May I ask why you hold this opinion on Kraemer and Fleck? I have heard other people say this about them aswell but I thought his research on hormonal responses to exercises seemed quite interesting and extensive.
I have read some Garhammer stuff but I’m not sure if it’s his own work.
An interesting study was conducted by David Behm and another by Jones et al. They believe adaptations are not velocity specifc but instead motor unit activation specific. So the intent to lift a weight as fast as possible is what matters NOT the actual velocity.
At present it is just to further my own knowledge. I have been on a quest for knowledge in this field by reading many books and I realised that a lot of studies provide some very interesting findings and so they are another piece of the puzzle. I would love to be a strength coach one day but I’m not sure it will happen.
In particular I have been speaking to some people who have met Charles Poliquin and apparantly he reads a ridiculous number of books…so in this field I think it’s essential.
Don’t forget that some of the strongest people ever, had some very simple routines.
Isaac Nesser would do barbell curls 8 to 10 days in a row, with over 300 Ibs, and then take 3 days of from that exercise. He benched pressed over 800 Ibs. He had a very simple routine. He just lifts a lot of weghts, a lot. He, like many others, include strong man training, such as walkin whilst carrying a truck engine. Atlas stones and log press etc… is excellent training for strength, because there are less sticking points in strong man exercizes than with barbells. That would be the way to go, if one was really interested in strength. And because there are less sticking points in some exercises than others, it totally changes the apropriate frequancy of work-outs with certain exercises etc. All I’m saying is that a lot of the conventional wisdom gets turned on its head, by various athletes who have thought outside the box, and trained that way, with results.
You can’t be too anal about it, unless you want to make a career as a certified strength coach for a pro sports team or something.
A lot of routines are only designed to what facilities are available, and there is no gym in the world that has everything. I doubt ‘golds’ gym’ even comes close, and I don’t care if it has 5 floors and the size of a football pitch.
Frankly, the best strength training is strong man, by far. Tractor tire flips, atlas stones, truck or car pulling, conans’ wheel, super yoke, etc… And what gym has that?
Bruce Bursford built up 33 inch thighs, by riding a custom designed stationary bike with a front cog about 30 inches in diameter.
I could go on, but I couldn’t give a crap for conventional gym parameters, because all of them have been far surpassed, by the truly strong athletes.
There is no way of knowing how strong Westside powerlifters are. What is there leverage and build compared to yours? There technique? Their power shirts and their juice?
I don’t mean to be negative, about you wanting to readlots of books, but those strength books are only so that you can understand jargon and theory, and pass exams. If that is what you need,then absolutely reaed a load of books, if it helps you on your way to the spacific career that you want.
Just never forget, down the road, that some of the strongest monsters who ever lived, had very unusuall routines. Vasiley Alexeyev got in to arguments often with the national coaches. He would do a thousand jumps a day, and one thousand knee lifts in the corner of the swimming pool, for his morning work out.
Whatever you do. Dont follow the HIT system or fools like Mike Barwis. Research good people like James Smith from the univ of Pitt, his partner Buddy Morris, John Lott from Arizona Cardinals seems pretty good. Do your research
Sorry I must again disagree with you. I dont like either 1 of those systems. In college I was taught the HIT system and I hated it. BFS was in high school and I hated it also.
Now that Im smarter and I know what Im doin now I wont teach it because the 1st thing I teach my athletes (high school, college and pro) is Joint stability, structure, integretity (etc) None of those systems teach, start or end not to mention to kids that hey your joints have to be strong also.
do you do all your lifting on a swiss ball? sounds like something i’d read out of men’s health magazine or a kinesiology textbook. how about you give credit where credit is due.
besides, coaching professional athletes is a just a little bit different that coaching 16 year old kids don’t u think??
all systems work, but for how long and at what risk? Sure, people can get great results using HIT, but it has also been shown to drastically increase injuries. Unstable surface training can be an interesting adjunct to the overall training process, just not good as the sole methodology. Problem is often that people want to seem cutting edge and try to reinvent training to be more sport specific and functional. It’s like Ian King said in his book Barbells and Bullshit, "There is a time and a place for everything. The exercise or training method can be used with an intent to create functional strength, hoever an exercise or training method is not in itself “functional”, nor is it by that definition “non-functional”. Too many people try to compartmentalize everything into schools and systems. I think that is where so much misinformation lies. I am always wary of people who speak in absolutes.
Swiss ball? Where did that come from?
Ok so what credit am I supposed to give and to who? If any credit I do give it to univ of pitt staff, univ of Iowa staff, univ of wake forest staff. Is that what your talking about? I honestly cant give credit to HIT system schools cause the injury rate is very high.
Just like my man speedcoach said all systems work but at what risk?
