Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   PT/ H2H (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Blitz only Thread (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24099)

Surgicalcric 05-08-2010 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitz from Sandbag thread

Interesting, How much have you gained in 5 years of lifting from the start until now?

Define gained?

I was stating those who have been doing it (lifting seriously) a while know there is a difference in the actual weight being moved thru a given range of motion between mechanical advantage systems (smith machine, nautilus, hammer strength) and free weight.

As for my personal experience, until about 4 years ago my gym time revolved around the typical bodybuilder style routine with running and rucking thrown in. I came to the realization the size of my biceps had little to do with my ability to function on the battlefield and with that came a serious change in how I lift. I started supplementing my workouts with Crossfit and Gym Jones stuff and did this for a while not really getting much out of it (due to over training) until I came across Mountain Athlete. I then shifted my focus and left the curls, leg press and extensions behind in exchange for more dead-lifts, cleans, sandbag get ups, pull ups, walking lunges, percentage lifts, etc...

Since then my major lifts have improved greatly and I am leaner, faster and stronger. Many of the plateaus I had have been broken and my endurance/work capacity is much better than it was...

Combat fitness, not routine fitness...



Crip

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 06:57

Note about free weights
 
Moving a resistance through the air has always been the mainstay of exercise. The major difference between free and control movements is the free movement change in resistance through their arch with the relationship of the load and axis in the Line of gravity (LOG). This change affects muscle strength in varying portions of the Muscle excursion. Controlled movement maintains a "constant" resistance through the excursion of the Muscle.
Secondly with the high velocity of the free weight create inertia that elevates resistance at the ends of the Movement arch with direction change. This requires and additional reduction of start weights of about 10%.

Sean 05-08-2010 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz (Post 329630)
Moving a resistance through the air has always been the mainstay of exercise. The major difference between free and control movements is the free movement change in resistance through their arch with the relationship of the load and axis in the Line of gravity (LOG). This change affects muscle strength in varying portions of the Muscle excursion. Controlled movement maintains a "constant" resistance through the excursion of the Muscle.
Secondly with the high velocity of the free weight create inertia that elevates resistance at the ends of the Movement arch with direction change. This requires and additional reduction of start weights of about 10%.

In each of the major barbell lifts (squat, press, bench press, and deadlift, AKA the slow lifts), the bar path is vertical, or as close to vertical as possible. Thus, there is no change in axis or line of gravity, no arch, and therefore no change in resistance. Where a leg press machine ontrols the path of resistance with lubricant and steel, a squat is controlled by the musculature of the legs, abdominals, and posterior chain, and all of the connective tissues and structures therein. A 400lb. squat is 400lbs. from the top, to the hole, and back to the top. The fact that there is a stretch refllex and "bounce" at the lowest point of the eccentric doesn't change the fact that the resistance is constant.

The Olympic lifts (snatch and clean & jerk, AKA the quick lifts), also have a vertical bar path. Some lifters perform the snatch with a slight forward arcing bar path, mainly to clear the kness before full extension. The "high velocity" is necessary to raise the weight to a point where it can be dropped under and caught while "floating" at the point where upward velocity(the pulls) is overcome by downward velocity (gravity). This is not a direction change that produces any additional resistance. If an athelete can front squat 300lbs., and deadlift 300lbs., he is physically strong enough to clean 300lbs. Conversely, an athlete with a 1000lb. leg press and a 200lb. seated row is not guaranteed to be able to clean even 150lbs., due to the lack of strengthened connective tissue, as well as the athlete's unfamiliarity with controlling heavy loads through his body's full range of motion, from deadlift start, through three pulls, to a catch in a rock-bottom front squat, and up into a postition for a jerk or press. People who come to Crossfit from a gym-rat, "bodybuilding" background where resistance is primarily controlled by pulleys, lubricant, and steel often run into serious injuries because of this.

The "reduction in start weights" is more a function of training and practicing form and technique on the technically demanding Olympic lifts, than any relation between the inherent inertia and the resistance of the lift itself.

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 09:47

Lifting Techniques...
 
Sean , Thanks for the breakdown of the lift. Connective tissue is a big source of injury, as it is being pushed to the limit.
Doing a lift that you specify require Training in technique for that lift. The body is then exposed to the possible hazards if done improperly.
If a person exercises to strengthen connective tissue along with muscle then the likely hood of that type injury is greatly reduced. But "training" those muscles to do that lift is critical. We differ in our opinions of strengthening the connective tissue.

Connective tissue strengthening requires lower resistance over longer times as the muscle strengthens much faster than connective tissue. After the C Tissue is strengthened then lift all the big stuff you want with better protected tendon and ligaments.

Sean 05-08-2010 10:43

True, muscle does strengthen quicker than connective tissue. However, the disparity between the two usually isn't enough to cause injury without external factors, i.e. steroids or other hormone enhancements. It just simply isn't possible naturally to gain strength in a muscle so quickly that it threatens the connective tissue. Our bodies are designed a bit better than that.

That being said, any decent progressive-overload strength program will build muscular strength at a steadily increasing rate, say 10+ lbs. per day for a total novice and 5 lbs. per week for an intermediate, and maybe even less than that for an advanced athlete close to his genetic potential. Because of the steady, relatively small increases (even for novices), the connective tissue isn't subjected to such a drastically strong muscle that it is under threat of injury. If that were the case, babies would develop tendon and ligament strains the instant they transitioned from walking to running.

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 329665)
True, muscle does strengthen quicker than connective tissue. However, the disparity between the two usually isn't enough to cause injury without external factors, i.e. steroids or other hormone enhancements. It just simply isn't possible naturally to gain strength in a muscle so quickly that it threatens the connective tissue. Our bodies are designed a bit better than that.

That being said, any decent progressive-overload strength program will build muscular strength at a steadily increasing rate, say 10+ lbs. per day for a total novice and 5 lbs. per week for an intermediate, and maybe even less than that for an advanced athlete close to his genetic potential. Because of the steady, relatively small increases (even for novices), the connective tissue isn't subjected to such a drastically strong muscle that it is under threat of injury. If that were the case, babies would develop tendon and ligament strains the instant they transitioned from walking to running.

Wrong assumption.
If you'd worked Physical Therapy long enough to see the Tendon and ligament damages from -itises to ruptures, you know that our muscles do inflect damage to connective tissue. Chronicle yourself the types of injuries in a gym and you'll see the disparity of connective tissue to Skeletal muscle injuries.
I'm not going to belabor these points I continually research these facts and quit sure of what I've said.
Math seems odd. 10 lbs to a load of 200 lbs. is 5% gain, 10 lb. to 50 lb.. is 20% gain how would those muscles differ?.
I've done your math and on the program you speak of the daily gains are less than 3%.

Give me a percentage of strength gain from you system that I may compare to my system. All of my previous claims are "Minimums".
Additionally this is a "Blitz only Thread" and your comments don't apply here if you are no using it or have valid questions about it. There are plenty of places to post all of the traditional stuff.
Here is the place to talk Blitz, not measuring dicks. Use it and then talk bad about it...

Sean 05-08-2010 18:35

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest, I'm just discussing training. I wasn't saying that muscle plays no part in connective tissue injury, I was making the point that a muscle will not naturally get so strong so fast through weight training that it poses a threat to the connective tissue.

The numbers I gave were more in reference to training adaptation levels and appropriate loading to make efficient use of a trainee's time. A true novice trainee has an amazing capacity to rapidly increase the load, dependent on age, sex, and other factors. A healthy young adult or even adolescent male can indeed take a load up 10-20lbs. every workout in the squat and deadlift for at least 1-2 months, at a rate of 3 workouts a week, with adequate nutrition and rest for growth. After that, the gains taper off a bit as his capacity for improvement outpaces his capacity to recover, and his training adaptation inches closer to his genetic potential. A male with a back squat of 50lbs. for sets across is nowhere close to his genetic potential, and thus can handle 10lb. (20%) jumps for quite some time, given adequate food and rest. Likewise, a male with a back squat of 200lbs. for sets across also has a great deal of capacity for improvement, yet is closer to his genetic potential than the athlete working with 50lbs. Thus, he can still sustain 10lb. (5%) jumps, but for a shorter timespan than the athlete who started with a lighter weight.

Using myself as an example of the above:
NOV 12, 2009: Max back squat 325lbs. at bodyweight of 190lbs.
Followed a linear progression for about 2 months, from Nov. 20 to January 11,at a rate of 3 workouts a week, squatting every workout. I reset once to break a plateau, and was able to increase my weights for 3 sets of 5 reps by 10lbs. for about the first month, and 5lbs. after that. My starting weight was 275 for 3 sets of 5 reps.
JAN 15, 2010: Max back squat 445, at a bodyweight of 230lbs.
120 lbs. increase over the course of 20 workouts.
40 lb. increase in bodyweight.
Strength-bodyweight ratio: From 1.7% to 1.9%

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 19:21

I get it...
 
I have never said that any other program doesn't work. That's why the pros pay big money for what they call the best. However this is Blitz, and I'm telling any who care to try it , to do so. This thread is Blitz and any input to the other systems is moot. If one can get off of the standard type of work outs and can contribute here fine. If not, please take it to the other threads. There is no point in discussing alternatives to Blitz here, particularly if one has not participated in using the system.
I welcome all comments that are qualified. Meaning, have at least a working knowledge of the Blitz. Do not think "reading it" and trying to compare it to what else is out there counts as qualified. I would like to have anyone out there that has used the system to say a little about your experiences Good or Bad. What worked what didn't.

I know the system has never fail to deliver if used as written. Any modification is well worth exploring here. Please write, the rest of you need to post or comment where it may mean something to those who will use it.
AND, PM me which comments or suggestions that are not Blitz related.


Thanks to the over 200 people out there that have copies of the system, and please feel free to let the rest of us know how you fared.
Dave
An aside to Sean, with your start weight of 102 lbs for Blitz by the end of 8 weeks you would have been doing 438.5 lbs x 70 to 90 /min totaling somewhere between 30,330 lbs to 39,420 lbs per/min (plus doing 3 sets total of 118,260 lbs cumulative work). Not something you can duplicate with any other system.

Surgicalcric 05-08-2010 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz (Post 329697)
...Additionally this is a "Blitz only Thread" and your comments don't apply here if you are no using it or have valid questions about it. There are plenty of places to post all of the traditional stuff.
Here is the place to talk Blitz, not measuring dicks. Use it and then talk bad about it...

Dave:

Surely you dont expect to make the claims you have here without someone asking questions about how you arrived at the stated numbers and how those numbers translate to strength projected outside the confines of a machine.

That being said, I am not interested in a dick measuring contest. I am however interested in open debate. If you are not then I suggest you stop making claims about how grand "The Blitzzz" is.

ETA:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz
An aside to Sean, with your start weight of 102 lbs for Blitz by the end of 8 weeks you would have been doing 438.5 lbs x 70 to 90 /min...

Would that be 438 lbs of free weight or that attached to a cable machine? Again I find myself asking the same question about how it all relates. 438 lbs of free floating weight isnt the same when its controlled by pulleys and rods/bearings.

Crip

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 19:50

Open debate is fine...
 
Open debate is fine, if you've used Blitz, you should be able to debate it, if you have not then it back to arguing what's "better". I have done this for so very long and the consistency is exact. I know it is difficult for nonusers to conceive this drastic a system and to be so different. Crip, I sent you my number and well gladly debate/discuss any concerns. Please give me a call. I have addressed concerns on this thread, I just get a bit worn out over the same-o standard guys (who I sure do great work with their own systems) trying to debunk that which they know not. Dave

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric (Post 329743)
Would that be 438 lbs of free weight or that attached to a cable machine? Again I find myself asking the same question about how it all relates. 438 lbs of free floating weight isnt the same when its controlled by pulleys and rods/bearings.

Crip

Just to answer this particular question. This is strength pure an simple. Free weights, cables, rubber bands. it equates to "work", "watts". the muscle fibers will be very strong and whether you lift mortar rounds all day or carry a ruck for weeks on end you will have much more strength and endurance to do it with.

Sean 05-08-2010 21:37

I have to say, a 438lb. back squat performed 70-90 times in a minute is impossible. By back squat I mean me standing with a bar across my shoulders, and 438 lbs. in plates on either side, no attached pulleys or other metal bits. Moving from standing to squatting with the hip crease below the patella and back to standing takes, even unweighted, 1-2 seconds depending on the athlete. Now add 438 lbs. of load and you're talking about moving FASTER than that, for close to 100 times per minute. That is not only impossible, but trying to achieve that standard is extremely unsafe, and borderline stupid.

For your program to be taken seriously, you're going to have to provide empirical evidence. Hell, even a video of a typical Blitz workout would go a long way toward substantiating your claims. Promising someone the ability to perform 70x450lb. squats per minute just doesn't hold water without providing specific examples of actual, similar results.

Lastly, a leg press on a machine with 450lbs. and a barbell back squat with 450lbs. are such drastically different animals that saying "it's all strength" shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the barbell lifts versus their Nautilus "equivalents".

Irishsquid 05-08-2010 21:46

My take on the Blitz...
 
Just my take. I'm "qualified," only in that I have done a great deal of PT for a few years. I've tried bodybuilding, CF, bodyweight work, and now Blitz. As far as building muscular strength and endurance, I've found that Blitz seems to work better than anything else I've tried. Crossfit and Military/MountainAthlete seem to be of massive benefit in improving neuromuscular connections, and general conditioning.

First time through CF/MA type workouts, I got very little benefit. Coming back after a cycle of Blitz, it seemed to make a huge difference, because I had the muscle mass to condition. I'm now cycling between Blitz and CF/MA...Blitz to build the muscle, and CF/MA to condition it to non-"static," lifts.

Just my take...I have no education in these matters...just speaking from my experience.

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-08-2010 22:51

You missed the point.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 329761)
I have to say, a 438lb. back squat performed 70-90 times in a minute is impossible. By back squat I mean me standing with a bar across my shoulders, and 438 lbs. in plates on either side, no attached pulleys or other metal bits. Moving from standing to squatting with the hip crease below the patella and back to standing takes, even unweighted, 1-2 seconds depending on the athlete. Now add 438 lbs. of load and you're talking about moving FASTER than that, for close to 100 times per minute. That is not only impossible, but trying to achieve that standard is extremely unsafe, and borderline stupid.

For your program to be taken seriously, you're going to have to provide empirical evidence. Hell, even a video of a typical Blitz workout would go a long way toward substantiating your claims. Promising someone the ability to perform 70x450lb. squats per minute just doesn't hold water without providing specific examples of actual, similar results.

Lastly, a leg press on a machine with 450lbs. and a barbell back squat with 450lbs. are such drastically different animals that saying "it's all strength" shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the barbell lifts versus their Nautilus "equivalents".

You are making a statement on an assumption of velocity, which you've not done your home work.

The example I gave is based on "your Numbers (lower numbers) the number of reps would be determined by you. 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. SO you would start at 105 lbs at your rep speed and progress from there In eight that "could" become 438.lbs and you would be still moving at your set velocity.


Sean 05-09-2010 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz (Post 329741)
An aside to Sean, with your start weight of 102 lbs for Blitz by the end of 8 weeks you would have been doing 438.5 lbs x 70 to 90 /min totaling somewhere between 30,330 lbs to 39,420 lbs per/min (plus doing 3 sets total of 118,260 lbs cumulative work). Not something you can duplicate with any other system.

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. 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.

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.

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

abc_123 05-09-2010 09:23

my experience
 
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 (Post 330463)
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

You don't stop do you?
 
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 (Post 329796)
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 (Post 330479)
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 (Post 330596)
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 (Post 330625)
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 (Post 330694)
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. :munchin

Sean 05-14-2010 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc_123 (Post 330694)
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?

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-14-2010 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 330753)
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?

With your line of sarcasm, why bother. There is no risk of shoulder injury Blitzing. Ask "anyone".
I'm not a liar and have not made false promises. Don't know where you read about the study in Feb. and it doesn't matter, it was set back to start this upcoming semester, and I don't believe you'll kneed to know. Just give you something else to attack.
Pass your PT test with what you know.
Or maybe punch a side of beef...

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-14-2010 18:33

Apologies.
 
I am apologizing to all the members of this thread, for allowing myself to be dragged down into the "Stupid Pit.
In an aim to more Professionalism I'll ignore the insignificant posts and maintain a more Professional demeanor.
Once again I'm humbled and shamed for lowering to that level. Blitzzz

Sean 05-14-2010 19:44

Blitzzz, I would also like to apologize to you publicly, as my last few posts have also been less than professional.

I have nothing personal against you, and harbor no grudge.

I suggest we agree to disagree, and move on.

In all seriousness, I would like to know the results of the TSU study, when it's completed.

Irishsquid 05-16-2010 01:34

Blitz,
quick question:

My reps are not as high as some others have mentioned...usually in the area of 70-75 reps per minute. This is absolutely as fast as I can perform the exercises...I *think* this is a limitation of the cable machines I am using, coupled with the low weight. (Not enough weight to quickly return the stack to the starting position.)

If I complete four weeks, then recalculate my 1RM, and start the Blitz over, will that hinder my progress? I'm relatively certain that the added weight would actually increase my reps.)

Right now, I'm hitting "goal," reps for three circuits, on all but one exercise, so I'll be increasing the weight by 20% as of monday on those exercises.

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-16-2010 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishsquid (Post 330906)
Blitz,
quick question:

My reps are not as high as some others have mentioned...usually in the area of 70-75 reps per minute. This is absolutely as fast as I can perform the exercises...I *think* this is a limitation of the cable machines I am using, coupled with the low weight. (Not enough weight to quickly return the stack to the starting position.)

If I complete four weeks, then recalculate my 1RM, and start the Blitz over, will that hinder my progress? I'm relatively certain that the added weight would actually increase my reps.)

Right now, I'm hitting "goal," reps for three circuits, on all but one exercise, so I'll be increasing the weight by 20% as of monday on those exercises.

No need to recalculate 1 Rm. just move up the weights as planned. It is common to not move those types of machines much beyond 60 to 65 reps/min.

Sounds like your doing fine. Dave

abc_123 05-16-2010 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 330753)
Admittedly, I haven't done the Blitz...

Ok.

Quote:

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.
I faithfully followed the Blitz AFTER being diagnosed with a shoulder tear and burcitis that I was given the option by the doc at WRAMC of arthro surgery to fix or just "living with it," ...with the option to come back in when I felt that I couldn't handle the pain or felt like I was being unduly constrained by the shoulder.

The injury did not get worse. In fact it feels much better now.

Just my personal experience...

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-16-2010 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc_123 (Post 331002)
Ok.



I faithfully followed the Blitz AFTER being diagnosed with a shoulder tear and burcitis that I was given the option by the doc at WRAMC of arthro surgery to fix or just "living with it," ...with the option to come back in when I felt that I couldn't handle the pain or felt like I was being unduly constrained by the shoulder.

The injury did not get worse. In fact it feels much better now.

Just my personal experience...

This is really good news. Glad it helps.

CBHRigger 05-19-2010 07:27

First Blitz Run
 
Ok Blitzzz, here are my numbers. I was using cable type machines at the local gym. Noticed some of the machines could not keep up with repitions as others have stated. Also, machines only go in 5 lb increments and looking at getting some wrist/ankle weights.

APFT Test results from 29 Apr 2010

PU - 74 reps
SU - 61 reps
Run - 17:44

Body Fat measurements

Neck - 18.5 in
Waist - 39.75 in
Body fat - 21%

Exercise Max Start 15 sec reps goal

Chest press----205-------70-------20-------59-------80
Leg press-------300-----100-------10-------50-------40
Lat pull down--160-------55-------13-------57-------52
Ham Curl--------195------65-------11-------44--------44
Bicep Curl-------90--------30-------18-------47--------73
Knee Extend---205-------70-------15------58--------60
Row--------------175------70-------12-------40--------48
Heel Raise------35--------35-------25-------87-------100

With heel raises I was holding the bar while doing the exercise. Just as note was winded after the circuit was completed, but felt good. Only have little bit of tightness inside elbows. All in all enjoyed the circuit and looking forward to tomorrow's two circuits.

Will keep you updated with weekly results.

CBHRigger

Blitzzz (RIP) 05-19-2010 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBHRigger (Post 331477)
Ok Blitzzz, here are my numbers. I was using cable type machines at the local gym. Noticed some of the machines could not keep up with repitions as others have stated. Also, machines only go in 5 lb increments and looking at getting some wrist/ankle weights.

APFT Test results from 29 Apr 2010

PU - 74 reps
SU - 61 reps
Run - 17:44

Body Fat measurements

Neck - 18.5 in
Waist - 39.75 in
Body fat - 21%

Exercise Max Start 15 sec reps goal

Chest press----205-------70-------20-------59-------80 Good start
Leg press-------300-----100-------10-------50-------40 May want to redo here. already exceded Goal reps.
Lat pull down--160-------55-------13-------57-------52 Same here
Ham Curl--------195------65-------11-------44--------44 Here too
Bicep Curl-------90--------30-------18-------47--------73 Good star
Knee Extend---205-------70-------15------58--------60 probably machine limited
Row--------------175------70-------12-------40--------48 Good start
Heel Raise------35--------35-------25-------87-------100 Good start

With heel raises I was holding the bar while doing the exercise. Just as note was winded after the circuit was completed, but felt good. Only have little bit of tightness inside elbows. All in all enjoyed the circuit and looking forward to tomorrow's two circuits.

Will keep you updated with weekly results.

CBHRigger

Notes in red with my comments.

forward 05-19-2010 14:16

Week 8
 
Exercise WT RD1 RD2 RD3 Goal WT Change
IP 142.5 80 90 83 92 14%
HS 245 90 94 93 96 20%
LP 175 58 61 57 64 15%
CR 165 120 127 122 128 18%
SR 95 77 81 79 88 12%
SH 100 131 139 137 144 11%

Started to fall short of limiting range at 20% on first day of weight changes. Today's numbers, 3rd day at these weights. I added the percentage change to show how much I increased by from my former weight.

V/r,

Forward


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:33.


Copyright 2004-2020 by Professional Soldiers ®