Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzzz
An aside to Sean, with your start weight of 102 lbs for Blitz by the end of 8 weeks you would have been doing 438.5 lbs x 70 to 90 /min totaling somewhere between 30,330 lbs to 39,420 lbs per/min (plus doing 3 sets total of 118,260 lbs cumulative work). Not something you can duplicate with any other system.
|
You're right, no homework involved, just going by your statement, quoted above.
However, I did actually do some homework:
There are not 400 degrees of movement in a squat. Sorry, the body can't bend like that. Now, if by degrees of movement you're referring to velocity of movement (degrees/second), your system is flawed in two ways. First, the peak power generated by a muscle plateaus at 200-300 degrees per second. (Powers 164) Therefore, your prescription for athletes to move at 400 degrees per second is inefficient for developing max power output. Second, The force-velocity curve shows that maximal force decreases as velocity of movement increases. Therefore, strength gains from high-velocity movements are going to be minimal. Power will be improved, but without a strength base the athlete is wasting time.
The Westside Barbell Club uses Dynamic Effort work with their advanced powerlifters to increase power. Usually, 10 sets of 2 reps are done at 60% of max, as explosively and quickly as possible. A lifter will not get much stronger lifting only 60% of his 1RM, but he can get much more powerful. Increasing power (speed of muscle contraction) and strength (force of muscle contraction) are different sides of the same coin, and to make the most efficient use of a trainee's time is to focus on training them on separate days. An athlete squatting 500lbs. will be able to train power more efficiently than one squatting 200lbs., because of his better strength base.
Now, due to the Novice effect, in which when a person starts doing anything and all of their fitness attributes increase; a person starting your program from an unstructured or nonexistent exercise background will initially see improvements in both speed and power, as well as cardiovascular and muscular endurance, among other things. However, that athlete is essentially wasting time if he enters your program without a strength base that is closer to his genetic potentia. A strong athlete will always be more powerful, and able to train power more efficiently, than a weak one. Trying to make someone stronger by using submaximal (your program prescribes a starting weight of merely 33% of 1RM, which is too light to make any meaningful strength gains) weights at high speeds is counterproductive. Also, your claims of training and recruiting "tertiary muscle fibers" is flawed, because neural innervation by the CNS and recruitment of muscle fibers is best achieved at 50-60% of 1RM. Furthermore, prescribing an athlete to retest his 1RM every two weeks totally discards the fact that neural adaptation (the ability of the CNS to recruit muscle fibers) isn't completed until after 5 to 8 weeks of training.
That being said, I really can see a use for your program for rehabilitation and physical therapy applications, with some modifications. However, claiming that it's the best fitness program hands down for increasing strength and power (as well as cardio and muscular endurance) is hyperbole at best.
Of course, I could be proven totally wrong with some empirical evidence. Show me, hell, show the members of this board some hard, empirical evidence of atheletes squatting 100lbs. for 80 reps per minute. Show me one athlete who has progressed up to 300lbs. for 80 reps per minute. Show me any athlete who is capable of 80 unweighted squats, from full hip extension down to hip crease below the patella, in 1 minute. And then tell me why every single NFL, NHL, NBA, FIFA, NCAA and PGA Pro Tour athlete isn't kicking in your door and demanding this program.
Works Consulted:
Powers, Scott K. and Edward T. Howley.
Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to Fitness and Performance 7th Edition. New York:McGraw Hill. 2009