Good points.
Goose,
I can’t recall if you are familiar with Kelly Baggett’s ideas? Similar but different to what you are proposing.
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/articles.html
I’d start with This ain’t rocket science
Well if you’re in a hurry to plateau, I humbly suggest you keep going with the “Kenteris method”.
Remember the height vs breadth equation?
If the breadth is always at the exact outer limit of specific needs, what chance do you really have of increasing the height beyond a certain point/time frame?
How many reps are possible and what is the recovery implication?
Is this not obvious?
A good point. Better to start by trying to understand why you arn’t progressing rather than jump straight to something else that you also don’t understand the mechanisms of.
i think i see the problem here. there are in genral two schools of thought on training: general perodization ie training changes dependent on the time of the year (gpp, strength, power, speed ect ect) and specificity + repitition = adaptation (adadjev, kenteris). but there is another way you see stimulus is not general. your body adapts to condtions specifically but there are multiple ways to achieve the same adaptation or atleast move towards the same general goal. this incorporates elements of both schools of thought to induce contniued adaptation.
what im getting at is that you can vary your program but still move towards the goal (speed, strength, power) if you understand the speficific effect of your training methods. for example plyometric work has the effect of generating muscular contractions that have both high levels of motor unit recruitment and a high frequency of rate coding. on the other hand impulse/inertial work generates a similar effect that is completly neurological (no maladaptive stress only motor learning).
there are some that will adapt no matter what they do but for many of us you have to look at what you are lacking and train it attacking on multiple fronts. your problem could be form, neurological, or physiological (they usually occur in that order).
But if you don’t slightly change the stimuli, you are even less likely to improve. If one has stayed at the same speed for months on end with a certain training method, how is not changing the method going to start improving ones speed again. It won’t.
Simple.
Method = Y
Y helps athlete progress for a month.
Athlete stops progressing after a month. = X speed.
Carried on using “y” method, stayed at X speed.
After staying at “x” speed for several months, athlete decides it is deffinatley time to experiment with a differant approach.
(your recomendation is to not chage method.)
But if athlete doesn’t change method, Carries on staying at same leval, and is not going to suddenly improve after 3 months of not improving.
…and you think the athlete should carry on doing the same training? !! ???
I really was not confused, (you incited that I was.) I am of the opinion that my training should change slightly. (That is not confused.)
Bare in mind I have allready used both types of training phillosophy (at differant times ofcourse) for many years.
- The wide variety of exercises methods.
- The spacifics only method.
Secondly, if a platue (spelling?) is not when one stops progressing, then what on earth is it? Surely my definition is the appropriate definition.
The whole point is: you have to keep the body in a state where it is compelled to ADAPT,and make sure it does so. If you think that changing the means of stimulation is the optimal, most efficient way to achieve that,then go for it.Accept at least that there may be not a single way to Rome.
Where do you put Vertical Integration in that?
Does keeping the body in a state where it is compelled to adapt mean the following?;
Good sleep.
Nutrition/supplements.
General high well-being.
Rest days and recovery aids.
Is this the general thing you meant, rather than slight changes in the exercise (in terms of keeping body in a state where it is compelled to adapt.)