# DB Hammer *Training Principles* Discussion

Since the other DB Hammer thread seems to have become hijacked with everything except for a discussion of training, I thought I would start a new thread to discuss the principles and techniques he is advocating and see if we can gain a better understanding of how they may be useful in a speed training program.

To kick off discussions, I’ll start with this (and please KellyB or others who have more insight into this system, please correct me if I get something wrong here.)

In his writings on micro-cycle allocation, he describes two strategies: sequential allocation and factored allocation. These have to do with how the training load is distributed over time. So, lets say that someone has the ability to work 28 sets of some exercise to their prescribed drop off every 4 days. Sequential allocation would simply be to do the 28 sets on the first day, then rest and on the fifth day, do it again. This is pretty close to CFTS in the sense that we work high CNS stress elements one day (speed, weights, plyos, etc) then rest (do tempo, etc) until we are ready to do another high CNS-stress day. So a CF microcycle (generally a week) would likely contain two or three days in which the training load is distributed with at least one day of (active) rest between the loads.

However, DB also provides the option for factorized arrangements. He indicates that there is some criteria for when this arrangement is appropriate (not sure I understand it.) Factorization would involve splitting the 28 sets over all of the days in the micro-cycle without the rest days between them, so instead of doing 28 sets on day 1, you would do maybe 10, then on day two do 6, for day three, do 8 sets and on the last day of the microcycle, do 4. Wave loading the load is the preferred method of factorization. The total number of sets over the four-day stretch is the same, but the work is spread out.

My question is what does everyone think about this? The high-intensity volume is exactly the same for these two methods but with factorization, you don’t have any CNS recovery days. On the other hand, you presumably never dip very far into your CNS reserves either. One thing that jumps out at me is that with factorization even though volume might be the same it seems like you would (in the short term at least) be able to achieve higher intensity for each set. Which may end up causing CNS burnout over the mid term. Also, how would one use the drop off method (AREG) when factoring your workouts?

The factorized arrangement would be more appropriate for athletes who compete on consecutive days at high intensity but low volume. DB uses the example of a relief pitcher who may pitch each day at max effort but for very low volumes compared to a starter who pitches for more volume at an overall lesser intensity.

AREG/drop off wouldn’t apply as it is calculated from your capacity integer (28 sets in your example) with volume applied in the wave example using the 60% rule.

To determine your new capacity integer you would need to retest as you did to arrive at your capacity of 28 sets.

For a sprinter competing on successive days the application of factorization may be appropriate. Otherwise, I’m not sure I see the benefit.

Bill

What interests me is that, to my understanding, DB’s systems seem to be aimed at training at full intensity all the time by thinking about recovery short term, session to session. The use of AREG i think is just a way of defining the recovery times proactivly in a mathmatical way, i.e. it is easy to write down and plan microcycles. This makes sense to me as it is only part of the planning and still allows you to evaluate you condition between sessions and react accoridingly by re-scheduling i think it just allows you to ensure your sessions are always full intensity and with enough recovery from the fatigue.

It is still unclear to me how well this can be used in a sprint programme though. I have pasted my q’s on this subject from the other thread as they are more suited to this one.

Can someone explain how the auto regulation system would be structured over a meso cycle as part of a sprint programme.

I’m assuming if you knew at what frequency you would perform sprint sessions you could use the 1/3rds autoreg principle, with a little playing around, to set drop of limits in gym sessions on the same day to allow sprint and gym sessions to remain on the same days to allow for optimum use of the cns.

What are the views of using autoreg in sprint sessions. i.e. in a speed endurance session setting a drop of limit from the first sprint and timing the subsequent runs until this limit. I know this is done anyway (or sessions would end when a run drops below a desired limit anyway) bur does anyone think that my controlling it purposfully it could be used in an autoreg style.

Mixing the two together (spint work & strength work) seems difficult but certainly possible.

And going back to how sessions are structured i would like to know how differnt drop off rates are utilised and why. Also are all sessions trained maximally with full supercompensation or are accumulated fatigue or anything else used.

Okay i understand there are many variables to be optimised leading into a speed session. But imagine we are in a special endurance session say 3x200m and the drop off between the first and last sprint is measured could this be taken into account and used to set a certain drop off for the following strength session to accomodate the next speed session in 2-3days time if one was going to use the autoreg system to control their weights.

The reason i am trying to find out is if the autoreg system is proven to be effective and training is always done to full determined drop off followed by full supercompensation what would possible ways of using it effectivly side by side with a sprint programme.

Don’t forget there is a planned toleration cycle or two at set intervals at the end of a microcycle, depending on the ratio used. To me these are like concentrated loading sessions, and then 6 or more days of rest follows. Active recovery, tempo or maybe form work can be done during this time, basicly anything that enhances rather than detracts from recovery. A larger % fatigue dropoff is used during these sessions vs the regular sessions. Sorta like an loading up and then unloading phase, and a larger peak should result as you’d expect.
They have to be incoporated to improve work capacity for future training cycles. So basicly you constantly alternate a series of higher frequency, but lower fatigue sessions with higher fatigue, low frequency sessions in pre-determined optimal ratios to gradually improve work capacity and thus improving training adaption rate and recovery into the future. The best of both worlds…
The idea is as time goes on you will be able to do more work sets above dropoff. Then eventually work capacity is so great that workouts will have to be split up as described in the first post in this thread, unless you desire super long workouts
Kinda like how elite level olylifters will start to split up workouts and train more often since their work capacity integers have developed over years to accomodate this, but here you know when and where to do this

Since I do oly lifts in my sessions, which DB does not believe in for sports purposes, and these are done at the start on their own before my rotation of strength exercises, I have to cut down the fatigue dropoffs. With the olys I go by feel and form, it’s easy to tell when dropoff has been achieved. And then when I do my strength exercises since there is already some residual CNS fatigue I use a lower dropoff % like 4-5% and I don’t go to failure usually, except in ISOs. I will terminate each set when it starts to get difficult or form starts to deviate from the first rep of each set etc. I believe I will get the training effect I want this way while minimising CNS drain.

I may experiment in the future and incorporate the olys into the exercise circuit rotation and see how that goes, except when doing formwork that is.
The idea is to do everything you need together so every exercise gets equal attention and fatigue can be determined then and there. If things are done sequentially then fatigue dropoffs will have to be compenstated.

Anyway dropoffs can be done with form as well, not just time, load, rep, height and speed. The session goal determines the method used. He also uses coupling of exercises to determine fatigue dropoff as an option. Ie a set of alittude drops coupled with a vertical jump afterwards, using the vertical jump height to determine fatigue for the altitude drops. The same method can be used with sprints and olys I suppose. Maybe a horizontal jump or bounds for distance or time etc to determine fatigue dropoff or some related exercise of the same training quality that also helps your training efforts, but can be easily quantified with the means on hand.

How you dropoff is also influenced by wether your training for prime or pinnacle capacity.

Off course you can always ask him directly in his Q&A…

Great post CoolColJ. The way you’ve used is programme is along my line of thinking of ways to utilise it. I’ll be intersted to see the progression you get out of it.

Also uour first paragraph is the exact info i was after thanks.

Alan.

No problem Acooper

I like the neural focus catergorisation of his system too. I used to do speedsquats and jumpsquats with abandon, and most Westsiders do the same everyweek, now I know there is a time and place for everything, and hammering something week in and out is not that answer.
But it does have many similarities to Westside, work your weakness while you maintain your strengths, but unlike Westside it isn’t focused on muscles, neural “weakness” is where it’s at. Basicly 1+1=3 when everything is in sync
Off course, if a certain muscle group is weak then you would train it, but still work it from your neural weakness perspective tempered by your sport and training goals

Ballistics & Plyo’s

That’s another area of DB’s system i would like more info on. CT’s book went through a lot of new ground on this subject for me and explained a lot. I like the thought of using these as a serious part of a weights programme cos i can see the neural developments from them. I’m to tight to buy DB’s book so can anyone summarise some of the ways these are implemented into sessions.

You should read his bench article on his site, that pretty much explains it. Actually read all his articles and Q&As there! Basicly depending on your neural dominance/weakness and sport/training goals
will determine wether you need to do them and how.

Well as far as the bench goes, but you can then figure out how that relates the lower body from that

You will see that he always alternates a strength session and a speed session, roughly speaking, ala Westside. But a strength session for a sprinter is different to a powerlifter’s strength session and vice versa on the speed session.
Thanks to the differring neural and velocity demands of each sport.
Ie for a Powerlifter ISO maybe good for his strength work and OI for his speed work. Whereas a sprinter might do OI for his strength and RFI squat jumps for his speed work in the gym. On the other hand if the sprinter was really weak then he might do what the powerlifter is doing for a microcyle before returning to faster/reactive methods.
If a powerlifter is really slow in the squat then he may do speedsquats for his speedwork for a microcycle, but he would never do RFI Squat Jumps because his sport doesn’t require that motor/neural quality.

Thanks the bench article is the only one i haven’t read

Good thread. As far as knowing when to consider introducing factorized arrangemet, it’s when the capacity to perform above drop-off, or capacity integers, exceeds the frequency scale. So, if you were training every 4 days and could perform less than 4 sets,sprints etc. before dropping off then it would be best to stick with sequential arrangement. In the example XLr8 gave, someone who can perform 28 runs above drop-off could still use sequential arrangement but that would take a heck of a lot of time and not leave a whole lot of time for much else on that day so splitting those runs up over the 4 days would be a better choice.

higher-faster-sports.com

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and I know that this is supposed to be a discussion on the methods used by DB Hammer. But considering that the more mature and knowledgeable guys on this board seems to participate in this thread I thought that I would hijack it for a second…

WHAT IF…

DB Hammer was none other than Jay Schroedder? I aluded to this theory in the other thread, but the more I think of it, the more it makes sense to me… Let’s consider the facts:

FACT #1: The training methods used by both coaches are exactly the same. Same use of extended isometrics to build muscle mass. Bench throws, drop and catch exercises, depth landings etc.

It’s true that I use much of the same techniques, in fact more than 30 different methods are detailed in my new book (see how I was able to gently plug my book!), but I mean, EVERYTHING is exactly the same!

FACT #2: Both coaches use the same language… for example they profusely use the term “methodics”. This wouldn’t be out of the ordinary IF this were a common training term, however since no coaches in the world has ever used that term, nor is it used in any sport-science literature, nor is it even a noun! So when I see two coaches, espousing the exact same training techniques, using the same unknown terminology it puzzles me.

Another example of this is when they talk about biceps work, or vanity work. Both coaches (DB’S book and Jay’s DVD) give the exact same explanation about the use of vanity work. And they even word it the same way.

One last example is the use of three letter abbreviations to explain training methods.

FACT #3: DB Hammer doesn’t seem to officially exist. Now, I know that this point is debatable. But as a member already mentionned, there is no mentionned of him in the German hammer results database going back to 1927! Furthermore he claims to have worked with a lot of medal winners. Even if there was a confidentiality agreement between him and his athletes, surely his name would have surfaced in the sporting world, or at least in the strength-coaching community. If he was that good, even with a CA somethings would have leaked out, especially considering that he claims to have been working with athletes for decades.

Speaking of confidentiality agreement, Jay S requires the same time of agreement with the athletes he works with. Even if a coach wants to go work with him for a week he has to sign such an agreement (Tony Schwartz had to sign such an agreement). I know that a lot of coaches use that sort of paper, but it’s still odd.

FACT #4: Jay S is based in Mesa, Arizona while DB’s book was shipped to me from Mesa Arizona. Now there are a lot of ways to explain this. Maybe his editor is based in Mesa. Maybe he works with Schroedder and the later is his US distributor, who knows? But considering the other facts, this is the icing on the cake!

FACT #5: Both appeal to opposites. Jay S targets the “high class” market (charging an hefty sum for teaching his methods to all who want to learn) while DB targets the “populo barbaro”, making his secrets available for very little money, even offering some support for free.

How does this indicate that both could be the same guy? It’s kinda like a lexus/camry deal… both are made by the same company, both use the same platform, but the lexus targets the high class market while the camry targets the middle class. This way, with much of the same product, they can double their market.

This is what’s happening here. Jay S. does charge a helluva lot of money for consultations, at this cost I doubt that many guys/teams would hire him. He might get 1-3 such clients per year. Enough to make a decent living, but nothing more. However, since he charges so much already, he really cannot offer “cheaper” deals … he would seem unfair to his clients who paid the big bucks and might lead his “cheaper” clients to believe that they are not getting the real deal.

However, if he had another identity he could offer a cheaper service to the masses to make his money, and cash in with the big clients. Just a thought…

FACT #6: Evo-sport and Inno-sport … doesn’t that sound similar?

FACT #7: Both coaches use time as their main training variable instead of reps… in fact in Jay’s DVD the (vague) instructions calls for performing each exercise for a certain amount of time, not reps. And as we now know, one of DB’s biggest principle is the use of time zones to plan training.

FACT #8: 6% … DB states that one should aim for a 6% fatigue level while Jay said that he aims to induce a 6% overtraining state in his athletes.

Now, some peoples believe that DB might have actually been Jay’s teacher, which would explain the similarities in their techniques. This is a possible option. But considering the timing factor it seems just a little off.

Any opinion on this?

Here’s a portion from one of the new chapters that will be added to the paperback version of my new book. I think that it might help you understand DB’s principles (I do believe that I’m a wee bit better teacher… ).

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to include the numerous charts and figures from the chapter…

The nature of the neural drive

To keep it simple, all motor actions first start by a neural action. Either a voluntary motor command or a reflexive one. This action, or command, is sent to the appropriate motor units. Upon reception of the impulse (potential of action) the motor unit is activated, producing force. This is obviously a gross oversimplification of the neuromuscular action, which would require a book on its own to fully explain. But for the scope of this book, it’s sufficient and will allow us to better understand how to manipulate the neural action/command processes.

The neural drive has three distinct characteristics which will vary in relative importance depending on the type of action needed. These three characteristics are:

A. Rate: How fast can the neural drive activate or deactivate motor units.
B. Duration: For how long the neural drive keeps the motor units activated.
C. Magnitude: The importance of the neural impulse. The larger is an impulse, the motor motor units it will activate.

Now, for any given muscle action there will be a different type of neural drive. A neural drive can be rate-dominant or duration-dominant. An important magnitude can occurs with both types of dominance as we will illustrate.

Rate-dominant drive of a high magnitude: In this first type of drive, we can see that the rate of the drive is very important. That is, it doesn’t take long for the neural drive to reach its peak. On the other hand, the duration of the drive is short. In real life we thus have a very rapid force production lasting for only a brief period of time. The relatively high magnitude indicates a high level of force production. This type of drive is characteristic of shock training methods such as plyometrics, depth landings and reactive strength exercises (catching a load and quickly reversing its motion).

Rate-dominant drive of a low magnitude: In this second example we still have an important rate and a short duration of action. But this time the magnitude is lower. Meaning that we are still seeing a rapid and brief neural drive, but the actual force production is not that high. Rapid unloaded limb movements and regular jumps and bounds are good examples.

Duration-dominant drive of a high magnitude: This type of neural drive occurs when we need to produce a high level of force for a relatively long period of time. We mean long compared to the rate-dominant drive. Generally speaking we are talking anywhere between 4 to 12 seconds when force production is concerned. This type of drive is characteristic of actions requiring a high level of force production that must be sustained. A good example is heavy lifting: lifting a near-maximal or maximal weight might take you 4-12 seconds. This requires that the nervous system sends a sustain drive for the duration of the effort.

Duration-dominant drive of a low magnitude: This type of drive is found in movements where you must produce a moderate amount of force for a longer period, when talking about strength training 20-70 seconds is a good approximation. In that case we can sustain the effort for longer than during a duration-dominant drive of a high magnitude, but the output is lower. This means that the neural drive is active for longer, but it is of lesser importance. A good example of such a drive would be found in sub-maximal lifting at a controlled tempo (sets of 8-20 reps).

Importance of the type of neural drive

Knowing the type of neural drive present in a given muscle action is crucial for several reasons. Among the most important we can name:

a. Reducing the risk of CNS overtraining
b. Higher rate of progress by avoiding opposite types of drive within a single session
c. Selecting training methods and means adapted to the needs of the individual
d. Selection training methods and means adapted to the needs of the sport

Reducing the risk of CNS overtraining

Neural drive magnitude, rate and duration all have an impact on CNS stress. A high magnitude is extremely demanding on the CNS by itself. In fact, the more important the magnitude of the neural drive is, the greater is the ensuing CNS fatigue. The duration of the drive can also have an impact in that cumulative CNS output can place a significant burden on the neuromuscular apparatus. A long duration by itself is not really stressful: if you maintain an extremely low magnitude for a long duration the actual CNS stress is virtually nil. However when a high magnitude occurs at the same time, the cumulative CNS fatigue effect is very important. A high rate of neural drive is also demanding on the CNS, especially when of a high magnitude. However since it’s almost impossible to have both a long duration and a high rate, the cumulative CNS fatigue effect from rate work is harder to accomplish. It’s still possible to do so, by using too many total repetitions.

The most CNS-demanding neural drive is thus duration-dominant and high magnitude. The second most demanding being a rate-dominant high magnitude drive. The third most demanding is a rate-dominant low magnitude drive while duration-dominant low magnitude work is the least demanding on the CNS, which is why it’s often used as a restorative method following a period of CNS demanding work.

Higher rate of progress by avoiding opposite types of drive within a single session

For maximum results you should not mix rate-dominant and duration-dominant exercises within the same training session. This would lead to sub-optimal neural adaptations, which would impair both short and long-term progress. I have myself been guilty of using a mixed approach; the Canadian Ascending-Descending program is such an example. It did produce good results, better than traditional strength training, so at first I did not question the validity of the approach. However as I improved my understanding of the neural processes involved in training I came to the conclusion that separating rate and duration work would bring the fastest results. And it did. It takes a big man to recognize his mistakes, and I fancy myself of being relatively big! So although a mixed approach will produce good results, separating rate and duration work into different sessions will lead to an even faster rate of improvement.

I find the following combination to work very well:

Two methods in one session

1. maximum effort concentric – repetitive effort concentric
2. maximum effort eccentric – maximum intensity isometric
3. submaximal eccentric – maximum duration isometric
4. high intensity absorption – dynamic effort concentric

Three methods in one session

1. maximum effort concentric – repetitive effort concentric – maximum duration isometric
2. maximum effort eccentric – maximum intensity isometric – submaximal eccentric
3. high intensity absorption – ballistic isometric – dynamic effort concentric

Four methods in one session

1. max effort concentric – repetitive effort concentric – max duration isometric – max intensity isometric
2. max effort eccentric – submaximal eccentric – max duration isometric – max intensity isometric
3. overspeed eccentric – high intensity absorption – ballistic isometric – dynamic effort concentric

Selecting training methods and means adapted to the needs of the individual

Each individual will have motor unit activation properties in which he’s more efficient. For example, you might be very efficient at producing a duration-dominant neural drive. This means that you can keep on producing the required level of force for a relatively long period. This is what I call “grinders”: when lifting a maximal load the speed will be extremely slow, almost static really, but it continues to move. Grinders can produce and sustain maximum force in 5-10 seconds, however they often have problems with explosive or reactive exercises requiring a rate-dominant neural drive.

On the opposite side of the coin you have rate-dominant individuals. I call them “hit or miss” because with them they either complete a lift with seemingly room to spare, or miss it at the first sign of slowing down. For example such an individual could bench press 315lbs in 2 seconds (rather easily), but miss 320lbs! These peoples can produce a very large amount of force in a brief period of time, but they cannot sustain it for long, hence the hit or miss phenomenon.

Then you have mixed individuals who are neither rate nor duration dominant. They are pretty much equal in both types of actions.

You can get a good idea of the dominance of an individual by timing the concentric portion of a maximum strength lift (bench press or squat for example). A duration-dominant individual will complete his maximal lift in 5-10 seconds; a rate-dominant individual will complete it in 1-3 seconds and a mixed individual in 4-5 seconds.

When you know somebody’s strength (dominance) you also know his weakness: if someone is obviously duration-dominant, more rate work should be included in the program and vice versa. Sometimes an individual might participate in a sport where one type of action is not needed. Still, you should work on individual needs (individual-specificity) first and sports related needs (sport-specificity) second.

Selection training methods and means adapted to the needs of the sport

Certain sports are rate-dominant (jumps, football, sprints, throws, etc.) others are duration-dominant (powerlifting, strongmen events, etc.) and many are mixed demands. Once that individual needs are filled out, you can start to maximize those capacities involved in the sport of choice of your athlete.

But remember, individual-specificity first, sport-specificity second!

Elastic versus Contractile force production

During any given movement/muscle action force is being produced via a combination of muscle contraction and elastic action. The muscle contraction aspect is also called voluntary muscle activation while the elastic action can be called reflexive action.

Generally speaking, the importance of the reflexive action increases when there is a rapid switch from stretching to contraction (or from eccentric to concentric). The faster the transition is, the more important will be the reflexive component. On the opposite, during single regimen actions (concentric-only, eccentric-only, isometric only) and during slow transition movements, it’s the voluntary muscle activation that plays the biggest role.

Some individuals have very good reflexive properties while have weak voluntary properties or vice versa. For maximum performance it is important to establish if an athlete is less efficient in one of these types of actions. In most cases, rate-dominant athletes have better reflexive properties than duration-dominant athletes while the later have stronger contractile properties.

Thanks CT for posting that excerpt. I like your writing style, very easy to understand and follow. Well-organized and logical as well.

I don’t know if they’re the same person by the way. I noticed several of the things you did, but there’s some other things to take into account. Check whois, IP addresses, the ST list, and you’ll see a link to Germany as well as AZ. Did he ever say he’s a German hammer thrower? Could he not be from the Ukraine…
There definitely is a connection though.

Anyways…I’m just curious where you find out about neuro-rate/magnitude/duration? Which texts?

Two more questions if you don’t mind:

1. "For maximum results you should not mix rate-dominant and duration-dominant exercises within the same training session. This would lead to sub-optimal neural adaptations, which would impair both short and long-term progress. I have myself been guilty of using a mixed approach; the Canadian Ascending-Descending program is such an example. It did produce good results, better than traditional strength training, so at first I did not question the validity of the approach. However as I improved my understanding of the neural processes involved in training I came to the conclusion that separating rate and duration work would bring the fastest results. And it did. It takes a big man to recognize his mistakes, and I fancy myself of being relatively big! So although a mixed approach will produce good results, separating rate and duration work into different sessions will lead to an even faster rate of improvement. "
–Does this mean not doing ME (duration) and DE (rate) work together or did you mean it in another way?

2. Do you think Basketball is mixed or rate dominant? I’m thinking more towards mixed, but could see how it’s rate. Or at least the emphasized qualities trained in the weight room would shift more towards the rate portion even if one needed to individually improve duration qualities.

It’s kinda like a lexus/camry deal… both are made by the same company, both use the same platform, but the lexus targets the high class market while the camry targets the middle class. This way, with much of the same product, they can double their market.

Dang… I just bought a Camry (actually for my wife). Being I’m living on a strength coach’s salary, it’s obvious I’m in the middle class. It wasn’t even a new Camry… jeez!

Chris, like you I had my suspicions, but they still seem like different people to me. They have similarities, but some of the exercises are done slightly differently, for example Jay doesn’t do OI as far as I know, but he does drop and catch things, which is a different effect
But I do think that that Jay may have developed his system from either conversations with DB or a consultation or two.

Maybe someone going to his Seminar with Davies maybe able to see what he really does

Read DB’s articles and book, his bench article talks about it

Well explosive stuff is still a good neural firing tactic for attempting PRs in max effort style moves IMO.

Anyway Neuro-Duration is not necessarily Max effort, just strength moves of short or long duration with no regard to explosiveness, ie iso, anything above 75%, and anything lighter moved in a controlled tempo etc

Rate - is more speed of movement and turnover time rather than power, like how many jabs can you get in 3 secs, rather than how hard you hit

In DB’s system Dynamic stuff is classified as Neuro-Magnitude, where max power is the aim. ie how hard you punch

Well I am definitely a hit and miss lifter, 1.25 to 2 sec 1RM concentric times
Making some nice gains since I started training my neural “weakness”

Can someone be mostly white fibre(FS) and be “Duration-dominant”

Can someone be mostly white fibre(FS) and be “Duration-dominant”

Yes, plenty of powerlifters would fit that description. What DB preaches and what is really not new at all is that you should worry about the nervous system first as it determines muscle form and function and will cause a shift in fiber type if the neural stimulus is right. This is being verified by science…more and more evidence is showing the muscle fibers are much more plastic then once thought and a substantial increase in white fiber has been shown with accelerated eccentrics. I’d imagine the same thing would occur with regular plyometric training but can’t find any data on it.

Re: the differences in DB’s vs Schroeders program. Schroeder uses lots of prolonged eccentrics whereas DB despises them saying they screw up movement efficiency and reflexive ability - teaching the muscle to maintain tension when it should be releasing tension. It makes sense if you think about it. Dr. Squat also disliked them for a different reason - their effect on causing a negative change to a slower contracting fiber type.

higher-faster-sports.com

Thanks Ct and KellyB for insights…at last we have a big part of it all here in “populi barbari” plain words !

Quoting Charlie Francis from the original “hijacked” thread:

2: I am saying that a personal best level, full volume speed workout for the highest level athletes must be separated by 10 days, so a session occurring 4 days later at the same intensity would occur before the compensation curve has reached even baseline, let alone supercompensation. Likewise, waiting even 4 days to repeat the speed session would result in entering the workout with inadequate tone to generate the elastic response needed. This is where an understanding of the application of sub-maximal work (95th to 99th percentile of performance by time) is required. Working at 100% for an adjusted volume just won’t work.

I find this to be an extremely true and promptly verifiable fact even in Swimming: there exists an adequate (optimal) level of muscle tone which coupled with an again adequate CNS readiness to generate a “reflexive motor command”-as from CT’s article- translates in the very seldom defined and debated “feel of the water”,from where efficiency of force application flows.
The highest the speed ( sprint events,“fast” stroke styles),the more important this fine tuning issue becomes in training.

As from second part of Your statement,Charlie,is the following correct?

95% intensity:
“capacity” training of the system’s potential,stimulating load,not
depleting one.

96%-99% intensities:
“high returns/high risk” window,load depleting to different degrees.

100% intensity:
“power” training of the system’s potential,new neural patterns imprinting,
thus potential expansion.

And also question arises on how we can correctly manage the 96%-99% intensity window -even more than the 95% one- to allow correct happening and timing of the 100% performance?
Is it actually possible to plan it at all “proactively” rather than “reactively”,or a sound alternating of 95% and 100%,and of the nature of the work will do the job?

Thank you.

Very helpful article Christian. Will we be able to download the new chapters as a free upgrade by the way? Looking at your post the part about not mixing duration and rate has certainly forced a rethink for my training, i’ve just completed a sucessful CAD block but lets push things forward.

A q for Charlie or whoever else can help. I know it has been discussed before but can someone explain how we monitor and manipulate muscle tone leading into a speed session, preferably for those of us who don’t have access to massage etc… It has come up a couple of times in the DB discussions and charlie hi-lights it’s importance but i need to know how.