Speed and Power Coaches

There are several different training philosophys with the goal of increasing speed and power (like you didn’t know that!). These training philosophies vary from the classic western periodization to westsides conjugated periodization to Poliquins alternating between power and strength phases, and from HIT:s avoidance of ballistic training to Schroeders heavy reliance on them, and from coach Davies goal of maximum fatigue to Staleys goal of minimizing the same. All of these methods give resoults (yes also HIT) and have their proof in top NFL players and other athletes tht use their methods. So I’m wondering is there realy a differance in the training mehod that is used or is it only mental? The difference, that I’ve noticed, in the results acheved is if the training method used by the trainer is “his creation”. Trainers using “copies” always seem to gett worse resoults (I know that it is wrong to call training methods his or hers creation but i use it for simplicitys sake).

So what is your opinion on the subject? Don’t just kick down on whatever method you don’t like instead trye to give a scientific explination of why something works better than others. A scientiffic explination of why Davies method works so well (everyone seems to get good results from it), when it goes against almost all common conditioning sense, wouldn’t be wrong. I know it increaces pain tolerance, but lets face it most sports arn’t that painfull! So, is it possible to call a training method more effective than on other? Or are the resoults acheve mostly mental, beliving more in one “exotic” training method than an other more “normal” method.

Great question? First, look at what all training programs have. Organization. Most athletes, bodybuilders, trainers, etc. perform random unorganized programs. If you notice, there are many ways to achieve a similar outcome. If a training program is progressive than most likely there will be improvement. Secondly, and it goes along with the first point. There is an increase in strength which is common to all the training programs/styles. Of all the abilities which can be improved, is it not strength which has the greatest transfer to all other abilities/skills? Anyway, that’s just off the top of my head for what it’s worth.

When talking about Coach Davies specifically, I believe his athletes perform best due not only their GPP, but the mental toughness that’s instilled in them.
When talking about the science of which method is best, it depends on the sport. For explosive sports, power training (like a lot of Westside lifting, X-Comp) is the most effective training method. It promotes the most motor unit recruitment, therefore promoting the most forceful and fast contractions possible.
Keep in mind that not all sports are explosive in manner. So I’m not saying that it’s the be all and end all. Just IMHO.

Though it is not scientific I like Bill’s idea of how if the athlete has a program written down, tells how much weight to use and how many reps sets etc, he is going to do it.

If you are judging results by athletes in a collegiate setting, they are forced to work out. They can’t just miss a day like maybe they could in high school. They always have someone motivating them, giving them food and supplements, etc.

If you were given the right diet, supplements, you could make gains in almost any program. Would you make more gains under a certain program more than another? I think so, but everyone is different.

I think the big thing is those athletes who believe in the program and take it seriously will make the most gains. If I did renegade training and didn’t believe in it, I would do it half ass and not make gains.