Inno-Sport Thread

Training Powerlifting
141

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
I always love these type of posts…you get about 30 people pointing out flaw after flaw…in the very thread that they are posting this type of question in…just go back and read the the post that the Minister for Disinformation from WHINO-sport posted regarding his supreme triumph over Charles Staley…that was a classic…he should of just started with…I bet my Dad would kick your Dad’s arse…because that is the sort of level his ‘repost’ was in. Mate you just go ahead believing whatever you want…this is not the sight you are looking for…we can get back to proper discussions regarding training…sorry I couldn’t help that…I just wanted to see if I could use the Jedi mind trick on you as well.
[/quote]

I these types of posts, where somebody takes the time to write out a post defending the METHODS of the system and you spend your time attacking the CREATORS of the system.

Are you familar with the term “ad hominem attack”?

Take some time to read this thread, show me one time where somebody pointed out a specific flaw in the TRAINING methods presented by Inno-Sport.

Wait… you won’t be able to do that, because you’ve never bothered to actually [gasp!] READ and STUDY the Inno-Sport material!

One last question for everybody here:

Who wrote Macbeth; Romeo and Juliet; King Lear; Othello…

EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I know Nuttal was personally attacking Staley, I’m not here to defend him, he’s a big boy and can do that himself I’m sure. I’m here to defend the METHODS. Can we please keep the discourse limited to only he TRAINING SYSTEM itself.

142

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
I always love these type of posts…you get about 30 people pointing out flaw after flaw…in the very thread that they are posting this type of question in…just go back and read the the post that the Minister for Disinformation from WHINO-sport posted regarding his supreme triumph over Charles Staley…that was a classic…he should of just started with…I bet my Dad would kick your Dad’s arse…because that is the sort of level his ‘repost’ was in. Mate you just go ahead believing whatever you want…this is not the sight you are looking for…we can get back to proper discussions regarding training…sorry I couldn’t help that…I just wanted to see if I could use the Jedi mind trick on you as well.

I these types of posts, where somebody takes the time to write out a post defending the METHODS of the system and you spend your time attacking the CREATORS of the system.

Are you familar with the term “ad hominem attack”?

Take some time to read this thread, show me one time where somebody pointed out a specific flaw in the TRAINING methods presented by Inno-Sport.

Wait… you won’t be able to do that, because you’ve never bothered to actually [gasp!] READ and STUDY the Inno-Sport material!

One last question for everybody here:

Who wrote Macbeth; Romeo and Juliet; King Lear; Othello…
[/quote]

Ahhhh you mean like your Minister of Disinformation did with Staley…like that you mean?

I just thought that was the style you responded to…I was just trying to blend in?

How about I just start pointing out the flaws? Would that be OK?

143

Sorry…I can’t do it…it is just too funny. I’ll let you kids just keep cracking along with your 47 second rest periods and Myodynamically Abrasive Development systems. I’m sure somebody will buy it…after all there’s one born every day and from the sounds of it you’re doing a roaring trade.

144

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
Ahhhh you mean like your Minister of Disinformation did with Staley…like that you mean?

I just thought that was the style you responded to…I was just trying to blend in?

How about I just start pointing out the flaws? Would that be OK?[/quote]

Haha, yeah I realized as soon as posted (hence my edit) that I could see what you were going to come back with. Also, please note that I really don’t want to get into personal attacks, I’ve got nothing against you (I don’t really know you, but you seem pretty cool from your posts on here), I just get frustrated because it is so hard to have a discussion about the system itself without the whole “DB is the boogeyman” thing.

And to answer your question, yes I DEFINITLY would like you to point out the flaws in the training system! That’s how we learn.

145

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
Sorry…I can’t do it…it is just too funny. I’ll let you kids just keep cracking along with your 47 second rest periods and Myodynamically Abrasive Development systems. I’m sure somebody will buy it…after all there’s one born every day and from the sounds of it you’re doing a roaring trade.[/quote]

Ugh… just when I thought we’d get some INTELLIGENT discussion…

146

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
Funny how when we shift the debate to discussing training crickets start chirping…

…[/quote]

I think it is because most people don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

This is some confusing stuff I have been trying to follow.

147

Heres a quote from the DB Hammer article called “systematic overtraining”.

""You will then drop to 182 kg for your remaining ?working sets?, performing the isometric hold for 6.34 seconds(no more, no less). "

No more or no less than 6.34 seconds? Folks, this has to be a joke. Much of the stuff is so contrived as to be a joke of some sort.

148

[quote]Willus wrote:
Heres a quote from the DB Hammer article called “systematic overtraining”.

""You will then drop to 182 kg for your remaining ?working sets?, performing the isometric hold for 6.34 seconds(no more, no less). "

No more or no less than 6.34 seconds? Folks, this has to be a joke. Much of the stuff is so contrived as to be a joke of some sort.

[/quote]

Yeah I think anybody who actually follows the system will tell you that it doesn’t really matter if you round a little bit either way. Sometimes DB is a bit over top.

149

jtrinsey,

I understand that at the end of the day the importance is the effectiveness of the training methods.

However, you will appreciate that suspicion is aroused when the proponents of a system not only create a new training vocabulary (which may be either more precise or unecessarliy confusing- I do not know which)but see the need to create a character with an entirely fictitous background and then seek to maintain that fiction which Brad Nuttall has done on this forum in the past.

I cannot think of any serious endeavour where such misleading behaviour would be accepted or so casually disregarded as if it were a mere trivial detail.

I think that Brad who interestingly at the outset of this thread stated “you questioned the value of MY material (my emphasis)so I’ll call you on it” really does owe it to everyone to clean this up if he is interested in the credibility of his (?) system.

150

Haha…isn’t “myodynamically” a phrase that Staley coined? That’s pretty funny given the context of the message.

Listen, can we get back to some intelligent training discussion?

All of this talk about who’s right and who’s wrong just puts up fences where they don’t belong.

Maybe we can find common training beliefs opposed to differences?

Care to start, Will? How do you train…what principles do you rely on when designing routines for yourself and/or clients?

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
Sorry…I can’t do it…it is just too funny. I’ll let you kids just keep cracking along with your 47 second rest periods and Myodynamically Abrasive Development systems. I’m sure somebody will buy it…after all there’s one born every day and from the sounds of it you’re doing a roaring trade.[/quote]

151

I’ve been following this thread and others like it for quite some time. What bothers me is that it appears that people with intimate knowledge of DB and Inno-Sport itself (DB Nuttall, etc.) refuse to comment on the whole DB Hammer situation. Imagine this was the financial world and you were reading about some financial mumbo-jumbo on an internet site that supposedly had made a bunch of millionaires (don’t we see these infomercials on t.v. everyday?). The system is complex but seems to have some merit. Do you:

A. Investigate further and find out all the details (including the details about the leaders of this company)

B. Invest your money without understanding all the background

If you do B., you’re a fool.

If you do A. and find out that there really is no background on the leader of the company and all of your questions about him are answered with, “but look at our methods? It’s about the methods!” What do you do? I’d take my money elsewhere.

152

It’s really not that difficult, Zap. Let me try to elaborate on a few key concepts:

(1) We train to a specific performance decrement.

Function dictates technique and as well all know, technique dictates performance. Recruitment patterns are governed by your nervous system - as your system fatigues these recruitment patterns are adjusted to keep your system moving, but proficiency is sacraficed for efficiency.

So, ultimately we are on the look out for performance drops and/or technique changes since these signal neuromuscular fatigue.

The problem, in the past, with simply monitoring technique is that it’s so subjective. One coach may not notice a pitcher is getting long, for instance, so he’ll keep him in the ball game whereas another coach may pull the plug at the very earliest signs of bodily fatigue. In order to quantify this process we use what is called Auto-Regulatory training (AREG) where we train to a specific performance decrement - somewhat of an “industry standard” if you’d like to think of it that way. Now, every coach can objectively monitor their athlete’s training.

(2) Train your needs.

A few years ago, I worked with a guy who just signed a contract to play minor league baseball who had the most efficient system I have ever seen.

I went out to hit with him and he was blasting 450-ft bombs like it was nothing. What’s surprising about that is that his 1RM in the bench press was literally 110-lb. It was really interesting to contrast him to a high school player I had who bench pressed around 350-lb with his warning track power.

Long story short, hitting a baseball is hugely reliant on explosive strength (how much force you can produce in a given time period). In the case of hitting, you have a little over a tenth of a second to develop as much force as possible. So, what allowed the minor leaguer to express so much more strength on the field even though he was so much weaker in the gym is that his system was much more efficient. In this case, he was able to produce more force in less time than the much stronger high school player.

As a side bar: In working with countless athletes over the years I have concluded that this “efficiency factor” is the biggest “genetic” obstacle to overcome (aside from bone structure).

In example, some athletes have to compensate for having such an inefficient system by getting way stronger than other athletes.

So, training your individual needs not only means emphasizing more gym work if you need to get stronger or more sport work if you want to raise your “on-field efficiency” (ex: the minor leaguer needed more gym work, the high schooler needed more on-field work)…but choosing very specific gym or sport work to create the biggest performance returns.

That’s really all the Inno-Sport is about - monitor your training-induced fatigue with drop-offs and only do the work that your body needs in order to develop. Granted, we may use different forms of the drop-off method and use a variety of “strength” means (i.e. reactive strength, explosive strength, etc)…but it all boils down to individuality: individual-specific volume, individual-specific exercises.

Hopefully that helps?

-Brad

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
squattin600 wrote:
Funny how when we shift the debate to discussing training crickets start chirping…

…

I think it is because most people don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

This is some confusing stuff I have been trying to follow.

[/quote]

153

[quote]peterm533 wrote:
jtrinsey,

I understand that at the end of the day the importance is the effectiveness of the training methods.

However, you will appreciate that suspicion is aroused when the proponents of a system not only create a new training vocabulary (which may be either more precise or unecessarliy confusing- I do not know which)but see the need to create a character with an entirely fictitous background and then seek to maintain that fiction which Brad Nuttall has done on this forum in the past.

I cannot think of any serious endeavour where such misleading behaviour would be accepted or so casually disregarded as if it were a mere trivial detail.

I think that Brad who interestingly at the outset of this thread stated “you questioned the value of MY material (my emphasis)so I’ll call you on it” really does owe it to everyone to clean this up if he is interested in the credibility of his (?) system.[/quote]

Excellent points. I think the behavior has been disregarded because of the “importance” of the issue.
Meaning, in the end, on your deathbed you are not going to say “I wish I hadn’t followed the inno-sport model of training”

At least that’s why I bought the book and tried it out.

So what I’m saying is that in my world training is a fun hobby/experiment. So, to me, it is not a serious endeavor.

So some people are willing to overlook some things, spend some time and see if it works for them. If it does, great, if not, then you dump it and try something new.

I’ll say my favorite methods of training are WSB, Inno-Sport, and Dan Johns OLAD with some crossfit blended in

Now some of the suspicion is warranted. I whole heartedly agree. But I dislike it when threads degrade into what happened in this thread. Where it is just one group of people ripping on another, then it is unwarranted. The insults, and wisecracks, both ways, don;t accomlish anything.

Having an informed discussion does.

I really do wish that Brad or someone would clear up the DB controversy. But if he does or doesn;t, the fact remains that the discussion should revolve around training.

As far as authors here, many have had their cred tested.

Davies, Dan John, even Staley and his vertical integration/diagonal summation argument with another former writer with cred issues (Francis). Yet many overlook such issues.

I could go on and on. Everyone has skeletons in their closets

However the fact remains that they are all good coaches in their own rights and I have learned tons from each and every one. If I had turned my head at the controversies, there is so much I would have never learned. And if I felt I had “burned” my money and time learning inno-sport, The I would have learned something else

154

[quote]RJ24 wrote:
First of all, to Mr. Staley and all of the other not-so-helpful contributors to this thread, I would like to ask you to take this penis-waving contest elseware. I posted asking for advice, and if that’s not what you’re here to give then I’d appreciate it if you left the conversation.

That having been said, here are the requested stats on me.

I’m 17 year old, 6’1 or so, and about 200-205 pounds. I’ve been training for less than a year but have always been a fairly good athlete. My best lifts are:
ATG Squat: 335
DL: 405
Pullups: 3 with BW+100 lbs
Vertical Leap: 30-31"

I’m not very reactive and I attribute this to too much time in the gym as of late. However, I can generate force very quickly and have a tremendous block start.

I’ve recently started track and field for the first time and am learning the jumps. The triple jump in particular is giving me problems. You see, when I go LLR in the TJ, I only go 12-9-14 feet for each jump. But when I go RRL for the TJ, my first leap is nearly 16 feet in length, but I’m unable to absorb the landing with the right foot. How should I go about fixing this?

Thank you,
RJ[/quote]

I’m no expert on Track % Field but, given your stats and the fact that you missed competing in the LJ State Championships by 1/2", I would recommend the LT-TP program.

LT-TP = Lose twenty - thirty pounds.

Not to be too much of an asshole, but 200-205 is WAY too heavy to excel in the jumping events. If you’re serious about it, streamlining your body should be your priority. Frankly, I’m a little suprised that none of these experts has mentioned this. The best system in the world won’t make an elephant jump like a kangaroo.

155

[quote]Nuttall wrote:
Haha…isn’t “myodynamically” a phrase that Staley coined? That’s pretty funny given the context of the message.
[/quote]
I thought I’d made that up…20 years coaching and I’m still yet to have an original idea.

I didn’t realise one had started?

That’s something that I totally agree with at last. I don’t want to throw you off kilter but I’m sure you guys have plenty to offer…it’s the presentation that’s killing me.

I’m sure we have heaps.

I’ll start as long as you promise not to punch me in the ovaries or call me names?

In all seriousness I don’t really have principles for want of a better word and I was quite serious when I said that I’ve never had an original idea in my whole coaching life. I’ve basically taken the best bits from all the coaches I’ve ever worked with and made them my own. If you seriously wanted to have a proper discussion with regards training?

Let’s start a new thread. No bullshit, no back slapping, no plugs for products (I don’t have any…Doh!) just a proper discussion about training and lets see if there is anything to INNO-sports?

P.S: we can also see whether I am just a blow hard or not…I’m not a 100% sure myself.

Will Heffernan wrote:
Sorry…I can’t do it…it is just too funny. I’ll let you kids just keep cracking along with your 47 second rest periods and Myodynamically Abrasive Development systems. I’m sure somebody will buy it…after all there’s one born every day and from the sounds of it you’re doing a roaring trade.

156

Speed,

Thanks for the well-drawn post; I appreciate the professionalism in which you asked this question.

Inno-Sport is my company. I own it, I operate it (when time allows), and I hold the intellectual property rights to all of its information. We have two regular contributors to the site, Dan Fichter and Chris Korfist.

We have worked with professional athletes in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. We have worked with state champions, national champions, and Olympians.

With that said; yes, we have chosen to focus on the material opposed to hiding behind the big names of the athletes we’ve worked with. We want to be evaluated based strictly on the material we provide and whether or not it helps you become a better coach/athlete.

Our belief is that too many individuals get suckered into following poor training advice simply because a big name is stickered on the product.

Sort of ironic considering the hoopla surrounding DB’s existence, don’t ya think? Since when did sports training information stop being graded based on the results it provides its consumers??

The bottom line: My sole objective is to weed through all the crap and provide the best sports training solutions I can come up with. I am a research-aholic when it comes to this, and I have a testing lab that might put most lab-coats to shame.

Then, the good stuff will be passed on to you. What you choose to do with it is your call; my job is to only make it available. What’s the saying, you can lead a horse to water…

-Brad

[quote]SpeedKills wrote:
I’ve been following this thread and others like it for quite some time. What bothers me is that it appears that people with intimate knowledge of DB and Inno-Sport itself (DB Nuttall, etc.) refuse to comment on the whole DB Hammer situation. Imagine this was the financial world and you were reading about some financial mumbo-jumbo on an internet site that supposedly had made a bunch of millionaires (don’t we see these infomercials on t.v. everyday?). The system is complex but seems to have some merit. Do you:

A. Investigate further and find out all the details (including the details about the leaders of this company)

B. Invest your money without understanding all the background

If you do B., you’re a fool.

If you do A. and find out that there really is no background on the leader of the company and all of your questions about him are answered with, “but look at our methods? It’s about the methods!” What do you do? I’d take my money elsewhere. [/quote]

157

AZMojo, now just how do you suggest I go about losing 20-30 pounds healthily and without compromising performance? I worked hard for that weight and would hate to see my abilities dwindle away with my muscle.

RJ

158

[quote]SpeedKills wrote:
I’ve been following this thread and others like it for quite some time. What bothers me is that it appears that people with intimate knowledge of DB and Inno-Sport itself (DB Nuttall, etc.) refuse to comment on the whole DB Hammer situation. Imagine this was the financial world and you were reading about some financial mumbo-jumbo on an internet site that supposedly had made a bunch of millionaires (don’t we see these infomercials on t.v. everyday?). The system is complex but seems to have some merit. Do you:

A. Investigate further and find out all the details (including the details about the leaders of this company)

B. Invest your money without understanding all the background

If you do B., you’re a fool.

If you do A. and find out that there really is no background on the leader of the company and all of your questions about him are answered with, “but look at our methods? It’s about the methods!” What do you do? I’d take my money elsewhere. [/quote]

This is very valid except for one key point that most people seem to miss. You don’t HAVE to take everything that one author says as gospel. I’ve read all the Inno-Sport material and taken a lot of things from it, but there’s also some stuff that I’ve said, “I don’t see how to implement that or how implementing it would help me.” So I don’t incoporate that into my training.

Do we need to know who REALLY wrote Shakespeare’s plays to know they are great works of art?

With that said, I agree that the whole charade is kind of ridiculous, but whatever, at the end of the day I’m just trying to get my vertical leap up a few more inches and I’ll take whatever can help me get there!

It could be worse, we could all be using Jumpsoles!

159

I’m always happy to talk training, Will. You can email me or start a new thread - I’ll let you decide.

My first question would be, if you don’t have training principles (for lack of a better word) then what do you base your coaching decisions off of? How do you know who needs what…and when…and how much? Is any of it quantified, or is it all subjectively based?

I look forward to learning from you, bud!

p.s. You are one goofy SOB - I love it! For that, I’ll spare you any ovary-punching. :slight_smile:

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
Nuttall wrote:
Haha…isn’t “myodynamically” a phrase that Staley coined? That’s pretty funny given the context of the message.

I thought I’d made that up…20 years coaching and I’m still yet to have an original idea.

Listen, can we get back to some intelligent training discussion?

I didn’t realise one had started?

All of this talk about who’s right and who’s wrong just puts up fences where they don’t belong.

That’s something that I totally agree with at last. I don’t want to throw you off kilter but I’m sure you guys have plenty to offer…it’s the presentation that’s killing me.

Maybe we can find common training beliefs opposed to differences?

I’m sure we have heaps.

Care to start, Will? How do you train…what principles do you rely on when designing routines for yourself and/or clients?

I’ll start as long as you promise not to punch me in the ovaries or call me names?

In all seriousness I don’t really have principles for want of a better word and I was quite serious when I said that I’ve never had an original idea in my whole coaching life. I’ve basically taken the best bits from all the coaches I’ve ever worked with and made them my own. If you seriously wanted to have a proper discussion with regards training?

Let’s start a new thread. No bullshit, no back slapping, no plugs for products (I don’t have any…Doh!) just a proper discussion about training and lets see if there is anything to INNO-sports?

P.S: we can also see whether I am just a blow hard or not…I’m not a 100% sure myself.

Will Heffernan wrote:
Sorry…I can’t do it…it is just too funny. I’ll let you kids just keep cracking along with your 47 second rest periods and Myodynamically Abrasive Development systems. I’m sure somebody will buy it…after all there’s one born every day and from the sounds of it you’re doing a roaring trade.

[/quote]

160

[quote]Nuttall wrote:
Speed,

Thanks for the well-drawn post; I appreciate the professionalism in which you asked this question.

Inno-Sport is my company. I own it, I operate it (when time allows), and I hold the intellectual property rights to all of its information. We have two regular contributors to the site, Dan Fichter and Chris Korfist.

With that said; yes, we have chosen to focus on the material opposed to hiding behind the big names of the athletes we’ve worked with. We want to be evaluated based strictly on the material we provide and whether or not it helps you become a better coach/athlete.

Our belief is that too many individuals get suckered into following poor training advice simply because a big name is stickered on the product.

Sort of ironic considering the hoopla surrounding DB’s existence, don’t ya think? Since when did sports training information stop being graded based on the results it provides its consumers??

The bottom line: My sole objective is to weed through all the crap and provide the best sports training solutions I can come up with. I am a research-aholic when it comes to this, and I have a testing lab that might put most lab-coats to shame.

Then, the good stuff will be passed on to you. What you choose to do with it is your call; my job is to only make it available. What’s the saying, you can lead a horse to water…

-Brad
[/quote]

I respect your stance. I just believe that the message has gotten lost in your messenger (DB Hammer or D. Buchenolz). Still very interesting stuff.