Blitz only Thread - Page 18

abc_123 · 05-09-2010, 09:23

I would have to say that with respect to "upper body" exercises, that I followed the Blitzzz as written, my experience is that I gained not only size/definition/vascularity, but also dramatically increased endurance while gaining strength. All were noticeable increases. My strength gain was evidenced by increasing resistance and achieving the same rep count. All increases were noticeable and had had not yet plateaued when I fell off of the Blitzzz wagon... through no fault of the system.

There is nothing I have done that has increased my pushup endurance (as measured by the ARMY APFT) as fast as the Blitzzz.

I do not know the impact on my one-rep max strength as I never re-maxed. Edit: Nor is increasing my strength a priority for me per se. I am plenty strong for all I need to do. Increasing endurance while maintaining my strength and avoiding further injury is what I am focused on.

I've been plagued with injuries lately (not caused by Blitzzing)....a minor shoulder tear and now a torn meniscus in my knee (surgery on tuesday)...when I start back into the gym seriously... it'll be using the Blitzz to work my ligaments/tendons to prevent injury and to get my strength endurance back up to par.

abc

forward · 05-13-2010, 09:08

A few days late to post but numbers as of 11MAY10:

Exercise WT RD1 RD2 RD3 Goal
IP/125/85/89/86/92
HS/205/87/94/89/96
LP/152.5/52/56/54/64
CR/140/128/130/127/128
SR/85/86/88/87/88
SH/90/138/143/141/144

Overall definately feel the difference as the weight increases in fatigue factor. First Blitz at these weights reps fell from around 10-15 per exercise and getting to goal has been slower, however still trending upward and feel that tomorrow's Blitz will be within the area I want.

V/r,

Forward

Blitzzz (RIP) · 05-13-2010, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by forward

A few days late to post but numbers as of 11MAY10:

Exercise WT RD1 RD2 RD3 Goal
IP/125/85/89/86/92
HS/205/87/94/89/96
LP/152.5/52/56/54/64
CR/140/128/130/127/128
SR/85/86/88/87/88
SH/90/138/143/141/144

Overall definately feel the difference as the weight increases in fatigue factor. First Blitz at these weights reps fell from around 10-15 per exercise and getting to goal has been slower, however still trending upward and feel that tomorrow's Blitz will be within the area I want.

V/r,

Forward

Yep, I'd stick with these, shouldn't be a problem. You're still gaining. we'll keep watching. How many weeks are you now?
Dave

Blitzzz (RIP) · 05-13-2010, 10:55

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...
Secondly we Biodexed joint velocity at over 500 degrees per second. The rate slows to about 400 degrees with mild resistance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

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. This a totally boqus statement, as it is not flawed. Powers study obviously missed these speeds and results. 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. Your above statements on Max power are correct in the cases you present but not here, Blitzing increases strength an maintains velocity creating strength based power.

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. Sean, You are failing to realize the Blitz is totally different from what you are trying to espose here. This "Westside Barbell Club uses Dynamic Effort work", works for them but what makes you assume that's the best there is or even conpares with this Blitz, again you have nothing to compare what you know with the Blitz as you've never experienced it.

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

I don't know whats in your craw about this system other than your dogged love of the standard. If you have actual criticisms, I'm all ears but when you go off in a totally unfounded criticism of a system you Can't believe in. it makes you look petty. What is it you wish to gain from trying to debunk this system. Use your system and get a strong as as powerful and with the max endurance first and then challenge the Blitz to meet it goals as I have stated them. An Actual understanding wouldn't hurt you.
Sean by all means post in this thread all you like. I'm sure the other folks find you interesting also. Your comparisons make make this system look much better.
Dave

forward · 05-13-2010, 14:15

Sir,

The numbers posted above are from week seven of Blitz.

V/r,

Forward

Sean · 05-13-2010, 16:09

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.

olhamada · 05-13-2010, 20:30

As a triple boarded MD (OB/GYN, Fam Med, Sports Med) with 14 yrs of military medical experience (10 in SF) including Tropical, Diving/Hyperbarics (DMO), and High Altitude (Flight Surg), I just wanted to throw my $0.02 in here for all the doubters and scoffers.

I've personally met Dave. He sat down with me, explained his program in detail, and ran me through an entire workout.

His program is very well thought out. He has tested it on numerous volunteers. This is not something he just pulled out of his ear. He's had the education and the training.

The benefits are injury prevention, improved proprioception, fatiguing of primary muscle fibers to work on fibers that usually don't see the light of day, tendon strengthening, improvement of endurance, and gains in strength.

His program not only makes physiologic sense, but it works. Period.

Don't believe it? Try it.

Sean · 05-13-2010, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by olhamada

As a triple boarded MD (OB/GYN, Fam Med, Sports Med) with 14 yrs of military medical experience (10 in SF) including Tropical, Diving/Hyperbarics (DMO), and High Altitude (Flight Surg), I just wanted to throw my $0.02 in here for all the doubters and scoffers.

I've personally met Dave. He sat down with me, explained his program in detail, and ran me through an entire workout.

His program is very well thought out. He has tested it on numerous volunteers. This is not something he just pulled out of his ear. He's had the education and the training.

The benefits are injury prevention, improved proprioception, fatiguing of primary muscle fibers to work on fibers that usually don't see the light of day, tendon strengthening, improvement of endurance, and gains in strength.

His program not only makes physiologic sense, but it works. Period.

Don't believe it? Try it.

Doctor,

Could you provide some tangible numbers on the improvements you witnessed while on the Blitz? Max lifts, VO2 Max, etc.?

As for the program making physiologic sense, is it safe to attempt multiple overspeed eccentrics in a compound movement like the squat, as would have to be done to execute 80 in a minute, especially under load?

Furthermore, at loads light enough to sustain for the required reps at the required velocity, can strength actually be improved in a non-Novice athlete, or even a Novice athlete beyond the very first stages of adaptation?

Finally, what type of athlete would you recommend the program for? What level of training adaptation, what types of goals, etc.?

Blitzzz (RIP) · 05-13-2010, 23:10

Sadly, What your statements say aren't related to Blitzing.

"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."This is statement some other system of exercise. 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. This is an uninformed assumption, what do you base this assumption on.That could take a very long time, given your preoccupation with maintaining velocity.In this statement you suggest it taking a long time, again you couldn't know.

I have provided actual scientific critisms, based off of facts (College-level textbooks, even), of your program, which you refuse to address.Here you've provided nothing but criticims of this program. 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." Not brushing off science as petty, just pettiness.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.Hard to believe doesn't mean it doesn't work as claimed, only that you don't believe. What sort of "rehab" do you have experience to see rehab applications. While my claims may seem "outlandish" you can't provide any alternative system to deliver what I have claimed, and the best "empirical evidence" for you would be to do it for only 4 weeks to know a substantial gain. Presently tests will be run and I already know the outcomes as I have watched it unfailing in all aspect for over 18 years

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. You seem to be the only "we" making bold accusations and indicating me a liar.

This is likely to be the last time I bother to waste time on your nah saying. Post what you wish maybe some of it will actually address this system of exercise.

My apologies to the remainder of persons involved with this thread this is the last of my involvement with this pissing contest. Major unproductive time.

Sean · 05-14-2010, 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Sadly, What your statements say aren't related to Blitzing.

"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."This is statement some other system of exercise. 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. This is an uninformed assumption, what do you base this assumption on.That could take a very long time, given your preoccupation with maintaining velocity.In this statement you suggest it taking a long time, again you couldn't know.

Your density is astounding, as is your total unfamiliarity with the cornerstones of strength training. I didn't pull the 50% figure out of thin air, I pulled it out of a textbook, an Exercise Physiology textbook, like I have my other science-based arguments. Again, your reliance on blind faith is disturbing.

Quote:

I have provided actual scientific critisms, based off of facts (College-level textbooks, even), of your program, which you refuse to address.Here you've provided nothing but criticims of this program. 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." Not brushing off science as petty, just pettiness.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.Hard to believe doesn't mean it doesn't work as claimed, only that you don't believe. What sort of "rehab" do you have experience to see rehab applications. While my claims may seem "outlandish" you can't provide any alternative system to deliver what I have claimed, and the best "empirical evidence" for you would be to do it for only 4 weeks to know a substantial gain. Presently tests will be run and I already know the outcomes as I have watched it unfailing in all aspect for over 18 years

Again with the blind faith thing, and dismissing legitimate claims as being petty.18 years is a long time to be sitting on a goldmine program like yours, without submitting it to anyone to get validated, or have its results documented. And you're right, I haven't named a system that can deliver what you claim, because a system that actually delivers on your promises doesn't exist.

All I've asked for is a decent, rational explanation of your system, and some proof of its effectiveness. Your inability to provide either, as well as your inability or unwillingness to discuss it in open forum professionally, dimishes your credibility and the crediblity of your system in the eyes of athletes who know a bit about strength training. When put on the spot, you mutter something about "believing" and "not understanding", then proceed to brush aside any and all criticisms while apologizing for the "unbeliever."

Quote:

You seem to be the only "we" making bold accusations and indicating me a liar.

This is likely to be the last time I bother to waste time on your nah saying. Post what you wish maybe some of it will actually address this system of exercise.

My apologies to the remainder of persons involved with this thread this is the last of my involvement with this pissing contest. Major unproductive time.

As for the time being unproductive, it's a shame it wasn't spent learning about the science behind the "Blitz" system, and how it uses more than blind faith to produce strength and power gains.

Irishsquid · 05-14-2010, 10:00

"If the theory doesn't match the results, it's time to find a new theory."

Personally, I don't care what the "exercise science," books say...or what the trainers, physical therapists, scientists, or coaches say. I care about the results. If your "theory," says Blitz won't work, and my results say it's working, then it sounds like you need a new theory.

Quite a few people have chimed in here with some pretty incredible results. That's enough for me. Why continually argue about the science, when the results say something totally different? What is the point of the pissing contest? Just start another thread to expound upon the virtues of Crossfit, or Militaryathlete, or grandpa's bodybuilding routine, or whatever else you care to push for.

MILON · 05-14-2010, 10:37

I have to chime in here, just once. I've been here and done this and its really not worth your time Sean.

I have come to actually respect for Blitz' passion for what he is doing. I've also analyzed his program and do not totally believe in everything he says, but the points been risen that it works for those who use it. This is all that is needed! I haven't actually Blitzed, not because I dont believe it works, but because I have other methods that work for me. I believe if one really breaks Blitz down and digs enough it is actually based on basic training principles. It wouldnt work, if it wasnt.

Regardless, Irishsquid said it, if there is going to be a logical, fact/theory driven debate then let it roll. I enjoy reading that, but pissing contests are for personal time. Dont waste the readers time. Thats just my opinion anyway.

my .02 cents,

Milon

abc_123 · 05-14-2010, 11:18

Intresting discussion.

I have a question of my own.

Sean, what results did you get when you Blitzzed in accordace with the instructions?

I'd be very interested to hear your personal experience.

abc

spherojon · 05-14-2010, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc_123

Intresting discussion.

I have a question of my own.

Sean, what results did you get when you Blitzzed in accordace with the instructions?

I'd be very interested to hear your personal experience.

abc

I was thinking the same thing.

Sean · 05-14-2010, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc_123

Intresting discussion.

I have a question of my own.

Sean, what results did you get when you Blitzzed in accordace with the instructions?

I'd be very interested to hear your personal experience.

abc

Admittedly, I haven't done the Blitz, as I'm not one to drop one system impulsively based on the empty promises of another.

I did read your previous comment, however, and have decided that if I ever want to improve my APFT pushup score at the expense of a shoulder injury (90 reps per minute on the bench press, anyone?), I'll definitely give the Blitz a whirl.

Oh, and Blitzzz, what were the results of the testing at Tennessee State University conducted in February of this year? Or are the subjects still waiting to see measurable improvement?