Are there some more articles by Scott Abel coming soon? In “Building the case for Hybrid Training” he said future articles would be coming, and I know that the MWA members are waiting for the second part of his “Metabolic Damage” article.
I’m not complaining about anything here, just curious.
First things first, i really do greatly appreciate all of the free articles T-Nation publish. This site has recently decided it’s a bodybuilding site. Scott Abel’s credentials as a bodybuilding coach are unprecedented, and he’s streets ahead of ALL of the other contributors to the site. I realise that his methods go against the current grain, and his thoughts might not be conducive to the sales of the Biotest store, but i can’t understand how this site can publish articles like ‘excercise of the week’ which detail excercises that have usually been mentionned on numerous occasions in previous articles when TC’s sitting on many articles that Abel’s sent him (this has been brought to light on his site).
I’m sorry but i find this mind-boggling. Abel’s so good that many authors on this site have made names for themselves by plagiarising his work (particularly his cycle diet and more recently MET). I don’t want to open a can of worms but PLEASE PUBLISH HIS ARTICLES lol. I remember T-Nation asking a while back for input re the future of T-Nation from people that don’t post often. Well, this is mine.
Cheers,
Greg
Perhaps they are being deciphered.
That’ll probably take a few months.
I don’t doubt it’s all great stuff but it strikes me that the appeal of his material is that it is so complicated, people feel clever if they have the patience to follow it.
No doubt that Scott is an amazing coach and I have tons of respect for him. But I do take offense in him accusing peoples of copying his stuff. I am probably one he accuses of doing so since one of my article included some of the same concepts. However I have been using these methods for years with my clients, even before I knew who Scott was.
Let’s be honest, Scott’s innovation with his MET system is not actually the system per se but rather it’s application to bodybuilding. I have worked with athletes (as in hockey players, football players, well… I’ve worked with athletes from 26 different sports) and the methods he now recommends for bodybuilders, well we have been using them for quite some times with athletes.
He basically blanded athletic training with bodybuilding training. That is his novelty. Not the concepts and methods per se, since they have been around for a long long time.
When it comes down to it, everything has been done… manye times over. Nobody invents anything. We only restructure.
Heck, even coach Poliquin’s methods are inspired by old-schoold methods (the 10x10 ‘‘German volume training’’ system was used in the 50s and 60s by Vince Gironda; the ‘One-day arm cure’’ was first published by Peary Rader, etc.). As for myself, my greatest sources of inspiration are the training methods from the early 1900s up to the 60s. I also take a lot from my athletic background as an Olympic lifter and from working with athletes.
Hey, do I scream plagiarism every time a writer writes about using the Olympic lifts? After all, I’m one of the only writers who actually has a background in Olympic lifting!
BTW, every writer from this sites has to sometimes wait months before an article is published, if it’s published at all! TC has at least 6-7 of mine on queue and there was actually a time that he had at least 1 year worth of unpublished articles from me! When I started writing on this site around 7 years ago, he ran one of my article then junked my next 5. All of us go through that, it’s not a conspiracy.
To give you an idea about my respect for Scott, I was the one who told my friend to hire him for a joint seminar (the next Vinkofest)… he was a man short after Mike Boyle couldn’t make it, he asked me for a recommendation and the first name I gave him was Scott. Now the seminar will go on next September. Would I do this for a guy I don’t respect???
[quote]GPUK wrote:
First things first, i really do greatly appreciate all of the free articles T-Nation publish. This site has recently decided it’s a bodybuilding site. Scott Abel’s credentials as a bodybuilding coach are unprecedented, and he’s streets ahead of ALL of the other contributors to the site. I realise that his methods go against the current grain, and his thoughts might not be conducive to the sales of the Biotest store, but i can’t understand how this site can publish articles like ‘excercise of the week’ which detail excercises that have usually been mentionned on numerous occasions in previous articles when TC’s sitting on many articles that Abel’s sent him (this has been brought to light on his site). I’m sorry but i find this mind-boggling. Abel’s so good that many authors on this site have made names for themselves by plagiarising his work (particularly his cycle diet and more recently MET). I don’t want to open a can of worms but PLEASE PUBLISH HIS ARTICLES lol. I remember T-Nation asking a while back for input re the future of T-Nation from people that don’t post often. Well, this is mine.
Cheers,
Greg[/quote]
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
No doubt that Scott is an amazing coach and I have tons of respect for him. But I do take offense in him accusing peoples of copying his stuff. I am probably one he accuses of doing so since one of my article included some of the same concepts. However I have been using these methods for years with my clients, even before I knew who Scott was.
Let’s be honest, Scott’s innovation with his MET system is not actually the system per se but rather it’s application to bodybuilding. I have worked with athletes (as in hockey players, football players, well… I’ve worked with athletes from 26 different sports) and the methods he now recommand for bodybuilders, well we have been using them for quite some times with athletes.
He basically blanded athletic training with bodybuilding training. That is his novelty. Not the concepts and methods per se, since they have been around for a long long time.
When it comes down to it, everything has been done… manye times over. Nobody invents anything. We only restructure.
Heck, even coach Poliquin’s methods are inspired by old-schoold methods (the 10x10 ‘‘German volume training’’ system was used in the 50s and 60s by Vince Gironda; the ‘One-day arm cure’’ was first published by Peary Rader, etc.). As for myself, my greatest sources of inspiration are the training methods from the early 1900s up to the 60s. I also take a lot from my athletic background as an olympic lifter and from working with athletes.
Hey, do I scream plagiarism everytime a writer writes about using the olympic lifts? After all, I’m one of the only writers who actually has a background in olympic lifting!
BTW, every writer from this sites has to sometimes wait months before an article is published, if it’s published at all! TC has at least 6-7 of mine on queue and there was actually a time that he had at least 1 year worth of unpublished articles from me! When I started writting on this site around 7 years ago, he ran one of my article then junked my next 5. All of us go through that, it’s not a conspiracy.
To give you an idea about my respect for Scott, I was the one who told my friend to hire him for a joint seminar (the next Vinkofest)… he was a man short after Mike Boyle couldn’t make it, he asked me for a recommendation and the first name I gave him was Scott. Now the seminar will go on next September. Would I do this for a guy I don’t respect???
GPUK wrote:
First things first, i really do greatly appreciate all of the free articles T-Nation publish. This site has recently decided it’s a bodybuilding site. Scott Abel’s credentials as a bodybuilding coach are unprecedented, and he’s streets ahead of ALL of the other contributors to the site. I realise that his methods go against the current grain, and his thoughts might not be conducive to the sales of the biotest store, but i can’t understand how this site can publish articles like ‘excercise of the week’ which detail excercises that have usually been mentionned on numerous occasions in previous articles when TC’s sitting on many articles that Abel’s sent him (this has been brought to light on his site). I’m sorry but i find this mind-boggling. Abel’s so good that many authors on this site have made names for themselves by plagiarising his work (particularly his cycle diet and more recently MET). I don’t want to open a can of worms but PLEASE PUBLISH HIS ARTICLES lol. I remember T-nation asking a while back for input re the future of T-nation from people that don’t post often. Well, this is mine.
Cheers,
Greg
[/quote]
Believe it or not, it has to largely with photos.
Scott uses different names than the ones I’m accustomed to for a lot of exercises, and as such I need him to submit photos.
On Scotts forum its mostly all his followers who accuse people of copying him.
Spot on drew, it’s really not Scott himself that accuses others of this.
Mr Thibaudeau, i never said anthing about you not respecting him or copying his material, but I’ll have to disagree that ‘nobody invents anything’. Congrats with the Biosig. protocol btw… Those results are pretty cool.
Mr Luoma, thank you very much for clearing that up. I’m really looking forward to his future articles and can completely understand the problem.
Many thanks,
Greg
Duh that’s beacuse he bases all his work on philosiphies he hates science beacuse there is no real world experience to it. People stop focusing on theories focus on principles.
Look at your develepment compared to him and his clients nuff said
Its not “nuff said”!
First of all, Modok has a lot of muscle for a natural trainee and has spent years training. He also obviously has experience with competing as well.
He also knows how to express himself properly in his writings, something Abel cannot or does not wish to do, unlike CT, who in my opinion, is a great technical writer.
CT’s articles for BB are awesome! In my opinion, one would not need more than three articles of his to be set for life in terms of designing bodybuilding programs. These are “Pump Down the Volume”, “Training Roadmap”, and “How to Design a Damn Good Program”. Why do I feel these are great articles? Because he introduces a concept(s) to us, tells us the reasoning for the concept(s) and then tells us how to incorporate training methods into our own programs.
This is unlike Abel, who introduces a concept, decides to run in various directions in his article therafter, and then brings NOTHING to the table in regards to incorporating anything that he wrote about into our training programs. Every time I have read his articles, I thought I was reading the ramblings of a clearly intelligent and educated man who seemed to be intoxicated by LSD or other psychadelic drug. I happen to be well educated in the life sciences. However, I would read his articles and it would go something like this in my head as I was reading it: first paragraph: “OK, fair point, interesting topic”, second paragraph: “alright, got it, where are we going with this?”, third paragraph: “what are you trying to say here, what is the conclusion?”, fourth paragraph: “alright, get to the fucking point already! how is what you are saying going to get me more jacked!?”, and so on. A conclusion or premise for incoporating his writings into my program design never came through in any of his writings. Nearly every time I read his articles, I couldn’t help but say to myself in my head: “what the fuck is this guy talking about?”
His old article at www.anabolicextreme.com on Innervation Training spoke about nothing except anatomy and physiology and not one sentence was written about program design or how one could incorporate his findings and knowledge offered into their programs.
Clearly Abel is experienced in training and nutrition for himself and his trainees. However, Modok was commenting on his ARTICLES, not his proficiency in coaching.
No current trainer will probably EVER invent A NEW training method … make it better yes INVENT it no.
If anything, I believe Scott is very knowledgeable when it comes to metabolic damage among competitors. You guys should at least post the 2nd part of that article up on MWA.
I would like to read more articles by Scott Abel. Some of the statements in his past articles were thought-provoking. And it is nice to see more about just bodybuilding.
(However, it is true that the writing presentation needs work.)
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
<<<CT, who in my opinion, is a great technical writer.
CT’s articles for BB are awesome! In my opinion, one would not need more than three articles of his to be set for life in terms of designing bodybuilding programs. These are “Pump Down the Volume”, “Training Roadmap”, and “How to Design a Damn Good Program”. Why do I feel these are great articles? Because he introduces a concept(s) to us, tells us the reasoning for the concept(s) and then tells us how to incorporate training methods into our own programs.[/quote]
Agreed.
CT’s articles (and mini-articles in various threads) are well written. He covers just about everything, from the history of different training methods, scientific research, and real-world coaching and personal experience, and puts it all together intelligently. And his articles teach.
Nice save. A good thing no one noticed what you had written earlier and weakened your case.
[quote]Corkonian wrote:
No current trainer will probably EVER invent A NEW training method … make it better yes INVENT it no.
[/quote]
I will have to agree with most of the posters. I walk away from an abel article scratching my head. When I read the innervation article or whatever it is titled, I had no clue what he was talking about.
Scott Abel is more than a trainer; he’s a true coach.
[quote]Lowery38595 wrote:
I will have to agree with most of the posters. I walk away from an abel article scratching my head. When I read the innervation article or whatever it is titled, I had no clue what he was talking about. [/quote]
Check out is interview at AnabolicExtreme.com. It will make your head spin.
The only person I’d like to see write an article here would be Dante Trudel.
And he won’t, because it would be a conflict of interest with True-Protein.
January 2000
Issue #6
Innervation Training Article II
By Scott Abel
The more I attempt to initiate people to the main tenets of Innervation Training, the more I am forced to backtrack. Most hardcore training enthusiasts are so inundated with pseudo-scientific one-dimensional dogma, that a presentation of real science boggles their minds. Moreover, because Innervation Training as a theoretical paradigm encapsulates other core tenets of training science (e.g. Biochemical, biomechanical, kinesthetics, physiological, musculoskeletal, and of course neurological) it is often difficult to explicate in detailed written form without confusion the reader. Innervation Training as a theoretical modality is the first attempt to unify the best of inductive and deductive reasoning and empirical evidence present in the world of strength. Most “traditionalists” trying to understand Innervation Training often make the mistake of trying to reduce the whole theory to a program, or an idea. The average mentality of strength training enthusiasts is reductionism in nature. That is, they attempt to reduce all concepts, ideas, variables, and causations to a single form. As with most real theories in the material world, such reasoning is not plausible. The whole theoretically is greater than the sum of its parts. The Gestalt nature of Innervation Training theory is that it is very complex; understanding any aspects of its application necessitates a realistic understanding of its core theoretical tenets.
Before delving further into applied Innervation Training, I will again explain the main elements of Innervation Training Theory. Specifically in this article I wish to address the neurological adaptations to training. In order to discuss training in any detail it is imperative to define two variables. Strength and intensity. These are two words used everyday in the world of sport yet few people, even so-called experts spend any time analyzing their meaning. Strength for all intents and purposes is defined as force output capacity-: whether it is applied or not. Physiologically, there are over twenty different kinds of strength (applied) but all can be “reduced” to the idea of force output capacity for purposes of discussion. Strength contrary to “traditional” and hence “popular” belief is not that important a concept in terms of adaptations to training or training progress. More important to training progress and specifically to Innervation Training is the concept of intensity. Ask any “expert” to define intensity and you will certainly get a rambling of some sort, probably, co-relating strength with intensity. That is known as circular logic. Like the concept of strength, the concept of intensity must be defined in order to yield quantifiable conclusions and realistic discussion.
Ask any athlete about their training intensity and without hesitation they will tell you “I train hard. I train intense.” In fact I’ve never had a single athlete tell me “you know what, I really don’t’ train that hard.” But on what are they basing this supposition “I train hard.” This is merely a subjective interpretation of external feedback, which bears little meaning in actuality. Intensity isn’t a concept you report. It has no emotional connotations. Intensity as a process can be defined as an adaptive one, a learned response to stimuli, which is neurological in nature. Conceptually then intensity is based on the capacity of the nervous system to adapt specifically to specific forms of stress. For anaerobically trained athletes this idea is intimately connected to the concept of strength. Strength being defined as force output capacity and not 1RM. 1RM and physical definitions of strength are kindergarten conceptions at best.
Now, I can across the board guarantee that all of you are not training at maximum intensity. The funny thing about this is that most people who hear or read this comment by me are often offended. Why? This is not a character flaw. It is a physiological fact. If intensity is a learned process, much like reading and writing, how could you be training at maximum intensity- if not one has taught you? A subjective interpretation of your own workout ethic does not equal the definition of intensity; it only equals your opinion of your work ethic.
Workout intensity is an adaptive process learned by the nervous system. Before I can explain key elements of Innervation Training like “Functional Differentiation” and “segmented utilization” of muscles in action, I will use the remainder of this article to discuss intensity and the neurological adaptations to training which produce greater intensity and therefore, stronger better athletes.
By now everyone will acknowledge that the nervous system optimizes control of muscles involved in exercise (Komi 1992, Sales 1992, Lamb 1984, Behn 1995). If this is true than it follows that the nervous system is responsible for the intensity produced in a given activity. Basmajian (1977) believes that a mosaic of spinal motorneurons is dedicated to the learned response of a specific posture or movement of a joint through space. If this is true then it has tremendous implications for resistance training athletes seeking to maximize performance, either in increased strength or greater hypertrophy. Basmajian’s claims can be expounded upon to understand both systemic and body part specific adaptations to resistance training that are not musculoskeletal in nature. Romeny et al 1982 showed that the distribution of motor units activated within the muscle was related to the nature of the task performed. For the uninitiated reader a motor unit is composed of a nerve cell, a motor neuron and the muscle fibers, which it innervates. Not only is the distribution of motor units within a muscle important for their selected activity; but for an agonist muscle to produce its greatest possible force, all of the motor units in the muscle must be activated. (Paton and Brown 1995, Nardone 1989, Behn 1991, Sale 1982, 1987) To understand maximum fiber recruitment, understand that each motor unit contains a few to several hundred thousand muscle fibers. Muscles contain a few hundred thousand muscle fibers; thus each muscle is comprised of a few to several hundred motor units. Achieving maximum fiber recruitment, or what I call maximum voluntary neural activation, is an adaptive process of the nervous system to training stimuli. Compound this with the fact that there may be as many subunits of a muscle as there are motor units (Paton and Brown 1995) and soon you get the notion that there is exactness to the way the nervous system adapts to training stimuli. Therefore, it makes sense that there should be exactness to; training programs in order to capitalize on these adaptations and be able to improve in a linear progressive sense. As far as neural adaptations to training goes, increased activation of agonists could take the form of recruitment of high threshold units not previously recruitable or increased firing rates of units, both of which are adaptive processes. It seems larger muscles may generally rely more on recruitment for increases in force output. (Binder et al 1978, Hannery 1974, Behn 1995). Any increases in firing frequency (a.k.a. rate coding) with resistance training would not seem to contribute to increase force output, but rather improved rate of force output. (Miller et al 1981, Behm 1995). Both of the above points have a profound influence on resistance training, especially in relation to training for hypertrophy. Behn 1995 observed that "trained subjects could more effectively activate their quadriceps immediately after an exhaustive submaximal fatigue protocol�?�. This may suggest a stronger neural drive following fatigue in trained individuals, (1995 pp265) this is yet another adaptation to training which is neurologically based and which obviously influence performances. Capitalizing on the adaptations of the nervous system to training, by pre-programming specific training regimens to induce changes which result in greater workload capacity would obviously be of benefit to any athlete who wishes to maximize performance by teaching his body how to handle greater workloads, and how to receive greater benefits from the workloads he is handling. These are the most core principles of Innervation Training Methodology.
So far, we have determined the nervous system’s control of muscles in action, in a general sense. More specifically I have demonstrated that strength and strength performance is determined not only by the size of involved muscles, but also by the ability of the nervous system to appropriately activate the muscles. Furthermore, I am suggesting that the “size contribution” of involved muscles is also a result of previous neurological adaptation of muscles to specific forms of stress. These broad-based descriptions of neurologically based adaptations to resistance training are just the tip of the iceberg. Now we can look more closely at Neurological Adaptations to Training and mechanisms of neural adaptation which will illustrate further that intensity is a learned process, the result of which is greater workload capacity, and less importantly greater strength. Research shows that although most individuals can fully activate their prime movers (Behn 1995, Komi 1975; 1992, Sale 1987), synergistic muscle activity helps promote greater force output for trained individuals. “The activation and/or co-ordination of synergistic muscles may be less than optimal in untrained individuals (Behn 1995; pp265)”.
A further look at the research exemplifies the fact that strength gains associated with neural adaptations include altering recruitment, rate coding or firing frequency (which I’ve already noted), synchronization of motor units, reflex potential, co-contraction of antagonists, and synergistic muscle activity. (Komi 1992) This is also known as total activation; or total activation potential. While not every above variable is crucial to those in the iron-game, most of these neural adaptations play a key role in an individual’s progress, or lack of progress in training. A program designed to elicit these results right down to the technique employed during a repetition and during a set, is a program of high intensity. By now, the reader should begin to understand that intense training is more than just an interpretation of effort expended. It should be effort expended in a certain performance parameter, in order to force a specific adaptation to produce a certain performance result, in order to enhance performance: whether this means bigger muscles, lifting more weight, jumping higher, training longer etc, etc.
The mechanisms of neural adaptations to training can be summarized and presented in four different headings. The four mechanisms together approximate a working definition of Intensity applied. 1) Increased activation of agonists. That is, the ability to achieve maximum fiber recruitment, especially of the largest threshold motor neurons, as well as increasing firing rates. 2) Selective recruitment of motor units within agonists. This point especially reflects the need for proper exercise selection and technique in exercise performance. I will expound upon this further when I discuss “Functional Differentiation”, and the concept of “segmented utilization” in a future article. Selective recruitment also entails the idea of a “rotation of motor units” recruited during maximal voluntary contractions (Komi 1992, Sale 1982, 1983, 1987) That is, motor units may act kind of like rows of soldiers going into battle, suggesting an orderly aspect of neuronal response to training. Of importance here is that rotation only tends to occur within units of similar thresholds (following the main tenets of Hemmeman’s size principle of fiber recruitment, 1965). If this is true (and it is) then proper exercise selection and technique become even more important since exercising in a plane or range of motion outside of the muscle you intend to target, will recruit fibers from other muscles in that plane and range of motion which may share the same excitation threshold. I will discuss proper exercise selection and technique in later articles where I can address applied Innervation Training Techniques. 3) Selective activation of agonists within a muscle group further reinforces the necessity of precise movement pattern specificity and proper sequencing of exercises when developing programs. A person with short limbs and an average torso for instance would be well suited to do bench press as a good pec structural exercise or power movement. However, someone with longer limbs would not be well-suited at all for bench press since the range of motion in that specific plane of motion would almost certainly guarantee that the anterior delts would become the agonist with the most fiber recruitment activity. Maybe by now you can begin to see how complex training strategy should be if you are a true athlete seeking maximum performance and maximum gains. The fourth mechanism of neural adaptations to training is known as P.M.S. No it’s not a female thing. P.M.S. is the analogue meaning Pre-Movement Silence. As Behm states; “Agonist muscles during a ballistic contraction exhibit little or no motor unit activity prior to the contraction. This brief pre-movement silent period may bring all motor neurons into a nonrefractory state, allowing them to be more readily recruited at the maximum possible firing rates-P.M.S. may be a learned rather than an automatic response to ballistic tasks; perhaps an increased frequency of it reflects a neural adaptation to high-velocity training. This common nonrefractory period with ballistic contractions may contribute to the increased incidence on synchronization found with training. P270” see also Mortimer et al 1987.
For athletes like weightlifters, throwers, jumpers, and powerlifters, the pre-movement silent period would be a quantifiable adaptation to training affecting performance. This brief look at the way the nervous system responds to training stress illustrate many levels that would affect training strategy to produce results. It should be obvious now that different training “programs” may or may not suit certain athletes or weight trainers depending upon how far along their nervous systems are in the adaptation process. High volume high set training and low volume “heavy duty” training are all parts of a greater whole. It takes an expert to address specific training protocol and exercise selection for each individual person. “Experts” who go along ranting that their “system” is the right one (for everyone), obviously don’t understand the first thing about intensity, especially as an adaptive process. They also don’t understand that the “individual” is the actual determinant of the right program and the right strategy based upon their activity and workload capacity, as well as their own body’s anatomical arrangement. Once again be wary of the “gurus” and their one-dimensional approach to training, supplementing etc. This brief look at the concept of strength and intensity reflected by the adaptive process of the nervous system, is also a one-dimensional treatise about neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training. When I address facts from the field of Kinesiology, and biomechanics of resistance exercise, the picture gets more complicated, but more exact. When I combine the neurological research with proper biomechanics of exercise, as well as, an understanding of levers, prime movers, synergists, and excitation thresholds of muscles in action, then Innervation Training Theory, and how to apply it is complete. The research in this area that vindicates a great deal of traditional bodybuilding training styles is known as “Functional Differentiation” of muscles in action. Functional Differentiation and “segmented utilization” are the topics for my next article. After addressing these two topics I will finally be able to illustrate sample training programs and their application. Then you will all know “Innervation Training” as the only true training system in the resistance training industry. I will show first hand how a client like Troy Thompson put on 50 lbs. in two years of structural training. That’s not a gimmick it’s a fact.
Stay tuned and stay hungry!!!