I only have been a far away spectator of that very same movie most of the times,but still I sat there,and equally kept nodding in agreement,equally having no freaking clue of what Charlie was talking about.And I have been re-playing that movie ever since,perpetually looped in the silent pursuit of that “everything will take care of itself”…
Pakewi,
are you sure you understood what I wrote or you were simply making a point by ridiculing what I wrote? I dont’ think they make any sense in the context I proposed, i was talking about something completely different. Yes, probably you wanted to say that.
Anyway, sorry to disagree, but humans were not designed, and it is not only the wrong word, it is wrong concept. So, we are not designed to function in different environment and adapt.
Training is basically supposed to stimulate phenotypic adaptations by upregulating the expression of certain genes.
Now, I don’t know if I understood well, but really are the experts converging to global climate change (not warming) as an explanation for the rise in injuries? Because I think it is as antiscientific as it can be.
(man plans)…and god laughs, wonderful autobiography of Arthur Jones, a interesting fella for sure.
N2, not referring to people posting here, but there are things difficult to communicate and things that don’t make any sense.
Great researchers are not always great teachers (most of the time for laziness, otherwise they would not necessarily great, but at least half-decent), but great researchers have clear ideas in their minds.
And there are people able to explain things much more complicated (in absolute terms) than training (for instance, grad courses in some hard science). Of course, the audience has to be of decent subject-specific knowledge.
I always liked how Charlie was able to communicate. I’m sure he was keeping more advanced (and maybe not fully formed) concepts for smaller audiences.
I understood,and respect what you said,nor I am ridiculing your words in any way.
As long as words are concerned,well,words may be inappropriate,the general sense surely is not.
Well,if you have access to Italian and English media,then,just have a comprehensive look for latest articles and interviews by doctors,trainers,and phd’s in different areas re: injuries in pro soccer this season.
Some claims made on this forum too are quite anti-scientific ,some to the point of being difficult to logically sustain as well,by the way. As #2 says,we all have some responsibilities in this regard,some in communication,some in attitudes and true ends I guess.
As we get deeper into the discussion, I think we agree much more than we disagree.
Now that specific age ranges and developmental levels are being addressed I think we are very much in agreement.
My interest in talent identification only applies to doing so when the time is right, which differs based upon sport structure and biological maturity rates, in order to subvert mistakenly premature exclusion/misdirection.
I agree bold!
And sometimes getting the desired response becomes a trial and error process,as the desired response may vary ,being itself a mean to an end.
In my collaboration with Dr Verkhoshansky on his upcoming 2nd Coaches Manual, prior to his death, we decided to replace the word plyometric with the proper term- reactive-elastic.
Pliometric, with an I, indicated, from Greek, increased measurement. No reference to speed. Thus, pliometric is the proper term to describe what is currently referred to as eccentric.
Plyometric, with a Y, was termed by Fred Wilt who was a friend of and had visited Dr Verkhoshansky and, with respect to Wilt, the word and use of plyometric has really muddled the sport training literature.
In the 2nd coaches manual it is also explained that concentric and eccentric are misused words in reference to sport science/muscle physiology.
So, those of you who purchase the 2nd manual, when it comes out, will see the following vernacular:
concentric is replaced by miometric, or overcoming
eccentric is replaced by pliometric, or yielding
isometric remains the same and is equivalent to sustaining and static
plyometric is replaced by reactive/elastic
and shock is exclusive to the most intensive forms of rapid muscle lengthening
Other than smooth shifts one way or the other allowed for by the training process fine tuning the whole CFTS aims to, how do you manage to effectively separate the effects of plyometrics - as well as of any other training mean - from central to peripheral?
As you may know regardless of the athlete,regardless of the sport,regardless of the end goal,all of my training has been based on stimuli eliciting as pure and controlled as possible reflexive activity,which to me allows for both central and peripheral adaptation to the highest degree and at the fastest rate,hence implying the highest and fastest potential of change,with precisely this being one of the goals of adopting such extreme methodological choices.
The avatar is a charcol by jolliffe. If you believe the genetic thing he has the verandah over the eyes and it more than likely continues around the whole head.
Not speaking for No2, but for myself, the use of reactive/elastic means for either central or peripheral stimuli and subsequent adaptive response is managed via intensive or extensive methods of execution, respectively.
Do you mean, by adding a dumbbell or mediball to the Plyro movement?
In which case, i would not - it’s increasing ground contact time. Unless your goal is for the initial Starting mechanics - ie, a squat throw into a dive. Then a mediball is ideal.
I would agree.
Its like CF said about Sprinting - 1 x 200m done in 19.xx is much more taxing on the CNS than 10 x 200’s done in 25sec. - where as 10 x 200’s done in 30sec would be largely PNS and not very taxing on the CNS.
The same principle holds true for reactive work/plyros
