Re: Regarding hamstring injuries/throwing velocity

[Guest guest]

Dietrich Buchenholz,

These two posts have left me confused. You make many statements with little

back-up. For example, you criticize strength training for hamstring health.

This is incorrect. Strength is one part of the equation. The other is

technique. Is this what you mean by " neuro-force relationships? Is your

system, which seems to have a lot of fancy words but little hard data, based on

neuromuscular conditioning?

To say that a baseball pitcher does not need strength training is also

incorrect. A pitcher's training needs both general strength, specialized

strength and technique work coupled with strength. This is not new to the U.S.

although it is not practiced to the extent that it should be. If you examine my

books Explosive Running, Explosive Basketball Training, you will see what I

mean.

Regarding Supertraining , I don't believe Dr Siff intended for it to be a

training system. It is perhaps the best book in the world for sound information

on many topics related to sports. It shows both pro and con if there is no

clearcut consensus in relation to the information.

I'm also confused in the discussion about bodybuilding. Are you using how a

bodybuilder trains being synonomous with how an athlete trains? For me, and, I

presume, others, can you eliminate the guesswork on our part by explaining what

you mean by " AutoRegulatory Volume Management System " ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yessis, Ph.D

President, Sports Training, Inc.

www.dryessis.com

PO Box 460429

Escondido, CA 92046

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

Friend,

" In Supertraining , " Dr. Yessis " <dryessis@d...> wrote:

'These two posts have left me confused. You make many statements

with little back-up. For example, you criticize strength training for

hamstring health. This is incorrect. Strength is one part of the

equation(Buchenholz: don't confuse " rehab " with " performance "

training, friend). The other is technique. Is this what you mean

by " neuro-force relationships? Is your system, which seems to have a

lot of fancy words but little hard data, based on neuromuscular

conditioning?' "

Buchenholz:

" I agree 100%; you are definitely confused! First, I don't know if

you have ever coached an athlete, let alone consistently train an

athlete for over a decades span on-end, but I would take an educated

guess and say that your practical experience is limited. I know for

certain that you haven't been involved in sports training for a

substantial enough time to have learned that there is absolute

parallelism between the rise in " common day " injuries in sport (i.e.

hamstrings strains) and " weight training " techniques. That is,

injuries such as this got introduced about the same time as " the iron

game " , judiciously speaking.

[Does this casual observation necessarily imply cause and effect??? – DD]

Go ahead; ask your father, grand-

father, or whatever the needs be, and see how " common " a

hamstrings " pull " was before the awakening of " strength " training, or

how often an arm injury was in baseball during the " three-man

rotation " compared to the current 70% injury rate with the " five-man

rotation " (especially recognize when the increase in rest days

between " starts " was increased...that's right, circa weight training

indoctrination). Any sports coach or former athlete should be able to

answer this- so this search shouldn't take too long. However, this

is not to say that " strength " training means should be void entirely;

as a matter of fact, they should constitute 5-20% of the

athletes " gym work " . Now, as for " strength " being " one part of the

equation " and " technique " being the " other " - insane (neurodynamics

functions and volume, in descending order of importance, are the broad

answers you are looking for)! This is how I know that your practical

experience is limited, VERY limited. You see, technique work may,

indeed, delay the onset of injury, but 'delay' is certainly not a

synonym for 'health'- as you like to put it. That means that an

athlete with more proficient and efficient technique, which both

still root from the nervous system, will be able to tolerate greater

volume than the less functionally sound athlete. But it is

critically important to note that there exists no such thing as

optimum technique for any given movement in sport. The trick is in

using the structural and sub-structural bodies of the individual

athletes system to determine personal technique mastery(i.e.

versus Tim Montgomery, Jordan versus Iverson,

Barry Bonds versus Babe Ruth). As for the comment on strength...this

is dependant upon the health status of the athlete, as well as the

functional need. But in no way can a proficient coach make those

statements about an implied inter-relationship between speed and

strength for all athletes, all of the time. But I guess that since

your technique generalization was just as ignorant...why not tack on

another false proposition, huh? And, then later in your paragraph,

you assume " neuro-force relationships " resembles

the 'technique, strength' mumbo jumbo that you speak of. This is

probably due to the fact that you are still buying into the out-dated

isometric studies on force...which leaves you believing that the

term 'force' and the term 'strength' can be used inter-changeably-

unbelievable! Lastly, to comment on biggest laughing-stock paragraph

that I have read in a long, long time, 'neuromuscular' conditioning

could be a small fraction of what is involved in discussions

of 'neuro-force' and/or 'neuro-dynamics'...but, from what I have seen

so far, you are trapped in the 1960's so I would hate to assume that

our understanding of 'neuromuscular' matters are shared, in any way! "

Yessis(comments and " plugs " ):

" To say that a baseball pitcher does not need strength training is

also incorrect. A pitcher's training needs both general strength,

specialized strength and technique work coupled with strength. This

is not new to the U.S. although it is not practiced to the extent

that it should be. If you examine my books Explosive Running,

Explosive Basketball Training, you will see what I mean. "

Buchenholz:

" General strength " and " special(sic) strength " , eh? Well, it's

official, I'm definitely not going to be able to sleep tonight,

knowing that such " one-size-fits-all " expressions are still being

used. Hold on, let me guess, do sprinters need " general speed "

and " special speed " ...oops, my bad, everything based off

of " strength " (right?). Ridiculous! But I don't want to strip your

presentation of its worth, so let's examine only what you

specifically stated: " A pitcher's training needs both general

strength, specialized strength and technique work coupled with

strength. " I would love it if you could clarify what it is, exactly,

that you mean by such broad terms, because all I am reading is that

you erroneously feel that neural inverses are somehow correlated. In

fact, if " strength " work will get an athlete so fast (including arm

velocity in pitching) then why would " speed " work not make you

strong. In other words, how come the fastest throwers in the game

are not and have never been " strong " ? Of course, if you loosely

define anything than you can always cover up your tracks...so please

keep us from guessing and accurately define what you mean(a specific

example would be great!). Again, it only sounds like another variant

of the " functional training " (misnomer, of course) that, somewhat,

popularizes America today. If that is the case(i.e. mimic the

throwing motion with weight to gain " special strength " and perform

unrelated movements to gain " general strength " ) then please spare me

the explanation because that " style " of training only lasted about

two weeks in my country before it was dumped, and that was over 50

years ago! "

Yessis:

" I'm also confused in the discussion about bodybuilding. Are you

using how a bodybuilder trains being synonymous with how an athlete

trains? "

Buchenholz:

" I don't remember saying anything resembling a suggestion that

bodybuilding and sports training are or should be closely matched-

that is preposterous! I will, however, say that bodybuilding has

ruined the advancement of sports training practice in America, due to

the amazing popularity of such, and thankfully I never had the same

battles to fight in my homeland. In fact, I can say with utmost

confidence that America would not have such inadequate training means

today if it not for the widespread affinity (read: 'prejudice', in

terms of 'strong preference') towards bodybuilding methodics by the

performance coaches. Anyways, help me understand where you conceived

this one and I will then have, at least, a place to start a

discussion. "

Buchenholz Final Remarks:

" Next time, try to communicate absent " plugging " the services and/or

products which you sell. That is sickeningly unprofessional (almost

as disgraceful as my writing style- ha ha!).

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

I'll call my grandfather right now. He said they

didn't understand that pain was bad and that is why

they never told anyone they were hurting. Why don't

you get off of the " ask your old relative kick " and

really think about what you are writing. Over the

past 50 years recorded injuries have increased because

the diagnosis of injuries have increased. Athletic

trainers have gotten better at identifying injuries.

Nolan had a 400 lb bench press.

Matt DeLancey CSCS

Strength and Conditioning Coordinator

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

[Guest guest]

Buchenholz:

You remind me some of our present and past " psuedo experts " who can give a talk

that is very impressive. The people in the audience think this person really

knows his stuff. But an hour later someone will ask " What did you find out,

what did you learn? " They will look at you with a puzzled face, think for a

while and come up with nothing. This is exactly what I got from your four pages

of diatribe.

I won't even both telling you about my experiences in the field of working with

athletes for the last 40-odd years because it may make you look like a neophyte.

Suffice it to say, that of the thousands of athletes I have worked with on all

levels of performance, I have never had an athlete get a hamstring injury

because of the weight and technique training that we do.

I should also clarify that I wasn't plugging my books. I mentioned them for

your edification. If you had read one of these books you would know the

difference between a general exercise and a specialized exercise, and which

makes me think that you don't even know what has been going on in your own

country. To say that this type of training only lasted two weeks is not

substantiated by the specialized and general exercises that were a core part of

the East German training program.

Instead of criticizing others, it's about time you brought out what you stand

for, and what your program consists of. Then perhaps we can have an intelligent

conversation. Otherwise, don't bother to respond.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yessis, Ph.D

President, Sports Training, Inc.

www.dryessis.com

PO Box 460429

Escondido, CA 92046

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:55:01 -0000

Subject: Re: Regarding hamstring injuries/throwing velocity

Friend,

" In Supertraining , " Dr. Yessis " <dryessis@d...> wrote:

'These two posts have left me confused. You make many statements

with little back-up. For example, you criticize strength training for

hamstring health. This is incorrect. Strength is one part of the

equation(Buchenholz: don't confuse " rehab " with " performance "

training, friend). The other is technique. Is this what you mean

by " neuro-force relationships? Is your system, which seems to have a

lot of fancy words but little hard data, based on neuromuscular

conditioning?' "

Buchenholz:

" I agree 100%; you are definitely confused! First, I don't know if

you have ever coached an athlete, let alone consistently train an

athlete for over a decades span on-end, but I would take an educated

guess and say that your practical experience is limited. I know for

certain that you haven't been involved in sports training for a

substantial enough time to have learned that there is absolute

parallelism between the rise in " common day " injuries in sport (i.e.

hamstrings strains) and " weight training " techniques. That is,

injuries such as this got introduced about the same time as " the iron

game " , judiciously speaking.

[Does this casual observation necessarily imply cause and effect??? - DD]

Go ahead; ask your father, grand-

father, or whatever the needs be, and see how " common " a

hamstrings " pull " was before the awakening of " strength " training, or

how often an arm injury was in baseball during the " three-man

rotation " compared to the current 70% injury rate with the " five-man

rotation " (especially recognize when the increase in rest days

between " starts " was increased...that's right, circa weight training

indoctrination). Any sports coach or former athlete should be able to

answer this- so this search shouldn't take too long. However, this

is not to say that " strength " training means should be void entirely;

as a matter of fact, they should constitute 5-20% of the

athletes " gym work " . Now, as for " strength " being " one part of the

equation " and " technique " being the " other " - insane (neurodynamics

functions and volume, in descending order of importance, are the broad

answers you are looking for)! This is how I know that your practical

experience is limited, VERY limited. You see, technique work may,

indeed, delay the onset of injury, but 'delay' is certainly not a

synonym for 'health'- as you like to put it. That means that an

athlete with more proficient and efficient technique, which both

still root from the nervous system, will be able to tolerate greater

volume than the less functionally sound athlete. But it is

critically important to note that there exists no such thing as

optimum technique for any given movement in sport. The trick is in

using the structural and sub-structural bodies of the individual

athletes system to determine personal technique mastery(i.e.

versus Tim Montgomery, Jordan versus Iverson,

Barry Bonds versus Babe Ruth). As for the comment on strength...this

is dependant upon the health status of the athlete, as well as the

functional need. But in no way can a proficient coach make those

statements about an implied inter-relationship between speed and

strength for all athletes, all of the time. But I guess that since

your technique generalization was just as ignorant...why not tack on

another false proposition, huh? And, then later in your paragraph,

you assume " neuro-force relationships " resembles

the 'technique, strength' mumbo jumbo that you speak of. This is

probably due to the fact that you are still buying into the out-dated

isometric studies on force...which leaves you believing that the

term 'force' and the term 'strength' can be used inter-changeably-

unbelievable! Lastly, to comment on biggest laughing-stock paragraph

that I have read in a long, long time, 'neuromuscular' conditioning

could be a small fraction of what is involved in discussions

of 'neuro-force' and/or 'neuro-dynamics'...but, from what I have seen

so far, you are trapped in the 1960's so I would hate to assume that

our understanding of 'neuromuscular' matters are shared, in any way! "

Yessis(comments and " plugs " ):

" To say that a baseball pitcher does not need strength training is

also incorrect. A pitcher's training needs both general strength,

specialized strength and technique work coupled with strength. This

is not new to the U.S. although it is not practiced to the extent

that it should be. If you examine my books Explosive Running,

Explosive Basketball Training, you will see what I mean. "

Buchenholz:

" General strength " and " special(sic) strength " , eh? Well, it's

official, I'm definitely not going to be able to sleep tonight,

knowing that such " one-size-fits-all " expressions are still being

used. Hold on, let me guess, do sprinters need " general speed "

and " special speed " ...oops, my bad, everything based off

of " strength " (right?). Ridiculous! But I don't want to strip your

presentation of its worth, so let's examine only what you

specifically stated: " A pitcher's training needs both general

strength, specialized strength and technique work coupled with

strength. " I would love it if you could clarify what it is, exactly,

that you mean by such broad terms, because all I am reading is that

you erroneously feel that neural inverses are somehow correlated. In

fact, if " strength " work will get an athlete so fast (including arm

velocity in pitching) then why would " speed " work not make you

strong. In other words, how come the fastest throwers in the game

are not and have never been " strong " ? Of course, if you loosely

define anything than you can always cover up your tracks...so please

keep us from guessing and accurately define what you mean(a specific

example would be great!). Again, it only sounds like another variant

of the " functional training " (misnomer, of course) that, somewhat,

popularizes America today. If that is the case(i.e. mimic the

throwing motion with weight to gain " special strength " and perform

unrelated movements to gain " general strength " ) then please spare me

the explanation because that " style " of training only lasted about

two weeks in my country before it was dumped, and that was over 50

years ago! "

Yessis:

" I'm also confused in the discussion about bodybuilding. Are you

using how a bodybuilder trains being synonymous with how an athlete

trains? "

Buchenholz:

" I don't remember saying anything resembling a suggestion that

bodybuilding and sports training are or should be closely matched-

that is preposterous! I will, however, say that bodybuilding has

ruined the advancement of sports training practice in America, due to

the amazing popularity of such, and thankfully I never had the same

battles to fight in my homeland. In fact, I can say with utmost

confidence that America would not have such inadequate training means

today if it not for the widespread affinity (read: 'prejudice', in

terms of 'strong preference') towards bodybuilding methodics by the

performance coaches. Anyways, help me understand where you conceived

this one and I will then have, at least, a place to start a

discussion. "

Buchenholz Final Remarks:

" Next time, try to communicate absent " plugging " the services and/or

products which you sell. That is sickeningly unprofessional (almost

as disgraceful as my writing style- ha ha!).

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

Yessis and Co,

Weeks later and this is all you could think of to post in your favour

(yawn)?!?

First and foremost, you still haven't even remotely answered my

previous questions! The only thing you did do was alter your

comments from " special strength " and " general strength " to be trailed

with " exercises " ; and 'special versus general exercises' is a lot

more distinguishable than 'special versus general strength'.

Which defaces (adds hypocrisy) to the value of your attack on

yours-truly; had you known past Soviet training as well as you claim,

you would know the fallacy in stage-to-stage planning (strength phase

leading into power phase, etc) known as the Medveyev model,

progressive overload, or linear periodization (take your pick). Even

the 'founders' of such arrangement techniques have mentioned the

inadequacy of such (look no further than the great shared-content

about the 'Verkoshansky' model that West-Side Barbell has adopted, as

they and the fine-chaps on Dave Tate's EliteFts.com website prefer to

call it " conjugated periodization " ).

Go on, re-route your statements....I'll wait again(!)...

....As long as you have time in-between re-naming equipment devices,

that is; i.e. the glute-ham device to the 'Yessis machine'(are you

kidding me?)- unbelievable!!! Speaking of which; everyone make note

that I have taken the liberty of renaming the 'bench press' to be,

from hereafter, referred to as the 'Buchenholz movement'(thank you)!

And, yes; it is called a 'Buchenholz Apparatus' now, not simply

a 'bench'.

Which raises another point; how can you, as a supposed coach, even

make the remote assumption that all athletes in a certain country

train alike? Oh, that's right, you have your 'translated'

information and books to sell! And it's more marketable that way;

huh, 'Coach'?

Let me ask this to the vast reader count of this forum residing in

America; Do all 'Americans' train the same? Of course not! So how

can you, Mr Yessis, assume that all 'Russians', all 'Germans',

all '(pick-the-country-of-your-choice)' train the same or at one time

have trained the same!?! Quite simply; you shouldn't because they

don't, nor have they ever! For instance, I admit that I am to blame

for brushing American with a broad-stroke, too, but let me

substantiate (so that you, , may do the same, hopefully): I

have made such general statements in the past because the vast

majority of the readers of this forum are, seemingly, perplexed

by 'strength' and/or 'size' training methodics, and they are also

predominately of American heritage. I must comment that I know with

all certainty that not All Americans are making this mistake; thus,

not All Americans are assumed to train alike. I was addressing the

majority; so to the minority, I apologize for my ostensibly

thoughtless blunder! I understand that great coaches reside in their

own camp; not signified by the country they reside in, and so forth.

There are, no doubt, great, and I mean very exceptional, coaches

virtually all over this great planet! I would hate to lead anyone

into thinking that these coaches are limited to the confines of only

one great nation!

News Flash:

Besides, I hate to be the one to point it out, but the 'wall has fall

(en)'. In other words, 'East-German' training systematics are as old

hat as, say, Carl ...but if people still want to 'keep-up-to-

date' on how old-Carl trained back-when, then I am sure that my new-

friend Yessis will be glad to sell you a book on it! (Note:

for those of you whom think that training hasn't changed all that

much since back-when, ask an indiscriminate source what this says

about you and your current methodics of choice- enough said!)

Reality: I am not going to even try and present my time-proven

systematics in one single exchange(post), as that would be truly

impossible, and I am not even sure that Super-Training is the place

to do it. Nor has there been a discussion, to date, that is finite

enough to post an even-near complete answer from my side of camp.

Thus, I do initiate debate...so as to allow others to know that there

is, indeed, " new-wave " (that term's in your book, isn't it, if not

then it should be, the market loves terms like that!) training

systematics on the horizon for those who have the willingness to stop

looking to the past for answers and want to start looking to current,

or dare I say 'futuristic'(as for many of you it will be), training

methodics. And, as many know, I do offer such information free-of-

charge(gasp)- that's a new concept in this world of information

sharing, huh?!?!

Now, all I ask is for you to swallow your own pill; stop dodging my

initial questions so that we can, indeed, have a worthwhile

conversation. That way I can point directly to the 'out-date-edness'

of the training systematics, which you apparently use with " your "

athletes, and offer a better alternative. Because, otherwise, it is

perfectly clear that people-like-you would be too quick to turn their

heads had I presented something new because it isn't kosher with

their current thinking/understanding. Therefore, I rather have you

graciously post your training systematics, or part thereof, so that I

can clearly show the readers the 'past', and then appease them with

my presentation of 'the present'- so we can all distinguish the

difference. But, certainly, you would never present such

information because 'it's in your books', even though you have the

courage to ask me to teach you my systematics in a tone so casual

that is sounds as if your bidding for a spot in the weight room.

Therefore, I'll play your game as long as you play along too

(evolution demands you step-out, kind sir, of your money-grubbing

ways and slap-us with your 'much sought-out information' at no cost;

as I, and others, have grown accustomed to 'doing business').

Otherwise, you may just have to wait for some of my systematics to

sneak out over time, as I find the time and place appropriate, to

learn of such new happenings(it's your choice).

But I, again, urge you to start the discussion with your take on

volume management principles. How do you dictate sets, reps,

individual uniqueness of such in training, and so forth? Is it

charts you follow? Is it a test you perform? Is it sheer

guesswork? I guess we'll all find out!

After all, how can you claim to be a great coach if you can't manage

the system properly? Any book-writer can drench us with exercises

and programs (not to judge your books, however, since I have never had

them recommended to me, aside from your personal " plugs " of course).

For all of you football coaches out there; it's like having a play-

book chalk-full of great plays but not knowing when or how to

implement them (aside from guessing at it). AutoRegulatory methodics

(AREG), on the flip-side, allows you to answer hundreds, if not

thousands, of questions that currently plague researchers, coaches,

and athletes in sports science fields without having to explicitly

address each and every issue Individually, which is obviously

practically-impossible in the training room. (I.E.) Is my nervous

system taxed sufficiently? Are my muscle constituents trained one rep

too much or one rep too little to yield optimal results? Is my

endocrine system responding as necessary? Are my workouts too long in

length or are they too short? What does an optimal workout look like

for me, opposed to some other guy? When should I raise the volume of

my workouts, and when should I reduce the volume? Etcetera....!

The ball is in your court, kind sir; do let us play!

Lastly, assuming you are not to dodge another question; What is the

average-stay for an athlete who works under your wing (1 month, 2

months, less?, more?)? A specific answer is a must! Because I am

sure that you would, indeed, not see the negativity of your work (thus

be confused on such issues) in working with athletes for 'as-little-

as-9-sessions'(priced at, what is now, 3-thousand dollars?). The

reality is that you could have an athlete eat popsicles for 9

sessions and they wouldn't know the difference; except that they

wouldn't have a loss in function down the road, of which is said to

have appeared 'mysteriously' (i.e. 'just part of the game'). Getting

a helmet to your knee at such force that it introduces 'lateral

flexion' to your knee joint is unfortunately, sometimes, 'just part

of the game'. Tearing a hip flexors from the hip whilst running down

the first base line, resulting in you falling on your face as your

injured-side foot snaps so far back that it slaps you on the back of

the head as you eat dirt is NOT 'just part of the game'!- this was an

actual occurrence! That is the difference I speak of!

Closing Remarks:

I mean, seriously, if the therapists and 'strength' coaches could

just do their job then Ken Griffey Jr would, indeed, be able to be

back in his glory (it's Not Your fault Ken!). Or, had training

systematics been 'generally' better then Maurice Greene would

be 'back-on-track', so to speak! So you can tell me that I write

with too much emotion but I will never agree...I care for the

athletes too much (regardless of competing country, coach under whom

they train, etc). I simply do not have patience for when athletes

such as Ken get ripped from what they do best. Nor do I have patience

to sit here and have an ignorant coach tell me that not only is it

alright but that he actually recommends that we all adopt the same

training strategies that have been so destructive to these athletes,

and others, in the past. Everybody knows somebody whose career fell

short; so it should be personable to us all. And due to the fact

that season-shortening and even career-collapsing injuries are on the

rise is not something that I can live with, now or never (and the

solution is not in having sports-surgery keep pace!)! Which reminds

me; I applaud you for choosing not to rebuttal against my comments on

arm health in baseball- well done! " One small step for a coach, one

giant leap for athletics! "

(NOTE: I will be unable to respond for approximately two weeks, so

please pre-excuse my absence! Thank you)

Thank you , so much, for saying such kind words about my

writing style; it is always nice to know that such an 'accredited

author' finds enjoyment in my writings. Couple that with

what 'schooled' coaches say about my training systematics...wow!

That's a pat on the back, truly, getting both sides to commend my

efforts...thank you!

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

Yessis and Co,

Weeks later and this is all you could think of to post in your favour

(yawn)?!?

First and foremost, you still haven't even remotely answered my

previous questions! The only thing you did do was alter your

comments from " special strength " and " general strength " to be trailed

with " exercises " ; and 'special versus general exercises' is a lot

more distinguishable than 'special versus general strength'.

Which defaces (adds hypocrisy) to the value of your attack on

yours-truly; had you known past Soviet training as well as you claim,

you would know the fallacy in stage-to-stage planning (strength phase

leading into power phase, etc) known as the Medveyev model,

progressive overload, or linear periodization (take your pick). Even

the 'founders' of such arrangement techniques have mentioned the

inadequacy of such (look no further than the great shared-content

about the 'Verkoshansky' model that West-Side Barbell has adopted, as

they and the fine-chaps on Dave Tate's EliteFts.com website prefer to

call it " conjugated periodization " ).

Go on, re-route your statements....I'll wait again(!)...

....As long as you have time in-between re-naming equipment devices,

that is; i.e. the glute-ham device to the 'Yessis machine'(are you

kidding me?)- unbelievable!!! Speaking of which; everyone make note

that I have taken the liberty of renaming the 'bench press' to be,

from hereafter, referred to as the 'Buchenholz movement'(thank you)!

And, yes; it is called a 'Buchenholz Apparatus' now, not simply

a 'bench'.

Which raises another point; how can you, as a supposed coach, even

make the remote assumption that all athletes in a certain country

train alike? Oh, that's right, you have your 'translated'

information and books to sell! And it's more marketable that way;

huh, 'Coach'?

Let me ask this to the vast reader count of this forum residing in

America; Do all 'Americans' train the same? Of course not! So how

can you, Mr Yessis, assume that all 'Russians', all 'Germans',

all '(pick-the-country-of-your-choice)' train the same or at one time

have trained the same!?! Quite simply; you shouldn't because they

don't, nor have they ever! For instance, I admit that I am to blame

for brushing American with a broad-stroke, too, but let me

substantiate (so that you, , may do the same, hopefully): I

have made such general statements in the past because the vast

majority of the readers of this forum are, seemingly, perplexed

by 'strength' and/or 'size' training methodics, and they are also

predominately of American heritage. I must comment that I know with

all certainty that not All Americans are making this mistake; thus,

not All Americans are assumed to train alike. I was addressing the

majority; so to the minority, I apologize for my ostensibly

thoughtless blunder! I understand that great coaches reside in their

own camp; not signified by the country they reside in, and so forth.

There are, no doubt, great, and I mean very exceptional, coaches

virtually all over this great planet! I would hate to lead anyone

into thinking that these coaches are limited to the confines of only

one great nation!

News Flash:

Besides, I hate to be the one to point it out, but the 'wall has fall

(en)'. In other words, 'East-German' training systematics are as old

hat as, say, Carl ...but if people still want to 'keep-up-to-

date' on how old-Carl trained back-when, then I am sure that my new-

friend Yessis will be glad to sell you a book on it! (Note:

for those of you whom think that training hasn't changed all that

much since back-when, ask an indiscriminate source what this says

about you and your current methodics of choice- enough said!)

Reality: I am not going to even try and present my time-proven

systematics in one single exchange(post), as that would be truly

impossible, and I am not even sure that Super-Training is the place

to do it. Nor has there been a discussion, to date, that is finite

enough to post an even-near complete answer from my side of camp.

Thus, I do initiate debate...so as to allow others to know that there

is, indeed, " new-wave " (that term's in your book, isn't it, if not

then it should be, the market loves terms like that!) training

systematics on the horizon for those who have the willingness to stop

looking to the past for answers and want to start looking to current,

or dare I say 'futuristic'(as for many of you it will be), training

methodics. And, as many know, I do offer such information free-of-

charge(gasp)- that's a new concept in this world of information

sharing, huh?!?!

Now, all I ask is for you to swallow your own pill; stop dodging my

initial questions so that we can, indeed, have a worthwhile

conversation. That way I can point directly to the 'out-date-edness'

of the training systematics, which you apparently use with " your "

athletes, and offer a better alternative. Because, otherwise, it is

perfectly clear that people-like-you would be too quick to turn their

heads had I presented something new because it isn't kosher with

their current thinking/understanding. Therefore, I rather have you

graciously post your training systematics, or part thereof, so that I

can clearly show the readers the 'past', and then appease them with

my presentation of 'the present'- so we can all distinguish the

difference. But, certainly, you would never present such

information because 'it's in your books', even though you have the

courage to ask me to teach you my systematics in a tone so casual

that is sounds as if your bidding for a spot in the weight room.

Therefore, I'll play your game as long as you play along too

(evolution demands you step-out, kind sir, of your money-grubbing

ways and slap-us with your 'much sought-out information' at no cost;

as I, and others, have grown accustomed to 'doing business').

Otherwise, you may just have to wait for some of my systematics to

sneak out over time, as I find the time and place appropriate, to

learn of such new happenings(it's your choice).

But I, again, urge you to start the discussion with your take on

volume management principles. How do you dictate sets, reps,

individual uniqueness of such in training, and so forth? Is it

charts you follow? Is it a test you perform? Is it sheer

guesswork? I guess we'll all find out!

After all, how can you claim to be a great coach if you can't manage

the system properly? Any book-writer can drench us with exercises

and programs (not to judge your books, however, since I have never had

them recommended to me, aside from your personal " plugs " of course).

For all of you football coaches out there; it's like having a play-

book chalk-full of great plays but not knowing when or how to

implement them (aside from guessing at it). AutoRegulatory methodics

(AREG), on the flip-side, allows you to answer hundreds, if not

thousands, of questions that currently plague researchers, coaches,

and athletes in sports science fields without having to explicitly

address each and every issue Individually, which is obviously

practically-impossible in the training room. (I.E.) Is my nervous

system taxed sufficiently? Are my muscle constituents trained one rep

too much or one rep too little to yield optimal results? Is my

endocrine system responding as necessary? Are my workouts too long in

length or are they too short? What does an optimal workout look like

for me, opposed to some other guy? When should I raise the volume of

my workouts, and when should I reduce the volume? Etcetera....!

The ball is in your court, kind sir; do let us play!

Lastly, assuming you are not to dodge another question; What is the

average-stay for an athlete who works under your wing (1 month, 2

months, less?, more?)? A specific answer is a must! Because I am

sure that you would, indeed, not see the negativity of your work (thus

be confused on such issues) in working with athletes for 'as-little-

as-9-sessions'(priced at, what is now, 3-thousand dollars?). The

reality is that you could have an athlete eat popsicles for 9

sessions and they wouldn't know the difference; except that they

wouldn't have a loss in function down the road, of which is said to

have appeared 'mysteriously' (i.e. 'just part of the game'). Getting

a helmet to your knee at such force that it introduces 'lateral

flexion' to your knee joint is unfortunately, sometimes, 'just part

of the game'. Tearing a hip flexors from the hip whilst running down

the first base line, resulting in you falling on your face as your

injured-side foot snaps so far back that it slaps you on the back of

the head as you eat dirt is NOT 'just part of the game'!- this was an

actual occurrence! That is the difference I speak of!

Closing Remarks:

I mean, seriously, if the therapists and 'strength' coaches could

just do their job then Ken Griffey Jr would, indeed, be able to be

back in his glory (it's Not Your fault Ken!). Or, had training

systematics been 'generally' better then Maurice Greene would

be 'back-on-track', so to speak! So you can tell me that I write

with too much emotion but I will never agree...I care for the

athletes too much (regardless of competing country, coach under whom

they train, etc). I simply do not have patience for when athletes

such as Ken get ripped from what they do best. Nor do I have patience

to sit here and have an ignorant coach tell me that not only is it

alright but that he actually recommends that we all adopt the same

training strategies that have been so destructive to these athletes,

and others, in the past. Everybody knows somebody whose career fell

short; so it should be personable to us all. And due to the fact

that season-shortening and even career-collapsing injuries are on the

rise is not something that I can live with, now or never (and the

solution is not in having sports-surgery keep pace!)! Which reminds

me; I applaud you for choosing not to rebuttal against my comments on

arm health in baseball- well done! " One small step for a coach, one

giant leap for athletics! "

(NOTE: I will be unable to respond for approximately two weeks, so

please pre-excuse my absence! Thank you)

Thank you , so much, for saying such kind words about my

writing style; it is always nice to know that such an 'accredited

author' finds enjoyment in my writings. Couple that with

what 'schooled' coaches say about my training systematics...wow!

That's a pat on the back, truly, getting both sides to commend my

efforts...thank you!

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

Hi Dietrich!

I am most anxious to read how you specifically train sprinters to

prevent hamstring and hip flexor strains. I am also intesested in

what you feel is the cause for these injuries. Do they the result

from too much volume( how much is too much?), too much intensity( how

much is too much?), too much frequency ( how much is too much?),

performing the wrong exercises ( which ones? ), not performing the

correct exercises ( which ones?). Is this done from trial and error

on an indvidual basis or is there a some formula derived from

scienfific investigation? If it is the latter where can one find

these studies?

I would also be anxious to see your training program to prevent

shoulder injuries in throwers. Where are we going wrong? Again is it

too much or too little volume, intensity, frequency? What are the

correct and incorrect exercises to help prevent these problems? Can

you share with us the specifics?

I think this is good forum to present your programs as most of the

members ( much like our late moderator ) are eager to learn and

question.

Best wishes!

Dan Wathen,

Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

Mr Dan Wathen,

The best way to answer your questions is for you to de-generalize

your questions via a presentation of a specific protocol/program that

you have used with one of your athletes, detailing as much of what

you know about this particular athlete(in terms of pertinent

information- meaning, I don't care to know the story behind his ex-

girlfriend). Which will then be able to dissect some of the general

reasons why this protocol was less than optimal for that particular

athlete and then later hone in on the specific restrictions of such,

in relation to the questions you asked, regarding the precise timing

(among other) means in the respective athletes

sporting/training/competing life.

In other words, I could saturate this forum with enough

generalizations to drowned us all...but that has been found to NOT be

the most productive means for teaching/learning- not to mention

that 'generics' are far from optimal in the real world (i.e. what

worked for athlete A is not guaranteed to work for athlete B- as to

what I specifically mean with this analogy, aside from the obvious,

will become increasingly clear as we progress). Besides, this

initial discussions will allow us the chance to get on the same page,

so to speak, which could save us both, I am sure, of wasted breath-

from an all encompassed, hindsight perspective.

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

Mr Dan Wathen,

The best way to answer your questions is for you to de-generalize

your questions via a presentation of a specific protocol/program that

you have used with one of your athletes, detailing as much of what

you know about this particular athlete(in terms of pertinent

information- meaning, I don't care to know the story behind his ex-

girlfriend). Which will then be able to dissect some of the general

reasons why this protocol was less than optimal for that particular

athlete and then later hone in on the specific restrictions of such,

in relation to the questions you asked, regarding the precise timing

(among other) means in the respective athletes

sporting/training/competing life.

In other words, I could saturate this forum with enough

generalizations to drowned us all...but that has been found to NOT be

the most productive means for teaching/learning- not to mention

that 'generics' are far from optimal in the real world (i.e. what

worked for athlete A is not guaranteed to work for athlete B- as to

what I specifically mean with this analogy, aside from the obvious,

will become increasingly clear as we progress). Besides, this

initial discussions will allow us the chance to get on the same page,

so to speak, which could save us both, I am sure, of wasted breath-

from an all encompassed, hindsight perspective.

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

After reading the last message (#4 Digest 1763) I wasn't going to respond but

there are a few factors that need clarification, then I will no longer continue

this discussion, if it can even be called that.

There was no alteration on my comments from special strength to special

exercises; you can have a special strength exercise - it is the same thing.

Instead of criticizing my books, if you would read them, perhaps you would

understand this concept.

You should also know that Verkhoshansky was not the only one to disagree with

the Medvedyev model. But if you knew what Verkhoshansky stood for you would know

that specificity of training was one of his main fortes. In fact, he was the

one who showed me the value and need for specialized training. He had some

fantastic exercises to duplicate the actions that many athletes did in their

competitive sports. Thus, if you knew about the Soviet system and/or what

Verkhoshansky preached and practiced, then you would understand the concept of

specialized exercises or specialized strength exercises or whatever you wish to

call them.

In regard to renaming equipment most likely you do not know that I am the one

who created the Glute Ham Developer and who gave it this name. I am now calling

it the Yessis Back Machine or the Yessis Machine because there are too many

companies that have made copies of my original design and have bastardized it to

a point where it is actually injurious to many people. I receive many

complaints from individuals who " used my machine " and were injured.

But, they were not using my machine, they were using someone else's or some

other design. Thus I now have a blanket statement that if you use one with my

name on it then you know it will do what it is supposed to do. If you want to

call a bench press the Buchenholz movement, help yourself.

You make a supposition that I somehow said that all athletes in a certain

country train alike - I never said that. A general concept may be in practice

but all coaches certainly do not do identical work. Just show me in any of my

posts where I said " all Russians " or " all Germans " - you will not find it, or

that they all trained the same.

This is why it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion because you seem

to like to take people apart for what they say, rather than standing on your own

two feet and explaining what you stand for. If it is that difficult for you to

explain it in a post, then you certainly do not know it. It's analogous to many

of my students when I was a professor (yes, this is something else you can pick

on now - how can I be a coach and a professor at the same time?). When asked a

question they would say " I know it, but I can't explain it, " but if you can't

explain it, you don't know it - this is the bottom line.

Why you are so uptight about anyone being an author is beyond my comprehension?

You must think that anyone who writes a book automatically becomes a

millionaire. You criticize books but yet you have not even seen them. If you

would read them, and criticize certain aspects of the books, then I can have a

discussion with you, but for you to simply make these blanket statements makes

it impossible to have any kind of a discussion. If you are an expert on how

training methodics have changed all these years, please elucidate; I have not

seen any new concepts, or very few new concepts in the last 20-30 years.

I should also correct your comment that you provide information free of charge.

You have not provided any information or information sharing. The only thing

you share is your criticism; you are equal across the board.

You urge me to start a discussion with volume management principles - come now,

if you truly understood training you would ask me how I manage volume or

intensity with a specific athlete in a specific sport at a specific period in

the year. You say that I can't manage the system properly yet you never spell

out what the system is - how can one manage a system if they don't even know

what it is that you are talking about?

It's interesting that you can knock some of the training sessions that I offer

and the cost, yet you can't say a word about what I do in the system. This is

the crux of the matter. If you like it you can sign up, if you don't, you don't

have to sign up. No one is pulling you by the ear saying you must do it.

In your closing statements you say that I find enjoyment in your writings. I do

not. Also, for you to say that I am a schooled coach shows that you do not know

anything about my background or the work I have done, so how can you criticize

it? This is not a question, this is your modus operandi, you criticize without

the information in front of you. You think you know everything that someone is

saying, you make assumptions, but you do not base them on any specific points or

carry it through to its conclusion. Even though you say " I enjoy your writing, "

I will not be responding to it again. It is a waste of time and effort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yessis, Ph.D

President, Sports Training, Inc.

www.dryessis.com

PO Box 460429

Escondido, CA 92046

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

After reading the last message (#4 Digest 1763) I wasn't going to respond but

there are a few factors that need clarification, then I will no longer continue

this discussion, if it can even be called that.

There was no alteration on my comments from special strength to special

exercises; you can have a special strength exercise - it is the same thing.

Instead of criticizing my books, if you would read them, perhaps you would

understand this concept.

You should also know that Verkhoshansky was not the only one to disagree with

the Medvedyev model. But if you knew what Verkhoshansky stood for you would know

that specificity of training was one of his main fortes. In fact, he was the

one who showed me the value and need for specialized training. He had some

fantastic exercises to duplicate the actions that many athletes did in their

competitive sports. Thus, if you knew about the Soviet system and/or what

Verkhoshansky preached and practiced, then you would understand the concept of

specialized exercises or specialized strength exercises or whatever you wish to

call them.

In regard to renaming equipment most likely you do not know that I am the one

who created the Glute Ham Developer and who gave it this name. I am now calling

it the Yessis Back Machine or the Yessis Machine because there are too many

companies that have made copies of my original design and have bastardized it to

a point where it is actually injurious to many people. I receive many

complaints from individuals who " used my machine " and were injured.

But, they were not using my machine, they were using someone else's or some

other design. Thus I now have a blanket statement that if you use one with my

name on it then you know it will do what it is supposed to do. If you want to

call a bench press the Buchenholz movement, help yourself.

You make a supposition that I somehow said that all athletes in a certain

country train alike - I never said that. A general concept may be in practice

but all coaches certainly do not do identical work. Just show me in any of my

posts where I said " all Russians " or " all Germans " - you will not find it, or

that they all trained the same.

This is why it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion because you seem

to like to take people apart for what they say, rather than standing on your own

two feet and explaining what you stand for. If it is that difficult for you to

explain it in a post, then you certainly do not know it. It's analogous to many

of my students when I was a professor (yes, this is something else you can pick

on now - how can I be a coach and a professor at the same time?). When asked a

question they would say " I know it, but I can't explain it, " but if you can't

explain it, you don't know it - this is the bottom line.

Why you are so uptight about anyone being an author is beyond my comprehension?

You must think that anyone who writes a book automatically becomes a

millionaire. You criticize books but yet you have not even seen them. If you

would read them, and criticize certain aspects of the books, then I can have a

discussion with you, but for you to simply make these blanket statements makes

it impossible to have any kind of a discussion. If you are an expert on how

training methodics have changed all these years, please elucidate; I have not

seen any new concepts, or very few new concepts in the last 20-30 years.

I should also correct your comment that you provide information free of charge.

You have not provided any information or information sharing. The only thing

you share is your criticism; you are equal across the board.

You urge me to start a discussion with volume management principles - come now,

if you truly understood training you would ask me how I manage volume or

intensity with a specific athlete in a specific sport at a specific period in

the year. You say that I can't manage the system properly yet you never spell

out what the system is - how can one manage a system if they don't even know

what it is that you are talking about?

It's interesting that you can knock some of the training sessions that I offer

and the cost, yet you can't say a word about what I do in the system. This is

the crux of the matter. If you like it you can sign up, if you don't, you don't

have to sign up. No one is pulling you by the ear saying you must do it.

In your closing statements you say that I find enjoyment in your writings. I do

not. Also, for you to say that I am a schooled coach shows that you do not know

anything about my background or the work I have done, so how can you criticize

it? This is not a question, this is your modus operandi, you criticize without

the information in front of you. You think you know everything that someone is

saying, you make assumptions, but you do not base them on any specific points or

carry it through to its conclusion. Even though you say " I enjoy your writing, "

I will not be responding to it again. It is a waste of time and effort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yessis, Ph.D

President, Sports Training, Inc.

www.dryessis.com

PO Box 460429

Escondido, CA 92046

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

Hi Dietrich!

Lets begin with the hamntring. It functions as a knee flexor and hip

extensor. During sprinting the hamstring is stressed (critically

according to Mann) eccentrically. Is there a specific volume (eg.

2000 m. per session), intensity (% of top speed), and frequency (3

days/week) that you have your athletes follow to prevent injury?

Do you perform knee flexion (leg curl, gluet-ham raise) and hip

extension (pulls, squats) with resistance as a performance aid or

injury prevention strategy. If yes what volume, intensity and

frequency do you employ these exercises at various stages in your

periodizaion model. Do you attempt to have the athlete accentuate the

eccentric portion of the lift?

Do you have a flexibility standard (90 degrees of straight knee hip

flexion?) for sprinters and do you employ any standard (dynamic,

static, PNF)flexibility training for your sprinters on a regular

(daily, bi-weekly?) basis?

I have observed that our athletes with hamstring problems have 1)very

weak knee flexors, 2)less than 80 degrees of hip flexion with

straight knee, and 3)train at top speed with little variation on an

almost daily basis. Have you had any similar observations?

Thanks for you kind attention!

Dan Wathen,

Youngstown (OH) State University

In Supertraining , " dhbuchenholz " <DB@S...> wrote:

> Mr Dan Wathen,

>

> The best way to answer your questions is for you to de-generalize

> your questions via a presentation of a specific protocol/program that

> you have used with one of your athletes, detailing as much of what

> you know about this particular athlete(in terms of pertinent

> information- meaning, I don't care to know the story behind his ex-

> girlfriend). Which will then be able to dissect some of the general

> reasons why this protocol was less than optimal for that particular

> athlete and then later hone in on the specific restrictions of such,

> in relation to the questions you asked, regarding the precise timing

> (among other) means in the respective athletes

> sporting/training/competing life.

>

> In other words, I could saturate this forum with enough

> generalizations to drowned us all...but that has been found to NOT be

> the most productive means for teaching/learning- not to mention

> that 'generics' are far from optimal in the real world (i.e. what

> worked for athlete A is not guaranteed to work for athlete B- as to

> what I specifically mean with this analogy, aside from the obvious,

> will become increasingly clear as we progress). Besides, this

> initial discussions will allow us the chance to get on the same page,

> so to speak, which could save us both, I am sure, of wasted breath-

> from an all encompassed, hindsight perspective.

>

> Evolution,

>

> Dietrich Buchenholz

> Grande, Germany

[Guest guest]

Dan!

Wathan:

> " Lets begin with the hamstring. It functions as a knee flexor and hip

> extensor. During sprinting the hamstring is stressed (critically

> according to Mann) eccentrically. Is there a specific volume (e.g.

> 2000 m. per session), intensity (% of top speed), and frequency (3

> days/week) that you have your athletes follow to prevent injury? "

Buchenholz:

Okay, let's begin with the hamstrings. They do, indeed, function as

hip extensors and knee flexors, and the critical stress is during the

pliometric(eccentric) during sprinting. Now, as for volume, it is

impossible and irrational to accord your volume from tonnage, meters,

etc. In sprinting, the common flaw is with meters; with lifters, it

is tonnage (obviously distinguished as such). For instance, " 2000

meters " per session is precisely the cookie-cutter prescriptions that

I have been stressing to stay away from since my inception to this

forum. Volume attainability will be dependant upon intensity,

surely, but specifically in relation to energy expenditure

(biologically and neurologically). Intensity is part of that

equation, so is frequency as residual fatigue is sure to gobble up

working function. But instead of speaking unapplied theory, let's

put it into practice (note: the following is for anaerobic athletes,

as pure as that may be, as it never is completely pure, but

understood to be of those regards- for all you distance runners,

sorry, even though a lot of the same principles apply).

Let's take your 2000 meters per session example to start this

lecture, distinguishing the need. Let's say that you, for reasons we

won't get into, want to run 10 meter sprints. That would net 200

runs! Let's say, now, that you want to run 100 meter runs. This

general format would call for 20 runs. And, again, let's look at 200

meter runs for another example; 10 runs.

Those sure are pretty numbers, aren't they? Not to be too

disparaging, but the real world is never that perfect and lovely.

How do I know? Look no further than the Autoregulatory solution.

If you train to a set percentage of fatigue, in this case determined

by time, then the individual athlete will be restricted by only his

ability. Meaning, 20 x 100 meters may be perfectly suitable for

athlete A but a huge overkill for athlete B and a major lack of

optimal stimulus for athlete C- even if they are all at the same

level of competition. This is precisely why some athletes progress

quicker than other athletes on the same program, and some athlete

progress not at all (dare I say the opposite). However, and I will

quickly note, that even with individual systematics there will be

discrepancies in development rates, known as adaptability rate, due

largely in part to work capacity. This is why it is so critically

important to recognize each athlete as an individual and raise their

individual work capacity, and their absolute (performance figures for

any given event/effort), so that results can come quicker and over a

longer lifetime of improvements. This does not discredit the fact

that initial level of preparedness (i.e. genetics) do not play a card

in this hand, but merely that each is an extension of

the " predisposed " condition, have we the need to manipulate it!

Moreover, what was found appropriate for athlete A on day 1 may be

completely inappropriate on day 2, day 20, day 36(who knows!)...this

is due to the oscillatory function of the system at large. Meaning,

a huge jump in absolute performance will be associated with a

temporary fall in work capacity; this is why it is critically

important for coaches to not assume that an athlete of a higher

caliber will automatically be in need of greater volume. In fact,

quite the opposite can be true!

So, how does one know if 18 runs, 27 runs, 2 runs, or 200 runs are

appropriate for any given athlete on any given training session at

any given distance/time? In short; this is not predictable! To be

honest, if you think you are that good, coach, you need to take up

gambling as a full time hobby because your luck is something of

immense wonder that defies human intelligence! For the rest of us,

let the AREG system work it out for you.

For example, have an athlete establish an initia l(i.e. " absolute " )

for that given day- this initial is NOT assumed, it is established

(meaning, if you are worse than last session of this particular work

than any number of reason could be the culprit; too many days between

sessions, too few days between sessions, wrong training content, too

much volume, not enough volume, conflicting neurological stress with

what is needed or necessary, etc). The bottom line; you, as a coach,

haven't done your job! And, I hate to have to say it, but

overtraining for months on end, of which leads up to a period of

deloading is merely a spark of a sensory illusion- meaning, finally

the workload is dropped so the athlete feels great (but the numbers

don't lie, my friends, and thus we go off of the numbers- in terms of

improvement for each particular athlete).

A simple example; let's say you want your athlete to run 40 meters,

for reason we'll leave alone, and find that the athlete runs an

initial best of 4.83 seconds. His runs then go to 4.87, 4.92, 4.81,

4.92, 4.98, 4.96, 5.03, 5.09; we would stop his runs at that point.

Why? This is because he has reached a 6% (classical 4 scale example)

drop off, and assuming that his entire program his set up properly,

and depending upon what these elements consist of, we will be able to

run him again at about 3-8 days (knowing exactly when takes knowing

exactly what else his program contains!) and see considerable

improvements (a 6% decrease(faster) in time should occur on regular

occasion, not all the time mind you, but on regular occasion,

throughout the year, or else the system is not set up properly). As

you will note, he actually achieved his " initial " on the third run

(which is only attainable with the pinnacle method of work capacity

inducement), and achieved drop off on the 9th run (hypothetically

speaking). Another athlete, remember, may perform the same protocol

and achieve his " initial " on his first run and drop of 22 runs

later....yet another may establish his best (initial/absolute) on the

12th run and last 18 runs. It all depends on the individual, given

the specific conditions and circumstances, and none of it is

completely predictable! If it were, some of these 100 meter

sprinters in the Olympics would all be running low 9.7's by now-

which they aren't! Expectation/predictability/generality is not

specificity/individuality/reality.

Therefore, managing volume correctly is one way to assure progress

and limit injuries- indeed. But, there are many other restrictions

to performance and many other proponents to injuries then just

running, itself. In fact, running by itself is not dangerous...it is

the work that feeds into it that makes it seem as though it produces

a lot of injuries. The reality is that most of the time the damage

was done before hand!

This conversation has been prefaced well into what I would like to

share next.

Wathan:

" Do you attempt to have the athlete accentuate the eccentric portion

of the lift? "

Buchenholz:

It depends on what you mean by " accentuate " . If you mean " Do you

perform these slow speed negatives that proliferate the bodybuilding

community (somewhat) and, resultantly, the sports training world? "

The answer is; absolutely NOT! Those will kill movement efficiency,

and destroy what it is that you are after in the first place- better

reflexive firing and function. As pliometric/eccentric velocity

increases then the resultant firing will be just as large (generally

speaking). Additionally, the greater the relaxation prior to

this " braking phase " of pliometric/eccentric motor action, the even

more enhanced this reflexive firing, resultant action, will become.

Part of this equation is mechanical, the other part, the part we are

concerned chiefly with is neurological. Therefore, for one, you do

not want to promote premature firing of the agonistic contractile

units (in this case, the hamstrings) via improper neural

demands/requests in training. This can lead to (1) destruction of

reflexive firing traits and (2) instigation of working inefficiency-

to name a few.

Let me cut this short, as time demands, one solution (even though EACH

athlete will be different) is to abide by the laws of ASR, Reactive,

Rebound, Plyometric....you take your pick (they all mean virtually the

same thing)....methods in training. That is, there is a process of

absorption, stabilization, and reaction for the movement in

question. The more proficient the abilities of the system are to

carry out these tasks/objectives, the greater the end product- in

this case, sprint performance (not to mention avoidance of injury).

Even as such, one must learn how to absorb force before he can learn

how to advantageously stabilize force, and then he must

sequence/network the two together. Watch a strength athlete drop off

from a set amplitude as compared to a, say, basketball player(with

no " gym " work even) and note the differences between their landings.

The strength athlete will falsely function during the

yielding/braking phase, perpetuating a shock to the stage (killed

energy absorption). The " static-spring " proficient athlete will land

softly, with no unnecessary shock, and absorb and build energy which

may be utilized in the reaction phase. Then, once absorption and

stabilization traits have been solidly laid, the athlete can be

instructed to participate in reactive methods(generally speaking).

I have found that the rush to involve in reactive methods is yet

another precursor to injury- thus any number of injuries may result

for the athlete, not to mention that their performance will be far

from optimal, relative to him/her respectively.

Do we perform flexibility protocols? Yes- that is what running is,

in part. Do we perform unnecessary and additional flexibility;

absolutely not! An athlete can gain all the flexibility he needs

during training, if he is training properly (which can never be

assumed these days). Besides, flexibility work (especially of the

static regime) can kill stretch reflex ability and promote injuries

(you'll only be " stretching " the connective/elastic tissue anyways).

However, I will admit that we will engage in some dynamic flexibility

protocols, if I even dare call it that (after seeing what some folks

interpret such work as), as part of our warm-up/preparation for the

training session. In sprinting, this may include overspeed

good mornings, stiff-legged sprints, deep squat jumps on mini-

trampoline (hips don't raise or fall), split-squat jumps, escalating

sprints, etc. You will note that the warm-up will be nothing fancy or

extended, just some simple and quick work to get them ready for the

real work at hand. I see it all to often when coaches will have

induced fatigue by the time the " working sets " are supposed to begin-

ridiculous! For instance, the classical laps around the track, field,

etc....to extended hurdle step unders, ball drop reaction drills, etc.

Now, as I breeze through this, your injured athletes; I am not

convinced that it is from lack of flexibility, strength, etc. The

odds are that improper training constructs coupled with the fact that

they were " sprinting at top speed on a daily basis " is what did them

in. Fatigue and frequency, my friend, that is the most elemental,

yet necessary, component (harmonized relationship) in all of training.

Meaning, the only way that they could sprint every day is if they had

factorized their training...and this would mean that they would have

had to AREG their frequency scale to start out. Also, this would

also mean that the sport coach and " strength coach " , and whomever

else may be involved, are all working together to help the athlete.

Meaning, coach A knows exactly what coach B is doing and is planning

on doing, so that their schedules will not conflict. This could

result in the two butting heads implicitly; the strength coach feels

the obligation to do strength work with the athlete, and the sport

coach wishes to run him and so forth....eventually the neural

confusion will promote movement inefficiencies which will promote

structural problems (weaknesses, overtraining, etc)...and the road to

rehab has been paved. Let me regurgitate something that I am not so

sure it has passed through to the minds of this forums readers yet;

strength work, such as glute ham raises(off the floor, off a wall

ladder and pommel horse (aka the original), via " The Yessis Device " ,

off a lat machine, etc), stiff (semi stiff) legged deadlifts, reverse

hypers, etc should all be integrated when needs be...not before.

This means, if the athletes coupling time is increasing even though

fatigue and frequency are properly matched and assuming the other

contents are appropriate (i.e. braking time is increasing) then some

strength work may be added in to add to the static-spring effect (i.e.

reactive ability, damping efficiency, etc). However, if it is just

tossed in " just because (fill in the blank) " then the athlete will

suffer (premature fatigue (hammy strain at 60 meters per say), false

function, poor technique, performance stagnation or decrease, etc).

Also, reactive glute hams, reverse hypers, etc are much more

advantageous to the athlete than their " strength " method

counterparts....reflexive firing advancement, anyone?

Again, the more specific and finite your questions/discussion points

get, the more complete of an answer I can provide- sorry for the

brevity and " skimming " of topics.

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

[Guest guest]

Dan!

Wathan:

> " Lets begin with the hamstring. It functions as a knee flexor and hip

> extensor. During sprinting the hamstring is stressed (critically

> according to Mann) eccentrically. Is there a specific volume (e.g.

> 2000 m. per session), intensity (% of top speed), and frequency (3

> days/week) that you have your athletes follow to prevent injury? "

Buchenholz:

Okay, let's begin with the hamstrings. They do, indeed, function as

hip extensors and knee flexors, and the critical stress is during the

pliometric(eccentric) during sprinting. Now, as for volume, it is

impossible and irrational to accord your volume from tonnage, meters,

etc. In sprinting, the common flaw is with meters; with lifters, it

is tonnage (obviously distinguished as such). For instance, " 2000

meters " per session is precisely the cookie-cutter prescriptions that

I have been stressing to stay away from since my inception to this

forum. Volume attainability will be dependant upon intensity,

surely, but specifically in relation to energy expenditure

(biologically and neurologically). Intensity is part of that

equation, so is frequency as residual fatigue is sure to gobble up

working function. But instead of speaking unapplied theory, let's

put it into practice (note: the following is for anaerobic athletes,

as pure as that may be, as it never is completely pure, but

understood to be of those regards- for all you distance runners,

sorry, even though a lot of the same principles apply).

Let's take your 2000 meters per session example to start this

lecture, distinguishing the need. Let's say that you, for reasons we

won't get into, want to run 10 meter sprints. That would net 200

runs! Let's say, now, that you want to run 100 meter runs. This

general format would call for 20 runs. And, again, let's look at 200

meter runs for another example; 10 runs.

Those sure are pretty numbers, aren't they? Not to be too

disparaging, but the real world is never that perfect and lovely.

How do I know? Look no further than the Autoregulatory solution.

If you train to a set percentage of fatigue, in this case determined

by time, then the individual athlete will be restricted by only his

ability. Meaning, 20 x 100 meters may be perfectly suitable for

athlete A but a huge overkill for athlete B and a major lack of

optimal stimulus for athlete C- even if they are all at the same

level of competition. This is precisely why some athletes progress

quicker than other athletes on the same program, and some athlete

progress not at all (dare I say the opposite). However, and I will

quickly note, that even with individual systematics there will be

discrepancies in development rates, known as adaptability rate, due

largely in part to work capacity. This is why it is so critically

important to recognize each athlete as an individual and raise their

individual work capacity, and their absolute (performance figures for

any given event/effort), so that results can come quicker and over a

longer lifetime of improvements. This does not discredit the fact

that initial level of preparedness (i.e. genetics) do not play a card

in this hand, but merely that each is an extension of

the " predisposed " condition, have we the need to manipulate it!

Moreover, what was found appropriate for athlete A on day 1 may be

completely inappropriate on day 2, day 20, day 36(who knows!)...this

is due to the oscillatory function of the system at large. Meaning,

a huge jump in absolute performance will be associated with a

temporary fall in work capacity; this is why it is critically

important for coaches to not assume that an athlete of a higher

caliber will automatically be in need of greater volume. In fact,

quite the opposite can be true!

So, how does one know if 18 runs, 27 runs, 2 runs, or 200 runs are

appropriate for any given athlete on any given training session at

any given distance/time? In short; this is not predictable! To be

honest, if you think you are that good, coach, you need to take up

gambling as a full time hobby because your luck is something of

immense wonder that defies human intelligence! For the rest of us,

let the AREG system work it out for you.

For example, have an athlete establish an initia l(i.e. " absolute " )

for that given day- this initial is NOT assumed, it is established

(meaning, if you are worse than last session of this particular work

than any number of reason could be the culprit; too many days between

sessions, too few days between sessions, wrong training content, too

much volume, not enough volume, conflicting neurological stress with

what is needed or necessary, etc). The bottom line; you, as a coach,

haven't done your job! And, I hate to have to say it, but

overtraining for months on end, of which leads up to a period of

deloading is merely a spark of a sensory illusion- meaning, finally

the workload is dropped so the athlete feels great (but the numbers

don't lie, my friends, and thus we go off of the numbers- in terms of

improvement for each particular athlete).

A simple example; let's say you want your athlete to run 40 meters,

for reason we'll leave alone, and find that the athlete runs an

initial best of 4.83 seconds. His runs then go to 4.87, 4.92, 4.81,

4.92, 4.98, 4.96, 5.03, 5.09; we would stop his runs at that point.

Why? This is because he has reached a 6% (classical 4 scale example)

drop off, and assuming that his entire program his set up properly,

and depending upon what these elements consist of, we will be able to

run him again at about 3-8 days (knowing exactly when takes knowing

exactly what else his program contains!) and see considerable

improvements (a 6% decrease(faster) in time should occur on regular

occasion, not all the time mind you, but on regular occasion,

throughout the year, or else the system is not set up properly). As

you will note, he actually achieved his " initial " on the third run

(which is only attainable with the pinnacle method of work capacity

inducement), and achieved drop off on the 9th run (hypothetically

speaking). Another athlete, remember, may perform the same protocol

and achieve his " initial " on his first run and drop of 22 runs

later....yet another may establish his best (initial/absolute) on the

12th run and last 18 runs. It all depends on the individual, given

the specific conditions and circumstances, and none of it is

completely predictable! If it were, some of these 100 meter

sprinters in the Olympics would all be running low 9.7's by now-

which they aren't! Expectation/predictability/generality is not

specificity/individuality/reality.

Therefore, managing volume correctly is one way to assure progress

and limit injuries- indeed. But, there are many other restrictions

to performance and many other proponents to injuries then just

running, itself. In fact, running by itself is not dangerous...it is

the work that feeds into it that makes it seem as though it produces

a lot of injuries. The reality is that most of the time the damage

was done before hand!

This conversation has been prefaced well into what I would like to

share next.

Wathan:

" Do you attempt to have the athlete accentuate the eccentric portion

of the lift? "

Buchenholz:

It depends on what you mean by " accentuate " . If you mean " Do you

perform these slow speed negatives that proliferate the bodybuilding

community (somewhat) and, resultantly, the sports training world? "

The answer is; absolutely NOT! Those will kill movement efficiency,

and destroy what it is that you are after in the first place- better

reflexive firing and function. As pliometric/eccentric velocity

increases then the resultant firing will be just as large (generally

speaking). Additionally, the greater the relaxation prior to

this " braking phase " of pliometric/eccentric motor action, the even

more enhanced this reflexive firing, resultant action, will become.

Part of this equation is mechanical, the other part, the part we are

concerned chiefly with is neurological. Therefore, for one, you do

not want to promote premature firing of the agonistic contractile

units (in this case, the hamstrings) via improper neural

demands/requests in training. This can lead to (1) destruction of

reflexive firing traits and (2) instigation of working inefficiency-

to name a few.

Let me cut this short, as time demands, one solution (even though EACH

athlete will be different) is to abide by the laws of ASR, Reactive,

Rebound, Plyometric....you take your pick (they all mean virtually the

same thing)....methods in training. That is, there is a process of

absorption, stabilization, and reaction for the movement in

question. The more proficient the abilities of the system are to

carry out these tasks/objectives, the greater the end product- in

this case, sprint performance (not to mention avoidance of injury).

Even as such, one must learn how to absorb force before he can learn

how to advantageously stabilize force, and then he must

sequence/network the two together. Watch a strength athlete drop off

from a set amplitude as compared to a, say, basketball player(with

no " gym " work even) and note the differences between their landings.

The strength athlete will falsely function during the

yielding/braking phase, perpetuating a shock to the stage (killed

energy absorption). The " static-spring " proficient athlete will land

softly, with no unnecessary shock, and absorb and build energy which

may be utilized in the reaction phase. Then, once absorption and

stabilization traits have been solidly laid, the athlete can be

instructed to participate in reactive methods(generally speaking).

I have found that the rush to involve in reactive methods is yet

another precursor to injury- thus any number of injuries may result

for the athlete, not to mention that their performance will be far

from optimal, relative to him/her respectively.

Do we perform flexibility protocols? Yes- that is what running is,

in part. Do we perform unnecessary and additional flexibility;

absolutely not! An athlete can gain all the flexibility he needs

during training, if he is training properly (which can never be

assumed these days). Besides, flexibility work (especially of the

static regime) can kill stretch reflex ability and promote injuries

(you'll only be " stretching " the connective/elastic tissue anyways).

However, I will admit that we will engage in some dynamic flexibility

protocols, if I even dare call it that (after seeing what some folks

interpret such work as), as part of our warm-up/preparation for the

training session. In sprinting, this may include overspeed

good mornings, stiff-legged sprints, deep squat jumps on mini-

trampoline (hips don't raise or fall), split-squat jumps, escalating

sprints, etc. You will note that the warm-up will be nothing fancy or

extended, just some simple and quick work to get them ready for the

real work at hand. I see it all to often when coaches will have

induced fatigue by the time the " working sets " are supposed to begin-

ridiculous! For instance, the classical laps around the track, field,

etc....to extended hurdle step unders, ball drop reaction drills, etc.

Now, as I breeze through this, your injured athletes; I am not

convinced that it is from lack of flexibility, strength, etc. The

odds are that improper training constructs coupled with the fact that

they were " sprinting at top speed on a daily basis " is what did them

in. Fatigue and frequency, my friend, that is the most elemental,

yet necessary, component (harmonized relationship) in all of training.

Meaning, the only way that they could sprint every day is if they had

factorized their training...and this would mean that they would have

had to AREG their frequency scale to start out. Also, this would

also mean that the sport coach and " strength coach " , and whomever

else may be involved, are all working together to help the athlete.

Meaning, coach A knows exactly what coach B is doing and is planning

on doing, so that their schedules will not conflict. This could

result in the two butting heads implicitly; the strength coach feels

the obligation to do strength work with the athlete, and the sport

coach wishes to run him and so forth....eventually the neural

confusion will promote movement inefficiencies which will promote

structural problems (weaknesses, overtraining, etc)...and the road to

rehab has been paved. Let me regurgitate something that I am not so

sure it has passed through to the minds of this forums readers yet;

strength work, such as glute ham raises(off the floor, off a wall

ladder and pommel horse (aka the original), via " The Yessis Device " ,

off a lat machine, etc), stiff (semi stiff) legged deadlifts, reverse

hypers, etc should all be integrated when needs be...not before.

This means, if the athletes coupling time is increasing even though

fatigue and frequency are properly matched and assuming the other

contents are appropriate (i.e. braking time is increasing) then some

strength work may be added in to add to the static-spring effect (i.e.

reactive ability, damping efficiency, etc). However, if it is just

tossed in " just because (fill in the blank) " then the athlete will

suffer (premature fatigue (hammy strain at 60 meters per say), false

function, poor technique, performance stagnation or decrease, etc).

Also, reactive glute hams, reverse hypers, etc are much more

advantageous to the athlete than their " strength " method

counterparts....reflexive firing advancement, anyone?

Again, the more specific and finite your questions/discussion points

get, the more complete of an answer I can provide- sorry for the

brevity and " skimming " of topics.

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

[Guest guest]

Deitrich

How does AREG address the amount of rest between repeated sprint

efforts? I can't recall exactly, but I think in one of your previous posts you

suggested that the athlete begins subsequent sprints as he/she is ready?

McCann

Philadelphia, PA

[Guest guest]

Hi Dietrich!

Many thanks for your informative reply. I was wondering where you

found or did you develop the 6% performance drop off rule for volume

control. Also do you do the reactive method exculsively for all your

strength training exercises? It would seem a bit too intense for

novices.

Best wishes!

Dan Wathen,

Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

Good question, , and one I am glad to answer. As an athlete,

you want to raise your initial (i.e. how fast you run a set distance)

and/or your work capacity integers (i.e. part of this is equation

involves how many sets you obtain). Therefore, if you rush through a

workout then you will not be able to increase you work capacity

integers from last session and your initial/absolute performance for

the next session will suffer accordingly.

But I am sure that you want somewhat of a guidance, right? Here is

my general recommendation; " up to 8 minutes rest between sets " . This

means that you can take 30 seconds if needs be, 2 minutes of needs

be, or whatever is appropriate for you specific purposes (sporting

need) and program design contents. Just remember that you will need

to raise you initial and/or capacity integers next session and it

will keep you from returning to work too soon if you are allowed open

ended rest intervals (i.e. sprinting, powerlifting, etc).

Note: if you rest for more than about 7-8 minutes then it is

recommended that you take a modest warm-up before your next working

set. Which coincides to my next point; with some training

constructs, we will take 20-30 minute rest intervals! Flexibility is

a must. But, it must all be prescribed for specific purposes.

Meaning, it is NOT advised to " try out " , say, 20 minute rest

intervals just because you heard about it. If you can't substantiate

it before hand, don't do it (there isn't an established need)!

Lastly, if your initial takes a major jump in performance then you can

expect your work capacity to take a negative dip the next session-

that's not only okay, it's necessary. Likewise, if you experience a

major rise in work capacity then you may not see the best results the

next session, but the foundation has been placed to see tremendous

developments very soon (1-3 sessions away usually).

Hopefully some of you are starting to see why " progressive " volume

schematics are inappropriate. In case you missed it; one reason is

because work capacity feeds into initial and visa versa, at different

development rates and dependability issues...and so if you increase,

say, one set per week for three weeks then what you are really doing,

whether you know it or not, is showing that you don’t expect a rise in

initial/absolute. And, worse yet, if a rise does occur, the road to

overtraining has been paved! This is yet one intricacy that

AREG " self-regulates " for you. Stay tuned, there’s a lot more to

come...

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

> Deitrich

>

> How does AREG address the amount of rest between repeated sprint

> efforts? I can't recall exactly, but I think in one of your

previous posts you

> suggested that the athlete begins subsequent sprints as he/she is

ready?

>

> McCann

> Philadelphia, PA

[Guest guest]

Good question, , and one I am glad to answer. As an athlete,

you want to raise your initial (i.e. how fast you run a set distance)

and/or your work capacity integers (i.e. part of this is equation

involves how many sets you obtain). Therefore, if you rush through a

workout then you will not be able to increase you work capacity

integers from last session and your initial/absolute performance for

the next session will suffer accordingly.

But I am sure that you want somewhat of a guidance, right? Here is

my general recommendation; " up to 8 minutes rest between sets " . This

means that you can take 30 seconds if needs be, 2 minutes of needs

be, or whatever is appropriate for you specific purposes (sporting

need) and program design contents. Just remember that you will need

to raise you initial and/or capacity integers next session and it

will keep you from returning to work too soon if you are allowed open

ended rest intervals (i.e. sprinting, powerlifting, etc).

Note: if you rest for more than about 7-8 minutes then it is

recommended that you take a modest warm-up before your next working

set. Which coincides to my next point; with some training

constructs, we will take 20-30 minute rest intervals! Flexibility is

a must. But, it must all be prescribed for specific purposes.

Meaning, it is NOT advised to " try out " , say, 20 minute rest

intervals just because you heard about it. If you can't substantiate

it before hand, don't do it (there isn't an established need)!

Lastly, if your initial takes a major jump in performance then you can

expect your work capacity to take a negative dip the next session-

that's not only okay, it's necessary. Likewise, if you experience a

major rise in work capacity then you may not see the best results the

next session, but the foundation has been placed to see tremendous

developments very soon (1-3 sessions away usually).

Hopefully some of you are starting to see why " progressive " volume

schematics are inappropriate. In case you missed it; one reason is

because work capacity feeds into initial and visa versa, at different

development rates and dependability issues...and so if you increase,

say, one set per week for three weeks then what you are really doing,

whether you know it or not, is showing that you don’t expect a rise in

initial/absolute. And, worse yet, if a rise does occur, the road to

overtraining has been paved! This is yet one intricacy that

AREG " self-regulates " for you. Stay tuned, there’s a lot more to

come...

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

> Deitrich

>

> How does AREG address the amount of rest between repeated sprint

> efforts? I can't recall exactly, but I think in one of your

previous posts you

> suggested that the athlete begins subsequent sprints as he/she is

ready?

>

> McCann

> Philadelphia, PA

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dan,

I answered the 6% establishment question in a different post so

please save me the time by looking for it- thanks!

No, we don't do reactive method work all the time, but not for

reasons you suggested. Let me explain, reactive work is NOT too

intense for anyone. Reactive work is sprinting, throwing a ball,

etc...just as there are various intensities with " strength " work

there are various intensities and applications of " reactive work " .

Moreover, that same logic you presented would mean that no one would

strength train because some athletes bench press 300 kgs and that

much stress would be, as you said, " too intense for novices. "

Please don't mis-read me; I don't intend to be patronizing in any

way...I am simply trying to use said analogy for clarifications

sake.

Reactive work must be adhered to at an individual specific level, as

all else, and can then NOT be assigned haphazardously (just like you

wouldn't throw a novice under a 300 kgs bench press we wouldn't do

something just as ignorant with reactive methodics).

Moreover, we do not use it for all strength exercises, neither. Read

my post again, please, you will see that I commented on using

traditional " strength training " applications if the need arises. In

other words, what we assign depends on the athlete.......what is

assigned should never depend on the coach! Some athletes, for

example, will need oscillatory-isometric (OI) work of the reactive

regime and others will need reflexive-firing isometrics (RFI) and

others, still, will need reactive acceleration (RA) work, and some may

even need plio-iso-miometric (PIM)- " conventional down and up

repetition strength work " - as some quench for isometric (ISO) work,

etc, to develop.....and the list goes on and on and on (there are tons

of methods available for the well schooled coach- but I won't present

those until I am sure that volume management schematics are well

understood.......remember, you can have the fastest car in the race

but if you can't handle it then you will lose!!!) Back on track

now; the athlete will tell us this based on how he is functioning;

never guess, assume, etc., always know with all reliability what is

necessary!!!- There are ways to do this!

Adjust on the fly just like/as the athletes system adapts!!!

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

> Hi Dietrich!

>

> Many thanks for your informative reply. I was wondering where you

> found or did you develop the 6% performance drop off rule for volume

> control. Also do you do the reactive method exculsively for all your

> strength training exercises? It would seem a bit too intense for

> novices.

>

> Best wishes!

>

> Dan Wathen,

> Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dan,

I answered the 6% establishment question in a different post so

please save me the time by looking for it- thanks!

No, we don't do reactive method work all the time, but not for

reasons you suggested. Let me explain, reactive work is NOT too

intense for anyone. Reactive work is sprinting, throwing a ball,

etc...just as there are various intensities with " strength " work

there are various intensities and applications of " reactive work " .

Moreover, that same logic you presented would mean that no one would

strength train because some athletes bench press 300 kgs and that

much stress would be, as you said, " too intense for novices. "

Please don't mis-read me; I don't intend to be patronizing in any

way...I am simply trying to use said analogy for clarifications

sake.

Reactive work must be adhered to at an individual specific level, as

all else, and can then NOT be assigned haphazardously (just like you

wouldn't throw a novice under a 300 kgs bench press we wouldn't do

something just as ignorant with reactive methodics).

Moreover, we do not use it for all strength exercises, neither. Read

my post again, please, you will see that I commented on using

traditional " strength training " applications if the need arises. In

other words, what we assign depends on the athlete.......what is

assigned should never depend on the coach! Some athletes, for

example, will need oscillatory-isometric (OI) work of the reactive

regime and others will need reflexive-firing isometrics (RFI) and

others, still, will need reactive acceleration (RA) work, and some may

even need plio-iso-miometric (PIM)- " conventional down and up

repetition strength work " - as some quench for isometric (ISO) work,

etc, to develop.....and the list goes on and on and on (there are tons

of methods available for the well schooled coach- but I won't present

those until I am sure that volume management schematics are well

understood.......remember, you can have the fastest car in the race

but if you can't handle it then you will lose!!!) Back on track

now; the athlete will tell us this based on how he is functioning;

never guess, assume, etc., always know with all reliability what is

necessary!!!- There are ways to do this!

Adjust on the fly just like/as the athletes system adapts!!!

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

> Hi Dietrich!

>

> Many thanks for your informative reply. I was wondering where you

> found or did you develop the 6% performance drop off rule for volume

> control. Also do you do the reactive method exculsively for all your

> strength training exercises? It would seem a bit too intense for

> novices.

>

> Best wishes!

>

> Dan Wathen,

> Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

Hi Dietrich!

Do you use the same 6% volume control method with throwers? For

example stop throwing when velocity drops below 6% of maximum for the

day. What are your views of using pitch counts ( not exceeding 100

pitches/workout)?

How do you handle pitching frequency? Do you have your athletes begin

by throwing daily, every other day, every third day?

Do you have your throwing athletes strength train? If yes what

movements do you prescribe? We use a variety of movements with

dumbbells ( scaption, prone scaption, flexion, D-1 & D-2 patterns with

cables) along with standard multi-joint exercises such as squats,

lunges, cleans, rowing, and overhead presses.

Thanks again for your time.

Best wishes!

Dan Wathen,

Youngstown (OH) State University

In Supertraining , " dhbuchenholz " <DB@S...> wrote:

> Greetings Dan,

>

> I answered the 6% establishment question in a different post so

> please save me the time by looking for it- thanks!

>

> No, we don't do reactive method work all the time, but not for

> reasons you suggested. Let me explain, reactive work is NOT too

> intense for anyone. Reactive work is sprinting, throwing a ball,

> etc...just as there are various intensities with " strength " work

> there are various intensities and applications of " reactive work " .

> Moreover, that same logic you presented would mean that no one would

> strength train because some athletes bench press 300 kgs and that

> much stress would be, as you said, " too intense for novices. "

>

> Please don't mis-read me; I don't intend to be patronizing in any

> way...I am simply trying to use said analogy for clarifications

> sake.

>

> Reactive work must be adhered to at an individual specific level, as

> all else, and can then NOT be assigned haphazardously (just like you

> wouldn't throw a novice under a 300 kgs bench press we wouldn't do

> something just as ignorant with reactive methodics).

>

> Moreover, we do not use it for all strength exercises, neither. Read

> my post again, please, you will see that I commented on using

> traditional " strength training " applications if the need arises. In

> other words, what we assign depends on the athlete.......what is

> assigned should never depend on the coach! Some athletes, for

> example, will need oscillatory-isometric (OI) work of the reactive

> regime and others will need reflexive-firing isometrics (RFI) and

> others, still, will need reactive acceleration (RA) work, and some may

> even need plio-iso-miometric (PIM)- " conventional down and up

> repetition strength work " - as some quench for isometric (ISO) work,

> etc, to develop.....and the list goes on and on and on (there are tons

> of methods available for the well schooled coach- but I won't present

> those until I am sure that volume management schematics are well

> understood.......remember, you can have the fastest car in the race

> but if you can't handle it then you will lose!!!) Back on track

> now; the athlete will tell us this based on how he is functioning;

> never guess, assume, etc., always know with all reliability what is

> necessary!!!- There are ways to do this!

>

> Adjust on the fly just like/as the athletes system adapts!!!

>

> Evolution,

>

> Dietrich Buchenholz

> Hamburg, Germany

>

>

>

> > Hi Dietrich!

> >

> > Many thanks for your informative reply. I was wondering where you

> > found or did you develop the 6% performance drop off rule for volume

> > control. Also do you do the reactive method exculsively for all your

> > strength training exercises? It would seem a bit too intense for

> > novices.

> >

> > Best wishes!

> >

> > Dan Wathen,

> > Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff made mention of a 6% decrement in Supertraining. I can't cite the

exact page off-hand, but it is in there. If I can find it again I'll post the

exact page/reference.

McCann

Philadelphia, PA

[Guest guest]

Dan,

You offer some very good questions, and ones which I am particularly

glad to answer. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about raising

performance capacity concurrent with 'bullet-proofing' oneself

against possible injury. This entails proper volume inducement at

the individual-specific level. This entails breaking the bounds of

generalized prescription techniques enroute for more personalized

methodics; including selection of the proper modality and bracket,

the correct method and movement, as well as structuring the training

systematically yet in terms of individual and sporting need(i.e.

arrangement techniques, capacity techniques, toleration techniques).

Moreover, maybe it is just the inherent coach's mindset, but if

certain principles can't be put into motion (get the wheels turning,

so to speak) then I'd rather spare my time- so let's skip a few

chapters ahead and limit our discussion to more practical matters(I

hope you don't mind!).

Different " throwers " need different " throwing programs " , of which

match them up personally with the specific requirements of sport.

For instance, a " starter " must build 'prime capacity of work'

functions to " transform " into a " starting pitcher " . Conversely,

a " closer " must gain the (generally speaking) abilities to

concentrate their efforts(i.e. enhance magnitude functions) for a

lower working tally(i.e. " pitch count " ) via 'pinnacle capacity of

work' advancement. And, of course, these discussions of 'work

capacity' cannot be entailed without acknowledgement

of 'adaptability rate', as a great portion of this ability rests in

the movement of capacity integers, along with toleration functions(to

add clarity).

In other words, depending upon the specific tasks asked of the

specific athlete by the coach, the training means adhered should

guide the development of the athlete in this direction- partly to

optimize movement efficiency functions. Otherwise, the starting

pitcher would fatigue exceptionally early, and the closer would lack

the " juice " necessary to perform his duties- that being, return to

the bench as quick as possible absent a change in the critical

scoreboard numbers!

So let's start with volume. Discussions of generalized pitch counts

are not only a waste of breath, but a large portion of credit

resulting in the alarmingly high injury rate can thank this ignorant

practice. Still in doubt? Please, as a coach, hop in the rotation,

so to speak, and take a few weeks of throwing training with your

athletes- performing exactly what you require them to do(rep for rep,

including warm-ups, batting practice tosses, etc). Your probably

thinking; " that's crazy, I'm not prepared to handle that type of a

throw count! " My rebuttal; " How is it determined that your athletes

are ready for just a regime? " Would you offer the typically candid

response that most top rank coaches slide to me across the table in

an exchange of confidence(assuming I won't place their opinion

publicly)- 'if their at this level, they are Probably prepared to

throw that much'. Hmmm, that doesn't sound all that 'scientific' to

me. Does it to you? Besides, I just can't convince myself to accept

such Perfect Integers as " 100 " throws....but that's a good thing, I

guess, as had they said " 97 " throws during my indoctrination to

baseball training a limited number of years back I may just have

accepted it as substantiated fact!

However, if a thrower trains to a specific degree of fatigue,

commensurate with his adaptability rate, then he will save arm health

and magnify his improvements infinitely above popular/traditional

practice.

For instance, let's say that a pitcher will be responsible for

throwing one game every 5th day when season rolls around. He must

tally in his toleration integers; how well can he not only manage but

improve upon(from session to session!) training via a 'fatigue cycle'

and a 'frequency cycle'? That is, is his particular system leaning

in any direction in terms of fatigue versus frequency toleration

capacity? We can even make this particular to sport. If the coach

wants 100 pitches (the number you offered) out of him on game day then

this pitcher better be able to posses a prime capacity of work

integer of At Least 100! This would be reliably verified if he

improved absolute and/or work capacity integers from session A to

session B. Therefore, he will need to train that often (once ever 5th

day), being a 5 day frequency scale, for the majority of his training

due to the specificity of such, and induce the compatible fatigue

percent via autoregulatory methodics to induce progression of

absolute/initial or capacity integers from session to session. You

read right; if performance does not go up from session to session

than the training program is not structured properly. In fact,

initial and capacity integers should rise concurrently on regular

occasion or else there are subtle deficiencies in the management

complex.

A closer, on the other hand, will reserve the majority of his

training effort for higher frequency, less fatigue training. This

requires that the athlete be evaluated for his capacity integers over

a set frequency scale- say, 4 day scale. Then, he will 'factorized'

this product via wave-load arrangement so that he can train daily, as

typically requested by sport, and still retain progressional

integrity from frequency scale to frequency scale. This strategy

will typically follow the 60% rule in training (for optimal results,

not that it's necessarily compatible with sport an more than

alternative options). For example, let's say this athlete boosts his

throwing velocity if he trains to 5% on a 4 day scale(4 days rest

between sessions), and his work capacity with this regime was found

to be fluctuating about, say, 80 pitches. This means that we need to

use four training sessions; for simplicity, we will do this via a

30%, 20%, 30%, 20% wave. That is, this roughly equates to a pitch

count of 25 on day 1, 15 day 2, 25 day 3, 15 day 4 (80 comprised

total). Then, this will get adjusted as training evolves;

specifically as adaptability rate changes, toleration phenomenon

oscillate about, and so forth.

Now, what about means for long term development?

To increase work capacity we must increase the athletes toleration

towards 'fatigue' inducement and 'frequency' inducement. This means

that working capacity can not only be set up on frequency toleration

cycles(association percent on 3-5 day scale or factorized, split, or

linearized of such, etc). The athlete must also learn to develop

great adaptability towards great(er) fatigue inducement. In all

fairness, this could just be parallel arrangement tactics for a closer

(i.e. synonymous with the generic guide listed above for a starter).

However, in many cases, and especially all starting pitches, fatigue

toleration work must be induced. This entails appropriating fatigue

percent for a 5-8 frequency scale.

Since neurodynamic(neuromuscular included) trained functions are quick

to adjust/adapt and quick to 'relapse' to preferred position/profile-

specifically if support or direct means are not integrated within 6

days- many intricate set ups are engrossed with fatigue toleration

work. For starters, an athlete with optimal movement function (no

flaws structurally or substructurally) will take on 10-12% fatigue

inducement ('velocity method') on a 6 day scale (avoid detraining in

this instance).

As for ratio of design; 4-6 frequency toleration cycles (i.e.

sessions) are revolved with 1-2 fatigue toleration cycles continually

throughout the training lifeline. This is not restricted to only

training, but competition as well!

As for the 'strength training' question....

I can't say that strength training plays a zero factor in throwing

arm development. But, nor is it heavily relied for optimal

progression. Again, this cannot be restricted to generalities, as

each athlete will need to have his program readily adjusted on the

fly, just as his readily adaptable nervous system adjusts! So even

though 'printing off the sheets' from the computer 6 months in

advance appears to show great preparedness of the coach in question,

this illusion comes at the expense of the athletes development!

Since this discussion would justifiably need more time spent on it

than I have available to offer at the moment, I will have to cut this

discussion short for today....but please do read back over some of

our previous exchanges...many of the same basic principles apply.

In short; if it raises the functional abilities of the athlete, from

the inside out(meaning central systems to peripheral systems),

recognized as an increase in throwing velocity or throwing volume

capacity via AREG methodics, then the supportive means were properly

assigned. Simple, yes, but so often overlooked by strength coaches,

strangely enough. Hidden agenda?

Last thought; capacity integers will swagger depending upon pitch

composition(i.e. fastball to slider to changeup ration, etc).....how

would you adjust your training and management of such accordingly?

Evolution,

Dietrich Buchenholz

Hamburg, Germany

> Hi Dietrich!

>

> Do you use the same 6% volume control method with throwers? For

> example stop throwing when velocity drops below 6% of maximum for the

> day. What are your views of using pitch counts ( not exceeding 100

> pitches/workout)?

>

> How do you handle pitching frequency? Do you have your athletes begin

> by throwing daily, every other day, every third day?

>

> Do you have your throwing athletes strength train? If yes what

> movements do you prescribe? We use a variety of movements with

> dumbbells ( scaption, prone scaption, flexion, D-1 & D-2 patterns with

> cables) along with standard multi-joint exercises such as squats,

> lunges, cleans, rowing, and overhead presses.

>

> Thanks again for your time.

>

> Best wishes!

>

> Dan Wathen,

> Youngstown (OH) State University