Negatives a necessity for strength training?

Dropping to planche works just like Yuri said. You also need to focus on staying hollow, without piking, which is quite challenging. Im not sure, however, how healthy this type of training is for planche if yuo do not have a very strong handstand(and preferably handstand presses). Im sure it is easy to put too much pressure on the elbows and shoulders too early, so be careful with this one. Make sure to turn your hands out as well if you do not have very flexible wrists.

Technically it is also different, as you need to focus heavily on only initiating it from the shoulders and never letting your legs drop, because if they do they will get momentum which will make things very difficult. This can of course be done in tuck, split, half lay and full.

slizzardman said:

That 130-140% of 1rm thing comes from the neurophysiology of eccentric lengthening.....bringing you to 142.85%.

Here is one study I found, though it is just the abstract.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstr ... le.20.aspx

Eight male university students served as subjects in an investigation designed to develop strength using two different muscle training routines over a six week period. The subjects trained the arm and leg on one side of their bodies using concentric contractions and the arm and leg on the opposite side of their bodies with identical exercises using eccentric contractions. Concentric movements were against n resistance 80% of one-repetition-maximum (l-Rm) for 10 repetitions and two sets; eccentric movements were against a force of 120% of concentric 1-RM for 6 repetitions and two sets. Both routines produced significant gains in strength in all subjects, but neither training procedure produced dynamic or static strength gains significantly different from the other. Subjective evaluations by the subjects indicated that the eccentric training movements were easier to perform than the concentric training movements.

Going back to the exrx tables this 8@80% vs 6@120% does work out as the negative 1RM being ~140% of normal 1RM

I have also thought negatives could be handy for an early/warmup set where you might want lighter weights, e.g. I find loading up a dip belt or dumbbell to be hassle and time consuming too, esp. if you want short times between sets and prefer a rest that does not involve unloading a belt taking off a vest or unloading a barbell etc. So you could do say 6 N.O. reps to warmup before 6 regular reps with the same resistance on your belt.

slizzardman said:

Christian, that's for bodybuilders and people who are not interested in optimal development of their athletic abilities. Performance athletes, nearly across the board, NEED the throwing to develop recruitment during the stretch reflex and during explosive movements. You simply do not train (learn and ingrain) the neural patterns that are used during fast movements during slow movements. That's just the way it is, according to quite a lot of research that does not have a significant detracting body of evidence. That is also directly from athlete experience. Even during electro-stim training, contraction velocity is maximal. There is not a slow build up of force.

Things do get more complicated from here, and it is not in my interest to detail everything you have to consider. Nearly everything has a place in training, but there is no one constant. Not even rest. If you want to learn more basics about that, you can read up on Dual Factor Training Theory. Ido has talked about that extensively here before, though not directly by mention of name.

************Interesting. So what are the benefits and drawbacks of isometric training?

Brandon Green

Isometric benefits: very little muscle damage (low levels of soreness or none at all, fast tissue recovery), easy to teach, can build strength quickly. Very good for developing starting strength in some positions.

Isometric drawbacks: Strength gains are only in a very limited part of the ROM, approximately 15 degrees in either direction of the hold. Can be tricky to perform without a specially prepared set up for many exercises, especially when you are trying to regularly increase load.

Like anything else, these can contribute to CNS fatigue quite quickly when you do too much and when you are working too close to a maximal effort.

slizzardman said:

Isometric benefits: very little muscle damage (low levels of soreness or none at all, fast tissue recovery), easy to teach, can build strength quickly. Very good for developing starting strength in some positions.

Isometric drawbacks: Strength gains are only in a very limited part of the ROM, approximately 15 degrees in either direction of the hold. Can be tricky to perform without a specially prepared set up for many exercises, especially when you are trying to regularly increase load.

Like anything else, these can contribute to CNS fatigue quite quickly when you do too much and when you are working too close to a maximal effort.

********** Thanks by the way. Real good for critical joint angles according to Inno-speak(or Schroeder).

Brandon Green

cccp22 said:

slizzardman said:

Isometric benefits: very little muscle damage (low levels of soreness or none at all, fast tissue recovery), easy to teach, can build strength quickly. Very good for developing starting strength in some positions.

Isometric drawbacks: Strength gains are only in a very limited part of the ROM, approximately 15 degrees in either direction of the hold. Can be tricky to perform without a specially prepared set up for many exercises, especially when you are trying to regularly increase load.

Like anything else, these can contribute to CNS fatigue quite quickly when you do too much and when you are working too close to a maximal effort.

********** Thanks by the way. Real good for critical joint angles according to Inno-speak(or Schroeder).

Brandon Green

Is Inno-speak the same as Inno-sport? I just read some stuff that tracked back to some stuff about auto-regulation. Supposedly, most of the details were just made up garbage by a fictional strength guru. I should have known it was a hoax when the author suggested a 6% gain in 4 days as being the standard. LOL If you could add 3% per week, every week, the next religion would revolve around you.

I don't know anything about inno-sport. I have heard a ton of people on both sides, but I have had no exposure to the actual writings as of yet. I have heard the same thing, however. But then, the Wanna Get Fast methods appear to be at least partially based on inno, and they seem to be getting outstanding results with all their runners.

slizzardman said:

I don't know anything about inno-sport. I have heard a ton of people on both sides, but I have had no exposure to the actual writings as of yet. I have heard the same thing, however. But then, the Wanna Get Fast methods appear to be at least partially based on inno, and they seem to be getting outstanding results with all their runners.

********** I consider Wannagetfast and Evolutionaryathletics to be the most advanced. Iso's are very effective at CJC(critical joint angle). The soreness is low and the carryover to the whole movement more significant than usually considered.

Brandon Green