Strength/Talent Discrepancy in Athletes

Training Powerlifting
41

Jesus, I’m gone for two or three days and the whole world shows up and starts stealing my thunder!

Seriously, great to see Nuttal here and great to see the discussion being raised another level. You guys are ahead of me on specific methods and even basic terminology in some cases, but I am reading and getting up to date.

I share this because of Nuttal’s statement that skill coaches are taking on the total approach method for training their athletes. They are preferring to handle things in-house, so to speak. My own career has sort oscillated between performance enhancement and skill coaching over the years. My recent successes have been as a skill coach and that trend looks solid for the future.

This leads to the problem of having too little time to commit to the performance side of things and not being able to find someone who can do the job even as well as I can, even though I admit to being a little behind the times. I think this is what is at the heart of the skill coaches taking on the challenge- the performance coaches they have been exposed to are absolutely horrible.

J hit on it and I alluded to it earlier that most s/c coaches are just some ass kisser or, at best, weight room freak that played in a big program and had connections. Having been around the SEC and CUSA as a strength and sport coach, it is simultaneously hilarious and sickening.

So what are we left to do? Either hire someone who has the requisite knowledge or learn to do it yourself. The first option is only valid if resources allow and the second option is almost impossible to do right due to time constraints on the coach. It is a pretty tough conundrum to be in. I am there right now!

Anyway, I can’t really speak to Adam’s abilities as I haven’t been able to watch him that closely. I have noted that he is still on somewhat of a learning curve in the league right now. Nuttal, great point about instincts. Football coaches are always looking for the kid with the nose for the ball. I am not sure, but it seems to me that this is something that is very difficult if not impossible to teach.

I am not referring to a knowledge of the game or the ability to anticipate due to game planning or tactical ability, but to the innate ability to take a proper angle at a proper speed and avoid obstacles the very first day out. Two examples:

I had a high school kid (LB/SS) who could do this the very first day he ever walked onto a football field. The first day in pads, he was at the ball on defense on nearly every play. I even had to show him how to stand in a football position to start with, but when the ball was snapped, he just got there. Unfortunately, he was about 5’9" and 125 pounds on a good day. Not bad speed, but nothing to right home about. I worked with him for a year in the weight room and he gained about ten pounds when we had others putting on as much as 25 and 30. It was all good weight and I made every attempt to design a unique program for him, but he was just not built for it. He had a good year and I left to take another job. He never progressed from there athletically, but had good junior and senior campaigns at that size due to his instincts. The point is that nothing we did would ever make up for a total lack of specific physical qualities.

The other guy was an LB at a D1 school where I was an assistant strength coach. He was fast, strong, powerful, technically great, intelligent, knew every aspect of the game plan and never got off the bench. He simply could not feel the space of the field around him and adjust. He would go the right way, but either be a split second late with the decision or somehow manage to get tangled up in a blocker. Every time. Every time.

They finally moved him to goal line fullback and just told him where to run in the huddle. He was just interference. He just had no instincts for the game.

At some point, there is a compromise between talent and preparation. I feel that at the NFL level, there are guys who posses both in differing degrees but rarely anyone who is completely one or the other. Jerry Rice may be the exception to the rule. He was probably the most poorly trained superstar of the modern era, but he was still the best receiver I ever watched.

Ti

42

i dont see what the flaw is in trying to get an athlete stronger. strength will plateau and lead to injury if adequate endurance, RFD, etc. components are not met.

the examples of some second string guys in the NFL who’re stronger than the first stringers yet perform poorer is not an precise analogy. as it’s been pointed out, raw athleticism (strength, speed, endurance) is not the only component of successful football participation. it’s entirely possible for a “stronger” second-stringer to also be faster and more agile, yet he just doesn’t have the football instinct. so he gets burned by the weaker, slower guy.

let’s take PL and OL for example… assuming that technique is proper, PL is all about max strength; OL is all about strength-speed and speed-strength. these are different aspects on the same continuum, yet in order for each to be maximized any of the others cannot be deficient. AFAIK, for the most part, elite PLers and elite OLers have similar VJs. neither sport produces guys with more outstanding VJs than the other.

Charlie Francis has done very well in decreasing sprint times by addressing both opposites specifically (max strength and max speed/acceleration). by doing so he has covered just about everything, except endurance (which he does via other means). Charlie’s made it evident that for sprinters max strength increases are only strived for when they will aid speed, and it seems that increasing max strength is very important in CFTS; even after high levels of max strength are achieved.

when i first got into this game (im still a newb) one of the things i came across that i remember is something i think was referenced from Siff. it went, roughly: “a beginner with a 200 pound squat will see quite an increase in VJ when his squat is upped to 400, but not quite as much an increase when his squat is upped to 600. the reasoning is that his max strength is already at a high enough status that increasing it wont aid motor unit efficiency due to lack of RFD enhancement.” well, i disagree. first off, that’s comparing apples and oranges. 200 to 400 to 600 is not the same thing; 200 to 400 to 800 is. now, i think that my VJ would see a similar increase when i up my squat from 400 to 800 as it did from 200 to 400. the only difference is that many beginners dont have to work RFD in order to go from 200 to 400, but everybody (except, perhaps, genetically gifted or drugged individuals) must work RFD and other components in order to get from 400 to 800.

in a nutshell: strength will lend to speed (unless done exclusively for too long) and vice versa. there is never a point when strength training becomes redundant or deleterious if it is accompanied by proper speed, endurance, etc. training.

43

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
I believe the answer lies in fiber conversion theory: namely that if we fatigue all of the FT fibers, then fatigue the slow twitch fibers during the later holds, but ‘initiate’ the explosive reps with the intent of explosiveness, we may find some fibers convert.

I assume that the recruitment during this process, since it is of zero rate is slow → fast twitch as force is maximized… then fast twitch would falter as AN-1 is surpassed, but then we ask our muscles to fire explosively…trying to convert?
[/quote]

AFAIK, slow twitch to fast twitch conversion has never been shown to be possible. do you know something that i dont?

44

wuf~

True, fiber conversion has never been shown to be possible…

I do agree with you about max strength, as long as it also translates to an increase in force at toe-off…plus is converted to a similar rise on power production at the appropriate rate.

In simpler terms, the real measure is how much poswer you can generate in .2-.3 seconds in the VJ. I am a power dominant Jumper, as opposed to a rate / elastic jumper, so I tend to squat deeper, and use as much time as possible when jumping. (This tends to help me draw fouls when driving to the basket due to always jumping off two feet (another power dominant trait), and having a longer gather time.)

So the question is how much more power I develop at toe-off in .3 seconds…

Is strength the answer? Possibly. Like you correctly said, it also involves maximizing RFD to minimize the time needed to produce this explosive force.

I agree strength is, fo many, many athletes, the basic answer. As JoeD Dave, CT, Chad, and the rest point out so often, a strong set of legs is pretty hard to come by when training athletes. Luckily, upping strength is fairly easy to a point.

It is at this point where diminishing returns may enter.

Let’s say I am a 175 pound (so many years ago!!) and have a nice 455 squat. This is basically a 2.5X BW Squat. I would tend to say that if you truly squated that much in a full squat, but didn’t have an awesome vertical, something is wrong…

Now, If you upped squat value to 3.5X BW, would it help? probably, but as you approach limit strength (what is Chuck V, 5XBW?) the strength gains become much harder, and I may suggest that other means may enhance your explosive athletic performance more.

The would include working the eccentric and concentric phases along the entire force curve. namely absorbing force from slow to fast, and displying force from slow to fast… all with maximum velocity for the speed. Absorption begins with basic stabilization, and then moves towards a comprehensive fullrange movement… Brad refers to these as “Reactive Squats”.

RFD can obviously be brought up using pause methods.

The final piece is to ensure that all structures along your force vector do not have any weaknesses. Part of the CFTS is to understand that the ratio of hip to calf contribution in sprinting (and probably jumping) is something like 7:1. But, and this is a key but, the calves must be able to lock up and withstand the transfer of this force into the ground… so your calves and soft tissues must be able to withstand the huge force created by strong hips. If the calf is weak at all, your hips are inhibited. I think Brad refers to this as “squishy jeels”… I have just called it ‘dippy heels’ for years, but I am sure you can think of your own term… it all is directed at the same phenomenon.

This is exactly why walking calf raises, barbell skips, squats on your toes, jump squats, etc are all important… they truly focus on the part of the squat past where the squat ends…toe-off.

OK, enough for now.

I have to do some work… analysis calls…ugh!

Coach JR

PS~

I din’t know that elite PL and OL had similar verts… never guessed otherwise, but didn’t realize…nice. I would have guessed that OL’s had lesser Max Strength in squats, but far superior RFD. I guess the extra Max Strength in squats by PL’s makes up for a possibly slower RFD…kool.

Good post, I didn’t realize.

45

Preliminary isometric tension will boost subsequent dynamic work…so there is probably some benefit to using the first isometric hold followed by the first 3 explosive reps. However, my take on it is the remainder of the set pretty much just looks like a glorified way of stimulating hypertrophy since fatigue will severely hinder strength/power gains nonexistent. :slight_smile:

Someone mentioned muscle typing. Type I may not change to type II but the proportion between them can change, (which is just as important) as can the type of slow twitch or fast twitch isoform expressed. Say you got a 20 inch leg right now and you’re 60% slow twitch/40% fast twitch. That means you’re probably pretty good at endurance activities and are pretty weak and naturally not very explosive.

Let’s say over the next 5 years you bust your ass in the weight room and boost your leg to 25 inches. The type II’s are what’s responsible for the additional growth and you just increased their proportion in your thighs by a whopping margin…now the proportion of fibers in your leg would probably be 70% fast twitch/30% slow twitch. So, no you didn’t turn slow twitch into fast but you sure did crowd out the slow and you will function like a different person.

Now, type II’s exist in isoforms slowest to fastest IIC—IIA—IIAB—IIX or something like that. Training that builds size (chronic muscular damage) will leave you with lots of IIA…which is a helluva lot better then what you had before but can still be improved on a bit. If you wanna top out explosiveness you gotta shift that type II expression to the right. So how do you do that?? Well, it’s kind’ve build into most periodization approaches already particularly concnetrated/conjugate loading. You perform the maximum strength phase and then shift into more explosive work while doing just enough strength work to maintain your strength. You cut back on volume of strength work focus on explosiveness/shock work.

The less damaging muscular work here coupled with the intense nervous system stimulation wil then shift that type II expression from slower contracting less powerful more endurance oriented IIA towards the more powerful IIB. Nuttalls approach of using high intensity EMS during the explosive phase also seems to be very effective to go along with that.

46

K~

I agree with the whole thing, but the first paragraph is exactly what I was thinking… the entire set looked pretty grueling if you truly maxed your Iso tension for all 3 holds…

JR

47

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Coach JR

PS~

I din’t know that elite PL and OL had similar verts… never guessed otherwise, but didn’t realize…nice. I would have guessed that OL’s had lesser Max Strength in squats, but far superior RFD. I guess the extra Max Strength in squats by PL’s makes up for a possibly slower RFD…kool.

Good post, I didn’t realize.[/quote]

well, i have no emphatic evidence, but emphatic evidence is hard to come by. besides my conclusion being rational in my mind, i hear things.

the way i see it: OL and PL are doing the same thing just at different points on the curve. it seems a lot of PLers spend time training elasticity (bands, DE), and a lot of OLers spend time training max strength (back squat).

i dont think OLers will have much higher RFD than PLers. it may be that PLers will have higher RFD at liftoff on the deadlift than OLers would if they deadlifted, but OLers have higher RFD than PLers at triple extension than PLers have at lockout. being that deadlift sticking point should be mid-range high RFD at liftoff will really aid PL. and in OL, power is peaked at triple extension. this makes it possible for liftoff to be of lower RFD than triple extension and OLers to still make the lift.

i wonder what kind of RFD is present at liftoff of a 800 pound deadlifter lifting 500. compare this to a 500 pound cleaner’s RFD at liftoff and i think the deadlifterr may just have higher RFD at liftoff. on the contrary, cleaning triple extension/deadlift lockout would be the opposite.

the reason i beleive OL and PL has similar VJs in a nutshell: both OL and PL train both max strength and RFD. they’ll train which one is weakest and it will aid their competition lift (if all else is on par).

Stephen

48

Stephen~

Those are some good points, but I am not sure I agree with all of them. This really has more to do with my lack of dealing extensively with PL’ers.

I would have to defer to someone like Louie or Dave, or maybe CT to find out the actualy force curve created by PL’ers and OL’ers.

Generally, strength is a matter of Duration of Power output, with the max weight being determined by the ability to maintain that force over the course (temporal) of the lift, and to generate enough force, along with inertia to move through the CJC (weakest anatomical position, sticking point). This is why Louie and the beasts found over at the darkside all work on starting strength, explosive strength, adn RFD… But, the general curve created by a MaxForce lift is flatter, has a slower RFD, and has more duration that the force found in an O-Lift…

The MaxPower curve has a much steeper (faster) RFD, and generally has a higher power display, but doesn’t have the duration necessary to complete a longer lift like the squat.

Now, all that being said, we are talking about bodyweight, not a MaxSquat or MaxClean.

And, PL’s who train RFD, force absorption (darkside does this at high rate at least for bench when they do 3 reps in 3 secs, never touching chest), and incorporate a signifacant effort towards MaxPower would definitely be training the right qualities for a nasty VJ.

Now, you did bring up a couple key aspects, one being speed and power at toe-off. The hip strngth must be forced into propulasion through the feet in a much different manner than during a hip accentuated back squat. The palntar flexors become a key weak link, and must at least be able to flex slightly and hold isometrically during a period of very high force and rate. If their calves were not up to this tak, you would never know (do yyou honestly think Dave Tate’s calves are weak? LOL, yeah right), but they may be ‘weak’ for this purpose. Again, you would never really get significant visual cues, but the claves would inhibit the force generated by a PL’ers hips and quads if slightly lacking.

Remember, even if you VJ with a deep bend, all of the force must come in .3 seconds at the most, with maximum velocity (as you said) at toe-off. This is a very fast RFD, and since we are talking about men who are amazingly strong and powerful, is way down the force curve from where any of these guys normally operate.

When you train high along the force curve, the general effect is to move your curve upward some…so, especially at higher weights, yuo are able to generate more power. If you train further towards the rate side of the curve predominantly, you tend to shift the curve further right, or towards the rate side, thus increasing rate…

Like I said before, how this all plays into the verticals of PL’s and OL’s I don’t know. I would definitely have to defer to guys that have done some solid research on the force generated by these two classifications at the appropriate place along the force curve… namely very close to the rate side.

A final consideration would be to take a look at the elastic qualities of both of these groups. Unless PL’s did high rate power absorption methods and plyos, I would have to give the edge to the OL’s here. But, I do know that darkside drops very quickly on dynamic days, especially when using bands… maybe darkside guys in particular have awesome verts…

I have never asked Dave to play me 1-v-1 in hoops, and without the real desire to take a charge from a man of his size and power, I don’t think I will be asking soon. With quickness and vertical ability as my only strengths, I may win, but it would be alot like playing Michigan State in football in the old days… you may win, but they are gonna beat the hell out of ya…

Keep it up Stephen, you are making agreat contribution here… you definitely have much to share, and I appreciate your insights…

JR

49

This post is not a technical, S&C post but rather some thoughts on what it takes to go to the next level of competition, what ever that would be. It is by no means comprehensive and is really quite basic, though it does have some valid points and may even stimulate some discussion, or not.

Going back to the original post, regarding S&C as ?making? an athlete, or high performance athletes who can trace their success to an S&C program, I would like to make the following observations:

  1. I believe that these athletes were great from the get go and developed further through S&C;
  2. I believe that a good S&C program can help an average athlete become above average;
  3. I believe what separates many high performance athletes from the ?not so high performance? is what I refer to as the ?mental gene?.

This goes beyond the knowledge of the game and even instincts and reaction, though there are many who have a great knowledge and not so great skills who don?t see much game time, and some who have great skills and not so great knowledge who don?t see much game time and vice versa. It is those with that ?inner edge?, be it physical and/or mental, who seem to out perform.

It has been said that athlete?s can perform 15% better or 15% worse under pressure. If it is the latter, then the amount of physical training needed to compensate is huge.

Here is an equation based on a common, though not necessarily accurate, belief: if the game is 90% mental (again, not necessarily accurate, but good for argument sake) and 10% physical (totaling 100% of the total athlete), and let?s say you have two elite athletes performing at 80% mental (or 72% of the total athlete) and 90% physical (9% of the total athlete) for a total of 81% of the total athlete. If athlete #1 improves his mental by 5% but does not improve his physical, and athlete #2 improves his physical by 5% but not his mental, who has the greater gain? Athlete #1 has an overall increase to a total of 84.6%. Athlete #2 has an increase to a total of 81.45%. Again, this is simply illustrative of the emphasis that is placed on physical training and not mental training and is based only somewhat in reality.

What is my point as it relates to the original post? Simply, the ?whole? athlete needs developing and it is the job, indeed, duty, of coaches to see to it that it happens. A classic illustration of this is in the movie, ?Miracle? which depicts the 1980 US Olympic hockey team. One of the lines was Herb Brooks saying he wasn?t looking ?for the best players, just the right ones.? I am not sure how accurate the movie was in it?s portrayal of Brooks, but it showed the balance between physical and mental training and the effects that both can have when utilized properly. Of course, the whole concept of mental training goes way deeper than can be discussed here, but just some thoughts.

When I am coaching, I make it a habit of ?drilling? mental concepts into practice as well as taking special time for ?mental training?, both in group and individual sessions. This goes for both skill practice and physical training practice.

So, train hard to develop an edge in strength and conditioning, train hard to develop and edge in skill and execution and train hard to develop an edge in mental tenacity and toughness.

Tyler

50

You guys are sharing some great dialogue here! Allow me to stir a few thoughts into the pot, if I may.

Right! If you don’t mind, I’d like to extend this a smidgen by saying that the “talent composition” of every athlete in the NFL (or any sport for that matter) is different.

For instance, I remember playing a video game a while back (I think it was one of the Madden’s) and they had every team graded on an 0-10 scale–or whatever it was–based on general categories of offense, defense, special teams, etc. Then each category was sub-categorized. For instance, under offense the team was graded for their ability to run, pass, etc. Then each player was also graded based on requisites of speed, coordination, agility, strength, hands, etc.

This is kind of how I see it in my head except that each athlete is kind of his own “team”. He can be graded on offense and defense, but also physical, psychological, and mental sub-categories. For instance, we could assess him on the basis of physical and psychological resilience (i.e. muscle stiffness, the ability to overcome defeat, etc) and his general knowledge of the game/task. Then each category gets broken down further and further until you have every possible physical, psychological and mental trait listed. The composite grade of the athlete can then be used to determine his development of sports mastery, or his preparedness to play at what level, on which side of the ball, in which situations in the game, etc.

The “compromise” then, in my opinion, is determining what attributes you want to develop and which ones you are comfortable maintaining or pushing off until a later date. You realistically can’t train everything all of the time even though there is generally a bit of overlap going on. And, often times, you have to lay a foundation before you start building in the first place (or lay a foundation for one thing as you build something else).

It doesn’t necessarily have to be made so complicated, either. All I’m looking for at the end of the day is an athletic freak with a coach’s mindset who is psychologically “tough.” Ha…yeah, that’s ALL! Hopefully you can see that I don’t perceive the performance training process as “all about strength”, let alone just about physical development. I prefer to take a multi-faceted approach to develop well-rounded athletes–ultimately raising their so-called “power ranking” (composite score). If they fold under pressure then we don’t just treat the symptoms we find the problem and institute a solution, much like if an athlete is physically weak we will find out what is weak, specifically, and bring it up. All the while we strongly encourage a better understanding of the game.

There was an interesting study I remember reading many years ago that seems to relate to this discussion. They tracked endurance athletes and basically found that the more an athlete knew about his sport (training, nutrition, psychology, etc) the more likely he was to succeed. The key point for all you young athletes reading this right now is to work hard at developing your athleticism but reserve some time to acquire some “coach’s smarts” while you’re at it–unless, of course, you just want to end up as a sports analyst (not that there’s anything wrong with that) then you can drop the physical diarrhea.

Psychological and Physiological training can coincide to a certain degree. The Bulgarians, for instance, have been known to push their athlete’s physical threshold in an effort to raise their “mental toughness”, or psychological preparedness. The belief is that you will go into battle knowing that you deserve it more than your competition because you have worked harder.

While I think there is some merit to this method, I believe that psychological and physiological preparedness should be perceived as two separate entities that must be given individual attention. Just like you can integrate mental preparedness and physical preparedness through sporting practice and competitions, the acquisition of knowledge should not be restricted to the constraints of human physiology. Analyzing film, for instance, is something that all athletes can benefit from even after they have exhausted their physical resources to the desired level. Will Clark use to religiously review his at bats against certain pitchers to help him become a better hitter, and modern day sluggers are even known to keep their own “pitching charts” to be able to reference how certain pitchers tend to throw against them–Carlos Delgado is one example. In bodybuilding terms, there’s “big bang” training methods and “isolation” training methods.

Find that “compromise”, indeed! Just like only Ichiro can be successful swinging like Ichiro, I don’t think every player should adopt a uniform approach to the game. Allen Iverson is the Vladimir Guerrero of basketball, in my opinion. They both need a certain degree of liberation in order to be productive. Meanwhile, if you had a guy like Chris Mullen or asked a guy like Ichiro to play in similar fashion then their productivity would go down the drain and the team would suffer. This also suggests that I think every player on a team should be given is own “play book”, per se. I don’t believe it’s a huge secret that I am a strong advocate of Jonathon Niednagel’s Brain Typing. Even though his work often receives a lot of scrutiny I’ve seen it prove successful in enough “real world” situations to put my trust into it.

Nevertheless, to tone this conversation down a notch and to possibly give you a clearer understanding of what I’m talking about let’s take a look at a few examples. Vladimir Guerrero, as I mentioned, doesn’t like to think too much while he’s up at the plate. His strike zone is the as big as the broad side of a barn and, quite frankly, that’s what works for him. If he tried to “nip-n-tuck” an at bat like the Terry Pendelton and Tony Gwynn philosophy of hitting then his production would go way down. Therefore, the trick with him is to allow him to be a free swinger but try to shrink his perceived strike zone so he has more of an advantage at the plate. In contrast, you have guys that like to get into the groove up there at the plate. They need to see that first pitch; they need to work the count; they need to patiently wait for the pitcher to make a mistake; etc. Some of these things are what Terry has used to help Andruw Jones (spreading his stance is the most conspicuous difference, though).

Take Michael Vick and Joe Montana, or even Kurt Warner. Michael Vick almost needs a play to bust for him to be productive–Kurt Warner is only productive if it’s “three steps POP.”

Chris Mullen versus Lebron James is another good example. One guy is an athletic freak-show and the other was successful playing his conservative game.

I’m sure if I took a moment to think about it I could provide more examples–and probably better examples–but whatever, I think you get the idea.

Ultimately, I think you just take your physical, psychological, and mental strengths and weaknesses and work with them…opposed to against them. This takes a great deal of communication between the player and coach; in fact, it takes the team of coaches (performance, sport, psychologist) who are all on the same page. Everything should be set in synergy. To tie this in with the previous discussions of this thread, this is another reason why I believe the “grape will be pinched” in the future. If nothing else, I think more performance coaches will start pushing more mental and psychological training in their practices.

Guys, I’ve said a lot but don’t let it overwhelm you. From the trim wisdom of the movie Happy Gilmore, it’s just about finding that “happy place.” I know that the Inno-Sport mantra is probably wearing you thin…but it really is about individual-specificity.

Sport specificity is better than nothing, though.

51

Nothing! But if you asked what the flaw is in JUST trying to get an athlete stronger then my reply would be modified to read something like this:

If you are a strength athlete then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. But most sports are really speed sports packed with speed athletes where strength needs to be expressed FAST (within fractions of a second). See, when you first start resistance training you are getting stronger but you are also teaching your nervous system how to activate our muscles more efficiently. So the real reason your performance goes through the roof is because you increased your “muscular stiffness”–which we can simply define as the neuromuscular ability of generating maximal tension in minimal time. Muscular Stiffness, a muscular and neurological product in the human body (“stiffness” in engineering terminology is important to study but only presents a lop-sided view), is directly linked to “explosive-strength”…where the objective is to gain as much force as quickly as possible.

So muscle stiffness precludes explosive strength since tension equals strength equals force. I guess I could extend this conversation to include explosive-power, or the ability to rapidly absorb or expend energy, since that would cover explosive-strength and reactive-strength…but I digress.

So the “trick” is to really just teach your system how to recruit more tension/force in less time. I’d encourage you to look at it purely from an “explosive strength” perspective since it’s relative easy to think about things in terms of force, but, remember, developing muscle stiffness is only one-half structural so you really need to teach your system proper mechanics, rhythm, timing, etc…all by-products of firing pattern development.

That is, you’d be amazed at how far you can go by just fine tuning an athlete’s firing patterns and nothing else (which is why “weak” guys can sometimes jump so high, run so fast, throw so hard, etc)…if I told you just to try and generate maximal force in minimal time then you would probably overlook the importance of firing pattern development and over-emphasize the importance of strength training. There’s a great article on “the deconstruction of speed development” in a forthcoming article on the site by Chris Korfist that touches on this.

Remember the 17 year old white boy he got running a 10.5 second 100 meters using Inno-Sport methods? Wait until you see–literally–what happened to him after his first year of training at college!

52

[quote]
Preliminary isometric tension will boost subsequent dynamic work…so there is probably some benefit to using the first isometric hold followed by the first 3 explosive reps. However, my take on it is the remainder of the set pretty much just looks like a glorified way of stimulating hypertrophy since fatigue will severely hinder strength/power gains nonexistent. :)[/quote]

Man, that first part of your argument looks pretty damn sexy…hold on, wait, it’s 50 cents on the buck I dropped a few posts ago–interesting! You know I’m only giving you a hard time…it’s great to see your opinions expressed on this thread. You’re my boy, Blue!

Allow me to interject some thoughts, please. He uses EDI not only to make the dynamic work more productive but to increase the “power” of the isometric contractions as well–as stated in my previous post. Think of it like a double edged sword; there’s facilitative effects fed from the isometric to the dynamic (as you said) and potentiation leeched from the dynamic to the isometric. He’ll change the exercises variables (i.e. hold/rep scheme) but 30 seconds–often more–is standard working time.

Lastly, “glorified hypertrophy stimulator” or not…make no mistake about it, EDI is Jay Schroeder’s bread and butter. Whether he wants to kick things off with a bang or clean up the mess when all else fails, this is the method he historically calls on. I can understand and appreciate the comments regarding the inhibition of power development due to fatigue since it’s scientifically suggested to stay above a 90% threshold of your peak power output (which rules out most strength training by the way)–not that I particularly agree with these recommendations, sort of like how I don’t think you try to build your “repetition strength” through drilling reps and the LA energy system–but he definitely calls on this method to increase everything from speed and power to strength and hypertrophy…on down to work capacity and general conditioning.

I’m NOT taking sides here…just trying to present the “facts” of his system from what I know, or based on my speculation.

53

These are good points that I obviously agree with since this is sort of a condensed portion of my Perpetual Performance cycle/article (the shift from explosive-power to hypertrophy is also important, and so on and so forth). This obviously isn’t the only way I train my athletes–I actually use a different framework entirely–but don’t forget, however, the explosive/shock work itself is enough to preserve strength…it’s even strong enough to drive strength development.

A solid NMS and TENS program (EMS) can be skewed to help preserve strength or accelerate your explosive-power development, too. So I don’t mean to step on your toes, bud, I just want to point out that direct “maintenance” loads are often more restrictive over the short term and harmful over the long haul than they obviously intend to be. Even if you sequence similar types of dedicated blocks (i.e. explosive-power) together in a row then I wouldn’t recommend running parallel programming (i.e. special maintenance strength exercises). You have enough variables to tweak within each training block/template itself for you to need to reach over and grab something from another block/template.

In all fairness, I know you aren’t referencing any specific training template here (I’d actually like to see the specifics of what you’re talking about) but I tweaked that last sentence so that the readers of this can reference some of my articles and gain a better understanding of what’s being said here, particularly where I’m coming from. In other words, if a different training system is implemented then I may very well suggest a different set of guidelines. Furthermore, I think that “maintenance” of sport is important…whether it be physical or mental/visual training…since repetitions root successes in the world of motor development!

Obviously it’s all about NOT restricting explosive-power development as you prime your system for forthcoming blocks, no matter what training programs/templates/blocks/phases you adopt. But even the practice of providing a mild stimulus attempted to accelerate recovery like some people do (i.e. 80-90% x 2 singles x 3-4 times per week) is often unjustified. The extra effort obviously has good intentions but the end results are often more restrictive and ultimately harmful than anything. Furthermore, if you even so much as sneeze in the direction of the DUR regime then many athlete’s find their speed and power abilities fall off a cliff. So I’d really have to take a good look at the training system and the athlete in question to change these general recommendations. This little bit of wisdom, however, haunted my programs for years because I couldn’t figure it out. Heck, even linear periodization suggests the use of “maintenance” loads/exercises.

Nevertheless, there’re only three forms of periodization: linear, step, wave. Conjugated, concurrent, concentrated, etc…these are mere pieces of the larger puzzle. But trust me, stick to the basic principle of 2 or less modalities and you’ll do yourself well; better yet, you’re athletes will be greatly rewarded. And of course, you can ignore my advice altogether?

Just thought I’d try to drop some wisdom that I’ve gleamed over the years…wisdom that I wish someone shared with me 15 years ago.

54

Actually, the work employed during an explosive-power phase isn’t necessarily “less damaging” than what is found in a strength block (as referenced here in this passage). It’s actually pretty simple; the rate of muscle breakdown is greatest with eccentric contractions and goes up as the force acting on the system goes up. So things like REA Squats are the swiftest punishers! They inherently break down more muscle fiber per contraction than a SERIES of max effort squats because the intensity of force during the yielding/eccentric phase of the movement is highly “accentuated.”

For anyone who doesn’t believe me, perform just 3-5 reps today and call me in the morning. You’ll feel like you could run a marathon after the workout but the next day you’ll wake up and your legs will feel like they were beat with an aluminum baseball bat from “team Omaha” while you were sleeping.

At any rate, these are excellent points you are making here. I hope everyone is seeing that if you want powerful muscles then you have to provide a powerful stimulus. All your 40 some-odd “types”–or whatever the current tally is–of muscle fibers do is exactly what the innervating (nerve) fibers say. So if you want to change your muscle then you have to change the impulse from the key commander, your CNS. This explains why you can plug a fast-twitch nerve to a slow-twitch fiber and watch it take on the characteristics and key attributes (distinguishing properties) of a fast-twitch fiber over time (which is only really practical to observe in a test tube, where it has been done). EMS would be good because it basically zaps all of the nerve fibers within its range and tells them to explosively fire their associated muscle fibers. These explosive contractions, again, are a very powerful stimulant. Just remember, don’t expect any changes overnight to the hard-wiring of your system. Your nervous system has to clearly understand what you want it to do before it makes any dramatic changes…which just means that you have to drill it with repetition.

But, yeah, the key is the power-eccentrics (or just power-anything for that matter) whether you want to convert like-type isoforms or whatever. Things that cause you to absorb or expend a lot of energy in a short amount of time are fair game here: ADA and AMT-drops, for instance. Heck, one of the main reasons why RFI exercises on a trampoline can be so effective is because of the powerful eccentric and concentric contractions.

I know I got a little off topic here but to be honest with you, worrying about muscle fiber types is a trivial subject, in my opinion. Not only is there no practical way of monitoring your exact fiber composition over time (we can speculate based on performance indicators, though) but the muscle plugged into the end of the nerve simply does what it’s told (it’s NOT the muscle telling the nerve how to behave!). So it’s not so much about changing the muscle fiber as it is manipulating the nerve fiber. There’s a lot of fascinating science in these regards but the take home message is to simply condition your neuromuscular system to do what you want it to and matters of hypertrophy, hyperplasia, fiber/isoform conversion, muscle composition of fibers, etc, will all fall into place–even though your post makes an interesting read!

Including EMS and following the general outline in my Perpetual Performance article, as Kelly previously suggested, are generally sound bits of advice if this is the sort of thing that keeps you up at night. Not the only solutions…but a good start.

55

[quote]
Simply, the “whole” athlete needs developing and it is the job, indeed, duty, of coaches to see to it that it happens.[/quote]

Tyler, thank you for your post?I really enjoyed it. I think this quote sums up what I tried to say in about 39 pages a second ago. Nice!

56

I’m going on vacation for a few weeks and so I’m not going to be able to chime in for a while. But, anticipating future questions, here’s some more information on muscle stiffness.

Essentially, a stiffer muscle is a more explosive muscle; that is, it can generate more tension/strength/force in less time. In the old days they would do what’s called the “hammer test” to measure muscular stiffness. What they discovered back then and holds true today, a stronger muscle isn’t a more functional muscle unless the central and peripheral nervous system has been properly conditioned. Basically, this is why you may see a weaker athlete appear stronger in sport.

Since the ultimate objective in most sporting actions (running, jumping, throwing, kicking, punching, etc) is to generate as much tension/strength/force in the least amount of time you can see why we are so high on the development of muscular stiffness. If rate of tension/strength/force production doesn’t matter then your only limitation is maximum strength/tension/force production…but when you have a fraction of a second to generate as much tension/strength/force as possible then you need to be explosive. It’s like throwing a regulation baseball that weights a measly 5.24 oz (approx. 1/3 lb). Strength (maximum force production) is usually not the limiting factor on throwing velocity, it’s producing enough strength/force/tension in the milliseconds you have available to you in order to accelerate the ball effectively. (I’m dodging discussions of torque and so forth for simplicity)

So, generally speaking, we use reactive-strength methods to teach us how to redirect force efficiently and explosive-strength methods to teach us how to produce force efficiently. We basically want to absorb and expend as much energy as possible in the shortest time frame imaginable–this is explosive-power development in a nutshell.

Yeah, so what’s muscular stiffness, again, and how does it come into play?

It’s a measure of the resiliency of your muscles, which is dependant on muscular strength and neuromuscular efficiency. One reason we often go from concentrated phases of strength to power–as noted in my Perpetual Performance and Training Template articles–is to increase the strength and stiffness of our muscles. Things like stiff legged drops, measuring ground contact times, recording the rate of contraction and the rate of force production can all be used to assess neuromuscular “stiffness,” as well as reactivity and explosiveness to determine which foundational elements need development. Evaluate enough athletes with the right equipment for long enough and you can pretty much just watch an athlete play his sport and know immediately what his training program should look like. It becomes as obvious as evaluating a bodybuilder’s physique; if he has pathetic lat development in relation to the rest of his body then you should (as a bodybuilding coach) be able to spot it right off the bat.

Again, muscular strength is important (because it can help feed into explosive-power production) but it shouldn’t be confused with muscular stiffness. Briefly, what separates a strong muscle from a weak muscle is how much tension it can produce. I think that’s pretty much understood by most people in the iron game but I’m just rambling to make sure; in order to lift more weight you have to contract your muscles harder…the harder you contract your muscles the more tension they produce…the more tension they produce the more force they generate…the more force they generate the more strength you express (i.e. lift a heavier weight). Pretty straightforward, right?

So basically strength equals tension and stiffness equals rapid strength/force/tension development. That’s why it’s stiffness and not just strength that is so important for speed/power athletes. We need to essentially express more strength faster. So when strength is the limiting factor we will raise the ceiling by getting stronger…when the rapid expression of strength is the factor (indicated by when we have the capacity to produce enough strength but we aren’t able to express this strength in the time frame available/desired) then we shift our focus. Clear?

Hopefully I don’t come off sounding like a “know it all” but I also hope that this information is able to help somebody out there.

I have a forthcoming book entitled “A Simpleton’s Guide to Sports Mastery Development” that may be of benefit to you if you aren’t grasping this material and/or if you want a zillion-and-one practical applications that will help take your training and performance to the next level. I can guarantee that there is plenty of information in this book that you won’t find anywhere else (it’s obviously not just about muscle stiffness…that is only a teeny section, in fact).

But being novel isn’t the objective…it’s about producing better results. So the “new things” you’ll learn will be purposeful, not just “extreme” for the sake of being different–that’s important to understand, and distinguish from a lot of other books and information that is out there. All I can say at this time is that it covers everything from training and restoration to programming, and it’s written for the knowledge-base of an athlete…not a coach or researcher (even though I’m confident anyone who reads it will find it beneficial). Essentially, if you’re a “dummy” but don’t want to train like one…this book is for you.

I’ll check back in a few weeks and see what’s developed…please excuse my absense…until then, carry on the great discussion.

57

Brad~

I have to get to class, so I cannot read your posts, but what the heck is going on… you are your own thread!

You pose your own questions, analyze them, give examples… simply awesome.

: )

Maybe we should all take a step back and let you have some ‘alone time’ with yourself…

My wife just got done reading your posts and said that we may have found someone who is hooked as bad on this ‘performance coaching’ thing as me… (this is a compliment in my book, but may not be what she intended)

I will read and try to contribute, but I have to go do ROI and strategic positioning analysis for my final masters class… not sure what I will use this stuff for, but things could be worse, I could have studied to be an engineer (ha ha, wink wink).

Thanks for the effort. I look forward to the reading tonight…

JR

58

Lol. Yeah lots of awesome stuff there. Keep it coming guys.

One thing I wanted to comment on that has to do with the title of this thread, is that regardless of the athlete, I’ve seen very few people in any sport come anywhere close to peaking out their abilities. In fact, I’m sure we could put up a list of athletes from various sports and regardless of the individual - if you break things down into “performance variables” like you’ll mentioned, 99% of the time you can find something very simple that can be done to raise their performance, providing you have enough knowledge or your team of people has enough knowledge. And that’s only considering the simple things. Get into the more advanced stuff and a whole new world opens.

That’s why for the last couple of years I’ve been preaching the need for all around “performance coaches” rather then just strength and conditioning specialists. Right now the only people who can come close are those diehards who spend about 10 years out of college not only working but spending all their extra money and time furthering their own knowledge while also training their own butts off.

IMO it’s too difficult right now for an average dedicated individual to get the knowledge they need since their aren’t any developmental programs in place for students to really learn most of this stuff. Hopefully in the years to come a guy can enroll in college and complete a 6 year program in true “sports performance enhancement”…rather then just be a guy who graduates from school only to realize he now has to start school all over again.

I probably get about 10 emails per week from guys saying “I wanna go to college and learn this stuff what do I need to study?”. Right now the only thing I can tell them is “participate in this, read this, read that, blah blah blah”

59

I think it has been said that strength training will not hurt speed unless the extra weight gained is not needed. This is why having a WR concentrate on being a great powerlifter, increasing his bodyweight by 20 pounds is not a good idea. By the way, Jerry RIce was poorly trained? All I ever heard was how well trained he was. Some of you guys are way ahead of the rest of us and I thank you for your introduction and information to all of this. I, as well as this site loves to have lists. Are there a “top 10” methods, changes, or mistakes that are being made or need to made to prepare an athlete for max performance? Yes, this may very well be way too much for a simple answer like this. I pay attention to other things in life for a while and come back and feel like I am in the second grade. Things move fast here.

60

Muscular contraction produces both maximum force and maximum speed so the stronger a muscle contracts the faster it can potentially go. A bigger muscle can contract with more force then a stronger muscle so increasing muscle size can be an asset. However, there is no direct relationship between great amounts of maximum strength and speed so what’s the deal? The confounding factor is time. The time variable accounts for the speed that a muscle develops force. Maximum voluntary force takes .4-.6 seconds to develop - and in a sports movement you have .2 seconds or less. So look at the area between 0-.2 being the “sports strength window” and that from .2-.6. the “maximum strength window”. When the acquistion of strenght or muscle size is negative, you increase the amount of force you can develop in the .2-.6 second window yet not improve the force you can develop in the .2 second window. With positive strength development you increase the maximum strength windown AND the sports strength window…both “windows” are increased. The main factor responsible for the relationship between the 2 windows is the proficiency of the nervous system.

If he was training for a marathon, Navy Seals, or combat conditioning then yes he was well trained enough. But football is an alactic speed/power dominant sport. Running up 5 mile hills and the like is of little value here.

There’s a big difference between training hard and training smart. Anybody can go out and run their butt into the ground and find something to do for 8 hours per day that makes people think they’re hardcore. Making progress and actually improving is something else.