That's good to hear, I spent quite a bit of time trying to break down Jay's methods with very limited 'inside' information. I'm an engineer by training, and over 20 years of experience, so you may see some of that coming out. But I have employed what I have ascertained with good success. I also have read quite extensively from people like Bosch, Bondarchuk, Yessis, Francis, Zatsiorski, Simmons, Dietz, etc. There's something to be learned from a lot of smart people. I do love training athletes...
A lot of the iso holds' job, at least as far as I can tell anyway, is to teach the antagonist to relax while the agonist is working. The last thing an athlete wants during maximal effort performance is the antagonist holding something back. I believe that's part of the duration also, why it's so long. Also the antagonist, if done right, is not only relaxing but also lengthening so when it is finally called upon it is at its optmum state: relaxed and lengthened.
Scott, Everything you said makes sense. I agree about the isos. I have old podcasts where I discussed isos to death. If you agree that antagonist co contraction is a compensation pattern then the isos are the corrective exercise to fix it. I think your thoughts on the lighter weights and focusing on the acceleration (steepness of the eccentric slope) are inline with each other. Feel free to share as many comments as you wish :) There are no restrictions here!
Last comment, I promise, lol. If the iso's are doing their job, they should show up big in the force creation part. Because again, if the antagonists are programmed to completely shut down, or turn off for the agonists when they're working, the expression of force creation should be at its greatest potential.
particularly when it is based on some scientific foundation. So like everyone I have developed an approach that I consider to be unique, but at the same time influenced by many great training minds. I look forward to more discussions, I appreciate your work.
Thanks for the words. Keep your eyes peeled for some new videos. BTW would you be willing to write up a summary of your approach to training athletes to share? I love reading and learning
Slight correction: I should have worded my first sentence a little better, I realize that *any* increase in mass will increase the force, but the point I am trying to make there is that there's no need to rush the mass increases when one can achieve great increases in forces by simply increasing the acceleration. So I suggest increasing the accel as much as safely possible before moving on to a higher mass, and then with the new higher mass starting the accel increases all over again, and so on.
As far as force absorp, yes since F=ma you can keep increasing the force with only modest increases in mass, so long as the accel. increases are happening at a higher rate than the mass. But imo the bogey should always be to minimize the braking distance (or the time of the absorption). Obviously the athlete that can absorb force the fastest, which will be proportional to the braking distance, would be the more developed athlete. This to me should be the metric used to determine when to move up.
That's good to hear, I spent quite a bit of time trying to break down Jay's methods with very limited 'inside' information. I'm an engineer by training, and over 20 years of experience, so you may see some of that coming out. But I have employed what I have ascertained with good success. I also have read quite extensively from people like Bosch, Bondarchuk, Yessis, Francis, Zatsiorski, Simmons, Dietz, etc. There's something to be learned from a lot of smart people. I do love training athletes...
A lot of the iso holds' job, at least as far as I can tell anyway, is to teach the antagonist to relax while the agonist is working. The last thing an athlete wants during maximal effort performance is the antagonist holding something back. I believe that's part of the duration also, why it's so long. Also the antagonist, if done right, is not only relaxing but also lengthening so when it is finally called upon it is at its optmum state: relaxed and lengthened.
Scott,
Everything you said makes sense. I agree about the isos. I have old podcasts where I discussed isos to death. If you agree that antagonist co contraction is a compensation pattern then the isos are the corrective exercise to fix it. I think your thoughts on the lighter weights and focusing on the acceleration (steepness of the eccentric slope) are inline with each other.
Feel free to share as many comments as you wish :) There are no restrictions here!
hi Alex, just wondering if you have the link to the podcasts on isometrics that you referred to in this comment? thanks
Last comment, I promise, lol. If the iso's are doing their job, they should show up big in the force creation part. Because again, if the antagonists are programmed to completely shut down, or turn off for the agonists when they're working, the expression of force creation should be at its greatest potential.
particularly when it is based on some scientific foundation. So like everyone I have developed an approach that I consider to be unique, but at the same time influenced by many great training minds. I look forward to more discussions, I appreciate your work.
Thanks for the words. Keep your eyes peeled for some new videos. BTW would you be willing to write up a summary of your approach to training athletes to share? I love reading and learning
Excellent! Thank you
Slight correction: I should have worded my first sentence a little better, I realize that *any* increase in mass will increase the force, but the point I am trying to make there is that there's no need to rush the mass increases when one can achieve great increases in forces by simply increasing the acceleration. So I suggest increasing the accel as much as safely possible before moving on to a higher mass, and then with the new higher mass starting the accel increases all over again, and so on.
As far as force absorp, yes since F=ma you can keep increasing the force with only modest increases in mass, so long as the accel. increases are happening at a higher rate than the mass. But imo the bogey should always be to minimize the braking distance (or the time of the absorption). Obviously the athlete that can absorb force the fastest, which will be proportional to the braking distance, would be the more developed athlete. This to me should be the metric used to determine when to move up.
Hi Alex I think Jerime Simian is also using this method do you know him ?
Sure Alex. I'm sure you won't learn anything new, but I would like to get your opinion. Give me about a week to write up a summary.
Start by getting his last name pronounced correctly.
And how do you know he didnt pronounce it correctly ?