astute reader ought to immediately be very cautious about what is being
offered, especially if the text is filled with unsubstantiated claims and
emotive language. He is claiming to have some special ability to be able to
measure “neurodynamic efficiency”, something that no scientist or clinician
has ever been able to measure, even with invasive or evoked potential
studies. Let’s see the relevant references to show that he has information
which transcends the combined efforts of all the world’s greatest
neuroscientists and physiologists.
DB Hammer:
<Want more Power?
Available Anecdote: Auxometronics (AMT) Training for Lower Body Power
The Five Minute Vertical Jump Solution
One must first understand what a house is made of before he/she can build
one. Olympic lifting stresses the elastic elements of the motor complex
(tendons, fascia, etc). There is need for frictional (cross-bridge elements)
development to aid in acceleration, as well as absorption upon transition.
The critical stage, reason for positive training effects, is strongly
dependant upon the character of force realized proximal the catch phase of
the movements. This phase makes the movements elastic-dominant, as well as
clarifies purpose for administration.>
Mel Siff:
***Indeed, one should understand what a house is made of - DB Hammer has not
provided any evidence that he really knows what the house really is made of,
beyond his claims and beliefs. Anyhow, no physiologist will ever claim to
know very much about how the body functions as an integrated whole, least of
all with respect at the microscopic level of muscle units and cells. He
glibly classifies cross-bridging as a frictional process, when standard
definitions
do not classify friction as a result of active muscle processes.
Friction is something which opposes, not assists movement, unless, of course,
he is suggesting that he has somehow invented some “perpetual motor machine.”
By quoting ideas about muscle friction, it sounds as if he has been heavily
influenced by the writings of Arthur Jones who maintains that muscle
“friction” explains why one can lift a greater load under eccentric
conditions versus concentric conditions. Indeed, the fluidic environment of
the sarcoplasm and other elements of the muscle complex may display forms of
viscosity and viscoelasticity, but that is not friction in the sense of
mechanics. This really is a lot of word-play being used to validate one’s
beliefs about muscle action. Neither Jones nor DB Hammer has provided any
satisfactory theoretical physical models or laboratory experiments to
validate their claims. So, until such time that he or anyone else do, let’s
stick to the proven existence of viscoelasticity, viscosity, elasticity,
poroelasticity and so on, but let’s not play terminological games built
around one’s prejudices.
DB Hammer:
<Be warned: there are superior means to develop elastic dominant movement,
especially under power-product movements of brief duration- as Olympic lifts
are defined. AMT is one such available method. The power enhancement
received from the specialized AMT application outlined below may extend to
advance much more development than just jumping ability, too (track starts;
squat poundage; etc).>
Mel Siff:
***More nonsense. No entire exercise or extended movement is “elastic
dominant”; certain phases of any movement involve different types of motor
action, each of which may play a more dominant role for a certain time.
Thus, during the very brief rebound stage after the eccentric amortisation
phase lasts often as little as 0.015 second, while the rest of the movement
does not rely dominantly on elastic or stretch-shortening processes. Thus,
during the recovery phase of the clean or snatch, the elastic phase is very
brief, while the “cross bridging” or allegedly “frictional” phases last for
the remainder of the movement until the bar is back at rest on the platform.
Moreover, it is ignorant to classify the weightlifting movements as ones
which elastically involve the whole body, because a great deal of effort in
the lifts is devoted to isometric or quasi-isometric stabilising of many
joints in the body. Some parts of the body rely heavily for brief moments on
stretch-shortening or elastic processes during part of each lift, while other
parts rely heavily on other processes, including totally non-elastic
isometric action. As DB Hammer stated. “one should understand what a house
is made of”, because, if he does, he certainly isn’t making it obvious to
those who know a little about physiology.
DB Hammer:
<Auxometronics is a method that I established out of necessity to expedite
lower body power development. The pre-requisite for administering such an
application is primarily frictional strength, so as to prevent injury, but it
is also crucial to have moderate- to high- pre-elastic development. The
athlete must also master force absorption criteria before experimenting with
such application; including proper NDE conditioning. (Contact me for more
information!)>
Mel Siff:
*** “Frictional strength”? Now I have heard it all! Is he referring to the
action of the contractile elements of the muscle complex as opposed to the
series elastic components (SEC) or parallel elastic components (PEC) or is he
referring to Arthur Jones’s concept of some special type of “muscle friction”
that helps one ‘lift’ greater loads under eccentric conditions? (of course,
Jones forgets that the greatest force is produced under ballistic, explosive,
elastic actions, not simple eccentric movement, provided the period of neural
excitation is long enough). DB Hammer certainly needs to elaborate on this
issue. Others might like to comment on his use of the guruesque marketing
term “auxometronics” being used to sell his variation of some aspects of
stretch-shortening and PNF training. Yes, some of us know that “auxotonic”
refers to any movement in which the length and tension of a muscle are
changing concurrently, but is he using his term as a synonym for this fairly
well-known German and Russian word or is he implying something else? Anyhow,
we all know that it is easier to sell any concept if you create some special
language and mystique about a system that has been known for many years in
different clothes.
DB Hammer:
<The application of AMT that I will cover in this article is an extension of
a reactive-jump; in which I feel most trainees are familiar with already. The
spin involves attaching band/spring resistance, which is less than 53% (at
full extension) of your bodyweight. The athlete should attach these bands to
a weightlifting belt around his/her waist, whilst standing on a box that is
100-120% of their maximal vertical jump (basing this judgment off of reactive
jump height, electronically measured, but this is not absolutely necessary).
The loose ends of the bands are anchored by a foot of each of the two
coaches- pulled out and away from the box at a length equal the tension
needed.>
Mel Siff:
*** Nothing at all original here. Various elastic assisted or resisted
jumping, running, twisting, hitting or balancing devices have been sold in
American fitness catalogues for many years now. They have been used by
football, basketball. hockey and baseball coaches for ages.
DB Hammer:
<The Proof is always in the Pudding (rapidity of results)
Athletes of any qualification will see a return of at least 18% in their
first run with AMT work for vertical jump enhancement. If they do not, it was
due to poor administration or failure to meet the list of pre-requisites.
This method has also been used, in conjunction with other methods, to produce
hundreds of pounds of improvements in squat poundages with dozens of advanced
athletes (I am talking 635 lb raw squat to 855 lbs raw in under 60 days!
(Only 5 sessions!)). >
Mel Siff:
*** I trust that these improvements have taken place in a raw lifter who has
not changed his method of ‘supplementation’, his technique or lifting gear.
However, since the focus of this article is on the use of supplementary
training in other sports, how did this improvement in squatting load help
performance in the sprint or some other sport under competitive conditions?
Anecdotes don’t prove results; all too often they prove the gullibility of
believers.
DB Hammer:
<The reasons for this devastating return in performance are fruitful.
However, instead of throwing superfluous science your way, I will opt to
explain it in terms that we can all understand. Virtually anyone that was
taken from this earth and placed on the moon could jump clear over an
18-wheel truck. The reason that we can achieve this is not completely
applicable to earth since it is the same reason why we stay afloat- gravity
(manipulations in gravitational forces). However, the speed of the bands
create an augmented intra-neural-perception of the gravitational forces, the
required response necessary to support and overcome this action upon ground
contact, so a heightened arousal is found. >
Mel Siff:
*** There is no such thing as “intra-neural-perception”, because perception
is a central nervous event involving consciousness and it takes place in the
brain, not simply between neurons. There is intraneural “reception,” but not
perception - DB Hammer would do well to read about perception. What he is
implying about the relative strengths of the gravitational field on the moon
and earth regarding his method of training is anyone’s guess. The phrase,
“the speed of the bands create an augmented intra-neural-perception of the
gravitational forces” is simply more guruesque jargon that tells us nothing.
His claims about “heightened arousal” due to this process are not supported
by any evidence. One can heighten arousal simply by focusing and becoming
excited before any lift - nothing magical here.
DB Hammer:
<The release of the bands at contact is critical since this action won’t
remove the intra-sensations that our system has experienced- which is good
since output will be appropriate to warrant the results that you are looking
for. If the bands weren’t removed as anchored then the training effect would
be lost since elastic-driven acceleration will be lost at toe-off, due to the
band resistance, and frictional components will be brought in to assist
movement. This is not advantageous for those seeking power via elastic
function since frictional elements have been found to interfere with movement
efficiency when programmed wrongfully, or manipulated in the short-term
inappropriately (such as the effect that leaving the bands anchored would
produce; i.e., loss in power production)…>
Mel Siff:
*** What does he mean by “The release of the bands at contact is critical
since this action won’t remove the intra-sensations that our system has
experienced”? What is "intra-arousal? Why all this unnecessary addition of
private jargon? The language of science and medicine is rich enough to
describe anything that he is attempting to sensationalise here. The rest of
this paragraph is equally uninformative and vague, and is not helped at all
by a total absence of corroborating evidence.
DB Hammer:
<There are two main reasons why Olympic lifting athletes are prone to such a
high risk of injury.
Number 1: they are neglecting to pay attention to Neuro-Dynamic (ND) details;
such as the character of tension-onset, the proportionate growth of friction
and elastic elements, etc.
Number 2: even if proper management and application is given to ND, there is
still poor supervision leading to poor technique. Spinal stabilization and
postural demand, coordination of ND elements, proper joint configuration
and/or warm-up to absorb the imposing forces upon the catch phase of the
movement are all common injury driving perpetuates.>
Mel Siff:
*** All movement in all sports and daily life may be ascribed to
“neurodynamic”, neuromotor or neuromuscular action, so he really is saying
nothing meaningful or special about weightlifting. DB Hammer is simply
stating his personal hypothesis concerning the aetiology of weightlifting
injuries and in doing so, he has made no attempt to distinguish between the
different accidental, technical and overtraining types of injury. He is
being very simplistic and unmedical in his attempt to classify weightlifting
injuries. He also seems to be unaware of epidemiological studies which show
that the incidence of injury in Olympic lifters is low compared with many
other sports (figures cited in World Weightlifting and International Olympic
Lifter were between 8-10% of lifters). For example, more than 25% of runners
experience injuries to the lower extremities, so I trust that he will now
militate with equal vigour against any running as a form of supplementary
training.
As in many other sports, the major reasons for weightlifting injuries are
overtraining, defective technique, accident and loss of concentration. The
fact that weightlifting injuries are lower than in many other non-contact
sports implies that this sort of training at least is not a primary cause of
injury, but in fact may tend to decrease the risk of injury if sensibly used.
His evidence is based solely on personal opinion and bias (unless he can
cite suitable epidemiological studies). Had he been more scientific and
objective, he would have stated that ALL forms of supplementary training
carry certain risks and that is a good reason why proper technique should be
mastered, why overtraining should be avoided and why careful integration of
all supplementary training into sports practice is vital.
DB Hammer:
<Furthermore, let me re-iterate that there are far more, superior ways to
develop speed, power, strength, and/or size- period…>
Mel Siff:
***If he can prove that this is universally true for all sports, then let him
prove what he says by offering appropriate scientific studies and extensive
practical case studies. Each sport requires different training and practice
methods during each phase of the preparation process and it is very
misleading not to state this fact and show how his methods are “far more
superior.” Period!
I challenge that author to come out of his anonymity closet and debate
his/her beliefs on the Supertraining list in a civilised and scientific
manner, unpolluted by beliefs, innuendo, private agendas and anecdotes.
After all, he ends his article thus:
" DB Hammer is one of the most sought after performance enhancement coaches
in the world. He owns and operates a private training facility in Germany,
hosting a growing number of Olympic- and world- champions. He will gladly
respond to any comment or inquiry that he receives, as time permits. "
Over to him/her!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
Regards,
Grant Jenkins
Strength and Rehabilitation Consultant
B.Sc. (Hons) Ex. Sci.
M.A.A.E.S.S., M.A.S.C.A.
or as it pertains to depth landings, perform a jump off something and stick a “isometric” landing.