Percent drop offs in lifting situations are hard to manage unless you are only doing lifting. Coaches like me work with all aspects of training besides weight training and rules of 1/3 and 6 percent are not very usefull for most athletes I work with.
I do write for a living (not a great living) because I feel that case studies are the most needed. I write history while most write philosophy because they are not doing it or never doing it. I do like abract thought in order to explain possible reasons of you training but not to lead others without proof.
Guys like Dell Dell are guys that buy spanish fly from the back of comic books!
1:These drop off levels would be a disaster for SE runs. If your athlete didn’t pull a muscle in the next session, it’d happen in the one after that.
2: At the highest performance levels (and, yes, I’ve worked there) supercompensation will move from 2 to 10 days, with the movement from slightly sub-max to maximal performance, so, if, by some fluke, the athlete didn’t pull up, he’d go steadily downhill after the first PB .
3: Each aspect trained at maximum, creates a consequence for every other aspect, which must be considered in a Vertical Integration program.
4: Most strength programs max out in a short time whereas sprint programs must handle over 40 weeks of development.
I wasn’t suggesting to use or even secify dropoffs for the SE session what i was asking is; at the end of the session could analysis of the times be used to calculate what the drop off was and use this to control the volume of the following weights session.
I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying that training at max performance will require such large recovery times that they are ineffective for developing sprint speed. If so i would agree i’m just not sure how it came into the discussion.
Right i understand that maximum performances will effect the entire programme but if using the autoreg for weights only and using the approach of using say 95% RM (training rep max i.e. the max you see fit for that training session) and do sets until this is missed i do not see how this effects the training as any training will produce fatigue. You can set up the autoreg to sub max lifts by using timing of the reps so the athlete isn’t training to failure, you’re just using it to measure drop off as you go and stopping at the point. when 95% (for example) is done at or below the time frame.
I think we’ve established that it is not suitable for the sprint programmes but does this mean it is not suitable for the strength part of the programme at more ‘realistic’ drop offs and supercompensation times.
no23- if you’re going to call me out, at least have some reading comprehension. I wasn’t disrespecting Charlie or questioning him. I know the circumstances are different, but I was comparing being secretive about who you’ve trained.
Clemson-Spanish Fly…didn’t know what you’re talking about so looked it up. Says more about you than me that you know what that stuff is.
I’m just trying to learn and if something that’s seems a little interesting comes up don’t be so condescending just because you know it all. I’m sure you had all the answers when you were at USF.
1: There really shouldn’t be any drop off in the SE, as the number and break are selected to prevent that (hopefully). The weight session will be self regulating to a large degree, as the performance in the SE may reduce, or even trash your ability to lift after, BUT (and this point has been made in the forum review) work done anywhere in the high CNS output area affects outcome everywhere, so a higher than expected output in the runs compensates for a lower than expected or missed weight session so the ultimate outcome of the weight plan should not be affected.
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.
Thanks charlie thats clears it up. Point 2 is what i had assumed you where getting at. Point 1 makes sense, if the athlete has dropped off is the SE session through inadequte recovery or something they have already gone to far so like you say this self regulates any further work.
I do have a question however. What sort of methods do you use to control the volume of weight work.
-So Charlie, are you basically saying if you’re going doing top level sprint workouts that this system would get in the way of your recovery and supercompensation?
-The recovery periods for the sprint sessions and weight sessions would be different time periods and wouldn’t perfectly overlap?
For example if you lifted and did sprint work on the same day, according to this system your next weight session might be scheduled to be before your sprint session or vice versa.
Is that the main fault?
-What about if is not sprinting at the level or volume of an elite sprinter, but just for improving speed for football or basketball? When I set up my running, it was going to be one day of acceleration>max V work and one day of tempo.
I don’t see this as a problem, infact i think this is in favour of the AREG system. I mean you can use the areg system to time your recovery so that the weight session would overlap by using the appropriate drop off, that for you personally, equals the time when the next weights session is scheduled.
I think charlies perspective is that training to your drop off point is to much? But i still protest that this depends how you define your drop off. Take this example for a monday - wednesday - friday sprint programme.
Say you wanted to perform a weights session at or 5r 85% 5rm (sub max int.)
And for the example 3% drop off = 2days supercomp.
Use a weight of 82.5% 5rm and perform sets until 5 are not possible in the time frame it takes you to do 5r at 85% 5rm.
And you could periodise the weekly intensity as normal like
I think the first part is right. As for football and Basketball, the SE requirement is nil and even top speed is somewhat limited (unless you’re very slow!) However speed reserve is very important in football. This reserve can shift much of the sport’s demands out of the high and into med or even low int catagory for much of the requirement. Running speed of receivers on atterns is usually 85% of max (med) with High int usually comming on cuts (decelleration).
Basketball is a good candidate for weight dominant work as it is almost pure power.
So you have the book? I’m tempted to buy the book and see what DB Hammer have to write. What improvements have you seen in your training since you got the book?
The book isn’t a complete expose though, you need to read all his articles and Q&A to get the full picture( plus future articles and Q&A). Not an easy read by any means. If you don’t know exercise science, it will be a tough read to some extent. And his writing style makes things twice as hard, but with a few reads, it gets easier.
And I think I finally understand this strength training business. Everything else used to be guesswork to some extent, now I have roadmap to my goals.
His Autoreg and toleration cycle structure combined with neural classification of training means is the main thing.
Even if you just used the autoreg, circuit rotation means of training and toleration cycle ratios you would be well ahead, makes it very difficult to overtrain your CNS.
I feel like I’m “undertraining”, but I’m getting stronger session to session, so I can’t complain
Plus if your not gaining, then at least you know where to look and tweak etc
But like all things, let me keep at it for a few more months and see where it all ends up. Maybe I’m just undergoing a delayed supercompensation
Correction, I do feel tired and spent after a session, I have sure worked hard, but the volume of work in terms of sets and reps, plus frequency in much lower than one would think for typical strength/power work. It’s all neurally aimed after all.
Off course it is also due to my current work capacity over fatigue dropoff threshold. Since his system is designed to increase this over time, eventually I’ll be cranking out the volume as my body is able to do so, and with greater and greater loads too.
But the gains in terms of load added and reps gained from session to session it’s all there. Plus my physical part time job has been getting easier and easier to do.
To be perfectly honest with you I haven’t got through it completely yet.
I have it 2 or 3 weeks now but between training, work and sufferring his writing style I just haven’t read it all yet.
I wanted to do it justice and read it properly but like I said on another post the amount of effort it takes to read and understand his stuff is beyond stupid.
I’m not flaming this DB guy at all - I don’t know him (surprise)and he could be the next great thing - but anyone who has read CT’s stuff and then goes to read this manuscript will get a shock.
Like Xlr8 once said about another different text - “get the highlighter out”.
