It was a funny exchange. They seemed to look for approval for what they were doing, rather than advice how they could improve things.
Yes - pulsing EMS can be used to manage tone and increase circulation throughout the lower legs and feet. Checks of the arches of the feet can be critical to make sure they haven’t collapsed from the load.
And significantly stimulate cortical feedback. I have no experience with this EMS modality,but have you ever checked and experienced improvements in hamstrings length after such a stim?
This is how velocity endurance ends up helping max v. Give the brain enough repeated maximally fast stimuli,and it will pick it up,shifting all areas of the curve.
I haven’t checked the hamstrings but I can assume that with improvements in the arch of the foot their would also be changes in the resting position of the pelvis that could positively influence hamstring tightness.
I have tried reciprocal inhibition work with EMS on tibialis anterior to loosen up calves. Works quite well.
This is more on the lines of what I was thinking:increasing GENERAL cortical feedback to increase specific outputs.
I remember you guys talking about this at the seminar. Some of the details of her program were still a little fuzzy, and I remember your comment that you probably would have gotten more information from them if Charlie hadn’t been antagonizing her so much.
He was antagonizing her, but I was the one sitting closest to her, watching her devour her medium-rare steak with a sharp knife! 
No specificity needed here? Were all these efforts truly maximal for this athlete and her level? Couldn’t she have been more effective? As Charlie used to say, these are all history lessons, but it’s still interesting to chat about such scenarios.
How velocity (or its sub-trait velocity endurance for that matter) isn’t specific to the force-velocity curve?
I doubt they were maximal,if I remember correctly the athlete we are talking about. Charlie mentioned her possibly in the thread “organism strength” in the very first forum,years and years ago!
I threw in “maximal” as food for thought,as history tends to be what we make of it.
NumberTwo, could you give an example session of the kind of jump session that might induce the CNS adaption you’re speaking of?
A common example would be hurdle jumps. Charlie commonly used 10 hurdles over 10 sets for 100 total jumps in a workout.
The athlete in question used a combination of jump types which may have included hurdles and boxes - I can’t recall completely. But the total would be closer to 300-500 total reps per session.
Charlie commented that his sprinters were okay at performing the hurdle jumps, but the high jumpers (i.e. Milt Ottey) were sensational at them in terms of their elasticity and amplitude. This makes sense because the GCT of the HJ is much closer to that applied in hurdle jumps (0.15 to 0.20) so they were likely using them as a more specific stimulus. The sprinters, on the other hand, would have GCT times at Max V closer to 0.085, thus the hurdle jumps could be classified as a general stimulus that assisted with speed development later on. This is similar to Charlie’s characterization of max weights. I would think the conversion from hurdle jumps to sprints would be more direct in terms of transfer down the road, as opposed to max weights - but it could depend on the individual and their fiber composition.
Wow, 100 hurdle hops…
QUOTE=NumberTwo;243822]A common example would be hurdle jumps. Charlie commonly used 10 hurdles over 10 sets for 100 total jumps in a workout.
The athlete in question used a combination of jump types which may have included hurdles and boxes - I can’t recall completely. But the total would be closer to 300-500 total reps per session.
Charlie commented that his sprinters were okay at performing the hurdle jumps, but the high jumpers (i.e. Milt Ottey) were sensational at them in terms of their elasticity and amplitude. This makes sense because the GCT of the HJ is much closer to that applied in hurdle jumps (0.15 to 0.20) so they were likely using them as a more specific stimulus. The sprinters, on the other hand, would have GCT times at Max V closer to 0.085, thus the hurdle jumps could be classified as a general stimulus that assisted with speed development later on. This is similar to Charlie’s characterization of max weights. I would think the conversion from hurdle jumps to sprints would be more direct in terms of transfer down the road, as opposed to max weights - but it could depend on the individual and their fiber composition.[/QUOTE]
100??But…a suggestion in a L to S set up, without a havey weight program?
Those times and Charlie’s subtle classification are the key to understand and manage the stimulus occurring more than any total numbers,set/rep scheme,or given plan.
Agreed - it’s pointless doing 100 jumps is 90 of them are GCT of 0.35+ and only 10 of them are around 0.25
It’s time to stop at 10 - or lower the height of the hurdle to reduce GCT - Or do 5-10 sets of 2 hurdles and slowly work up from there.
As CF used to say, It’s time to stop when the Quality stops - if not sooner
Yes,or we need to find a way to create a stimulus which consistently sends the equivalent information of say <0.25 GCT over and over. The more coherent the stimulus then,the more volume can be successfully processed,and elicit the desired adaptation.
if 39/41 ground contacts is the goal for 100m then the progression of the plyo program should take it into consideration.
Progression? I would rather create a background noise training plan very consistent in its means with that goal in mind.
Pakewi, coherent with what?
Has presenting the same stimulus (high velocity) over and over again the (adaptive) effect of dishnibit the system?