I mentioned the GPP as an example, so doing jumps x 2 & sprints x 2 is a way of ensuring sufficient accumulated fatigue making peaking later on possible, as well as sufficient progression going into SPP. The goals contradict each other somewhat, but it’s a trade of that usually must be taken.
In GPP jumps are not 100% intensity. Mostly it’s elastic bounding building up towards higher intensities later on. The goal for the progression is to make you ready for jumping (TJ or LJ) with longer runups in the SPP. The CNS taxation from this kind of work is not a problem. They become a problem in the SPP when speed and force on the runway increases. Bounding/jumping two times a week in GPP is definitely not overkill, on the contrary, most useful. Don’t expect to do triple jump or long jump from a 10,5-11 m/s speed without having automated patterns in place. You usually don’t hit PRs in GPP, you build.
Sprinting in GPP (short to long) is mostly acceleration, gradually building up to max. velocities in the SPP. The CNS stress here is controlled by volume. Now, sprintwork two times a week is not overkill if you want to become faster and especially if volume is kept low (as jumpers usually do). For example CF orders sprinting three times a week with decent amount of volume compared to jumpers.
So it’s actually in the weight room where you hit hard, and GPP is probably the period when hitting hard in the weights is meaningful.
I’m not saying you should forget about the neuro-modalities, but sometimes we have to. Only when we have the priorities and progression programmed in our mesocycle and microcycle plan, can we get the luxury about caring for neuro-modalities.
BTW, I really enjoyed your writing about the Inno-Sport Training Basics, well formulated and easy to understand.
I thought we don’t have to do duration if we were to use rate and mag for sprinting or jumps assuming we’ve built up sufficient strength in our lower body (and upperbody) from previous cycles? If i remember, DB adovates seperate strength qualities for different cycles depending on individual’s goals. Like if for several cycles, we focus on magnitude (various jumps and DE stuff) and duration (build up strength or ME, iso, IO,etc), wouldn’t that improve sprinting and jumping abilities even though we didn’t sprint at all. Once we’ve gotten strong enough, move on to rate and mag cycle to improve speed. Didn’t DB say that we can still get stronger despite not doing any duration exercises to a degree? Like everyone else, I’m still trying to make sense of DB’s hammer. I hear that DB is coming out with 2nd book but might be for consultants only, not for masses. :mad:
Query related to determining weakness. It says if 1RM is completed in 0.0-3.5 sec, athlete is generally speed dominant. Wouldn’t this be reflected in other RFD-related displays? I am generally slow, and don’t have a very good vertical, or PC or Snatch, but I can smoke a bench press or squat. I mean, when I bench, there is a vapor trail behind the bar. Comments?
EDIT: BTW, I am not a total weakling. I consider limit strength to be a stronger facet of my training than power at this point.
If you look at his speed-strength, strength-speed model strength speed work is max power + 20%
So in strength speed work a beginner or strength dominant individual may use 51% and 71%
Now the goal in training is to improve the %1rm that the athlete can produce max power. So you may start at 51/71, but over time you are working towards a max power at 74%. This would make strength-speed work 74% to 94%. At this point strength speed work will also function, to a degree, as maximal strength work.
Hope this made sense
PS all weight %'s are meant to be appropriated weight, not straight weight.
I think DB is basically taking track work into the gym for strength oriented athletes, meaning he’s incorporating some basic values form neuro-oriented work usually done on the track, and giving these values a sort of strength training form. Now, there are certainly some new angels to strength training as well – some intriguing ideas indeed – but I still feel the ones who might gain advantages from such an approach is strength sport athletes, and T&F athletes to a much lesser degree. Still, if strength is your priority number one: focus some attention to the DB Hammer stuff; you might largely benefit from it.
The reason I marched into this tread in the first place is that I’m interested in some of DBs stuff. But when priority #1 and #2 is track work, the remaining time, focus and energy for weights is limited. Therefore, we have to modify the pure DB approach, sometimes to nearly unrecognizable lengths or abandoning them altogether. It still doesn’t mean the DB approach sucks, on the contrary, but introducing pure methodological strength training systems into T&F training is usually too extreme, giving us underachieving benefits in competitions.
Kellyb & Co., I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but I’m turning to your excellent insight into DB’s stuff to see if there might be a meaningful way to bring some of the DB’s ideas into the normal T&F training regimen. Said that, I do not hesitate to go against DB’s principles if track work requires me to do so. My fixation for neuro-duration work (normal squat routines if you prefer) in the gym is due to the fact that most of the other modalities are done on the track. Although rate and duration shouldn’t be mixed, I see some benefits from it in the longer run. OI’s and RFI’s are a good start in deciphering the problem and I gladly hear some more constructive ideas.
he reason I marched into this tread in the first place is that I’m interested in some of DBs stuff. But when priority #1 and #2 is track work, the remaining time, focus and energy for weights is limited. Therefore, we have to modify the pure DB approach, sometimes to nearly unrecognizable lengths or abandoning them altogether. It still doesn’t mean the DB approach sucks, on the contrary, but introducing pure methodological strength training systems into T&F training is usually too extreme, giving us underachieving benefits in competitions.
Yes, definitely agree with you here. Find what you can use and what works for you. If there’s one thing I would suggest it’s to see the effect that a lack of traditional strength work has on your personally. Also see how little track time you actually need to make progress, identify your technical flaws, and see if you can correct them through functional means.