This makes a lot of sence. I have woke up on some stuff I have never put in mind before. I never thought that way. So Now I’ve learned something new. Thanks numba
Of course I can’t deny Charlie. He’s the main doner of imformation here. So I don’t want to be like staly!!!
To get the personal nonsense out of the way: I am not a training expert, and I definitely value your experience as an elite coach more than my own as a mediocre athlete. I do disagree about the abdominals however, based on principles rather than experience, though I consider this issue to be relatively unimportant within the scheme of the overall training program.
I conclude that low-instensity tempo has value because it is performed largely for the purpose of recovery, as opposed to the purpose of directly improving sprint performance. I don’t believe that tempo actually contributes to speed development, but I recognize that it may improve performance indirectly by enhancing recovery from high-intensity training and thus improve the athlete’s ability to train. It’s also good for burning calories and maintaining a low BF%.
In contrast, abdominal work (high-rep or otherwise) is usually performed for the purpose of improving “core strength” for more direct performance enhancement. I neither believe that high-rep abdominal training improves core strength much, nor that great core strength is necessary in the first place. Not to say that the abdominals don’t play a vital role in sprint performance, but rather that their ability to do their job probably isn’t limited by a lack of strength in most cases. Furthermore, I believe that the sprint training itself will develop strengh-endurance in the core musculature to whatever extent it is needed.
If the high-rep adominal work is dropped, I don’t see the need to replace it with anything. However if I were going to replace it, I would replace it with something that I consider more productive like a small volume of explosive medicine ball work or a single high-resistance set of 8-12 reps in conjunction with the regular strength training program. Not anything intense enough to elicit maximum strength gains as with the other exercises in the program, but rather just enough to get some conditioning.
“you are always calling guys out for what have they run or who have they trainined when it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.”
examples?
First is I will be defending a concept with good science and my observations…then some jackass starts talking about some alpha wave model that the germans did or how they base their progrom of an author that just sells a catchy ebook. After some exchanges people I must get into numbers and concrete facts.
“Who follows this program” -
Case studies with facts…details will open the eyes to what is really going on.
“What are the advancements”
what do athletes do with the program and at what level. A U of Miami athlete will improve over his college career from time and is most likely talented. Getting kids at small schools (read less talent) to perform as well is a factor. Athletes going from 10.3 for two years to 10.09 in months must be a sighn of something good.
“If you are the authority of (plug in specialty) what have you done?”
A-Rods trainer likes to do upright rows for baseball players as well as 120-160 reps of squats to build strength…he is not an expert an I suggest everyone read muscle and fitness (maybe mens health) to get a chuckle. Then the next step is to see what has been done. Work with nobody and getting no results does not count. I spent two years in the same weight room as Jose Conseco but take no credit for his home runs. Maybe just waking him up for games during his naps in the trainers room.
1400 posts and counting…where is all the trash talk from me? shoot the URLS or threads and I will respond to what has happend and why (if it did). Lyle starts talking noise when I wanted his opinion on the metabolic differences of the big three cyclical sports. Now he is licking his wounds after his swimming training theory proved to be full of scooby doo do.
You are right that the action itself develops the power needed for the abs, for the most part. And, you are right on the recovery role of tempo, though there are secondary benefits as well (increased micro-capillarisation increases localized heat, lowering electrical resistance). the is also both a recovery role and a capillarisation role for the low intensity abs, as well as insurance that stability will never be compromized. Many angles of attack for the abs would be dangerous with a heavy load.
Given the low intensity requirements, I’m still awaiting your replacement suggestion for the work that would be dropped, and wondering why you’d want to replace no-impact work with impact work like more tempo?
Charlie-What do you think of Isometric AB work? DB Hammer mentions a few different techniques like holding a parallel position while sitting in a lat pulldown chair with a weight on your chest.
Alot of people are forgetting all the hard (hi Int) work the abs get during the normal course of the week without direct training such as Oly lifts etc.
Isometric holds are very good for anyone with a back problem or for a change(sitting in a chair pushing with straight arms onto the knees and pulling the knees towards the chest- hold for sets of 6 sec)
What sort of Back problems charlie. I have one hell of a back problem that I can’t manage to fix. I don’t know whats going on. Some say that one leg is longer than the other. Measured through X- ray we found an 8mm difference. I do special shoes and I think the problem is going away. So does static Ab work help. And if so what sort of back work would I combine with the Ab work??
You should have your back medically assessed to determine what corrective exercises to use, but the isometric abs I’ve described should be the best to use for now.
Thanks Charlie, That was really fast. Its like you’re sitting with me and I just ask a question and CHARLIE FRANCIS answers all straight away. Man you’re not like a lot others. Thanks again