"I just want to LEARN something NEW. I want to make sure I know everything out there. "
Take all the certs there are and you still wont know everything out there.You will learn more training 20 people than you will ever learn at most of these certs, and the 20 people will be paying you, not you shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars to be certified.
And honestly, the higher up and more regarded they are often has a direct correlation to the uselessness of the garbage they teach, i.e., the "prestigous" ones are not necessarily the best.
Honestly more often than not they are just the ones you need to get jobs in gyms/health clubs, sports training facilities, and of course as an adjunct to a degree to work in the S&C field at collegiate level or beyond. Thats what they require, so thats what people get, so thats what everybody else thinks is the way to go and these certs develop an unjustified sense of "credibility".
"I'm also working on a fitness site, but targeted for the average audience who wants to be fit and healthy with mostly bodyweight exercises and a few simple equipments (Bands, swiss balls, pull-up bars, etc.) "
If you are just gonna be another one of those guys doing the swiss ball stuff and BWE I wouldn't waste my time doing much of anything.
"I think the only people who care about cert's are employers. in that regard, you're best off contacting them and asking what qualifications they prefer"
I give this advice all the time.
However, these days people will probably expect some kind of cert even when training privately. Also it pays to at least get a basic cert as this allows one to attain insurance cheaper and easier then with nothing.
TAKU T.N.T.
Some fantastic posts here. With regard to certifications- yes, they are primarily a money-making machine. For personal edcation in this arena, there is a plethora of books, journals, and articles written by scholarly authors. A an exercise science related degree greatly facilitates being able to objectively view and determine what data is sound and makes sense. For resume and career purposes, doing an internship under a collegiate coach is a step in the right direction and the experience can teach you a lot about practical application, even if some coach's have flawed approaches. The NSCA CSCS encompasses very basic fundamentals, and some of the data is outdated, but for resume purposes is an often-expected credential if you're going to seek a career in this field training professionals in N. America.
I must say Poliquin's certification programs, allbeit overpriced, include the most practical application data of all the certification programs I'm familiar with in regard to strength training.
It is the only one where you have to establish success with real-world results in order to reach the higher-echelon certifications, and his certification manuals have the least amount of "fluffer material" and are packed with more practical data-per-word than any other literature I've seen.
Hertswenip,
Out of curiousity have you beeen through some of Poliquins certification programs yourself or just looked at the requirements and marketing for it online? It seemed to me when I looked at them at one point that it was mostly just marketing tactics because he had all these crazy requirements for different levels and such.
Most coaches who have worked with athletes at the level he was talking about are very experienced and have their own training methods and philosophy, they aren't going to be spending thousands of dollars to be Poliquin interns or do his certifications.
I also have to say that from what I've seen Poliquin talks a lot more than he ever delivers. I was more impressed with him until I actually had the chance to see some programs he had written for athletes he trained because I know some athletes who have trained with him and his training methods are almost entirely based on bodybuilding routines and principles. There have also been several big name athletes who worked with him and got injured right afterwards.
He's done a great job of marketing himself and creating a mystique, but I can't imagine it would really be worth paying thousands of dollars to do his internships or certifications.
Joel,
I took Poliquin's original certification program in '1997-98 (it was also far more affordable back then) in addition to attending seminars over the years. I also have a friend who has participated in his current certification program.
"Most coaches who have worked with athletes at the level he was talking about are very experienced and have their own training methods and philosophy, they aren't going to be spending thousands of dollars to be Poliquin interns or do his certifications."
***Most, certainly, but not all. It still leaves plently who are willing. Poliquin's coaching achievements sells itself, even to already accomplished coaches.
"I also have to say that from what I've seen Poliquin talks a lot more than he ever delivers. I was more impressed with him until I actually had the chance to see some programs he had written for athletes he trained because I know some athletes who have trained with him and his training methods are almost entirely based on bodybuilding routines and principles. There have also been several big name athletes who worked with him and got injured right afterwards."
********Poliquin is an all-around intelligent guy with plenty of business savvy, no doubt. There's often a huge grey area where the marketing gimmicks and substance can blurr each other, and he's no exception.
I really can't comment on your anecdotal references without knowing more, but there are programs of his that can have sharply contrasting characteristics depending on the specific athlete/situation/stage of periodization. How long did these athletes train with him? Citing few or single examples does not accurately reflect a coach's ability IMO.
When I got my hands on some back issues of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning published in the late 80s including articles authored by him, I was really impressed; he seemed like a coach far ahead of his time and had an open mindset to learn from various resources.
For you to say "his training methods are almost entirely based on bodybuilding routines and principles" tells me you are not familiarized with much of his work, but I can see how you might have gotten that impression if you've only read a few articles or read his bodybuilding-oriented books.
Over the years, his training programs have evolved from more strict traditional approaches to include more of what some traditional coaches might call "bodybuilding" techniques as you have here; ie the use of cables and "isolation" type movements in conjuntion with the traditional movements.
Coincidentally, I've found the same evolution in my own training style. I used to be adamantly opposed to machines, "isolation" and the like, but I've found when properly applied, they can have tremendous merit as well for long term performance and injury prevention.
Coaches all have their own personal biases to their training styles. Take two experts in any given field, with the same educational exposure, and they'll agree on many things, as well as disagree. While he's been the most influential person on my training style, I don't agree with everything he says. But I still contend that out of all the peices of literature I've read and owned, his certification manuals have more usable practical data than any other single book I've owned. (yes, this includes Supertraining.)
Hertswenip,
I've been reading Poliquin's published material since he first began writing for Muscle Media probably back in the mid 90s so I would say I'm pretty familiar with the majority of his free works.
From almost all of what I've seen of his writing and from his programs that I've had a chance to look at, his paradigm revolves almost entirely around strength training and deriving ideal strength ratios between lifts and in my view his model of performance is seriously lacking and incomplete.
This is why I say most of his work revolves around bodybuilding principles because to me almost everything he ever talks about is stricly on the muscular side and most of his books and products revovle around physique enhancement, not performance enhancement. If you can tell me a book he's written strictly on all around athletic development I'd be interested in reading it.
Even when he is mentioned in the training of big name athletes such as David Boston a few years back all he could talk about was how much bigger and leaner he made him but I don't believe Boston even lasted more than a year or two in the NFL after that and ended up getting injured.
I would hope and assume he covers more actual athletic development in his internships and certifications, but for less than the cost of a single one of his internships you could pick up the entire library of reading I suggested and learn far more.
Anectdotally, I've seen the entire training program he put together for Maurice Clarett when he was training for the combine a few years back (where Maurice performed absolutely terribly at by the way) a program he wrote for a hammer thrower named Adrianne Blewitt, a program he developed for some hockey team in Canada, and bits and pieces of programs he put together for other athletes like Shawn Springs (who ended up testing positive for a banned substance and getting injured right after working with Poliquin) and I also talked to Shawn himself after he worked with Poliquin. Even Edgar Martinez, another local guy, ended up getting injured right after working with him. Interestly enough, the program for Maurice and Adrienne were about 90% identical so he's got a college running back training for the draft and a female hammer thrower doing almost the exact same program.
From all of what I've seen almost all of Poliquin's training takes place in the gym and is nothing more than simple strength training. The only energy system principles I've ever seen him talk about is to blast aerobic training as worthless and counterproductive, which I couldn't disagree with more. He talks about having a european influence in his training methods but I've studied eastern european training for most of my career and see next to nothing of theirs in any of this writing or programs.
I respect Poliquin for becoming such a well known coach and I think when it comes to bodybuilding and nutrition he's a very knowledgable guy, but overall the more I've learned of his actual training methods the less impressed I've become.
I think he's obviously a very successful businessman and his outspoken attitude has served him well, but I don't think most people would be well served by giving him thousands of dollars to go through his certifications. I also think he charges way too much money for just about everything. He charges more for Active Release sessions than Dr. Leahy himself for example, but if he can get people to pay it then power to him I suppose.
If you'd like to offer a different view on his training methods and speak to how you believe they relate to performance based on your own experience with his methods I'm sure this would be valuable to the readers on here.
"I've been reading Poliquin's published material since he first began writing for Muscle Media probably back in the mid 90s so I would say I'm pretty familiar with the majority of his free works. "
*****This explains a lot. You'd gain a more complete perspective by reading his manuals and journal publications.
“From almost all of what I've seen of his writing and from his programs that I've had a chance to look at, his paradigm revolves almost entirely around strength training and deriving ideal strength ratios between lifts and in my view his model of performance is seriously lacking and incomplete. This is why I say most of his work revolves around bodybuilding principles because to me almost everything he ever talks about is stricly on the muscular side and most of his books and products revovle around physique enhancement, not performance enhancement. "
*****Charles didn't make most of his money nor became famous to the general public for writing articles in peer reviewed journals and training elite athletes; as you know, Muscle Media is not a sports performance-enhancement oriented magazine. MM made him famous to the general public, increased his revenue, and he discovered his money-making market niche. You've found yours writing articles aimed at MMA enthusiasts.
To the recreational fitness enthusiast there's historically been a far larger market demand for physique and strength enhancement information products VS performance enhancement, hence the ratio of his publication material topic choices.
While I haven't taken any of his business related courses, I'm sure you'd find more relevant information there explaining his publication topic choices.
Regarding your anecdotal references, again without knowing more about the specific variables I can't say much else other than they likely represent the minority.
" Interestly enough, the program for Maurice and Adrienne were about 90% identical so he's got a college running back training for the draft and a female hammer thrower doing almost the exact same program."
*******For what its worth, in his certification manuals Poliquin provides sport/condition specific example routines to illustrate proper application of his methodologies. His football, downhill skiing, hockey, swimming, hammer throwing and 40 yard dash programs all have significant differences, depending on the stage of preperation, and the athlete's specific needs.
"This is why I say most of his work revolves around bodybuilding principles because to me almost everything he ever talks about is stricly on the muscular side and most of his books and products revovle around physique enhancement, not performance enhancement. If you can tell me a book he's written strictly on all around athletic development I'd be interested in reading it."
************His certification manuals and journal articles have what you're seeking.
"Even when he is mentioned in the training of big name athletes such as David Boston a few years back all he could talk about was how much bigger and leaner he made him but I don't believe Boston even lasted more than a year or two in the NFL after that and ended up getting injured."
********This is irrelevant, for every seemingly bad example I can cite several positives offhand. I don't keep a log of his past training clients nor make an effort to remember their names, and I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest.
"I would hope and assume he covers more actual athletic development in his internships and certifications, but for less than the cost of a single one of his internships you could pick up the entire library of reading I suggested and learn far more. "
*****************As far as bang for your buck goes, I agree wholeheartedly. As far as learning a large amount of practical usable data and hands-on experience at a far steeper learning curve, while benefiting from the anecdotes and experience of himself and other colleagues,-things you won't find in a book, if your budget allows, I'd recommend both.
"Anectdotally, I've seen the entire training program he put together for Maurice Clarett when he was training for the combine a few years back (where Maurice performed absolutely terribly at by the way) "
********I'm sure you are well aware there are many variables affecting an athlete's performance beyond his strength coach. If one of your athletes you trained performed terribly in competition, does that mean you are a bad coach?
"From all of what I've seen almost all of Poliquin's training takes place in the gym and is nothing more than simple strength training. The only energy system principles I've ever seen him talk about is to blast aerobic training as worthless and counterproductive, which I couldn't disagree with more. "
******************************Poliquin's training approach typically focuses on correcting imbalances post-competition, followed by strengthening sport-specific muscle groups and achieving optimal levels of muscle mass, then transitioning towards energy systems and increasing sport-specific training to achieve competitive readiness. During competitive season, training is limited to sport specific activities and low volume strength maintenance work. Non-seasonal sports like MMA require irregular adjustments depending on the athlete and schedule.
While you emphasize energy systems training more than anything, his approach favors establishing optimal muscle mass levels, followed by conditioning energy systems.
The most athletic guys in mixed-energy systems sports in terms of overall combined speed, explosiveness and endurance have always had considerable levels of proportionate sport specific hypertrophy; GSP, RJJ, Mike Tyson, Kenny Monday, Ernesto Hoost, Andre Galvao, Marcelo Garcia, Alexandr Karelin, Alexei Nemov, Fedor (like OLer Alexeyev, he is a hypertrophied HW athlete with no weight limitation in his class, hence the higher sub-Q bf%. and yes I'm aware he does distance running...) Sean Sherk, Tyson Griffon, Kevin Jackson, Mike Van Arsedale, Mike Zambidis etc. before anyone argues "oh, they're just genetically blessed" the basic premise is the same; optimal, not excessive levels of hypertrophy will result in a net increase in performance potential.
Vermonter did a fine job in accomplishing just that with Kenny Florian. I added 20lbs of muscle to Kendall Grove's frame and made him a stronger, faster athlete prior to him being on TUF, as all he had done prior was conditioning energy systems work with minimal strength training.
On a cellular level as you are well aware of, there are adaptations conferring to strength, adaptations conferring to endurance, but no single adaptation confers to strength-endurance. In order to increase work capacity/endurance in an athlete with a strength deficit, while simultaneously improving speed-strength qualities, there must be a relative increase in muscle mass. This isn't to be confused with a more muscled athlete necessarily being the better athlete, but rather achieving the OPTIMAL level of muscle mass combined with appropriate energy systems training can lead to a net resultant increase in all-around athletic ability.
All other things being equal, the stronger, faster, longer lasting athlete wins. For further information on Poliquin's philosophy on energy systems training, see my posts below.
(cont.)
"He talks about having a european influence in his training methods but I've studied eastern european training for most of my career and see next to nothing of theirs in any of this writing or programs."
*****************Europe is a large continent, which extends well past the former eastern bloc. In his various publications, he's made many references to German, Austrian, Swiss, Scandinavian, and Finnish research, coaches, and athletes who have influenced him. He's also made many references to Siff, Louie Simmons, Spassov, and other eastern-european influenced scholars, coaches, and athletes. When he says european, he means the entire continent; he doesn't place any special emphasis on former Soviet research.
To contrast your methods with Poliquin, I’ll use an exerpt from your interval training article as an example. You said:
"What many "experts" these days don't seem to realize is that longer slower aerobic work is the most effective way to increase the size of the heart (specifically the left ventricle) and increase the ability of the body to deliver blood to the working muscles. The intensity of interval training is too high and the volume is too low to achieve these very important training effects so if your resting heart rate is still in the 60s, or even worse in the 70s, you need to be doing longer slower aerobic work before getting spending all your time doing intervals."
***Based on what? I'm sure you are aware that research shows both HIIT and SLD aerobic training yield similar gains in heart ventrical stroke and plasma volume. There'e conflicting research on which is superior for aerobic adaptations, but nothing defninitive. Based on what research is currently available, IMO the most logical conclusion is that there is no significant difference in aerobic adaptation.
While aerobic endurance is certainly important, all things said and done, speed and explosiveness are often just as important deciding factors in sports performance. By running SLD or other traditional means of 'aerobic' exercise for prolonged period of time, you're promoting adaptations conferring to increased endurance at the cost of speed and explosiveness; you're essentially downregulating type II fibers to resemble type I by unecessarily making them less glycolytic and more oxidative by unspecific nature, decreasing their rate coding and resultantly downregulating their MHC isoforms, all this with a nonspecific cyclic -asynchronous movement.
The main reason I see you advocating this is for marketing purposes; everybody loves a "novel" approach/concept/thing. The funny thing however, is that your following paragraphs do not resemble the "longer slower work" you speak of. He does things like sled drag intervals, which are not too different from what you speak of here.
Your energy systems methodology seems far more in-line with Poliquin than opposing.
“Without further ado, the intervals I'm talking about are High Resistance Intervals, or what I call the HRI method. Just as the name implies, they are done using high resistance as opposed to high velocity, and this is part of what makes them unique from other intervals and also why they are so effective.
Traditionally, intervals are done with little to no resistance and at the highest speed possible, i.e. you sprint as fast as you can. The result is that the highest threshold fast twitch fibers (the ones that come into play only when absolutely needed) rarely get used or exhausted because there is not enough resistance, and as a result their endurance does not improve much.”
********This only makes sense, if the athlete has poor strength and conditioning levels aka a significant strength deficit. Unloaded/low loading high velocity movement is dependent on being able to synchronously activate higher threshold MU’s at high firing rates. Don't tell me Ben Johnson had low level MU recruitment because he didn't sprint on an incline.
"This problem is solved, however, by using high resistance and keeping the work interval short and the heart rate below the anaerobic threshold. In this way, we can improve the endurance capacity of the fast twitch fibers that traditionally have very poor endurance and we can improve how much power you're able to produce aerobically. “
******************While this isn't a bad way to train, to me, this comes across as just another way of increasing lactate threshold/HIIT, and is erroneously simplistic in theory.
You're not increasing demand on aerobic energy systems while using resistance simply because you're keeping HR below lactate threshold; the fact you're employing frequent rest intervals throws the whole HR-anerobic threshold correlation out the window.
To illustrate an extreme contrasting example of Poliquin methodology towards energy systems training, in Poliquin's strength coaching manual, he outlines how Charlie Francis had his athletes work on high-quality speed with short sprints, then to work on maintaining that speed while gradually increasing distance. This method proved superior to what most N. american coaches were doing at the time, which was to to have their sprinters run for distance, then trying to apply their endurance to shorter distances and higher intensities.
The latter method proved to be inferior in practice and theory because it elicits a poorer RFD/MU threshold recruitment pattern, diminishing phosphate-glycolytic metabolism and had a lesser degree of biomechanical specifity. This is one reason Poliquin prioritizes order in establishing and maintaining optimal strength levels before emphasizing energy systems training. If optimal strength levels are already present, then he will adjust conditioning accordingly.
Coincidentally, you'll notice GSP's canadian strength coach Jonathan Chaimberg, follows a similar strategy.
Poliquin's philosophy on energy systems training is to limit GPP conditioning to the early preparatory stages, and as competition nears prioritize training in the specific MU pool demand used in sport, because excessive general aerobic conditioning diminishes speed and power. He generally does not take athletes from low intensity "aerobic sports" as clients.
I like what you've done with the rope pull intervals and other movements I saw in your video; coincidentally, this falls more in-line with Poliquin methodology.
He's noted how when he, among other coaches removed general aerobic conditioning from court/field athletes' training regimens(athletes in sports with a solid mix of aerobic-anaerobic demand; like soccer, football, basketball etc. NOT aerobic dominant distance athletes), they noticed no drop in performance and a corresponding increase in speed and explosiveness on the field.
In essence traditional aerobics yielded no additional benefit and unecessarily taxed stress levels and training allowance. Training the differing energy systems as competition draws near can be more effectively accomplished (from a 'Poliquinite' point of view) by transitioning from GPP to performing sports specific movements at high speeds and manipulating work/rest interval lengths. This also often leads to a greater preservation of a commonly forgotten factor, the only single factor that conferrs to greater endurance/speed/strength simultaneously: biomechanical efficiency.
(cont.)
"If you'd like to offer a different view on his training methods and speak to how you believe they relate to performance based on your own experience with his methods I'm sure this would be valuable to the readers on here. "
*******************After college and participating on the Supertraining discussion list throughout, I no longer have the time, patience, and desire to get into long-winded threads and discussions like this.
I hope I've adequately elaborated on some of his performance methodologies above, so I'll summarize my experience wtih Poliquin's methods as being extremely effective and practical, moreso than any other single influence I've had.
Exercise science has always been an interest of mine, but these days it's more of a hobby than anything else; I stopped training people years ago in pursuit of more enjoyable and luctrative ventures.
I also want to state I have no interest in debating or arguing principles for aforementioned reasons; rather any contrasts i've presented are for the sake of illustrating how Poliquin's progam extends well beyond mere bodybuilding principles as you've requested. I apologize for any errors in advance; I don't have the patience to proof read.
If I post any further response on this thread, it will be extremely brief.
Respectfully,
Steve
Hey Hertz,
Thanks for the in depth explanation. My problem with these talks is I am far too lazy to duke it out with folks. At least you took the time to clearly illustrate your position.
TAKU <----(Rubs fingers together like Mr Burns) Excellent!
TAKU T.N.T.
Very interesting posts from HERTS and 8weeks, thanks guys!
Hertswenip,
I appreciate the time you took to detail your perspective and experience with Poliquin and like I said I respect what he has accomplished as a coach even though I may disagree with much of his methodology that I have read.
Obviously he covers athletic development much more in depth than I have ever read through his internships and certifications and if people want to spend several thousands of dollars to learn his methodolgy then by all means they should do it. I think people should try to learn from as many different sources as possible and come to their own conclusions and develop their own training philosophy, I just would never give anyone that amount or money nor charge it myself but as I said before if people are willing to pay it then more power to Poliquin for charging it I suppose. In contrast, I believe I paid about $300 to stay at Mel Siff's house for 5 days and learn from him and went back two or three times after that for free.
As far as some of the points you made regarding my articles and various training topics I'll make a few brief comments.
"On a cellular level as you are well aware of, there are adaptations conferring to strength, adaptations conferring to endurance, but no single adaptation confers to strength-endurance. In order to increase work capacity/endurance in an athlete with a strength deficit, while simultaneously improving speed-strength qualities, there must be a relative increase in muscle mass"
There are many adaptations that take place with regards to strength, endurance, and strength endurance. Rarely is there ever one single adaptation as there are too many pieces of the puzzle for one single adaptation to lead to any significant change. Speed-strength qualities are largely unrelated to muscle mass and are primarily neural in nature, as I'm sure you're well aware, so I'm not sure I am getting your point here correctly.
Rarely does increasing muscle mass lead to improvement in muscular endurance or speed-strength. If a fighter is moving up in weight class or underdized for their weight class or if you're talking about a more pure alactic sport then sure adding muscle mass can be necessary, but most fighters have many other things that will improve their performance much more than adding a few lbs of muscle in my opinion and experience.
"*********Based on what? I'm sure you are aware that research shows both HIIT and SLD aerobic training yield similar gains in heart ventrical stroke and plasma volume. There'e conflicting research on which is superior for aerobic adaptations, but nothing defninitive. Based on what research is currently available, IMO the most logical conclusion is that there is no significant difference in aerobic adaptation."
The research you are looking at must be on relatively untrained subjects because there is plenty of research (much of it european) and obvious anectodal evidence that longer slow distance training is superior to increasing left ventricular hypterophy and cardiac output than HIIT. See Atko Viru's book Adaptation in Sports Training for a whole list of references on this and more detailed discussion of eccentric vs. concentic cardiac hypertrophy.
All you have to do is look at the cardiac output of distance athletes compared to more anaerobic athletes and the stroke volume differences are obvious. There is also some great info on this in "Exercise Physiology" by McArdle and Katch that looks at the cardiac remodeling adaptations of various types of athletes that results from their specific type of training. If you are unclear about the difference in structural remodeling that results from HIIT vs LSD I would suggest looking at the resources I just suggested.
"The main reason I see you advocating this is for marketing purposes; everybody loves a "novel" approach/concept/thing. The funny thing however, is that your following paragraphs do not resemble the "longer slower work" you speak of"
I write many things, nowhere have I said all an endurance athlete should do is longer slower work, I simply said it's not the strength destroying worthless method of training it's made out to be and it does serve a valuable training purpose and is important. I can't even tell you how many fighters I've worked with who have directly benefited from improving their cardiac output work through longer slower distance training and I get emails all the time of people telling me how much they're resting heart rate decreased how much improvement they've seen from incorporating longer slower cardio into their training.
"While aerobic endurance is certainly important, all things said and done, speed and explosiveness are often just as important deciding factors in sports performance. By running SLD or other traditional means of 'aerobic' exercise for prolonged period of time, you're promoting adaptations conferring to increased endurance at the cost of speed and explosiveness; you're essentially downregulating type II fibers to resemble type I by unecessarily making them less glycolytic and more oxidative by unspecific nature, decreasing their rate coding and resultantly downregulating their MHC isoforms, all this with a nonspecific cyclic -asynchronous movement."
Of course if you do hours and hours of it at the expense of other work it will negatively affect strength and power, but overall this has been way overblown and is based on the incorrect assumption/model that single effort max strength/power is directly correlated with the ability to maintain that power over the course of a game or a fight.
Look at Verkhoshansky's programming, he combines longer slower distance work with explosive strength all the time and he's considered the godfather of plyometrics and one of the foremost authorities on strength and speed-strength development of all time. And yes in many instances I am trying to make the fast twitch fibers more oxidative, this is a very important adaptation in improving power endurance and it is beneficial.
FG fibers are important for single max effort sports like shotput, powerlifting, high jump, etc. but in high power repetitive effort sports like mixed martial arts their glycolytic nature makes them more harmful than helpful to performance. I have probably over 100 complete metabolic profiles of fighters of all levels and abilities, I can tell you in great detail exactly what metabolic profile leads to success in MMA and it is most certainly NOT a very high level of FG fibers.
"While this isn't a bad way to train, to me, this comes across as just another way of increasing lactate threshold/HIIT, and is erroneously simplistic in theory"
You're missing the point here and incorrect about what this training will achieve. Nowhere did I say it will increase your lactate threshold and that's not what it was designed for. I said it will increase the power production at the lactate threshold and there is a huge difference between the two.
"This only makes sense, if the athlete has poor strength and conditioning levels aka a significant strength deficit. Unloaded/low loading high velocity movement is dependent on being able to synchronously activate higher threshold MU’s at high firing rates. Don't tell me Ben Johnson had low level MU recruitment because he didn't sprint on an incline."
Rarely does HIIT use long enough rest intervals and the 100% intensity that is necessary to activat the highest threshold MU. Most HIIT that is traditionally recommended uses incomplete rest intervals and the people running them certainly do not have Ben Johnson's capability for MU recruitment.
"He's noted how when he, among other coaches removed general aerobic conditioning from court/field athletes' training regimens(athletes in sports with a solid mix of aerobic-anaerobic demand; like soccer, football, basketball etc. NOT aerobic dominant distance athletes), they noticed no drop in performance and a corresponding increase in speed and explosiveness on the field."
One of my primary mentors in the field, Val Nsedkin, is now consulting for several of the largest soccer clubs in the world and using the omegawave and pro zone technology they have an incredibly accurate model of the physiological demands of soccer. These clubs incorporate much of training I use and have seen specific improvements in power output over the course of a game and speed for individual players using the same metabolic principles I have been discussing. On the flip side to your point, I have also incorporated my methods and seen dramatic improvements in endurance along with a rise in max strength and speed-strength at the same time as well.
"To illustrate an extreme contrasting example of Poliquin methodology towards energy systems training, in Poliquin's strength coaching manual, he outlines how Charlie Francis had his athletes work on high-quality speed with short sprints, then to work on maintaining that speed while gradually increasing distance"
With all due respect to Charlie Francis (and I think he is an excellent sprints coach by the way) I don't believe his expertise is in energy system development and the sprints he has the most experience coaching in are alactic single activity events. I've been to more than one his seminars in person and his model was designed around the physiological demands of sprinting and is like comparing apples to oranges when you're talking about a sport like mixed martial arts or any other sport that requires a completely different energy system requirement.
Aside from that, developing the power and then the capacity of an energy system, which is all charlie is talking about, is not a novel or unique programming concept but it is not the only sequence of development. Many of the top european coaches now use a long to short rather than a short to long programming but in a different way than Charlie was talking about. Most of the latest research in europe is looking at this model, see Verkhoshansky's latest 400m program for an example of developing the capacity of a system and then its power.
There is also a great deal of research around the "antiglycolytic finality" principle which is much more in line with my own training system than Poliquins and centers around delaying when an athlete shifts to anaerobic glycolycis rather than increasing it's capacity in the first place.
If you are talking energy system development for high strength/power sports like sprinting, football, etc. then it's a completely different dicussion than that of a sport like MMA. Overall I think Poliquin's expertise lies more in the real of the strength/power sports and this is probably where his methods to add muscle mass and his energy system beliefs are the most applicable. This is the type of athlete I believe he has worked the most with and where he's had the most success.
After working with probably 20 of the top MMA fighters and countless more lower level amaeturs looking extensively at repeated metabolic profiles including V02 max, lactate threshold, alactic and lactic power output, poewr at anerobic threshold, autonomoic regulation, CNS activity, etc. my expertise has become the metabolic development of combat sports rather than pure strength/power sport and it is from this perspective that I tend to disagree with a lot of what I've read from him.
Obviously I'm not saying all fighters should do nothing but long slow endurance type training, but in my experience Charles viewpoint on aerobic training and energy system development is in many ways incorrect and incomplete, although I am the first to admit I have not read nearly the same level of material that you have so the only thing I can base my judgement on is what I've had access to of his.
The biggest piece to the puzzle that it appears to me that you are missing is that when you increase an athlete's power output through the development of glycolytic tissue you fundamentally and inherently diminish their ability to maintain that power output over a period of time. In single effort sports or sports like football with long rest periods between plays this isn't as big of a deal as it is in MMA. MMA is about repetetive power output with 5-10 minutes of constant high intensity activity between breaks and performance thus requires very different physiological adaptations and training methods than more traditional strength/power sports.
I want my athletes to display as much power as possible oxidatively with a modest development of glycolytic power, this is where ultimate power endurance comes from. Rate of force development is largely neural while the ability to maintain power is metabolic in nature and the development of one does not necessarily compromise the other as much as you think. If your athlete is capable of greater single effort power output but mine can maintain his power all fight long, all things being equal I will take that fight all day long.
Poliquin is a great businessman and obviously a very successful coach and I'm sure he has plenty to offer, I just personally believe in and use different training principles and wouldn't spend what he charges or use the same paradigm he advocates in the training of fighters but to each his own.
I'd also like to say I don't get into discussions such as these for the sake of it being a pissing contest, to prove anything, or just to argue for the sake of arguing, but rather because I am sure many people on this forum can learn from our differing viewpoints and debate. I respect your opinion, experience, and time and I'm sure others do as well and in our disagreements and discussion there is genuine knowledge everyone can gain on both sides.
I am sure now people are much more well informed about Poliquin's training principles as well as your own experience with them as well as my opinions and they can use this information accordingly.
On another note, if people want to learn more about my training system I'll be releasing my book on conditioning soon although I will only be selling it for $40-50, not $4000 ;)
Respectfully,
Joel
PS Did you seriously put Fedor's level of relative hypertrophy in the same category as that Mike Tyson, GSP, Sherk, etc.? Come on now, have ever seen Fedor in person? I think he's the best fighter there is but seriously he walks around at 225lbs at about 6' and he's chubby.
Taku/Jeremy, thanks. I'm glad some are enjoying this.
Joel,
Addressing your last remark: I chose those athletes based on their performance attributes, not their aesthetics. But they all share something in common- relative to their frames and phenotypes, they all have considerable levels of muscle mass.
I said: "The most athletic guys in mixed-energy systems sports in terms of overall combined speed, explosiveness and endurance have always had considerable levels of proportionate sport specific hypertrophy" AND "(like OLer Alexeyev, he is a hypertrophied HW athlete with no weight limitation in his class, hence the higher sub-Q bf%.)"
Fedor is not the largest HW, in fact he is one of the smaller HW's. I picked him due to his performance and relative hypertrophy, not his aesthetics. But PROPORTIONATE TO HIS FRAME, he has higher levels of muscular hypertrophy. You are basing too much on aesthetics now; I would think you'd be able to discern the difference. If Fedor improved his bodycomposition, he would be a very visibly muscular appearing 200lber. Of course improving his bodycomposition, since he competes at HW, would not have a favorable effect on his performance; a little bit of extra adipose weight helps in this context.
Look at Mel Siff's idol Vasily Alexeyev; he looked "fat" but had considerably hypertrophy and explosiveness.
I also have to state my previous posts to not represent Poliquin's entire methodology/program like you are implying.
I think you've also read too much into/misinterpereted specific statements of mine.
I'll elaborate later when the time presents itself (unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to break my word and do another lengthy response...;P). But if you want me to cover Poliquin's entire program and methodology, I'll need some monetary incentive if I'm going to waste hours on end tapping away...
My point about Fedor was simply that he does not have nearly the amount of relative lean mass as the other guys you mentioned, it's not even close, that's why I asked if you've seen him in person before.
All asthetics aside, he has nowhere near as much lean muscle in proportion of his frame as the other athletes you were talking about. If Fedor dropped his bodyfat to a comparatively low bodyfat percentage as the rest of the guys you mentioned like Sherk, GSP, Tyson, etc. he'd probably be around 190-195lbs at 6'0-6'1, this is hardly in the same level of relative muscle mass as your comparisons.
Mike Tyson, by contrast, was a lean 215-220lbs for most of his career on a 5'9" frame. This is a huge difference. Fedor has a very average level of muscle mass for his frame at best and is a good example of explosive and endurance motor abilities not being directly linked to relative muscle mass as you suggested. It's also interesting to note, as you said, that he does do distance low intensity work and his training methods revolve completely around the eastern european methodology that I am talking about and use myself with my athletes.
I wasn't trying to imply that your posts represent Poliquin's entire training philosophy, I was only trying to comment on the posts you made and what I've seen/read of his training from him directly but I made it clear you certainly know more about what he does or does not do than I do. I still stand by the fact that I see very little european, eastern or otherwise, influence in his training methodology but perhaps I simply haven't read enough of his material who knows.
I would think that his programs for Maurice and Adrienne that I have copies of would be a fairly accurate representation of his programming and in no way do they represent or resemble anything from a european influence. He had an entire training day for Maruice entitled "Arms" for example. Contrast this program to Verkhoshansky's sample program for football it's hard to see any real common thread between them.
CSCS or ASCM
I have to agree with an earlier post about getting an M.S. degree or even a Ph.D. I know many people are all about the certifications, but there is no substitute for understanding the underlying mechanisms behind what is being taught at the certifications. Don't make the mistake of thinking you know more than you do. There is a very big difference between reading a Work Physiology text (why would you do that?) and actually being taught exercise physiology or biomechanics by someone in the field.
there's this cert you could get that would show everybody that you can successfully apply your book learning to an actual sport. This guy is showing the one he got.
ttt