With the discussion of upper body training and RDLs, the age old question of what to do programming the legs in the weight room when conditioning and sprinting are interacting with the body. While sprinting is a total body effort, the eccentric stress to the upper body is far less. I have seen many different programs work, but what works in the weight room for one program may not gel or be in har
well said as a whole and in details IMO, so full of truth.
I especially like the followings as well:
”The best program for you is the best program for you” as simple as it seems, too many coaches and athletes never realize that.
”Leave the workout more tired but not depleted”balance is the key and even with a well planned program,know when to stop on any given day.
”The best program for you is the best program for you” .[/quote]This does seem like sage advice, but in reality it’s almost meaningless (no offense Carl). The truth is we have no idea what the best program is, even for ourselves. There are some bright, hardworking individuals on this forum, but almost all are still searching for that ‘best program’ because we don’t really know if something will work for us until we try it. And having found something that works, how do we know there isn’t something better? I think most here are on the right track…work what you believe to be the best program for you, but keep an open mind, learn as much as you can, and always be open to new information and good ideas.
”The best program for you is the best program for you” .
This does seem like sage advice, but in reality it’s almost meaningless (no offense Carl). The truth is we have no idea what the best program is, even for ourselves. There are some bright, hardworking individuals on this forum, but almost all are still searching for that ‘best program’ because we don’t really know if something will work for us until we try it. And having found something that works, how do we know there isn’t something better? I think most here are on the right track…work what you believe to be the best program for you, but keep an open mind, learn as much as you can, and always be open to new information and good ideas.[/quote]
good points but I don’t believe it’s meaningless though…too many people(coaches and athletes) believe in one size fits all programs and IMO that’s one of the reasons why you see so many injuries with sprinters who follow”general” programs prescribed for the whole team year in and year out and that’s why you see complete lack of improvement past a certain point.
As an athlete,I feel that our job is to educate ourselves as much as possible about training,nutrition,recovery,etc…and at a certain level your coach should be able to listen to what the athlete is saying/needing too instead of being some sort of ”mentor only” or even ”dictator-like” as it’s sometimes the case with some individuals.
Yes of course we are all looking for what works for us and therefore experimentation is necessary. However, I believe the point of the comment is not to blindly adopt a training program that brought success to another athlete. In other words don’t start benching like crazy because some athlete said it was the key to their success. I don’t believe Carl’s comments were ment to be taken SO literally. =)…But maybe I’m wrong.
Randy and Cndsprinter,
You are correct. The point is blindly adopting other programs is a problem. The best doesn’t have to be utopian, just better than the rest of the options that are usually just copied programs that are borderline. Not saying stop thinking and tinkering star61. If I said there is only one way and everything else is wrong and only listen to JC Cooper than I am sorry for the confusion.
After talking to a few people that read this most felt that the intent of making sure the program is designed for the athletes using it was obvious at first but then you realize sometimes we forget who we are training or even the individualism needed within a small group of athletes.
I always assume it’s implied that our minds are open to learning new information and good ideas. Things get murky when statements made by “gurus” are taken as gospel and programs are created that may not suit particular segments of the population. I think we all need finely tuned bullshit meters or regurgitation meters. Charles Poliquin has been my greatest influence but I’ll never do 10 x 10, or even 6 x 10, for myself or anyone I work with.
I think everyone is on the same page with this. And I have, and would, program a 10 x 10 in certain instances…it has worked incredibly well the few (and short) cycles we’ve used it. Its definitely a special application type of thing.
One of the things that can be said here is that just because a new idea sounds good, it doesn’t mean it will work for you. There are a lot of internet gurus, and some have acquired a great deal of respect and even and even a good job or too, almost exclusively from their internet reputation. But their actual experience working with athletes is limited, although you wouldn’t know that to listen to them talk about themselves. Do your research not only on the programs, but on those that are pushing them. That doesn’t mean you can only accept advice from ‘experienced’, vetted, coaches or trainers. Most of the really good info I’ve come across in this forum is from people I don’t know anything about.
I took his statement more as ‘the best program is the one you coach the best.’ If you know the ins and outs of a program that isn’t the most popular as some more common models, it still might be the best one for your athletes. Only a coach experienced in a specific system can tell how the variables in their program interact with each other. Science probably won’t grasp that kind of thing for quite some time.
Always interested in hearing your thoughts. Can you discuss your application of 10×10 and the specific effect that came directly from it?
We use the 10 x 10 at the beginning of a longer strength and/or mass cycle after a layoff from the gym. We have also used it between big changes in cycles, such as going from a competitive strength cycle into a mass building cycle. It is used primarily to improve strength endurance and stamina, and sort of as a shock to the system to break through a plateau.
In a workout, we actually do a 10 x 10 of a paired set of lifts after which we do a 5 x 10 in a similar manner. For example, we might do 10 x 10 of a paired superset of benchpress and dumble rows. The weights, by definition, are well below max and the first few sets are not much than a heavy warmup. Usually, however,the last few sets go near to, or actually to, failure, but this is usually not a result of simply muscular failure, but overall fatigue and just plain gassing. No rest between sets and only a minute or two between supersets (the shorter the better). The 5 x 10 is normally smaller bodyparts, or at least one larger bodypart paired with a smaller. The total workout is 150 reps and that is high volume, even when the intensity is fairly low. We normally do three of these workouts in a week for two weeks, rarely three weeks. We consider it sort of a GPP for heavier cycles to follow. We probably do 10 x 10 no more than once a year, and there have been a few years where we have done strongman training as a GPP as an alternative.
Having said all that, I would never rely on the 10 x 10 as the primary training plan for an athlete.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.