Who knows?
He does it many ways, and I have found this way superior. Try it and find out. You can actually measure your progress over time, so its not hard.
- Now can someone help me understand this however, is an OI a lift with a tensionless, fast, eccentric portion, and reaction out of the stretched position? What is the load used for an exercise like this? What is the purpose of the maximal contraction before the drop…?
Numba 56, I’ll try to describe an easy way to do this. Say you’re doing OI Split Squats. First start out with your bodyweight. Get into position with your lead leg roughly parallel. Now instead of thinking “OK I gotta gain tension, release, then gain again”, just simply perform a jump. If you do so you will reflexively perform an OI rep without even thinking about it. You will quickly release tension and start to fall down in order to gain plyometric capacity, and then gain tension to jump. If you were doing an exercise like OI triceps extensions if you were to just imagine you wanted to throw the weights up the same thing would hold true. Of course when you load the movement you won’t actually jump, but you will do basically the same thing only in a short 1/3 to 1/4 range of motion. The idea is to tie strong muscular and reflexive contractions together
- I think the biggest thing with this program is not to say a lack of structure, but if these sessions go on “feel”, how does one peak for an event? how do they work in workouts around the event? For ex. if this theory was applied to sprinting, he said it can range up to 10 days between sessions, how is one supposed to prep? i mean if a race was 6 days away is that to say that session could possibly be the last before the racE?
Actually the sessions really have little to do with feel but only by performance. The system is meant to build optimal peak capacity of performance and work capacity. So, training for speed for example, one wouldn’t go just improving their absolute performance week to week forever. There would be cycles of lower intensity and higher volume to build work capacity, which would long term have an influence on peak capacity as well. This proper time to alternate cycles etc. is also determined by the auto-regulatory method. As for the actual method of peaking, that is a good question and I really don’t know.
A: Number three: yes? Yes to what? There’s an either/or there.
B: Sprinting/acceleration is a blending of qualities that are interdependant. In other words the conditions required for optimum performance in one area are set up by work in others (establishment of appropriate muscle tone etc), including optimal TIMING between sessions. If you get too trashed for too long, you loose the optimal tonus for the subsequent session, even if you’re fully recovered.
C: Relying totally on variable recoveries makes peaking unpredictable to damn near impossible.
D: Re your point one- train to a measurable fatigue level. The fatigue levels for high performance sprinting cannot be predictably measured during the session itself (the faster you go, the easier it feels while you’re doing it- it’s the day(s) after you need to worry about)!
E: (And this cannot be stated strongly enough) Coaching is ALWAYS an art that requires you to vary, at times, from a pre-set formula.
If you had a lifting sesion for a certain day…and you did a vert jump and were like 15% lower then your best max…you can do like 50% volume or wait till next day…is there some sort of guideline for this?? or does it just sound dumb?
thanx
one of the posts reminded me of something in DBs book. Its not aan exact quote because I dont have the book in front of me. He states that if you train to the 6% drop off point and the training session is planned out properly he says that when you next do that same workout you will have improved 6%. So this means a 1000 lbs. squatter will gain 60 lbs on his squat in 1 session huh? This is ridiculous.
Does he mean 6% on that particular lift? Or 6% increase in your WHOLE next workout? That would seem a little bit more reasonable to me, but 6% on a particular lift is too good to be true.
I think that part of the confusion is due to the writing style. I have read DB’s articles a few times and i get at little lost in what he is talking about. One thing that really bother me about one of his articles was that he was complaning about the progress in the 100m times in the last 50 years. I find it naive to assume that human performance has no limits and should improve at the same rate over the last 50 years as the last 100 years. As one approaches these limits, a .001 second improvement is a big deal. It is exactly like the 1000lb squatter that shane mentionned. Anyways, off my soapbox…
As far as the 6%, what does he mean by 6% improvement? 6% in what? There is a big different between a 6% improvement in volume or intensity and whether it is in a particular lift or through the entire workout.
I dont have time right now to quote him, but later tonight i’ll quote that little section of the book. From what I remember he is refering to the particular movement that was trained. I’ll post it later.
Landon, I’m not sure if you meant what I read here, but in case you did:
To have gained 6% in the whole workout would require that on average, every lift increased by 6%. So it’s more feasible to gain 6% on a single lift.
Josh,
Sorry, what I meant by that was total increase across the whole workout, not in every lift. 1% in exercise 1, .5% in exercise 2, 1.5% in exercise 3, etc
Dminishing returns is a good point, but you’d still think someone would have gotten close to what Ben would have gotten if he didn’t raise his arms.
So now our friend is an expert in the 100m as well. Not enough progress for his liking?? Well then, perhaps he should show us the way- AND LEAD BY EXAMPLE. We eagerly await the results. Even if he’s sworn to secrecy, we’ll know who it is!!!
I’m sure he means 6% gain on a lift with all things being perfect, but in life rarely is that the case 
lol. This guy is incredible. He seems to have found a winning formula of jargon, grandiose claims and “confidentiality agreements” with which to market himself. The supertraining list was effectively hijacked over the end of 2003 as members debated the pro’s and con’s of D.B. and his methods. I really find it impossible to take this guy, and unfortunately - and by extension- what he says, seriously.
I have the book in front of me now, but as for quoteing the whole paragragh I dont think i’ll do it because a friend emailed me and said DB would be able to take legal action if he wanted too for writing part of his book on here. I’ll tell you the gist of it though. He says that he has yet to see an athlete that cant reciprocate the degree of fatigue into the elevated performance. Then here is an example he gives, if somebody has a 100kg bench press and they train to a 6% drop off point then in roughly 4 days their new max bench will be 106kg. Also, I cant remember if it was mentioned on here or not but he says that if you use AMT jumps your vertical will increase at least 18% from just 1 session.
Oh ya, this is for you Charlie he says the most effective way to increase sprinting speed if with an AMT sprint device, but he says they are to expensive for most coaches. I think Charlie better give up his whole practice and wait until there is a platinum package on DBs site available and so that Charlie can learn from the master.Hahahaha. I cant believe I bought DBs book, the only way I am going to be alright with it is if other people learn from my mistake.
Have you actually tried his workouts yet? Just want to see what some more results are like.
I just got the book 2 days ago - damn it’s hard stuff to sit down and read after a days work.
The writing style isn’t a easy and on top of that there’s a bucket load of abreviations to try and figure out …
I am probably missing out on something fundamentally. But as far as I can se DB’s AMT training is just depth jumps with some rubber bands that will increase the acceleration in the drop phase. What is the big difference from just increasing the drop height and that way gain more speed and thus create more force on impact with the ground?