Probably the whole Charlie Francis Training System is nothing else than a method to externally modulate those forces,built on Charlie’s unique hands on experience,knowledge,and intuitive mind.
Paradoxically enough,if viewed as such it is no different from sadly infamous Tzekos’ training,and the System James has been talking about all these years.
One day we will all finally see the light.
Pakewi, could you please elaborate a little bit more?
What are the parallels between Charlie’s and Tzekos’ systems?
What are the parallels between Charlie’s and Schroeder’s systems (I assume you are still collaborating with him)?
They are both methods which produce results by the use of tools ( Vertical Integration in one case,and extreme specificity and minimization of variables in the other) which allow precisely to modulate those forces James is talking about based on the external adaptive responses of the individual.
Seen all the discussion and debate over the years,I can only comment that maybe,I am Jay Schroeder,in the end…
Pakewi,
I agree that any method which was able to produce consistent results did so because it was able to produce a positive (toward the result) adaptive response (not sure why you are writing about external, maybe you wanted to say phenotypic).
With a bit of reductionism, we can say that those methods were able to increase (and optimize) the force production relative to sprinting.
But one question is how,and another question is why.
You are not Jay Schroeder, who lacks the Italian charm.
External only meaning response based.
The GPP DVD covers plyometric progressions. I’m not sure if the video still comes with the illustration, but it’s a must have. http://www.charliefrancis.com/store/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=23
Absolutely a must!
Pakewi,
the question is still there. CF training system with his high-low setting and Tzekos’ training with specificity and continous high intensity days. Where are the similarities? Of course both have been very successful (Charlie a lot more, Kenteris was far away from WR and also Thanou as far as I remember). And the end result of succesful training system -> successful athletes (when in elite circles) is the modulation of tremendous high forces. But how can you reach the same “conclusions” by taking routes so far away?
double posting, a common problem
Happens all the time:
Arguably there are many differences between CFTS and Clyde Hart systems.
In middle / long distance events, some runners are successful via low volume/high intensity, others the opposite.
Perhaps there is no absolute right answer. Maybe some athletes are more suited to a certain type of approach, therefore the key point is understanding what suits each person.
Perhaps that says something about us as human beings rather than specifically for each successful training method around.
So, Kenteris with Charlie wouldn’t have reached the potential he reached with Tzekos? And the same for Ben with the opposite?
I don’t know. For sure, Tzekos’ training system is more demanding than CFTS (but we have more limted info on the fomer) and thus the “selective” implications are stronger.
But what? This is what Pakewi (and Schroeder) and Jamirok are supporting.
Exactly.
Until we recognize the need of a training system which targets the human before the athlete,input before than output oriented,and stimulus before than response based. A feedforward rather than feedback structure,hence,by definition:universal.
If I knew this, I would have started employing the method pakewi describes. Pakewi has done a good job in convincing me that the success certain athletes have had has the human organism as the common denominator and not the diversity of the successful training plans over time.
It all depends on where you focus your attention upon: the minimum common denominator,or the diversity of the possible numerators.
Pakewi
it is like deciphering a code.
So, targeting the human before the athlete means a commong training system for every discipline? Of course not, as the imposed demands provoke plastic adaptations and they must be specific to the discipline (or better, to the qualities required by the discipline). What does it mean?
Input before than output oriented? I’m confused.
Stimulus before than response based?
Feed-forward rather than feedback structure? (Von Bertalanffy or Wiener or Shannon?)
I agree it is all very interesting and I don’t know if the mystery is on purpose or not. Maybe a PhD in biology is not enough.
But I am interested, for sure.
That is it!
It is called systemic efficiency. Or only efficiency,if we want start making it all sound less…as a code,as you quite righteously pointed out!
I have referred to this a number of times in the past,as you may want to check through my posts here,only if of any interest for you.
And the very reason which lead me to Charlie a few - too many - years ago.
In the last few weeks, I’ve read several books and articles by Hans Selye which have helped to clarify my thoughts on stressors and organism responses as it relates to training. I encourage all of you to re-read (or read for the first time) his materials. I am of the mind (although heavily influenced by my time with Charlie) that general stressors are just as important - if not more so - than specific stressors, particularly as you begin dealing with high level athletes.
It (acceptance of the impact of general stressors) has also heavily influenced my approach to recovery and regeneration and how I cycle through various methods for different athletes. A non-specific approach to injuries and regeneration seems to work much better based on my experience. This may seem counter-intuitive, but now it makes perfect sense to me.
I agree,and learned the hard way to make counter-intuition a highly valuable epistemological tool - just to throw in some more somewhat coded jargon…