plyo program

[svincenz]

@pakewi

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."

Historically they are for sure meaningful, but I urge not to take the references to genes, proteins etc. literally. DNA was discovered ten years before and insights on the role of genes (and in general of the functioning of the"genetic machinery") has dramatically improved in the last decade.

[pakewi]

@svincenz

Historically they are for sure meaningful, but I urge not to take the references to genes, proteins etc. literally. DNA was discovered ten years before and insights on the role of genes (and in general of the functioning of the"genetic machinery") has dramatically improved in the last decade.

Some then called “brain sciences” were right on the spot - as only recent “scientific discoveries” finally recognize - in the early early years of 1900,before WW1,WW2 and the forces behind them literally cleared them out in the name of “more modern” and “specific” scientific approaches. The very same can be said for fields like Naturopathy,concepts and findings of which were only to be confirmed by modern biology.
Svincenz,I really do not see your point here. Have you ever read Felix Meerson? No you have not.Have you ever read Hayden? I don’t think so either. And I say this because you would have not said so of their absolute meaningfulness if you only did,regardless any dramatic improvement science may have known over “the last decade”…

[svincenz]

Pakewi,
my point is that sometimes, some references are not very meaningful. I really appreciate your insights, but I feel that in this case some reported sentences did not make a lot of sense. For example, what does “This frequency will cause the formation of certain genes” mean?
Maybe, this frequency will cause the expression of certain genes? Because formation of certain genes seems a little bit adventurous.

And what “As a result the proteins generated during training will respond to stimuli during competition in the same manner” means?

Maybe it is the translation, but biologically it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

And no, I did not read anything written by the authors you cite, but I was discussing the extracts reported here.
I’m sure they will be interesting reads.

[pakewi]

@svincenz

Pakewi,
my point is that sometimes, some references are not very meaningful. I really appreciate your insights, but I feel that in this case some reported sentences did not make a lot of sense. For example, what does “This frequency will cause the formation of certain genes” mean?
Maybe, this frequency will cause the expression of certain genes? Because formation of certain genes seems a little bit adventurous.

And what “As a result the proteins generated during training will respond to stimuli during competition in the same manner” means?

Maybe it is the translation, but biologically it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

And no, I did not read anything written by the authors you cite, but I was discussing the extracts reported here.
I’m sure they will be interesting reads.

Get them books,read,and those bits and pieces will make more sense.
If even then they may not make a lot of sense biologically speaking, they still do not seem too arcane when applied to the training world,really,beyond every read,or lack of such.At least in the basic,LOGICAL sense.