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?
That’s what Tzekos (and others) would say…
Answers can be two (or three if you integrate).
- you dishinibit the system (the potential is there, but it has brakes, so to speak)
- you acquire adaptations
- combinations of the two above
Answer 4: the system breaks (over training syndrome) due to same stimuli and no compensation.
I did not included your point 4 as both Pakewi and Schroeder have different ideas with respect to overtraining. But surely it has to be considered.
What do they say in this particular subject?
As my knowledge is very limited compared to the majority who have posted on this thread. I have one question. Would someone be able to direct me on to where I would find information regarding Tzeko and Schroeder systems I do not know what they are in reference to?
You can find information on this thread http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=18291&page=3
(Or better say that Tzekos was keen to let misinformation to be spread).
You’ll find plenty of information about Schroeder’s system if you search this forum for posts by member(s)" James Colbert".
Other than the link correctedly posted by PJ above,you’ll find more information about the general principles at work in Tzekos’ system if you search this forum for posts by member(s) nicknamed “Linarski”,if still available.
Also you may want to give the following passage posted some years ago as a general reference:
"The following is an exctract from the book “Naim Suleymanoglu The Pocket Hercules” by Y.E. Turkileri ,Sportivny Press Livonia, Michigan.
From pages 122-123:
This data reveals something that has not been seen in the preparation period of any lifter.We see very clearly that specific preparation is 60% and general preparation is only 40% for both years (1978-79)***.
This type of training was employed for the first time in the world with Naim.Once the effectiveness of this system was proven by 1984-85 the same system was used in the basic weighlifting education of Halil Mutlu.
His success and results speak for themselves.
In reality this preparation system was based on the hypotheses of Felix Meerson ( Plastiçeskoe Obezpeçenie Organizma,1967) and Hiden (1960-64).The basic idea was that:
“the human body is a living system in which the genes carried the biological memory but also changed in response to the environment”.
While the organism forms its memory based on its own experiences,the only way to record information into the specific memory is under the influence of external factors.In 1967 Meerson explained his theory in the following way:
“The physiological changes,brought about by responses to external factors,bring about short term adaptation. However repeated external stimuli bring about new changes and play a role in the future adaptive responses of the organism and leave macro and micro traces in the memory of the organism.”
Prolonged repetitive training sessions leave an imprint on the athlete’s body memory.These macro and micro memory imprints are the same the athlete receives from training or when competing.
Hayden also submitted a hypothesis (1960-64) that had aroused interest. According to Hayden:
“The information input from the external sources are conducted by the neurons and are either encoded in the RNA molecules that are synthesized,or form the instructions in the DNA genes to make the RNA.”
The code is used to synthesize new protein and the proteins get localized either in the cytoplasm or in the neural synapses.These proteins react when similar neural input is detected.
The neural signals transmitted to activate the muscles when an athlete does the snatch and the clean and jerk with maximum effort will have a certain frequency. This frequency will cause the formation of certain genes.The new RNA syntesized will be encoded for the proteins that will respond to the same frequency of neural impulses. As a result the proteins generated during training will respond to stimuli during competition in the same manner.
If the athlete does a variety of different exercises,the effort put into it by the athlete will be different and the frequency with which the neurons stimulate the muscles will be different. The proteins synthesized will not have the ability to respond to the stimuli generated during the classical lifts. In addition,the muscles that partecipate actively in the competition exercises will only partecipate passively in ALL other exercises.
It was due to these scientific findings that Naim’s training during his first preparation period was such that the ratio of the special exercises to the general assistance exercises was larger than one.This contributed to his reaching a high level of performance at an early age."
MerriamWebster:
Coherent: “Logically or aesthetically ordered” and “having clarity or intelligibility”.
Has presenting the same stimulus (high velocity) over and over again the (adaptive) effect of dishnibit the system?
Yes,if by dis-inhibition we mean the learnt ability to process more and more information per unit of time. Adaptation follows the new status quo.
The limiting factor separating training from over-training,or better:stimulus from over-stimulus then becomes the rate of learning of the system.
.
What are the practical implications on such a complex task as 100m and 200m sprinting?