low bar squat

Expert Discussion Strength Training
101

[QUOTE=james colbert] one method of teaching proper activation patterns are extreme isos. seems a little couterintutive but ive personally seen the tranference from an iso lunge to a sprint or an iso push up to a bench press (when it comes to getting in the proper postion). this is work that most people arent willing to do to be honest. ive told a few people on this board how to perform them, they say they will and i never hear back from them lol it is extremely painful work… extremely.
QUOTE]

Funnily enough, I tried the Iso-lunge holds that you prescribed to me in the “best hamstring injury preventor” thread several months back.

However, my vertical jump was lower than usuall the next 2 days becuase the iso-holds had taken a lot out of muscle. (I do a vertical jump test to asses my leval of c.n.s and p.n.s resources for a training session.)
I did not recover as quickly from these iso-lunges as from other training methods, my legs felt heavy and they had sapped my leg strength is the best way I can describe the feeling I had in my thighs the next 2 days. I then read somewhere else on the site that isometric training had no benefits to sprint speed. Those two reasons combined are why I stopped doing the isometric holds.
Still, I’ve no reason to doubt that you saw a posative cross over in to your sprinting from extreeme isometric lunge holds. That is your experiance.

How long had you been doing them before you saw the cross-over effect?
Also, was the cross over effect a deffinate improvement in sprint times or just a more powerfull feeling when running?
It is very easy for the sprinter to miss-interpret the feeling of greater power to deffinately be greater speed. As an example of this, I remember doinga type of kettle bell lift that really increased the power of my forward arm drive. when I sprinted I felt great power in my arms, I was convinced I was running faster. Lol, come testing day, I timed myself and was not even slightly faster than before. This is not an atack on your post and i deffinately agree with your phillosophy that we must try to better the methods that have been used in the past. We will get mixed results with this aproach, but it is better than the alterative of completely copying some one elses method and never quite knowing if there was maybe perhaps a slightly better way. (I also respect Charlie a great deal.)
However, I must repeat my questions;
How long had you been doing the iso-lunges before you saw the cross-over effect?
Also, was the cross over effect a deffinate improvement in sprint times or just a more powerfull feeling when running?

102

first i would ask how you performed the excercise, what else where you doing in your training, and do you really think 2 days will give you a clear indicator. once again we are getting into the problem of seeing narrowly, the isos are just one but many tools and as i posted above speceficity + repetition = adaptation. you didnt do it long enough to see any benefit, and i would guess that you were also doing other leg work, not sticking to the diet that i have mentioned ect ect. 20 sessions are usually needed to see the degree of adaptation i have mentioned. its a system, you cant simply stick something in and expect it to work. if you were willing to eat what i say do what i say and give maximal effort for 20 sessions i am confident you would see a marked adaptation.

103

Quote:
Originally Posted by james colbert

Your CNS is like a computer:the main difference is that it is programed via repetition. The more often you squat heavy the more weight your going to lift. We only progress neurologically when we train. Unlike what most of us were taught via bodybuilder magazines your body does not only adapt during times of recovery. Biologically yes neurologically no. Technically the more often you can perform at your maximum the more rapid you will progress. This is why Charlie organizes his training around max velocity days. this is where you get better neurologically and the neurology controls the physiology.

For those still willing to hear,and possibly learn what they do not understand yet,I do not think there’s ever been a clearer definition and more appropriate explanation of the basics of CFTS itself on this site!
Great effort,James.

Incorrect.

104

hmmm ok i see your point…

105

Your CNS is like a computer, ok, I dont see that, thats an oversimplication at best, i could say your cns is like a car, like video game, basically like anything I want, your cns is not like a computer unless you have the most basic understanding of the cns and a computer.

It is programmed via repitition once again very oversimplified but i will let this one be at the time.

We only progress neurologically when we train.

Can you show me any sort of data that supports this, what do you mean by progress? How is it different than how you progress biologically and how can you be sure they dont progress in roughly speaking the same manner?

Technically the more often you can perform at your maximum the more rapid you will progress.

No No No No NOOOOO

You mistake the correlation with the cause. Because you can perform your maxs closer together that means you are progressing, you dont progress because you max closer together.

So because you can lift closer together according to you you progress faster because you can adapt neurologically faster. Thats great, but show me repetition to repetition that this is true and that there is a direct correlation between amount of lifts and neurological adaptation.

Yes there is neurological adaptation, you would be fool to think there was none. But doesnt most of it occur when you are “learning” the action or relearning it, after that doesnt it become second nature. Yes there will always be some learning as speed or strength increase I am not saying it leaves, but neurological adaptations are only part of the puzzle. What about the rest of the adaptations which I will call physical, the one being of major concern is of course muscular, not down playing other physical adaptations such as bone, tendon, cardiovascular, etc you get the point. But by only focusing on neurological adaptation are you not forgetting about time needed to properly recover the physical attributes and even neurological adaptations themselves. So just because you can do something does not mean you are properly rested in anyway and that because it can be done does not mean it is best to be done.

That is where i see the big distinction between what you preach and my understanding of charlie, though both can correct me if i am wrong, and james let me preface by saying i dont follow either school verbatem. But you speak of attempting to get the most max lifts in and correlating that with charlies training system because he uses particular days for hi cns work. What I take from it is charlie does it to make it so that you are recovered and capable of a true high cns day, whereas you go max as soon as possible. I think there is a great distinction between the two and perhaps I am just not understanding what you are saying. I see you working at it from a neurological side moreso where charlie uses a more balanced understanding of both physical and neurological recovery which is needed to truely perform hi cns work at an optimal level. What I get from your training is that it is almost a fake max effort or detrimental max effort, where as charlie doesnt even necessarily use max effort but hi cns work, while both are probably performing at the same level I see you working into defecit and being more concerned about obtaining your current state, where as charlie works slightly under the threshold and is able to get a sufficient workload in without over taxing the body and giving it ample time to recover.

Also one final thought, and james i hope you didnt take this as an attack, i just want to hash this stuff out.

But in terms of deviating from what has already been done i think a major issue is cost benefit analysis and risk adversion. You see thats fine for you to test new methods and the pay off could be high, but there is little variation in performance level that can be achieved by a tried method such as charlies. Such as say hypothetically yearly return of 8% improvement varying 2%, whereas trying new methods will undoubtedly have a lower expected return than the best tried methods so say 3% on average with 6% variance, so that it is possible to obtain higher results but not likely, i mean obviously these numbers r pulled out of my ass, but it was just point i am trying to get across, the numbers do not matter, its that sure you could do better, but a serious athlete may not want to risk it, whereas a serious coach who has multiple athletes could try, so before patronizing individuals for not expanding there training method you may want to think why that is.

106

Pope,if you understood more clearly the scenario James is trying to depict here,you would also see the weak points in your statements,and how Charlie’s reasoning is truly based off the very same premises:you understand these,and CFTS will do wonders for you (as for anyone else BTW),you don’t,you’ll probably end up stuck in lack of constant progression.

A major cause of improper understanding in the area I think is the general lack of comprehension of the double sided,tricky nature of biological and neurological adaptation,which James tried quite hard to express in his own,not always correct maybe,but surely very appropriate at least in this context words.

107

Please define “Mechanical Efficiency”.
Wouldn’t a more efficient System as a whole imply more efficient expressions of all of its features?

108

Do you? I don’t.

109

I think both James and Popique have made interesting and thoughtful posts and I suspect they would find they are closer together than they are apart if they were in a room together for a day or two (with Pakewi as the referee!). I think I want to see where this goes before I jump in!

110

Who ever just gave me a red negative reputation point for my post in this thread, I wish you would have been more descriptive of your reason, instead of just saying “over and over the same mistake.” What the hell does that mean? Becuase I have not beein going over and over the same mistake. I tried it one weak and then abandoned the exercise. How is that going over and over the same mistake?
I merely pointed out why I abandoned the exercise. Unlike a certain few people here, I dont need to trudge through an exercise for 20 sessions to know if it’s any good or not. After 20 years of training I have built an instinct for knowing if an exercise will help my sprinting or not, just from a few sessins of the exercise. I did not need to do the iso-holds for 20 sessions to know weather or not to keep it in my program. There really is some negativity going on in this thread and I was keeping at bay for a while. Untill somebody dragged me into it. That’s fine, I’m ready to match quote for quote and theory for theory any one who’s got a problem with my post. . Here was my previous post that recieved a negative reputaiopn point;

111

I have recieved some VERY personnal comments frrom a few people on this forum. (they have also recieved negativity from others themselves.)

One guy even said in there post directed at me, that a particular person “x” was not actually answering my post. I then had to show the person that the particular “x” man even quoted my post in theirs, showing he directly was answering my post. They then got embarrased for being wrong and deleted their post. But what a stupid attack on me in the first place!
This is the last place that I thought would become “clicky”, but it is in some threads.

To tell the truth I’m getting a little bit tired of complete idiots who keep up with the same old rhetoric; (when they can not back up there points with any real world results, they tend to say something like; “It’s just part of the total equation” (true to a DEGREE) or “it’s a usefull tool”, or “it’s just one piece of the over-all program.” Worse are ridiculous insults like “you obviously don’t know how to train.” Some of the people who say these over -used phillosophies are only using them for conveniance sake becuase they cannot give a good reason for the inclusion of an individuall exercise. Yes, it’s partly about the total program but if you can not back up a jolly good reason for each individuall exercise you have to really question it’s merit. I don’t think some people are doing that part particularly well.
To come back with scientific theory from journals and papers you have stuffed your face with for the last 5 years becuase you can not back it up even in your own training is just crud.

If I ever quote any literature it is ALLWAYS if I have also experianced it as red in my own training.

This is the last place that I thought would become “clicky”, but it is in some threads.

You want to go toe to toe on this, It’s ON.

112

Pakewi,

As i said in my post perhaps it is my lack of understanding of one or both types of training. Could you point out to me where my logic is flawed in what i said so i can better understand the issue?

Also you said James posts were not completely correct regarding adaptation, could you improve on his ideas I attempted to but you shot them down. Could you briefly explain your understanding of these adaptations both physical and neurological and maybe some main distinctions between them?

Charlie,

I agree for the most part, as I was writing my last post at times I could see where a lot of training concepts would still cross over, my major concern is mostly regarding recovery and the what i preceive as an overemphasis on only one aspect of adaptation, and to a lesser extent plataeuing.

ALSO I DO NOT APPRECIATE GETTING SIMILIAR NEGATIVE REP POINTS STATING THAT I AM AN IDIOT AND THAT I AM DEAD WRONG, I AM SURE I KNOW WHO THESE TWO PEOPLE ARE BUT COME ON NOW THE POINT IS INTELLECTUAL DEBATE, IF I GET NEGATIVE REP POINTS AND CALLED AN IDIOT FOR IT THEN I WILL STOP POSTING

113

I just want to throw in my 2 cents here.

In support of James, I thought it was a fairly accepted fact that the more often you train, the more quickly you progress neurologically. Repetition is how the nervous system is trained, this is the basis behind form drills and training above 90%. The trick is that you have to fully recover biologically between training sessions. If you wanted to, I’m sure you could sprint each and every day at 100% intensity, it’s just that in order to do so you would have to build up your work capacity to a high level and would have to regulate the overall volume of sprints based upon your own limitations.

Charlie’s system is structured so that there are alternating days of high and low CNS demand. Many people, especially on this site, train this way. What (I think) James proposes is different, but logical in nature. Say, for instance, that you can run 8 60M sprints at 100% intensity and fully recover from this exertion in four days. A high/low system would take all sprints on one day. Personally, and I think James would agree with me here but I’m not sure, I would think neurological adaptations would occur more quickly if you took 2 60M sprints per day for each of the 4 days. And since you did the same volume, your biological system should be able to handle and recover from the stress. The real problem with working out every day is that people tend to do more work than their personal capacity allows them to fully recover from.

In support of Popequique, James, you have not done a perfect job of getting your ideas across. It’s not entirely your fault, for communication is almost entirely dependant upon the receiver, but a good deal of the blame falls to you for this. Giving examples would be useful and would help people try and understand what you’re trying to say. Also, stating your information in more traditional terms might help convey your message. A lot of people think the material you’re posting is ridiculous, but what they don’t understand is that it’s all pretty much accepted information.

Again, just my 2 cents.

114

You’re an amateur when it comes to collecting red rep points. I think I am the only person on the board with a negative rep score. I actually got a negative rep point for making a tongue-in-cheek comment to Charlie, said purely in jest, on an Off Topic post!

I usually ask those who make claims that something is a “fact” or the “truth” to show me the studies/data, not to challenge them, but so that I might educate myself and determine for myself whether or not it is the truth. If I believe the data, there is no need to try and convince me, I will convince myself.

Some people, not familiar with the concept of peer review and the value of critique, get offended easily and reach out to swat you. Heck, I still don’t know how to give out rep scores, positive or negative!

But don’t get too frustrated. This board needs more who require empirical evidence in support of theory before swallowing it whole.

And Charlie, I was just kidding about the Canadian thing, honest. :smiley:

115

u may want to reevaluate that instinct of yours. 20 sessions are needed to see the adpatation i spoke of. you cant prove a thing useless by doing it half assed. its like doing a study and leaving out a very important variable. im no gunna try to convert you im just telling you what i kno as truth. if you choose to benefit from it or not is up to you, i could care less. i do enjoy sharing and discussing these topics with you guys and that is why i do it. not to start a business, not to pad my ego (if i were i would never post here as many are so small minded that cant recognize an analogy), i am here to share and to learn, and i have learned from many of you, your persepctive has helped me understand better what i do and what others do.

116

i dont want you to stop posting buddy im enjoying our discussion. basically in the last post you took my anaolgies to serious. i was trying to break it down in a way that most would understand. ofcourse the brain isnt a computer, but it does process information.

alot of the stuff i talk about is really difficult to convey to people on a forum simply because the background knowledge is so vast that unless you have a strong background in anatomy physiology biomechancis motor learning neuromecanics kinetics kinematics and kinesiology. so you can understand that some may not understand what im talking about unless i talk in very simplistic terms. if i was talking about the alpha gamma loop and efferent and afferent nerves and feedfowards systems 90% of the people on this board would reply with ???. not that the people on this board are stupid these are just subjects that most just dont delve into.

i was correct in saying that we only progress neurologically when we train. for example your intermuscular coordination is trained/changed during training. now your biological systems recover after a stressor is replied but the same adpation does not occur in the neurological system.

we are comming back to the topic of CNS fatigue. we have discussed it in the past. plainly it doesnt exsits how you concieve it and pakwei can back me up on this one as hes done research with the omega wave. its not that your CNS cant be inhibited but it doesnt fatigue like a uscle would, depleted of substrates. its just a matter of inhibitory neural pathways which can be broken down, retrained to allow greater NS output. but thats another discussion altogether.

if you have conflict with something that i have presented post a specific question or point of contention, it gets a little difficult to respond to 5 questions in one post.

117

your on the right track, and i apologize because you are right people arent getting what im communicating, i have noticed that and can tell by their responses. i have used examples but if anyone feels they need something explained better dont hesitate to ask.

you are corrects in saying that you must recover biologically between maximal sessions of work otherwise it wont be maximal only degrading (there are some program control parapmeters which allow for a small decrement in performance from maximum , this level is held for long periods of time to elicit a delayed training effect which would result in a greater resulting supercompensation). biological adaptation can be augmented by diet. to the point where recovery is very rapid, but again thats another subject for debate and gets into issues of pharmacosanation and hormonal control.

again im willing to explain anything better just ask.

118

Doesnt a majority of neurological adaptation occur at the onset of training, hence the reason for later stages of adaptation being physical in nature? If most adaptation was neurological wouldnt there be less need for the body to adapt physically?

Since your cns doesnt fatigue and you can then left max more, are you not leaving out the recovery time needed for muscles, tendon, etc?

You say studies are flawed and cant be trusted but instead you reference another member of the site using omegawave, that is suppose to be more scientific in nature?

Also what is your education level in these subjects, since you are so well versed in a variety of subjects.

I also await the negative rep point from the individual who continues to negative rep me after each response.

119

the information presented here is a natural synthesis of give data. what i mean by given is that its all in a textbook. the problem with is peopl want to read a short easy to understand study but studies for the most part are flawed. i very rarily see a study that isnt missing an important factor, and ive seen many studies which are clearly wrong as they fly in the face of knowledge that we all know as athletes and coaches to be true. so not to scare you away from studies as some are useful just be careful what you take as fact as it may be fact under their sets and constratints but not fact in the real world which contains many more variables to account for.

if you really want to understand in depth what i am talking about you need to pick up a few books on the subjects i mentioned above and start reading. a book on anatomy and physiology has about 90% of what im talking about in it, and various coaches over the years have used this and that.

120

i see the issue here. ok yes you are correct people do advance rapidly via neurological adaptation when they begin training but it doesnt end there for a number of reasons. one, many learn motor patterns incorrectly. two, an individual adapts mainly neurologically and not biologically when they train and their body weight and compostion dont change. three, adaptation is specific to training/stress. so if you change the adaptive goal you change the neurological system. finally, perfect motor control for any given movement is impossible, it is asymptotal ie you can always get closer to perfection but you can never reach it.

i mention pakwei and the omega wave because he has evidence to support the claim which was aquired in the real world. and i mentioned that studies are often flawed not always. i was just warning to look in depth into the study to make sure that the data is applicable to your goals. many people simply read the conclusion and take it as a given.