I guess what I am saying is that an athlete will need a extraordinary practice to have and extraordinary performance in Track but in the pool submaximal overdistance and very short “speed” work (8 second bursts) can help create supramaximal swims.
Why is swimming different from track in this regard? As a swimmer, this is an area very much worth exploring.
didn’t someone already ask this and it got answered in this thread? 
thanks for the reply coolcolj, but all that i could find was this
Question
"Quote:
Originally Posted by delldell
Anyways…I’m just curious where you find out about neuro-rate/magnitude/duration? Which texts?
And your reply
"Read DB’s articles and book, his bench article talks about it "
Ill keep looking through the thread as there is every chance that it has been answered more thoroughly and i have missed it… but my question is because i havent really seen the terms neuro rate neuro magnitude and neuro duration untill i began reading DBs work… Now, CT has it in his book…
Do they have a common source of info???
Its just strange that two relatively new books to the market use the same terminology, when the terminology has been relatively unused until now…
My first thought was that, CT borrowed some of DBs stuff… but that is rather insulting to CT…
Okay… now im being a little silly but…Has anyone considered that maybe CT is DB… 
after all who would suspect that??? CT also says that the methods he uses are very similar to that being used by DB AND Jay Schroeder… 
Okay… now im being a little silly but…Has anyone considered that maybe CT is DB…
after all who would suspect that??? CT also says that the methods he uses are very similar to that being used by DB AND Jay Schroeder…
That has already been suggested here tongue in cheek though I suspect
I have heard talk that DB is in fact Kelly Baggett :eek:
(I told you I would start that rumour Kelbow )
And CT said
As I said, mostly from Weineck and Siff. I’ve read a lot about the nervous system in the past 3-4 years and fomulated my theory based on what I read. I did include some of DB’s information, that which I found to be truthful and applicable.
hahah thanks …!!!
This probably has been mentioned before, so I apologize ahead of time…
If DB’s methods are so incredibly adept at producing results by far-and-away ahead of any other methods, why aren’t there world records getting crushed in competitions around the world?
It would seem to me that if you’re a world-class athlete, you would find the absolute best coaches. From there, shouldn’t we be seeing 100-meter times consistently below 9.7 or 9.6 seconds or all sorts of amazing results? Why isn’t the sports world amazed by DB’s athletes…assuming they exist??
Maybe, but he claims to be nearing retirement and just now sharing his secrets. He’s mentioned that he’s been training for over 30 years.
From what i have read DB focuses on a small variables within strength training…if you are doing a small nano addaptation to a partial part of training then how much can you get you get out of it?
It’s because DB’s not doing anything revolutionary. He’s coining words and re-labeling things in order to sound fresh, but in actuality he’s just rewriting the same material we’ve all had access to for years.
Once you dig through all of it, all he’s really done is add some [admittedly] innovative training methods designed to improve RFD at various points in the ROM, and reactive ability, to the old tried-and-true periodization schemes. Not nearly as spectacular as everyone would have it, and certainly nothing I’m going to pay for.
I wonder if anyone actually signed up for a 1-year consultation with him? A bit of a waste of money, I think.
And it’s no surprise that his one-year, on-site consultations are full. Anyone willing to bet that that option never opens up?
I’m following his bench press protocol right now. I’ll post my results in a few weeks. We’ll see how well this AREG and nuero-rate/duration/magnitude training works.
where has autoregulatory training been discussed in the past?
Autoregulatory training has been discussed by Mel Siff in the past. I believe theres a part in Supertraining about it.
Maybe his methods (and other current methods) will just help people reach their potential faster (or give people a better chance of doing so) than other training programs. Therefore they could be preferred despite the lack of such observations.
What happens if you do some tests and find you vary in your Rate/Duration dominance characteristics across muscles/muscle groups. For example Bench 1RM concentric 4 seconds, Squat 1RM concentric 1.5 seconds. Fibre mix, and flexibility/GTO activation etc. is specific to each muscle group and joint.
How is the training set up then, especially for athletes not using a split in weights?
Please re-read my earlier comments. If you want to achieve results in ONE Componant ONLY, then fine, but, if you have sports objectives, ALL training componants must be balanced against each other, by priority, not a single componant against itself.
And there’s no way to balance anything else under his system, I assume?
Yes I was just thinking in terms of strength training alone with regards to his methods while I was writing that, I should have included that. The earlier comments do show how the methods do not apply straight to sprinting/sports.
Here’s my take:
The concept of “the plan adapts to the athlete” aka autoreg is fundamentally different from the concept of “the athlete adapts to the plan” aka traditional periodisation.
To ensure reliable peaks, there MUST be a tradeoff between plan adaptation (autoreg) methods and athlete adaptation(periodisation) methods. Charlies system I believe is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes which could explain why it is so effective for many applications, especially compared to either one on its own.
The thing that interests me is that for specific goals, all three systems will have different benefits and problems and should be treated as tools for a specific purpose.
The purpose of an autoreg method would be in my opinion trying to reach a new level of performance with no deadline. In the perfect world one would use this method to quickly reach a new level of performance.
The purpose of a periodisation routine would be to reach a specific peak with a hard deadline. In the perfect world one would use this method to peak for important competitions.
Does everyone agree ? I think the methods can coexist, and even be integrated somewhat(charlies as an example). If we get away from terminology and implementation, we can start identifying philosophy. This is important because it could lead us to new methods of increasing performance.
Thoughts?