Max AND SubMax or Max VS. SubMax?

[james_colbert]

@Nikoluski

Who else was/is using it apart from Kenteris? And of those we see, do you know how many others have tried it? As a success rate, if you want? That would be interesting to see, too, don’t you agree?

I agree with you on some practical examples. I have asked for this and been ignored…

squat 130% overspeed concentric
altitude drop 400 reps on the day
3 min extreme iso lunge
glute ham static dynamic 300 reps on the day

doesn’t make much sense on its own does it. kinda need a frame of reference. why would you do this why would you do that? better yet why does he/she need this why does he/she need that? Individualistic programing you cant just spit out some shit with out consideration to the individual and their level of ability. in all honestly somebody who has done nothing would be doing extreme isos for at least 2 months. perhaps with some low grade rebound movements and altitude drops.

[svass]

@james_colbert

doesn’t make much sense on its own does it. kinda need a frame of reference. why would you do this why would you do that? better yet why does he/she need this why does he/she need that? Individualistic programing you cant just spit out some shit with out consideration to the individual and their level of ability. in all honestly somebody who has done nothing would be doing extreme isos for at least 2 months. perhaps with some low grade rebound movements and altitude drops.

So why don’t you give us some practical examples of what you do and why you would do it.

Pedantic: Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules; marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects.

James, you obviously have some good information to offer - but all of the information you tend to give is something that can be gathered by only a cursory reading of any text. A little Enoka here, a little a very basic physiology there, a ton of Siff everywhere. Soviet this . . . Bulgarian that . . . blah,blah,blah.

Again, I would like to restate that you do have some good ideas that I am opened minded to - but again you refuse to offer any PRACTICAL information.

When challenged by someone, you dismiss them with ‘I don’t have to explain myself to you.’

When challenged by a paper that contradicts what you are saying, you dismiss it with ‘Most scientific studies don’t include the proper variable.’ I point I agree on, but you never take the time to dissect the paper or its findings.

When asked about the your or Jay’s training methods (as above) you usually give the old ‘you can’t learn c before knowing a and b’ answer or use some thing like you did above.

Again, I would like to learn from you - but here’s why I have a hard time believing anything you say. (a) any of your physics posts have been so far off base that it shows you don’t have a basic grasp on 100 level physics. (b) a lot of your physiological arguments aren’t any better. Although you spit out basic paparagraphs from texts, your posts regarding stretching, muscle fibre adaptation and preferential recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres demonstrate that you have a limited level of knowledge regarding any of these concepts.

It is your argumentative nature, ‘I’m smarter that you’ attitute and lack of practical application that got you banned from Boyle’s site. Twice.

And as Charlie mentioned earlier in this thread - many of the methods you espouse have been tried in the past and discarded because they do not work. As he has stated in the past, when it comes to strength and conditioning of the athlete - science follows coaching and not the other way around. Please tell us why you think these methods failed, and how you would adapt them to produce superior athletes.

So pretty please - how about some practical information regarding the implementation of your concepts.

[svass]

@Palmtag

Also, I really enjoy reading what you have to say, except I don’t appreciate your posts. They are bricks of text. Your last few have been really easy to read, but I beg of you! Paragraphs!

Yes please It is only slightly easier that trying to read a paragraph long text message on cell phone from a 12 year old kid using the days latest slang terminology.

[Nikoluski]

@james_colbert

u must not have read my post as i said you train the single gretes constraint. that could be weighing 400 lbs or the ability to absorb force. it ususally is the later with most atheltes. i dont kno how to state it more clearly. that is trainig your greatest weakness, the one that most restricts movement towards the goal.

I have read everything, but it doesn’t seem to be myself the only one having trouble figuring out what you are trying to say.

This is better now and a fundamental difference between the two of us here (no problem with that, of course), as you tend to miss out on strengths. Even if you say all things are/will be trained, if your focus is on A, B will get less attention.

Also, I go back to lorien’s post, which reads: “Well, if we’re not sprinting every day, then what could be the next – tightest sequence – if not… every other day? Hmm, but aren’t people already doing that? Nonetheless, sprinting every other day is very demanding too, hence we adjust volumes and intensities, otherwise we would be forced to only sprint every third day etc. etc.”
Even if you manage to make it up to four times per week, there is nothing new here.

Enjoying (most of) your posts, but get more specific, if you want. Thank you!

[popequique]

Not trying to jump on Colbert putdown party here, but I was going to bring it up earlier, but this kinda looks like an oppurtune time, if you could please add references to some of your thoughts that would be great, not that your the only one who posts stuff from outside sources and then paraphrases to look like its your own, I mean you know a lot, but you pretty much use a textbook answer for every question on every topic.

Also it would be great if you could post some of your ideas into workout form, no one is asking for anything extravagent, use whatever you must, just make up a random person with whatever variables you need, make up a training age, 100m, 200m times 30m fly, vertical jump, squat, whatever you need.

If you cant actually make a training workout for an athlete what good is it saying well I think the problem is the runners right pinky so he should do drop jumps onto the right pinky but I wont say from what height, but he can definately do it each hour at maximum force everyday and this will increase force absorbtion and the same can be done in sprinting, but i’m not saying to actually do it in sprinting I’m just saying it can be done. (obviously an overdramatization, but you get my point you go around in circles saying things can be done, but then dont apply anything anybody can actually use systematically in sprinting) you say things have a time and place, but u always say it in an academic since not practical.

I am not saying these things to bash you, you are one of the few people that get good debates going and if nothing else at least people argue with you and in the end some kind of conclusion is eventually drawn. But just try to apply your ideas to actual situations, rather than this can be done sometime but i’m not saying in sprinting, well that really doesnt advance any sprinting discussion.

[martn76]

@james_colbert

squat 130% overspeed concentric
altitude drop 400 reps on the day
3 min extreme iso lunge
glute ham static dynamic 300 reps on the day

doesn’t make much sense on its own does it. kinda need a frame of reference. why would you do this why would you do that? better yet why does he/she need this why does he/she need that? Individualistic programing you cant just spit out some shit with out consideration to the individual and their level of ability. in all honestly somebody who has done nothing would be doing extreme isos for at least 2 months. perhaps with some low grade rebound movements and altitude drops.

James are these numbers supposed to impress us?

What do they mean?

Did the guy manage to run 9.9 or faster?

[system]

@james_colbert

the ability to dos something does not nessecitate the need. you wouldn’t go in and max bench in the same fashion everyday or max squat or max sprint. variation is key to continued adaptation. if recovery protocols are correct and tissue is aptly conditioned these aren’t concerns. tissue regeneration can be enhanced greatly by reducing inflamation and creating and environment of positive adaptation. remember inter/intra muscular work efficiency dictate work capacity.

Although i’m not a physiologist i’m not sure if bone works the same way… someone could enlighten me!

[Jstu3565]

What is the exact physiological reason for inflammation? Is it only a ‘whoa stop whatever you are doing’ response by the body that forces the muscles/cns to perform a suboptimal levels or is there more to it than that? Also, how does inflammation retard adaption/recovery?
I understand that inflammation is bad and that is much of the reason behind ice baths/ems/possibly arp treatments, but does inflammation cause anything benefitial other than possibly keeping the body from overextending itself?

[Palmtag]

@james_colbert

first off come at me foul and you’ll get ignored. I don’t have to convince you of shit. don’t ask me to do something for you while having an insulting undertone. now no I don’t advocate sprinting maximally everyday. if you would have read all my posts you would see that I advocate training th limiting factor. you train the traits by using tools. sprinting is a tool to accomplish a specific goal this is not always the best way to reach the goal. i never said that there was an infinite recovery ability as its seems you assumed I said. the traits are simple. think about why the body cant train everyday. what holds us back? finally if you want paragraphs copy and paste my post into “word” and make them yourself. Don’t beg favors under the guise of insult.

I am NOT a subtle person. If I inteted to come of foul to you in my post I would’ve told you to clean out your colon with a pineapple, I wouldn’t actually as you a question that I was confused about.

How does your philosophy then differ from the basic work->Recovery-> adaption that is keystone in every sprint program? I mean CF puts in as much high-intensity work as his elite athletes can handle, which is not a whole lot compared to say a 15 year old. Which is odd, considering that the younger athletes get injured more often than the older ones, but from my understanding on a % speed basis it’s less demanding on the CNS&Body to sprint at 12.0 100m speed --even if it is 100% of your max- than to sprint at 10.2 speed even if it is 90% of your max.

And yet you want to put in more high intensity work? Albiet after preperation? What kind of prep could prepair some of the most fit athletes in the world to do MORE high intensity work?

[Stevemac24]

@james_colbert

squat 130% overspeed concentric
altitude drop 400 reps on the day
3 min extreme iso lunge
glute ham static dynamic 300 reps on the day

What’s a 130% overspeed concentric squat?

[pakewi]

@james_colbert

the ability to dos something does not nessecitate the need. you wouldn’t go in and max bench in the same fashion everyday or max squat or max sprint. variation is key to continued adaptation. if recovery protocols are correct and tissue is aptly conditioned these aren’t concerns. tissue regeneration can be enhanced greatly by reducing inflamation and creating and environment of positive adaptation. remember inter/intra muscular work efficiency dictate work capacity.

Beyond any interesting-or less interesting-debate and position here,I think James makes a strong point here (in bold above),as he already did here and there across his posts.
Before trying to understand the practical applications of max training everyday,variation,force absorbtion,or else I would be curious to discover how to achieve the “environment of positive adaptation” as often as possible,as perhaps this is the real limiting factor to any training recipe,regime,or foolishness…
Isn’t this exactly what Charlie means by the following paragraph:

“ A basic principle underlying all training is to bring only a fully regenerated athlete to each training element. The element is then performed at the highest quality possible. This results in athletes performing at very high levels and even achieving personal bests to the point of world record levels in the controlled environment of training.” (CFTS page 153)

I am convinced we all have very limited,unordinated,and randomic experience of the above,not to mention of a systemic way to achieve and manage over time (repeat) the above scenario,either we train ourselves or rather unconscious athletes in our hands.

Charlie did it and the results showed.Maybe someone else is doing it.
Maybe this is what in the end defines max vs. submax applications and outcomes.Maybe we can learn ourselves.

[Stevemac24]

@pakewi

Beyond any interesting-or less interesting-debate and position here,I think James makes a strong point here (in bold above),as he already did here and there across his posts.
Before trying to understand the practical applications of max training everyday,variation,force absorbtion,or else I would be curious to discover how to achieve the “environment of positive adaptation” as often as possible,as perhaps this is the real limiting factor to any training recipe,regime,or foolishness…

In my eyes achieving an “environment of positive adaptation” means that one has to thorough understanding of the practical applications applications of max training everyday,variation,force absorbtion etc, hence the members request to see examples of this information.

[lorien]

@pakewi

Beyond any interesting-or less interesting-debate and position here,I think James makes a strong point here (in bold above),as he already did here and there across his posts.
Before trying to understand the practical applications of max training everyday,variation,force absorbtion,or else I would be curious to discover how to achieve the “environment of positive adaptation” as often as possible,as perhaps this is the real limiting factor to any training recipe,regime,or foolishness…
Isn’t this exactly what Charlie means by the following paragraph:

“ A basic principle underlying all training is to bring only a fully regenerated athlete to each training element. The element is then performed at the highest quality possible. This results in athletes performing at very high levels and even achieving personal bests to the point of world record levels in the controlled environment of training.” (CFTS page 153)

I am convinced we all have very limited,unordinated,and randomic experience of the above,not to mention of a systemic way to achieve and manage over time (repeat) the above scenario,either we train ourselves or rather unconscious athletes in our hands.

Charlie did it and the results showed.Maybe someone else is doing it.
Maybe this is what in the end defines max vs. submax applications and outcomes.Maybe we can learn ourselves.

Indeed, the environment of positive adaptation is very important. On the one hand, adaptation requires a somewhat stable environment because adaptation takes time. Time is probably the single most important environmental variable when it comes to adaptation. On the other hand, progress and development requires a dynamic environment (development will change stasis, thus making it dynamic). We are constantly with one foot in adaptation and the other in change.

When it comes to athletics, the other side of the coin – in contrast to that of an environment of positive adaptation – is that of an environment of positive development, i.e. doing the right things (the right kind of training) in accordance to what our event requires.

In simple terms, we must be sufficiently adapted to the stress we’re under… but that’s not enough… we also have to break away into new territories, thus making adaptation a secondary principle. The more territory there’s ahead, the less time there is for adaptation. Adaptation also works backwards, when new levels are reached, it becomes increasingly easier to perform at slightly under that level. Just make sure that what you are adapting to, and develop into, is encompassing your whole event and not only specific parts of it. Time is limited!

The principle of planning according to restrains is only one possible perspective. But we sometimes forget that the biggest constrain might be insufficient focus on what really pushes development forward. Why concentrate on constraints, when much can be achieved by looking at the possibilities. And oversimplification would sound like this: See how much you can improve in sprinting by focusing on sprinting, and then look at constrains if/when development levels out. Occam’s razor!

[system]

What is the “environment of positive adaptation” required for the bones and cartilage to regenerate? I can only think it must be submaximal work…

[pakewi]

@lorien

Indeed, the environment of positive adaptation is very important. On the one hand, adaptation requires a somewhat stable environment because adaptation takes time. Time is probably the single most important environmental variable when it comes to adaptation. On the other hand, progress and development requires a dynamic environment (development will change stasis, thus making it dynamic). We are constantly with one foot in adaptation and the other in change.

When it comes to athletics, the other side of the coin – in contrast to that of an environment of positive adaptation – is that of an environment of positive development, i.e. doing the right things (the right kind of training) in accordance to what our event requires.

In simple terms, we must be sufficiently adapted to the stress we’re under… but that’s not enough… we also have to break away into new territories, thus making adaptation a secondary principle. The more territory there’s ahead, the less time there is for adaptation. Adaptation also works backwards, when new levels are reached, it becomes increasingly easier to perform at slightly under that level. Just make sure that what you are adapting to, and develop into, is encompassing your whole event and not only specific parts of it. Time is limited!

The principle of planning according to restrains is only one possible perspective. But we sometimes forget that the biggest constrain might be insufficient focus on what really pushes development forward. Why concentrate on constraints, when much can be achieved by looking at the possibilities. And oversimplification would sound like this: See how much you can improve in sprinting by focusing on sprinting, and then look at constrains if/when development levels out. Occam’s razor!

I would not think of adaptation as somehow “static” and development as somehow “dynamic” and thus in opposition one with the other,but rather in terms of “dynamic adaptation” as the only possible development opportunity.
In fact we tend to think of adaptation from a feedback perspective,instead of proactively facilitate -if not plan- it.
“Creating an environment of positive adaptation” means to me (in the light of practical experiences with my and others’ athletes) exactly that:taking care of both sides of the coin with a wide array of possible applications.Making sure the athlete is ready for the most appropriate stimulus,choosing the most appropriate stimulus for the readiness level of the athlete,or keeping as much tissues of the organisms available for stimulations could be only some of these possible applications.

I perfectly agree with your enlightening points about time,breakthroughs,and constraints vs. possibilities considerations…

[pakewi]

@tc0710

What is the “environment of positive adaptation” required for the bones and cartilage to regenerate? I can only think it must be submaximal work…

Perhaps just a different kind of “work” which can represent either a maximal,or submaximal stimulation,but which elicits the precise set of stimuli required.

Thoughts?

[james_colbert]

so many questions … I hope you guys realize, when u don’t get your questions answered like you would like its because you are asking the wrong questions. this is not an insult and I will attempt to remain civil if you remain civil with me. the slightest hint of insult and your post will be ignored. I don’t have time to deal with squabbles or rather I won’t spend time on them. pose a question in a respectful matter and I will do my best to answer it.

that being said, I think the problem is that I view things counter to what you view them and this is causing us to not be able to find common ground when I attempt to explain something. I can tell this is happening because I propose something and the responses I receive are often not even what I was talking about. that tells me I need to do a better job at communicating my training beliefs (in reality i have not come up with anything just synthesized from other established material). im going to ask that you limit your posts to one question as it becomes extremely difficult to respond to a post with 5 or 6 questions or points of contention.

i would like to make one point, you guys are not grasping the theory of constants. I believe your under the impression if the constraint is trait A that all other traits fall to the way side. NO, this just means that this one trait is the limiting trait. we ask ourselves what one thing is MOST holding us back from reaching our goal. this trait then is brought to the forefront and trained. its simple and intuitive im sure many of you have done the same thing in one form or another. the theory just allows for a formalized way of thinking about it. steps that can be taken to setup a plan of attack to the problem…

[John]

@james_colbert

i would like to make one point, you guys are not grasping the theory of constants. I believe your under the impression if the constraint is trait A that all other traits fall to the way side. NO, this just means that this one trait is the limiting trait. we ask ourselves what one thing is MOST holding us back from reaching our goal. this trait then is brought to the forefront and trained. its simple and intuitive im sure many of you have done the same thing in one form or another. the theory just allows for a formalized way of thinking about it. steps that can be taken to setup a plan of attack to the problem…

So in simple general terms you would assess performance along the lines of say, are the following at the required level

Acceleration
Max speed
Speed endurance

if we allocate each of those a % they would have 33% each but no athlete has an even distribution so it may be

Acceleration 15%
Max speed 40%
Speed endurance 45%

in which case you would ask what factors account for their acceleration? You would then address them.

Is this what you mean?

If so what training emphasis do you allocate to the others?

[popequique]

Before trying to understand the practical applications of max training everyday,variation,force absorbtion,or else I would be curious to discover how to achieve the “environment of positive adaptation” as often as possible,as perhaps this is the real limiting factor to any training recipe,regime,or foolishness…
Isn’t this exactly what Charlie means by the following paragraph:

“ A basic principle underlying all training is to bring only a fully regenerated athlete to each training element. The element is then performed at the highest quality possible. This results in athletes performing at very high levels and even achieving personal bests to the point of world record levels in the controlled environment of training.” (CFTS page 153)

[QUOTE]

I believe this is actually a point where Charlie and colbert differ, though they at first look the same, I believe they are two different parts of the spectrum. Charlie brings fully recovered athletes to the table which does cause positive adaptation. On the otherhand Colbert believes “I think” that positive adaptation can occur at various points and not necessarily where the body is fully recovered in the same sense as cfts. Therefore if one trains the body to reach positive adaptation at early points increasing the gains. That is just my take I may be way off.

[QUOTE]What is the “environment of positive adaptation” required for the bones and cartilage to regenerate? I can only think it must be submaximal work…

I think it is much the same concept as muscle, but not necessarily accomplished the same way, in terms of bone density, which I may be making an illogical jump here, as I am not familiar with bone strength, but putting the bone under significant force will cause the bone to break down and regenerate into a stronger form is my understand, this my be off as i have barely a rudimentary understanding in this area, so increasing force applied to the bone through weight lifting and plyos upto a very high point will cause eventual benefits, but I am unsure of the recovery needed in this area.

In terms of the area of positive adaptation, I think this is a very fluid and hard to gauge area, you can make estimates of how an athlete will react to stimulous and at many levels the coach has little control of the athlete outside of training, until you get to the elite levels and maybe strong division 1 programs and a couple stellar lower level programs, so this confounds problems even more. Your training needs to mix and match with the level the athlete is at and the outside factors effecting the athlete, to make a truly optimal program I believe is not possible, I am not talking about a very very good program, even great or the top, but optimal, the optimal program would require more testing and too intrusive testing to even be possible. However a workout needs to be flexible enough to adapt to how a n athlete reacts to previous workouts, obviously one should have a fairly good idea how an athlete will react, but not perfect.

So positive adaption can occur at various points, charlie does this with full recovery, which causes positive adaption at high levels.

Colberts method may also give positive adaptions but at how high of levels?

Positive adaption and optimal adaption to me are two different states, and with optimal adaption usually not being obtainable, but very near it can be, and also optimal adaption may not alway be the goal depending on the area being worked on at the time, an overall view of the full program needs to be taken into account.

Isn’t it sometimes better to enhance strengths rather than trying to bring up weaknesses? You can actually end up being mediocre in all.

In most cases I would say no, but it also depends on what your working on and how great the weakness or strength is and fast and of what magnitude you can improve. For example if you have a stellar start but no top end speed well your going to want to work on top speed because getting .01 better at the start is going to do you shyt in comparision. However if you have a shyt start but good top end speed it might be debateable which to work on, obviously these are extreme examples, but it is just to demonstrate that it depends on the magnitude of change you can make.

James, all I ask is for you to make some type of template so we can see your views in action.

If you must just make up a random person with whatever variables you deem necessary, I would just like to see your approach in action. Thanks.

[james_colbert]

@John

So in simple general terms you would assess performance along the lines of say, are the following at the required level

Acceleration
Max speed
Speed endurance

if we allocate each of those a % they would have 33% each but no athlete has an even distribution so it may be

Acceleration 15%
Max speed 40%
Speed endurance 45%

in which case you would ask what factors account for their acceleration? You would then address them.

Is this what you mean?

If so what training emphasis do you allocate to the others?

youve got the general iedea but the traits would be a lot more fine than acceleration max speed and speed endurance as they themselves are made up of many effecting factors. but youve got the idea behind the theory. after we decern which factor is most inhibiting we must then understand the realtionship between this factor and the others to make sure that what we do doesnt have an unexpected negative effect. the others factors are all still trained it is simply the focus is on the constraint. training being what it is the other traits can be maintained and are often enhanced via a secondary effect. for example if the constraint is force absorption, the neurological effect of training this trait are maximal motor unit recruitment and syncoronicty, both of whic are desired traits for almost every other type of explosive work, acceleration, absolute, ect.