Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzzz
Your "home work isn't all That good if you're reading the wrong stuff
First No where have I said there were 400 degrees in a squat...
|
From 08 MAY 2010:
"An average of folks is about 400 degrees of movement when not limited by heavy weight. Many people are doing Squats around 80 reps min"
I was reading some wrong stuff, just so happens you wrote it.
Quote:
|
Secondly we Biodexed joint velocity at over 500 degrees per second. The rate slows to about 400 degrees with mild resistance.
|
Now, it's awesome that you've Biodexed joints at 500 degrees per second. However, "For concentric contractions most dynamometers have a maximum speed of 500 degrees per second. The use of velocities is dependent on the joint tested and the ROM, however, higher velocities are usually only of academic interest. Corresponding eccentric velocities are not usually possible and are generally one-third less than concentric. Stretching an active muscle at high velocity poses a serious threat to muscle integrity (so don’t do it)" (
http://www.isokinetics.net/basics/bio.htm) So what is the point of doing high-speed, high rep squats (or other movements with both a concentric and eccentric component), as your system advocates? By contrast, a traditional dynamic-effort program emphasizes a fast concentric, not eccentric phase of movement.
"Powers' study" wasn't actually a study, it was an Exercise Physiology textbook (As the citation noted), which is used to teach actual science, something your system is tragically short on. I wasn't presenting a case in which force decreases as velocity increases, I was presenting a scientific fact. Saying "it doesn't apply here" is implying that your system exists outside scientific facts, which certainly appears to be the case.
How does Blitzing "increase strength while maintaining velocity" when your starting weights are only 33% of 1RM? I quote my third paragraph: "neural innervation by the CNS and recruitment of muscle fibers is best achieved at 50-60% of 1RM." Your system isn't presenting the required stimulus for CNS innervation, at least not until an athlete's weights are increased to 50% of 1RM. That could take a very long time, given your preoccupation with maintaining velocity.
I have provided actual scientific critisms, based off of facts (College-level textbooks, even), of your program, which you refuse to address. Of course, it's quite easy to just brush aside pesky science as being too "standard" or even "petty" and not "cutting edge" enough to provide an explanation for your system's supposed "effectiveness." It's hard to believe in a system whose author cannot or will not provide hard, empirical evidence of its effectiveness and efficiency. I have nothing against you personally, and as I've said, I can definitely see a rehab application for your system with regards to restoring joint function, but your outlandish claims of it being "the ONLY truly new, BEST system for providing strength, power, and endurance" make me pause and take a look at the facts behind it.
It's hard to dispute a video of an athlete putting up 300lbs. in a barbell back squat 80 times in a minute. It's easy to dispute the dismissal of any and all criticisms of the system as "they just don't understand." Personally, I find that kind of attitude to be condescending and insulting, especially given my displayed understanding of multiple aspects of exercise science. Instead of calling us simpletons "knuckle draggers" and leaving it at that, show us something we CAN understand, like a video. Or a peer-reviewed study. Or... anything, really.