It’d behoove you to try speaking english instead of pretending that you’re anything but a douche who has to impress people by using 10 dollar words
russian sporting dominance is absolute garbage outside of a handful of sports where the classic russian approach (e.g. start with 10000 athletes and ruin 9999 to get 1 winner) worked really well
they never did crap anywhere else and no amount of wordy crap will change that
you’re no thinker, james.
Lyle
On a side note: the third power in the athletic world (ratio between athletes and medals at the 2003 T&F Worlds), behind Russia and the US, despite the little population, is Cuba, where soviet methodology is widely used.
Last month I trained with Yoandris Betanzos (silver medallist at the 2003 and 2005 Worlds in the triple jump), he told me what they do planning wise, and it’s block periodization. On the other hand my friend who’s in the multi events has her coach do a Matveeyan kind of planning.
On the matter of block periodization, it doesn’t imply higher general volume compared to other planning models, just specialized blocks. The load on the system is the same if not less.
For James
A complete list of great Russian sprinters:
Oh wait…there aren’t ANY
and spare me Borzov. he ran fast for a white guy but was still slow as paste.
russian sports science was all bs and the simply ground out a few winners with numbers attrition and a topic that is off limits for this forum.
anybody who believes differently is on the same off-limit topic
Lyle
Lyle, I presented factual information and suggestions (e.g. behoove) to you in order that you acknowledge events that have occurred throughout Olympic history.
The fact that sporting events are popular and a large population participates in them is secondary to the discussion of efficacy of proven, not theoretical, training.
There is no one way, no one is debating that.
To discount the efficacy of methods pioneered in Soviet Union is irresponsible, however.
Now, as far as your personal attack against me and the name calling-
While you apparently have no respect for the rules Charlie has laid down for this forum- I will respect them.
and leave it at that.
James you are a true gentleman!
Please list the great American weightlifters…
Russia takes certain sports seriously as the U.S. takes other sports seriously. Generally, the sports which each country takes seriously are the sports each excells at.
Let’s talk race (since you brought it up) and population. Russia has about 141 million people while the U.S. has a little over 300 million. There’s about 42 million black people in the U.S. (about 14% of the population). I’m using black people because I’m assuming you consider them the best race for sprinting. Let’s be generous and say Russia has 2.8 million black people (generously saying 2% of Russia is black).
So Russia has about 14 times LESS amount of sprinters to choose from, considering you implied white people are slow so we mine as well not even factor them in. But I’m sure this has nothing to do with the success of the countries in sprinting or other sports for that matter right? It’s just how Russia ground out winners with numbers attrition…right?
They had a state sponsored and organized sports program and even had talent identification down to the adolescent levels. That’s quite a large advantage.
Borzov didn’t do the standard Soviet training, as noted by Charlie and in other articles.
Russia doesn’t have the fastest white guys either, even for the era. Outside of Borzov (not coached like the rest), who is it? Mennea and Wells sure made their mark and in the modern era you have a bunch of 400m runners that are white from the US and the Greeks and Aussies do alright as well.
For Lyle,
sarcastic :rolleyes:
A complete list of great american WHITE sprinters:
Oh wait…there aren’t ANY
Great discussion so far. Anyway, I think we need to define the terms (block, concurrent, sequential, traditional, linear…) in more precise manner. Things are not black or white as sprinterouge pointed out and it seems we are saying the same stuff.
Hi Duxx. Would Westside be considered concurrent? I know that they don’t change the volumes of what aspect(max strength, GPP, etc.) much throughout the year, but if they are changing the max effort lifts couldn’t this be considered a conjugate system? Since changes in a macrocycle can be either qualitative(changing of the exercises) or quantitative(changing the amount or intensity of different exercises), wouldn’t changing the max effort lifts, which would emphasise different muscles and movement patterns, even if it is only in the max strength work, put the westside system in the conjugate system category even if most of the other parts of the system stay relatively the same? Not sure on this, but interested to hear what you have to say. Thanks,
Something that has repeatedly amused me regarding almost every time I have honored the Soviet methods is the fact that, apparently, many of the members here, and clearly you Lyle, seem to measure the efficacy of any possible training system or country’s sporting success by the results of their 100m sprinters.
By your logic of using a country’s 100m success as the measuring stick as to the meaningfulness of their contributions to sport science in general- we must disregard the work pioneered in former East Germany (unless you accept female sprinters in your logic system), Poland, China (unless hurdlers count in your logic system), Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, and on and on and on.
Alternatively, by using your logic system, must we assume that Jamaica and the United states are host to the greatest training systems? Or must we bend your logic system to also include individual coaches such as Charlie who worked with individuals native to Canada, the islands, and the US?
Lyle I’m not sure where your statements regarding Russian sport training are coming from , nor do I care; however, it would seem as if you are not well informed enough to discuss this intelligently nor respectfully.
By your own admission you have read one paper authored by Issurin and you have gone and formulated a grand assumption about block training that, and we’ll see from how knowledgeable many members here chime in, really paints a misinformed image for yourself.
The fact that you would reduce the incredible world level success in a myriad of disciplines, not a few as you blindly stated, to drugs and numbers is simply irresponsible.
Moving further, as has already been pointed out by Desideratus15, your ‘argument’ is poorly thought out and amusingly ironic because if you are to reduce your barometer of training efficacy to who has done the most with the least then you simply must look to the former Eastern and Soviet bloc.
Yes there was high participation in many different disciplines; however, look at economy, ethnic diversity, training resources, opportunity, and so on and you cannot deny that, in this context, America is, and has been, in the most advantageous position imaginable for sporting success.
I have spoken personally with Bondarchuk, Issurin, Verkhoshansky, and Val Nasedkin and I will wager that anyone else on this forum who has had the same privilege or is well informed enough as to their methods will, without hesitation, confirm the fact that each individual has contributed immensely to sport training and its science, and at the same time be secure enough to recognize that there are also incredible minds and coaches from other geographical regions that have done the same.
Lastly, regarding your criticism of my vocabulary, it behooves all of us to possess the capacity to master the use of the scientific vernacular as well as our native language in general in order that we may elucidate concepts , theories, ideas and so on with the brightest minds in the field who do the same- as it takes very little mastery of any of this to discuss training with the athlete, layman, and so on.
This brings me to another point of amusement: only in this field, sport training, do those less than accomplished take offense to individuals who speak in a language any bit beyond the pedestrian.
Why must the discussion of sport training, amongst what one would like to believe is peers, be carried out on a level so far beneath that discussed amongst physicists, or neurosurgeons, or astronomers, or any other specialty that requires a level of aptitude and motivation beyond the ordinary.
To blatantly disrespect a form of communication that displeases you does no one a greater disservice than yourself Lyle.
I’d like to think that one is permitted to speak intelligently even if the exchange takes place outside of the expert discussion area of this site.
If you don’t like the words I use, I encourage you to pay them no mind and use that energy more positively by reviewing as much translated literature as you are willing to acquire in order that you may discuss this topic as well equipped as possible and replace the overwhelming volume of text in your posts, that have been dedicated to slandering me, with even a fraction of useful information.
Totally agree with you Mr Smith.
10.00 sec is not slow as far as I am concerned and if he was purple with yellow dots on his skin
it would still be fast.
Interesting, but this bring us back to the fact that things are not ‘black or white’. As Sprinterouge pointed real-training can harldy be put in theoretical ‘clean’ models. For example, if someone use delayed and residual training effects in his program this doesn’t neccessary means he uses block training. Anyway, I guess Westside is concurrent, altought ‘special’ exercises may cause delayed effects that you mentioned that can be used in later cycles with core lifts. Interesting viewpoint. Thanks
totally agree with you.
would anyone of you mind to give me an exactly definition of the terms quoted above?
and maybe could be useful for the one of us that don’t know it, wich authors use wich kind of periodization.
thanks to all
Yes. How about that. There is a difference between an emphasis on a particular part of an inclusive training regime and the exclusive enhancement of one componant at a time.
how much difference are we realy talking about?
As for Borzov- a double Oly win and sea level WRs lasting 3 yrs in the 100m and 7 yrs in the 200m are not to be dismissed.
Duxx,
Ive read a chapter from the book, and it looks very readable.
I think the book is well worth the price. It will be also very useful for you, for you said that you had trouble studying prof. Verkhoshansky’s work regarding Block models (IIRC) due to the poor quality of editing of the so far published works. However, you will find probably enough in his work to understand Block Models throughly, should you sink in the study of his
outstanding , already published, work.
Couple it with A. Viru’s “Adaptation in sport training” , which, IMO , is a must read for anyone interested in realistic models of programming and organization of training.
This book (Block training )will surely cast aside a lot of doubts. Hopefully, it will be also read by many of the more or less popular WEB authors published at WEB sites as EliteFts or T-nation, where I seen articles written by ppl who dont understand the first thing about Block models but insist publishing papers about them.
Great to see Dan chime in.
He’s a very knowledgeable guy and modest, too.
Hopefully, it will be also read by many of the more or less popular WEB authors published at WEB sites as EliteFts or T-nation, where I seen articles written by ppl who dont understand the first thing about Block models but insist publishing papers about them.
Dan, greetings from Italy.
Duxx,
dont be overly concerned with Westside. Those guys are powerlifters, and their whole system is influenced by this. I would not look to much at them as examples as how ppl involved in power sports should train.
IMO, Westside is not even a true concurrent model. Why ? Because their training is ALWAYS
finalized to improve max-strength, despite of them having what they call a “speed” day.
Concurrent or sequential models are used where one has to realize the different components of power (strength , speed), and display them in a specific energetic regime (special work capacity). This is not the case with powerlifting.
Yes, temporal concentration is already a intensification factor. This is well explained in Verkhoshanky’s “Programing and Organization”
Duxx,
Concurrent is not “bad”. But remember that sequential models where introduced specifically
to address several weaknesses of “concurrent” systems.
Concurrent systems are still very successfully used in sports with variable motor regimen, such as team sports and combat sports, where in many cases (not all), due to the very busy competitional calendar and the fact that those athletes need a lot of (virtually daily) technical skill practice.
They are also recommended, as James Smith very well pointed out, for youth development, and training of low level qualification athlete. Even prominent block system scientists, as Verkhoshansky, the father of the system, clearly state in their work that complex-parallel (concurrent) still has a lot of utility, exactly in the areas outlined above.