Don’t want to open up a can of worms here, but just wondering what the general consensus was on their methods’s, or if there even ever was a general consensus? Some of the ideas seem solid, but seems to me that CF’s methods are much more usable and straightforward, and probably more effective. So, I guess I’m not asking to help me make a decision. I know where I stand. 
Just wanted to know what the big hitters around here thought.
Use the KISS method and use CFTS because inno method is far from KISS.
I love the Inno-Sport system and am currently using it. When properly applied, the results are like nothing I’ve ever done before. Forget the whole “DB isn’t real” thing, the system is firmly grounded in science, well organized, and easy to apply with some mental effort.
lol, what kind of ground breaking results you have gotten from inno- plz udate me.
Your condescending attitude aside, I’m doing very well this spring. My second time running on an actual track since last August, I ran an 11.40e 100M without blocks. This is especially good when you take the various factors leading up to it into consideration.
- I broke 12 seconds one time last season.
- I hadn’t run further than 50M in 5 months, and all the running I did was in 30 degree weather.
- My best 200M at the time was 24.80h, so with some conditioning work, my 100M will drop.
In the last few weeks, my 200M is now almost a second faster and my reactive jumps are up. I’ll be doing some 80M sprints Tuesday and then I’ll be able to tell you where I’m at now.
To the OP. My numbers are not overly impressive now (to say the least), but I’ve come quite a ways since I started. I picked up sports almost two years ago @ 18. Since then, I have been able to broad jump 10+ feet, dunk a volleyball from a standstill (could do a bball, but it slips), and can do a 360 dunk from a run (also with a volleyball). During this time, I have not always used the Inno-Sport system, but my best results have always come during the periods where I was applying it. If you want to use the system, my advice would be to follow it to the letter. Changing things, even if you think they are small, will absolutely ruin the training effect.
That sounds all good but until you run in a meet it means little. Im sure you have gotten faster but who knows what may happen when you line up against 7-8 other athletes.
If this is the same RJ from T-Nation, these were your numbers 2 and a half years ago when you first started training, albeit after a month?
(From T-Nation)
Bench Press: Was 195, is now 265
Below Parallel Box Squat: Was 295, is now 435
Deficit Deadlift(bar touching tops of feet): Was 275, is now 355
Vertical Leap: Was 29", is now 32"
How are they now, compared to then? Thanks.
Also, where do you think you would be if you had followed the CF methodology?
Same RJ, but those numbers were off. Like all dumb asses, I thought my box squat was parallel, but it was nowhere near. And my vertical leap was measured combine style (reach with two arms, jump with one).
As of now, my all time PRs are:
Broad Jump: 10’1"
Standing Vertical Leap (head measured): 33.5"
Running Vertical Leap: 38"
Back Squat: 320 lbs x 8
Front Squat: 285 lbs x 4
Bench: 305 lbs, but is now 275 (close-grip)
As for comparisons, I like CF’s training a lot, but I know it wouldn’t work for me. My body does not deal with volume very well at all, and without a lot of working into it, I would overtrain very easily. AREG allows me to manage this within the IS system.
Since then, I haven’t become much stronger than in the first few months when I started lifting (doing max effort twice per week and overall acting like an idiot) but my athleticism is much better as a whole. Looking back, most of my 100M times from my first year of track were over 12.2-12.3. I’ve gotten much faster, more reactive, and in much better shape since then, but I feel I spun my wheels way too much.
For years, I had a problem staying consistent with one training path, and my results suffered. I also thought I could modify the Inno-Sport system and make it better, but all I did was cheat myself out of results. I’m actually kind of ashamed at the lack of progress I’ve shown, but since I’ve been sticking the the IS system, things have been plugging right along.
I should note, if I already haven’t, that I was not following the IS system this whole time. I’ve followed it for about 4 months total out of that entire time span. During these small spurts of following the system, I always PR’ed big, but being an idiot, I started to get worried about my strength, or something else, and went back to another way of training only to lose my results. This is a mistake I won’t be making in the future.
As for following CF’s system, I don’t know if it would have worked for me. I’m not naturally very fast, and doing sprint and weight work on the same day usually prevents me from getting faster, even if the overall volume of weights and speed are manageable. Personally, I like the Inno-Sport system, would recommend it to anyone, and am finally being consistent enough to get the results I’d like from it.
With luck, I’ll break 11.00 FAT and 23.00 FAT come this summer (when the Alaska track season starts).
RJ, I would assume that your problem with CF’s volume is due to the fact that the listed volumes are for intermediate to high level sprinters. I would also think that if you started training at 18, that you could improve a lot through just running an appropriate volume of sprints due to increased movement efficiency. I do understand that you are probably limited by the elements up in Alaska so this might not be a feasible option.
I think that a lot of Inno-Sports results are due to the system requiring high intensity and low volume plus full recovery, rather than the use of any magical exercises or progressions. I would say that my only true complaint with the whole Inno-Sport crowd is their apparent dismissal and marginalization of the results achieved by world class athletes and coaches such as Charlie. Also I’m not quite sold on the assertion that the squat will make you slower and that tempo is worthless.
White, I’d say you hit the nail on the head. I just don’t have the work capacity to deal with CF’s system. Not that I couldn’t build it, but it would be rough on me for quite some time.
Same goes for me just needing to run more. Just getting out on the track and doing longer runs has gone a long ways in helping me. I hadn’t felt lactic acid in years and so 200M sprints were a whole new beast. Slowly but surely, my anaerobic glycolytic pathway is getting better.
As you continue, I agree with you even more. There is nothing special about the Inno-Sport system or the various methods it employs. All it does is give one a way to monitor and quantify progress, to measure fatigue, and to keep results coming indefinitely through the various progressions and cycles it outlines.
Regarding the marginalization of results, I don’t necessarily agree there. I don’t think the system (or it’s authors) ever put down other top sportsmen. They may have criticized the methods they used to train, but never said they were worthless. They merely called them a stepping stone along the way and implied there were better things still to come.
And CK never said the squat would make you slower. It can make you slower if over relied upon, especially if an athlete is quadricep dominant, but for those who are well balanced, it’s a useful movement. Tempo on the other hand, I don’t like.
I should have clarified my statement about marginalization. What I meant to say was that they seem to down play the methods used to achieve those high level performances. Tempo is a great example of this. Many would like to claim that it is outdated or unnecessary, however one cannot deny the fact that it has been an integral part of the training of numerous world record holders.
RJ, do you feel that your results would be much different if you focused on sprinting full speed for an appropriate volume as often as your recovery allowed coupled with an appropriate dose of squats and upperbody work? I just get the feeling that the WGF/Inno-Sport method isn’t nearly as direct as the previously mentioned method and doesn’t affect the needed pathways as effectively.
Personally, regardless of what Inno or Charlie or whoever says, I don’t like tempo. I believe in training at 100% effort (95%+ actual ability) at all times. Not only that, but tempo is primarily aerobic in nature and the 100M dash is roughly 95% anaerobic. I see nothing tempo provides that I either need or couldn’t get more effectively from a different method.
As for the second block of your last post, I tried that for 2.5 months. I did a manageable volume of full speed sprints and squatted submaximally two days per week. On off days, I either did upper body, a light recovery session, or nothing. In the end, I increased my squat strength but my CMJ only rose 1/2" and my sprint times didn’t budge. For the most part, they actually regressed slightly. Like I said, weights and sprints do not mix well for me.
Since starting back up on IS methods, my times have been dropping like a stone.
Well I suppose different strokes for different folks… Best of luck in achieving your goals.
Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it and wish you the same.
You said you ran 7.30e 60m last year and you ran 11.9, so I’m not so sure the practice times mean anything.
Also interesting is that your new sprinting PR’s came 2 weeks after a 3 month long period of non-Inno training. But I am sure those 2 inno workouts you did were responsible for the differences–not the months of training leading up to it?
There are many different methods and you should be able to take something from every method, but Inno seems to be, at least for many, applied inappropriately when looking at the journals and results.
Davan, when I ran 7.30e I weighed close to 195. When my season came around, I was weighing closer to 210 lbs. Also, my best 200M from that time period was 25.13h, so my conditioning was obviously dire. That would easily account for the differences in times.
As for if the IS system was responsible for the gains, or the training that came before it, I couldn’t tell you. I wasn’t PRing while doing the sprint and squat training, despite it having similar frequency and volume to the IS training.
And yes, it does seem the Inno-Sport system is often employed improperly, though to the best of my knowledge, I am the only one on the net following it strictly and keeping a journal. I had failed in applying it to sprinting in the past, but I’ve got it figured out now. All I needed was more RFI work along with a lot more work in the An-2 bracket.
Thank you, I’m not even going to waste my time with this nonsense.