Category: Random Thoughts

The Weight Belt: Should You Wear One?

2/3/2017

It's common practice in the strength and conditioning world to bash the use of a belt.

Common arguments include

Wearing a belt limits or doesn't allow the person to learn how to stabilize their core and instead relies on the belt to do so.
Wearing a belt "cheats" and allows an athlete with a weaker torso to lift more weight. Coaches state they want their athletes to develop a strong torso, and not using a belt ensures them to develop trunk strength.
Athletes don't wear a belt on the field, so they shouldn't in the weight room.

I've heard recommendations from coaches ranging from - never allowing a belt, to only on max limits, to only on lifts above 80%

All-in-All the trend seems to point to limiting belt usage to heavier loads.

So the question begs, is there any validity to these recommendations; more so, is wearing a belt bad and why do certain coaches resist using belts?

Let's take a look at an old study out of Auburn University back in 1992 (3). This was one of the first studies looking at the effects of a weight-belt on the back squat. This study was also very useful because the participants could actually move a respectable amount of weight.

To qualify for the study, subjects either had to move 277lbs for 8 reps or have an 8RM of at least 1.6x body weight. While these may not be eye-opening numbers, we can all agree moving 1.6x body weight for 8-reps is pretty strong and by all means they aren't newbies, which can be rare to see in most S&C studies.

The researchers measured force output via a force plate, intra-abdominal pressure, muscle activation, and time of each phase of the lift.

A couple of interesting things the researchers found

Intra-abdominal pressure was shown to be 25-40% higher in the belted group
EMG Data Found...
- No difference in spinal erector activity between groups
- Vastus Lateralis activity was much higher with belt than without
- Biceps Femoris activity was also much higher with belt than without
- No difference in external oblique activity between groups
No difference was found between groups in terms of ground forces

What Does This Mean

These findings shed some light on a few things. Most people wear a belt to take load off the midsection, well this study showed that there was no difference between the belted and un-belted group in spinal erector and external oblique EMG activity. All the while increasing intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), which increases spinal stability and reduces shear forces on the spine.

IAP helps to stabilizes the pelvis, helping it resist excessive pelvic tilt (both anterior and posterior). So wearing a belt increased intra-abdominal pressure, which was expected and others studies have also shown this (1,2,4,5), but it did not reduce core activation levels, which is contrary to what most people theorize.

Wearing a belt increased activation levels of both the biceps femoris and vastus laterals. So at the same weight, wearing a belt increased the activation levels in quads and hammies; this sounds like a win-win for the belt. A possible reason for this (only a theory) is that since the lumbo-pelvic region was more stable due to the increased IAP while maintaining muscle activation levels of this region, this allowed more work to be done by the prime movers instead of being wasted on stability.

Overall, this study showed that lifting with a belt allows you to lift heavier weights or maintain current weight load and still increase muscle activation. When you break it down in this manner, it almost seems like NOT wearing a belt would be counterproductive.

The great thing about this study is the group they studied. The subjects clearly have experience lifting and they used pretty respectable loads. Many studies that look at belts look at them in different settings, mainly manual labor settings. Many people have taken the results of these studies on manual labor workers and tried to carry over the results to the strength and conditioning world. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Renfro & Ebben (2006) summed it up well... "sport science evidence suggests that lifting belts may be beneficial in reducing spinal compression, stabilizing the spine, increasing motor unit recruitment in prime movers, and increasing exercise velocity as our meta analysis showed 5 of the 8 sport science and strength and conditioning studies supported it's used. Two of the 8 sport science and strength and conditioning studies showed mixed results and only 1 of the 8 studies showed no positive effect" (5).

Different Ways To Implement A Belt

Teach Breathing Mechanics During Different Lifts - Our favorite way to use a belt is to help teach proper breathing technique during lifts. The belt gives feedback for the athlete to feel what creating intra-abdominal pressure feels like and how to correctly stabilize the spine. We teach to feel pressure in all parts of the belts - forward, side, backward - almost like filling up a balloon. Many coach just putting pressure just into the front, but this leads to increase in excessive lumbar extension - so always teach push into the belt in all directions.

Increase Activation of Prime Movers - Wearing belt allows the prime movers to do their job because the pelvis and spine are more stable. This is great for adding intensity and strength to the lifts. We like to throw on belts during max effort movements and during max velocity movements to ensure maximum output from the prime movers.

Just Use It - Honestly, just breaking out a belt every once in a while can be a good mix up and give athletes a different stimulus and feedback when lifting. It's great for teaching, reinforcing, and cementing quality movement patterns, and a valuable tool that doesn't deserve the bad love it receives by many.

References

1. Bauer, J. A., FRX, A., & Carter, C. (1999). The Use of Lumbar-Supporting Weight Belts While Performing Squats: Erector Spinae Electromyographic Activity. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(4), 384-388.

2. Lander, J. E., Simonton, R. L., & Giacobbe, J. K. (1990). The effectiveness of weight-belts during the squat exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 22(1), 117-126.

3. Lander, J. E., Hundley, J. R., & Simonton, R. L. (1992). The effectiveness of weight-belts during multiple repetitions of the squat exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 24(5), 603-609.

4. Miyamoto, K., Iinuma, N., Maeda, M., Wada, E., & Shimizu, K. (1999). Effects of abdominal belts on intra-abdominal pressure, intramuscular pressure in the erector spinae muscles and myoelectrical activities of trunk muscles. Clinical Biomechanics, 14(2), 79-87.

5. Renfro, G. J., & Ebben, W. P. (2006). A Review of the Use of Lifting Belts.Strength & Conditioning Journal, 28(1), 68-74.

1 Comment

Squat Science - Why We All Squat Differently

11/3/2016

0 Comments

The squat, a movement that most believe is a fundamental pattern to humans; a movement that we should strive to train and maintain for performance and just general wellness.

It is also a topic of much debate when it comes to HOW to perform a squat...

What stance?
What width?
What toe angle?
What bar position?
What variation?
How deep?

I've worked with close to a thousand athletes and guess whatâ€¦ they all squat differently. Different stance widths, different foot positions, different depths, different variation preferences, different bar positions, etc.

I'm tired of hearing athletes being told they MUST squat a certain way or there is only ONE way to squatâ€¦ that is rubbish and certainly isn't rooted in science.

Let's think about this - do you really think someone 6'6 should squat the same as someone 5'2? Should someone with long femurs and a short torso squat the same as someone with short femurs and a long torso? Should someone with retroverted hips squat the same as someone with anteverted hips?

If I have a group of 20 athletes and had them all squat with a stance of their preference, to a depth they felt comfortable, with a toe angle that allows the most freedom - you know what I'd find? 20 different squats with different widths, foot angles, depths, trunk angles, etc.

So why do coaches & PT's still try to jam a square peg into a round hole by thinking there is only one way for people to squat? You NEED to squat with toes forward, in a shoulder-width stance, to a parallel depth!

Now I'm a man of science, not just anecdotal evidence, so let's see what some of the literature on anatomy and skeletal structure of the hips says and how this may effect the squat

The femoral neck/head isn't the same in every person. Zalawadia et al (2010) demonstrated that as much as 24-degrees difference in anteversion and retroversion is common. Zalawadia also noted that these differences of anteversion and retroversion can differ from side to side - not all hips are symmetrical!

With sooo much potential variation is peoples hips, not to mention potential side to side difference in the same person - you still think everybody's squat should look EXACTLY the same? Femoral and acetabulum structure will play the main role in ones ability to squat in certain positions to certain depths - NOT a universal preference made up by some person.

Laborie et al (2012) noted that anteversion and retroversion isn't strictly contained to the femoral head, it can also be present in the acetabulum. They looked at over 2000 samples of centre-edge angles of the acetabulum and found angles differed from 20.8-45 degrees

Again, how can we expect someone with a 20.8-degree anteversion to squat the same as someone with a 45-degree retroversion?

Knutson (2005) looked at leg length, and found that about 90% people have a discrepancy with the average difference of about half a centimeter.
Flanagan & Salem (2007) examined different kinetic variables in the squat of 18 experienced lifters. They looked at many things including average joint moments at the hip/knee/ankle, ground reaction forces in each foot, center of pressure for each foot, and maximum flexion angle at the knee/hip/ankle. They found many things (some statistically significant, others not) including side to side differences in center of pressure, ground reaction forces, and joint moments at the ankle, knee, and hip (especially the hip). The researchers concluded that NOBODY was balanced and every subject demonstrated differences in at least on of the joints (ankle, knee, hip)

It is COMMON that people squat with asymmetries and differences from side to side. It's normal to have someone feel and perform better with one toe angled out/in, staggered forward/backward, externally/internally rotated compared to the other.

If pain isn't present - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS - and it's likely aiding in performance, comfort, and health. We aren't symmetrical beings and sometimes forcing symmetry may actually be taking someone out of their "neutral".

Want to see what these differences actually look like? Check out the below photos and see how these skeletal structures can differ and visualize how they'll dictate an athletes optimal squat.

If we tried to take these people and squat them in a toes forward, shoulder width stance, to parallel, what do you think would happen?

Some would ace the test, while others would fail miserablyâ€¦ why?

Much of it would have to do with this structure - NOT some mobility, stability, strength, motor control dysfunction, but rather something they CANNOT change - their bone structure.

We seem to be in a stage where we see someone who can't squat deep, or prefers a wide stance, or turns their feet turn out, or has butt wink and we jump all over them with how their "insert joint/muscle" is tight/weak and needs soft-tissue, mobility, or activation work, BUT in many situations, no matter what correctives, or soft-tissue, or crazy mobility you throw at the athlete - they just won't be able to squat in certain positions.

Let's wet our whistle with a little more literature

Elson and Aspinal (2008) showed what is tremendously obvious for coaches that actually work with people - there are vast differences in range of motion in hip flexion and extension - meaning some people are just better suited for deep hip flexion (deep squat), while this position would cause massive problems for others.
D'Lima et al (200) demonstrated that differences in femoral neck/head thickness (as little as 2mm) could impact hip flexor ROM by 1.5-8.5 degrees.
Lamontagne et al (2009) looked at people with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI) and squat ability and concluded due to anatomical variations at the hip such as cam or pincer, there are plenty of lifters who will never be able to deep squat with proper form.

So should everybody squat to parallel or ass to grass? Should everybody have the same stance width and toe angle?

NO!!!

Some have a tendency for hip flexion (squat deep), while others have tendency for hip extension. If we force them to parallel or ass to grass we may be forcing bone on bone or a hip impingement - not good things. The only people that NEED to squat to parallel are powerlfiters, it's a requirement of their sport. As for athletes, there is no rule book that says you have to squat to parallel or beyond - it's not a requirement nor is it going to make or break performance.

Again, ones ability to squat to different depths in different stances can be explained by their skeletal structure - NOT necessarily mobility or soft tissue or strength issues. It also means trying to say everybody should squat the SAME WAY is a terrible thought process and could actually be causing more harm than good.

Here's a quote from the great Stu McGill, considered the World's foremost expert on spinal health - "The most important matter on all of this is the depth of the hip socket. If people are looking up on the internet, depth of the hip socket and squat ability, they wonâ€™t find it. They have to go to the hip dysplasia literature. What theyâ€™ll find is that there are groups in the world with very shallow hip sockets (allow greater hip flexion) and some with deep hip sockets (make it difficult for deep hip flexion)."

Even the World's expert says it's structure that dictates deep squat ability, it's NOT some universal standard.

â€‹Insert pictures of strong peeps, lifting heavy things and what do you see?

No identical stance, depth, toe angle, etc.

â€‹Why again do we try to force people to squat a certain way, to a certain depth? Coach athletes as individuals.

Let's look at some more myths that pertain to squatting

Knee's Can't Go Beyond The Toes

Here is another myth is purported in all areas and thereâ€™s little evidence to support this claim. The knees passing beyond the toes is not some universal point where all of a sudden the stresses on the knee become dangerous and every point before that is safe.

You know what's even more? Artificially restricting or trying to prevent forward movement of the knees may be detrimental to the hips and back. Fry et al (2003) looked at the effect of restricted squats where a wooden board was placed in front of the lifter that didn't allow the knees to track past the toes.

â€‹What did they find?

Restricted Squat

As expected, the board restricted setting reduced torque on the knees, but increased torque at the hip and low back. So you take stress on one joint, only to increase it at another - so pick your poison.
The researchers concluded, "Exercise technique guidelines should not be based primarily on force characteristics for only one involved joint (e.g., knees) while ignoring other anatomical areas (e.g., hips and low back).â€

While shear forces have been shown to increase in the deep squat position with forward knees, the body can handle them appropriately without risk for injury (Schoenfeld (2010)). The most thorough review of squat depth on knee pain showed the demands on these tissues in a deep squat are well below the maximum that those tissues can withstand (Hartmann et al (2013)). What's important is not whether the knees go beyond the toes, but when they track beyond toes.
â€‹
Plus, every Olympic lifter of all-time, theoretically should have messed up knees and some PT would tell them they're lifting wrong...

Squat Stance and Squat Variation

Guess what - the type of squat you use isn't vastly different from each other. EMG between a front squat and back squat aren't that different, with some studies even showing NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in muscle activities between front and back squats. (Contreras et al (2016); Gullet et al (2009)). In general, the front squat will lead to slightly more quad activation and thoracic extension strength; while back squat slightly more glute/hamstring activation, but again, the EMG difference between the two isn't as big as people think.

How about wide stance vs narrow stance?

Wide stance squats tends to activate greater adductor and glute compared to narrow squat, with no difference between quad activation (Escamilla et al. (2001); Paoli et al (2009); Steven & Donald (1999)). Swinton et al (2012) recently demonstrated exactly this as the researchers showed EMG results for glute activation were significantly higher in a wide stance compared to a narrow stance. These EMG results also showed that quadricep activation between the stances were identical - concluding, muscle activation wise, a narrow stance isn't superior to a wide stance.

How about toe angle or hip angle?

Ninos et al. (1997) found no difference in vastus medialis activation between barbell back squats with two different hip rotation angles (feet pointing outwards vs. feet pointing forwards). While, Pereira et al (2010) found externally rotating the hip to 30 and 50-degrees resulted in greater hip adductor activation with no change in rectus femoris activation, leading the researchers to conclude that squatting to 60-90 degrees of knee flexion with 30 degrees of external rotation maximized muscle activation.

Again, there is NO LITERATURE supporting the NEED to squat with toes forward! Rather than squatting with your toes forward or pointed out to a predetermined degree and forcing your knees and hips to follow along, youâ€™re better off seeing what hip and knee position feels the strongest and most comfortable, and letting that determine how far out you point your feet (Nuckols (2016))

In a great review of all the variables that effect muscle activation of a loaded back squat, Clark et al (2012) concluded, research of common variations such as stance width, hip rotation, and squat variation (front vs back) do not significantly affect muscle activation. Turning the toes out, however, only changes the activation of the adductor muscle group. The glutes and quads (the main movers in the squat) are not significantly activated to a greater extent by any of the variables (Clark at el (2012)).

So we've seen, specific squat variations - wide, narrow, toes forward, toes out, depth - aren't make or break factors when it comes to muscle activation, joint stress, or performance.

So again, why would be ever think there is only one way to squat and what would make this way superior? The fact is, there isn't a single strategy to squat and instead should be dictated upon by the individuals unique skeletal structure, limb lengths, past injury history, mobility/stability factors, and biomechanics.

Here's just a small list of things that influence squat mechanics

Foot Wear (elevated heel vs flat heel)
Long Tibia vs Short Femur
Short Tibia vs Long Femur
Short Femur vs Long Torso
Long Femur vs Short Torso
Body Mass
Stance Width
Toe Angle
Foot Size (Length)
Cueing
Anterior vs Posterior Chain Strength
Specific Joint Mobility and Stability Strengths and Weaknesses
Bar Position

Linked below is a really cool website that demonstrates how different body part lengths, stance width, bar positioning, etc effect the outcome of what a squat will look like - again it's basic biomechanics - http://mysquatmechanics.com

Here are some pictures of how simply changing levers, stance width, ankle mobility, and bar position effect the end look of a squat

Poor Ankle Dorsiflexion

Good Ankle Dorsiflexion

Short Femur - Long Torso

Long Femur - Short Torso

Short Tibia - Long Femur

Long Tibia - Short Femur

Low Bar Positioning

Wide Stance

All-In-All

The goal of this article is to demonstrate there is no universal way to squat and we need to work to allow and find our athletes optimal way to squat based on their individual anatomy, levers, mobility/stability needs, past injury history, etc - and NOT try to pigeon-hole everybody into a certain way of squatting.

Please share this with anybody you think would benefit and let's stop the squat stupidity from spreading.

PS - Below are some squat assessment videos on what we might use to assess our athletes to find their best squatting stance.

References:

Clark, D. R., Lambert, M. I., & Hunter, A. M. (2012). Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(4), 1169-1178.

Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2016). A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude in the parallel, full, and front squat variations in resistance-trained females. Journal of applied biomechanics, 32(1), 16-22.

Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Lowry, T. M., Barrentine, S. W., & Andrews, J. R. (2001). A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the squat during varying stance widths. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 33(6), 984-998.

Flanagan, S. P., & Salem, G. J. (2007). BILATERAL DIFFERENCES IN THE NET JOINT TORQUES DURING THE SQUAT EXERCIS. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1220-1226.

Gullett, J. C., Tillman, M. D., Gutierrez, G. M., & Chow, J. W. (2009). A biomechanical comparison of back and front squats in healthy trained individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 284-292.

Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., & Klusemann, M. (2013). Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. Sports medicine, 43(10), 993-1008.

Knutson, G. A. (2005). Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropractic & osteopathy, 13(1), 1.

Lamontagne, M., Kennedy, M. J., & BeaulÃ©, P. E. (2009). The effect of cam FAI on hip and pelvic motion during maximum squat. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 467(3), 645-650.

Ninos, J. C., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R., & Weiss, J. R. (1997). Electromyographic analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower extremity neutral rotation and 30 of lower extremity turn-out from the self-selected neutral position. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 25(5), 307-315.

Nuckols, Greg. http://strengtheory.com/how-to-squat/. 2016

Paoli, A., Marcolin, G., & Petrone, N. (2009). The effect of stance width on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles during back squat with different bar loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 246-250.

Pereira, G. R., Leporace, G., das Virgens Chagas, D., Furtado, L. F., Praxedes, J., & Batista, L. A. (2010). Influence of hip external rotation on hip adductor and rectus femoris myoelectric activity during a dynamic parallel squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2749-2754.

Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3497-3506.

Steven, T. M., & Donald, R. M. (1999). Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31, 428-436.

Swinton PA, et al (2012) A Biomechanical Comparison of the Traditional Squat, Powerlifting Squat, and Box Squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26(7):1805â€“16â€‹â€‹

0 Comments

The Myth of the FMS

10/7/2016

1 Comment

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular screen used by coaches and sports medicine professionals as a screen for movement competency. It is composed of 7 movements and scored on a 0-3 scale, where 0 = pain, 1 = couldn't perform the task, 2 = performed task with compensation, 3 = performed task correctly.

The scores from the 7 movements are combined into a final score out of 21. The score is supposed to predict injury and performance and it is even suggested that scores under 14 predict a greater risk of injury.

The FMS claims to identify compensatory movement patterns that are indicative of increased injury risk and inefficient movement that causes reduced performance.

That's a pretty big claim and one the FMS has NOT lived up to.

First and foremost, the FMS is supposed to be a SCREEN and unfortunately practitioners far out-reach the boundaries of a screen when applying the FMS. The FMS places labels on people and their movement and with anything that places labels, we certainly hope there is some strong evidence that supports these labels.

This is tremendously important because when someone scores poorly on a test, they get told their chance of getting injured is high and their performance is decreased. This only implants fear and guarding in the client, rather than confidence and overall is a great way to build fear of movement and sport. Coaches and those in sports medicine NEED to get beyond telling clients that because they score poorly on a test, they'll get injured - this isn't beneficial to anyone.

Again, the FMS is supposed to be used as a screen, NOT a diagnostic tool… it doesn't and should NOT be used to diagnose things. Yet, I hear people all over, use the FMS to diagnose supposed dysfunction.

It is a baseline screen, and honestly only scratches the surface of what else needs to be assessed. I have heard of athletes who performed the FMS, and then get told rash diagnoses and the things they get told put fear in the athlete basically saying that it's a miracle they can even make it through a day of school with all the dysfunction's they have.

"You shouldn't squat based on your OH Squat assessment;
your core is sooo weak; you have tight hamstrings - you shouldn't sprint;
you have an asymmetrical rotary stability score - you will get injured if you don't improve it"

Given all radical leaps in faith the FMS asserts, let's take a closer look at various aspects of the FMS and their claims

The FMS claims to identify compensatory movement patterns that are indicative of increased injury risk and inefficient movement that causes reduced performance.

This is the big one I'll address because it claims an awful lot, and as you'll see, without much scientific support.

In order for the FMS, or any screen for that matter, to be a valid indicator of injury or inefficient movement in sport, it is logical that the compensatory movement patterns that are tested during the screen must be the same or similar to those that are performed in sport - which the FMS does not (Beardsley)

Dossa et al. (2014) studied junior level hockey players to see if the FMS could predict injuries throughout a season. The researchers concluded the FMS could NOT be recommended as a screening tool for injury prevention.

McCall et al. (2015) reviewed the scientific level of evidence of three of the most commonly-reported risk factors, screens, and injury prevention exercises in a previously published survey of 44 premier league soccer teams. The FMS was one of the identified screens. They assigned the FMS a grade D, where D = insufficient evidence to assign a specific recommendation.

Parchmann et al. (2011) studied the FMS to evaluate whether it was related to sport performance and found there were NO significant correlations between the higher FMS scores and on-field sports performance.

Even the founders of the FMS did a literature review on the FMS and stated “the use of a total FMS score for predicting injury risk should be avoided, as the individual components of the test are not correlated with one another and are therefore not measuring the same underlying variable" (Cook et al. (2014)).

Several researchers have assessed FMS scores on athletes of different ability levels to see if higher performing athletes scored higher on the FMS compared to lower level athletes. They found there to be no difference between FMS scores and the level of the athlete. This shows that the FMS does not and cannot predict performance. (Fox et al. 2013; Grygorowicz et al. 2013; & Loudon et al. 2014).

Lockie et al. (2015) found very little correlation between FMS scores and multidirectional speed and jumping tests in healthy male subjects.

In addition, many investigations have been performed to assess the correlations between sprinting, jumping, throwing and agility performances and FMS scores and most have found no relationship between any measure of athletic performance and FMS score (Okada et al. 2011; Parchman et al. 2011; Lockie et al. 2015).

When it comes to predicting injury, Dallinga et al. (2012) reviewed the literature in respect of the tests that could predict a greater risk of injury. They reported that general joint laxity, the Star Excursion Balance test, age, a lower hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratio, and a reduced hip abduction range of motion could all predict a higher risk of lower body injuries. To test an aspect of this injury prediction model, Paszkewicz et al. (2013) investigated the association between total FMS score and Beighton and Horan joint mobility index (BHJMI) in adolescent athletes. They found no correlation between total FMS score and BHJMI index. We also know the FMS can't target any of the other aspects shown by Dallinga et al. (2012) as being predictive of injury.

A major flaw with the FMS is it's ability or lack of ability to distinguish between athletes. Shouldn't we assess individual variances between athletes in different sports? A baseball player should definitely be assessed differently than a cross country runner or an offensive lineman in football. Each one of these athletes will exhibit markedly different mechanical adaptations based on the demands of their sport and position. Whose to say these adaptations are wrong or bad? "Faulty" movement patterns do not always lead to pain or injury and in many cases these adaptations are what make athletes better performers in their sport. Guess what, tissues positively adapt and get stronger based on the stresses placed on them… this is why a pitcher's arm will be very different from others - and this IS NOT a bad thing. Poor posture does not mean its pathological nor does it mean that person will suffer from more musculoskeletal problems. So can we please STOP TELLING ATHLETES THIS

The FMS Can Predict Injury

Short answer - NO IT DOESN'T

Schneiders et al. (2011) looked to find normative values in the FMS with young athletes. They evaluated the FMS based on the assumption that identifiable biomechanical deficits in fundamental movement patterns have the potential to limit performance and render the athlete susceptible to injury. In this study, the researchers found that healthy individuals and previously injured individuals had the same scores. So the FMS could not even detect differences in injured individuals compared to healthy ones. This is of concern as past injury is a main risk factor of future injury. If FMS cannot detect any sign of recent injuries, it seems unlikely that it can detect future risk, let alone be used as a basis for a specific therapy.

Frost et al. (2013) questioned the ability of the FMS to assess dysfunction. They looked at 21 firefighters who initially performed a standard screen followed by a repeat screen 5 minutes later, but on the 2nd trial participants were given a verbal description of the grading criteria before performing each test. All firefighters improved their scores within minutes of being told what movement patterns were required - The average score improved from 14.1 ± 1.8 to 16.7 ± 1.9 points; remember in just 5-MINUTES. Therefore, changes in FMS score may not be due to actual improvements in mechanical efficiency such as mobility, stability or coordination of an athlete but rather simply a knowledge of what the task requires. This isn't the first time this outcome has been shown, as there are indications that subjects may deliberately alter their movement patterns during the FMS test in order to score higher (Teyhen (2012); Schultz (2013)). This is supposed to be a reliable screen?

To piggyback the last bullet point - The FMS sum score appears to be very reliable between raters (inter-rater) and within raters for a video of the same test (intra-rater). However as we just discussed, test-retest is less reliable, indicating that the same subjects may score differently on different occasions, despite there being no biomechanical changes made (Beardsley).

Okada et al. (2011) studied the relationship between FMS scores and "core" strength on actual sport performance. To keep beating a dead horse, it was found "core" strength and FMS scores are NOT strong predictors of sports performance… yet PT's continues to tell clients/athletes core strength and quality FMS scores are important for performance and pain.

As I said earlier, it has been suggested that scores under 14 predict a greater risk of injury. BUT, O'Connor et al. (2011) demonstrated that scores of 18 or more were more at risk for injury than those who scored less than 18 in 874 marine officers. Scores above 14 are supposed to have decreased risk of injury, not the opposite, especially with a score so close to being perfect.

These 7 Tests Predict Global Movement?

At the end of the day, it is a far stretch to think these 7 tests somehow can predict an athletes global movement, especially when the athlete is under load, speed, chaos, and fatigue.

Yet, some believe that these slow, safe, pre-planned, mostly static tests will predict dynamic movement. It's one thing to do tests in a very controlled, passive type of environment compared to dynamic. I've seen a lot of good things in table assessments or FMS type screens, only to go to HELL under speed or load… Let this be clear, while these screens can have some benefit, they tend to have absolutely NO transfer to dynamic, reactive, and chaotic environments such as sport.

For example, what do we gain from the Overhead Squat (OHS)?

Let's be real here, using the OHS as an assessment of general movement ability, is like using a tennis serve to test coordination (Quote from Dr. Cobb of Z-Health). The OHS is arguably the most complex version of a squat. So instead of starting with a baseline test and a more basic squat version, we skip A-Y and go straight to Z. In addition, squatting while reaching overhead is not something that humans are designed to do. It is a skill, and anybody, the first time you ask them to perform something that is completely new to them will struggle. Chances are, the faults you find in the OHS are due to a lack of performing this specific task as opposed to a lack of good general movement patterns.

Also, why are no other squat assessments used, such as adding a counter-weight (clarify mobility vs stability needs), taking a wide stance, letting toes track outward, using an asymmetrical stance, etc.

Nope, instead the FMS forces everybody to take a shoulder width stance with toes forward and discounts the fact that everybody's hip anatomy is different and to say that you need to be able to OHS with a shoulder-width stance, with toes forward is absurd… how are we still on this? Take a look at the pictures below and tell me if these people should be judged on the same squatting scale given their vastly different anatomical structures.

It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round whole when we say you should be able to squat in this stance at this depth and apply it to the whole population.

In Closing

This isn't to say that the FMS is useless, but let's be honest, anybody with a grasp of anatomy and biomechanics can clearly see the gaps in reasoning in using solely the FMS as an assessment tool.

Now, the FMS and those who use it, do a wonderful job of marketing and "scaring" athletes/clients into thinking that because they scored poorly, they need additional training. I mean, it's a beautiful system in a business sense, although as I've shown, it lacks support from research to do what it claims to do.

So a word of caution to athletes/clients/parents - usually those promoting the FMS have something to sell. They'll show you where you're "lacking" and probably have some program that will "fix" these problems.

A word to coaches and professionals - come up with your own assessment that is based in science and evaluates the athlete not only statically, but dynamically and in a manner that is the same or similar to those that are performed in sport. Also, please use tremendous caution when telling athletes/clients they are "broken" or dysfunctional or on their way to injury. This is bad business and psychologically damaging to the athlete/client and only creates fear of movement.

References:

Beardsley - https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/functional-movement-screen-fms/#CONT

Cook, G., Burton, L., Hoogenboom, B. J., & Voight, M. (2014). Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(4), 549-563

Dallinga, J. M., Benjaminse, A., & Lemmink, K. A. (2012). Which Screening Tools Can Predict Injury to the Lower Extremities in Team Sports?. Sports medicine, 42(9), 791-815

Dossa, K., Cashman, G., Howitt, S., West, B., & Murray, N. (2014). Can injury in major junior hockey players be predicted by a pre-season functional movement screen–a prospective cohort study. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 58(4), 421.

Fox, D., O’Malley, E., & Blake, C. (2014). Normative Data for the Functional Movement Screen™ in Male Gaelic Field Sports. Physical Therapy in Sport.

Frost, D. M., Beach, T. A., Callaghan, J. P., & McGill, S. M. (2013b). FMS™ scores change with performers’ knowledge of the grading criteria-Are general whole-body movement screens capturing” dysfunction”? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.

Grygorowicz, M., Piontek, T., & Dudzinski, W. (2013). Evaluation of Functional Limitations in Female Soccer Players and Their Relationship with Sports Level–A Cross Sectional Study. PloS one, 8(6), e66871

Lederman E. The Myth of Core Stability. Journal of Bodyworks Movement Therapy. 2010 Jan;14(1):84–98.

Lockie, R. G., Schultz, A. B., Jordan, C. A., Callaghan, S. J., Jeffriess, M. D., & Luczo, T. M. (2015). Can selected functional movement screen assessments be used to identify movement deficiencies that could affect multidirectional speed and jump performance?. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(1), 195-205

Loudon, J. K., Parkerson-Mitchell, A. J., Hildebrand, L. D., & Teague, C. (2014). Functional movement screen scores in a group of running athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(4), 909-913

McCall, A., Carling, C., Davison, M., Nedelec, M., Le Gall, F., Berthoin, S., & Dupont, G. (2015). Injury risk factors, screening tests and preventative strategies: a systematic review of the evidence that underpins the perceptions and practices of 44 football (soccer) teams from various premier leagues. British journal of sports medicine.

Okada, T., Huxel, K. C., & Nesser, T. W. (2011). Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(1), 252-261

O’Connor, F. G., Deuster, P. A., Davis, J., Pappas, C. G., & Knapik, J. J. (2011). Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(12), 2224-30.

Parchmann, C. J., & McBride, J. M. (2011). Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3378-3384.

Paszkewicz, J. R., & Cailee Welch McCarty, D. (2013). Comparison of Functional and Static Evaluation Tools Among Adolescent Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.

Schneiders, A. G., Davidsson, Å., Hörman, E. & Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Functional movement screenTM normative values in a young, active population. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 6(2),75.
Shultz, R., Anderson, S. C., Matheson, G. O., Marcello, B., & Besier, T. (2013). Test-Retest and Interrater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. Journal of athletic training, 48(3), 331-336

Teyhen, D. S., Shaffer, S. W., Lorenson, C. L., Halfpap, J. P., Donofry, D. F., Walker, M. J., & Childs, J. D. (2012). The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 42(6), 530-40

Unsgaard-Tøndel M, Fladmark AM, Salvesen O, Vasseljen O. Motor Control Exercises, Sling Exercises, and General Exercises for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 1-Year Follow-up. Phys Ther. 2010 Jul.

1 Comment

The Myth of Triple Extension?

9/28/2016

0 Comments

There is a fascination in the Strength and Conditioning world with triple extension. For those not familiar - triple extension is extension of 3 joints - ankle, knee, and hip.

In fact, achieving triple extension has become, in many cases, the main priority in exercise selection.

Why has triple extension become a prized possession when training athletes?

Well it has been proposed as a key in athlete performance, mainly imho, because when you look at still pictures of jumping or accelerating or sprinting coaches perceive the key performance indicator behind these movements is triple extension.

Go into Google and type in Triple Extension and here are some of the top images...

As you can see, Olympic lifting is very closely associated with triple extension and hence why it is thought to be a valuable training tool.

BUT, BUT what if I told you triple extension is far overrated? What if triple extension occurs FAR FAR LESS than what you've been told? What if I told you triple extension has only a small amount to do with athletic success?

For many it would be blasphmaomy, but let's take a deeper look at triple extension.

First, let's take a look at these picture and tell me if triple extension is occurringâ€¦

See Triple Extension?

How About During Acceleration?

When it comes to sprinting, triple extension does NOT occur. During top-end sprinting neither full hip, knee, or ankle extension occurs.

In fact, the more extension one gets, the slower they will run. In order to maximize speed, less active ankle, knee, and hip extension occurs, and the sooner flexion in these joints occur during and immediately after Ground Contact, the better.

Understand this, during top-end speed, the athlete is only on the ground for .07-.13seconds, this is no where near enough time for someone to fully extend each joint, and the more they try to, the slower they would run. The best sprinters have less hip and knee extension at toe-off

If an athlete tried to triple extend, they would create excessive backside mechanics which leads to long, inefficient GCT, and further lead to poor flight positioning of the swing leg which would finally result of the swing leg contacting the ground out in front of the body, rather than closer to the COM.

â€‹It's a deadly cycle.

During acceleration, athletes MAY triple extend during their first 1-2 steps, but after that - triple extension DOES NOT occur. Same as top-end speed, their simply isn't enough time on the ground, and extension power should be put forth during ground preparation and during the 1st half of GCT - the goal during ground contact is to get off the ground as quickly as possible.

Let's take a look at some great charts by James Wild (@wildy_jj)

The below chart shows that full hip extension doesn't occur during the 1st 3-steps, and this is amplified in team sport athletes - who are less technically proficient as sprinters.

This chart shows knee extension during the 1st 3-steps, again full knee extension is no where to be found.

This chart shows ankle extension, again the less ankle extension, the better the performance. â€‹

When it comes to the vertical jump, Chang et al. (2015) demonstrated that vertical jump performance was not dictated by triple extension. Instead, successful performance in the vertical jump could be described by knee and ankle extension, not hip extension.

In fact, I think triple flexion is on the same level of triple extension. Flexion angles of the hip, knee, and ankle are vitally important for sprinting speed. Ankle dorsiflexion is a must during sprinting, COD, and braking actions. Hip flexion is a must to allow the body to produce maximal forces during sprinting, acceleration, and jumping. Triple flexion allows the body to create a ton of stored elastic energy to be reproduced during extension phases. Triple flexion is the loading, coiling, and absorbing - extension is uncoiling and expression.

This chart shows the LESS ankle dorsiflexion range equals faster speedsâ€¦ in normal english, this means the less the ankle deforms at GCT the better - so coming into GCT with MORE FLEXION can help allow less deformation, better utilization of stored elastic energy, and shorter GCTs.

At the end of the day, triple extension plays a role in athletic performance, but let's be clear - it's a lot less important than most claim.

Being able to produce extension forces IS very important, but they are not necessarily end range of motion extension forces.

So the moral of the story is this - if you're choosing your exercises/programming based on achieving triple extension, take another look because that is a poor reason to include or exclude certain exercises.

Got Get 'Em!

References

Chang, E., Norcross, M. F., Johnson, S. T., Kitagawa, T., & Hoffman, M. (2015). Relationships between explosive and maximal triple extensor muscle performance and vertical jump height. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(2), 545-551.

0 Comments

The Best Athlete I've Played/Coached With

8/21/2016

0 Comments

I've had the privilege of playing with and getting to coach a number of extraordinary athletesâ€¦ All-Americans, National Champions, Professionals, Player of the Year, etcâ€¦ Athletes that far exceeded their supposed potential, that had success time and time again even when others were more highly rated/ranked, athletes that are not only great on the field, but also off the field.

After thinking about these athletes, a number of common traits emerged. They shared a number of commonalities that differ from most other athletes I've encountered, and I feel it is these traits that are what make them special.

So in no particular order, here's the best athlete I've ever played/coached with...

The best athletes I've been around held themselves to a higher standard, they didn't care about about other people's standards, they only cared about their own because they're own standard's are higher than anyone else's... This is how great people think.

They aren't driven by rewards, or acknowledgements, or validation from othersâ€¦ they don't stop working hard just because they lost or may have been shorted or didn't get picked for an awardâ€¦ No they continue to adapt their craf and use set-backs to their advantage. It's not about the set-back, but the comeback.

They are humbleâ€¦ they take coaching, they listen, they observe, they WANT TO IMPROVE. They don't have all the answers and they don't have an attitude because someone tells them they have weaknesses or need to work on a particular aspect of their game.

They know that success has been the spoil of many before and many more to come. Success is temporary, and in order to continue to have success, they can't rest on the past.

They are humble because they know, eventually they will be beat, they will grow older, and someone better will come along.

They aren't impressed when they get a base hit, or make a 3-pointer, or win a raceâ€¦ because they know it's only a small stepping stone and at the end of the day it's about self competition and improvement.

They use failure as a learning experience. They know failure is a prerequisite for success in life.

They have humility.

They don't listen to the hype or the papers because they know false ideas about oneself can cause destruction and inhibit growth.

They have a realistic view of themselves, they know their strengths and weaknesses. They don't have unrealistic views of themselves, instead they know exactly where they need to improve and attack these weaknesses to turn them into strengths.

They plan their work and then work their plan.

They know their attitude is their decision and it requires discipline and energy to sustain it. They don't let others dictate their attitude, instead they take ownership for their attitude, no matter the situation.

They don't place blame on any others but themselves when things do not go well. They don't blame the coach or their teammates or the refs, instead they take responsibility.

They welcome challenges and look forward to the toughest competitions. They seek out situations where they may fail and lose because they know this makes them stronger.

They know there will be others who are bigger, faster, and stronger BUT physical ability is never the defining factor in elite performance.

They put the quest for individual awards/glory/acknowledgement behind them and wholeheartedly commit themselves to the team effort.

What common qualities do great athletes you've played/trained with have?

0 Comments

Random Thoughts

7/21/2016

0 Comments

I keep a journal of notes in my phone, by my bedside, and in a word document on my computer. Here's where I'll dump all of those ideas into an incoherent lists of things floating around my head.

Science confirms, good ideas happen when you are mentally switched off. Taking a vacation, taking time off, sleep, and procrastinating can help in solving complex problems

Everybody should be taking naps, I think schools should even promote 30-minutes to a midday nap. The research is clear on this topic as well, if you want to live longer, be more creative, receive a burst of energy/focus, improve performance - then NAP!

Add stress or other cognitive function during decision making to enhance sporting performance: Like performing math equations, memorizing colors/patterns, watching something, listening to something, or any kind of mental processing while performing a task may enhance motor learning.

1000 good reps cannot undo the work of 100 bad reps. Start doing things correctly, don't wait for breakdown

S&C coaches need to voice input and feedback of basic physiological truths to sport coaches when it comes to practice, structuring, intensities, and nervous system optimization. For example, a normal football practice week should really look like the top chart - and not the bottom chart, which is the traditional method in the football world

All athletes seek autonomy, competence and connection. Does your program provide these things?
- Autonomy is the need to be free to choose your own goals and do things because you like doing them for their own sake. Autonomy is the freedom to set your own goals, choose your own path and not feel pressured by other people or outside forces.
- Competence is being good at what you’re doing and feeling confident in your abilities to perform the task at hand. We all want to feel like we are learning, increasing our skill and growing. This basic need for competence and pursuit of mastery drives us, and makes us feel good when we achieve a difficult goal.
- Connection is the desire to bond with and relate to other people. Goals that have you interacting with others, giving and receiving help from others and nurturing relationships are going to fill your innate need for connection.

Some of the most important things we can do as coaches and parents is let kids figure things out on their own. This means if there is a dispute in grades, or playing time, or social aspects - the kid should figure them out - don't step in and try to solve the problem - this isn't benefitting anyone

Nutrition is emotional. The more I think and work on nutritional things, the more I see a need to address emotional ties to eating habits and decisions - not just plain x's and o's of nutrient breakdowns

It's combine season for many of our HS athletes, so we thought we'd throw together a video on the most important part of the 40-yard dash - the stance and start

Athlete training needs to be individualized - especially the higher the level of the athlete. Think about this - if you give a group of 10 athletes the same program - why do 3 get a ton better, 4 get a little bit better, and 3 see no change?
- Many fast-twitched athletes (think corvettes) need much LESS work, while less genetically gifted (think pintos) may thrive on more work

We have a couple of S&C Camps scheduled for this summer and a few more openings available - if you know a team or school that would benefit from this, contact us - http://www.building-better-athletes.com/strength--conditioning-camp.html

Check out this FREE Human Behavioral Biology Course from Stanford Professor Robert Sapolsky. Seriously this is a FREE course from Stanford University - ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Sometimes we need to step back and let athletes and the human body do what it wants to do. Often times coaches step in and make corrections on things that don't look correct. For example, the false step - often times coaches try to rid athletes of this movement, but in actuality it's the bodies natural response more effective than not using one. We aren't smarter than the human body.

When programming for your athletes - do you take into account what style of play their team is? If I'm training a football player that plays in a "spread offense" with a play every 20-seconds, this is much different than a player in a "pro style" offense where they may use the whole play clock. This not only changes the energy system demands of the athlete, but also the total volume and in some cases the intensity of work done by the athletes. The same could be said for other team sports like basketball, soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, hockey. So do your homework, talk to the athlete, call the coach, watch a game and find out what style of play the team emphasizes.

Go Get 'Em!

0 Comments

Audit Your Coaching

5/17/2016

3 Comments

â€‹ The role and impact of a S&C coach is hard to evaluate and quantify.

How do you know a S&C coach is doing a good job or poor job?

Head coaches are evaluated by wins and losses.
Coordinators and/or position coaches are evaluated by statistical success or success of their position players.

But how are S&C coaches evaluated?
Here are three common ways people tend to evaluate S&C coaches and why it's a mistake

1. By the success of a team?

People like to use this as a contention point, but there needs to be extreme caution with this.

Where or who or the success of the team you coach doesnâ€™t necessarily make someone a great coach or validate the coach.

Remember this, there are a lot of great coaches on lower levels and coaching poor teams, and there are a lot of poor coaches, coaching very successful teams.

2. By how much their athletes lift?

I don't know where this idea started, but it's another area I donâ€™t feel is a good road to trek down.  We arenâ€™t trying to develop lifters, we are trying to develop athletes.

How much one can lift is no indicator of on-field success and solely using squat or bench numbers is a very poor approach to the job of an S&C coach.

3. By the amount of All-Conference, All-American, or draft picks

The success and more importantly the improvement of an S&C athletes is undoubtedly important, but it's not smart to hang your hat on these things.

Remember S&C coaches are given athletes that the coaching staff recruits. They cannot control who is on the team, and guess what?

Better athletes = better team = more honors/awards

S&C coaches cannot control what type of athlete they are given. They also have a very limited role in whether they are all-conference, all-american, or draft picks.

First and foremost, genetics is most important, then the specific sport improvement and practice, and finally S&C.

Don't take credit for the success of your athletes. S&C coaches definitely play a role, but a small role, and don't ever try to put the spotlight on yourself when it deserves to be on the athlete.

Better Approach

Here's a novel idea for S&C coaches, and one that I feel will give us a better evaluation of the impact a S&C has.

Why don't you ask your athletes, or coaches?

Ask your athletes if they feel they are improving in all areas of athletic performance.

This means a lot more than just purely strength.  Are they improving movement skills, increasing usable range of motion, getting faster, are they more confident and resilient, do they believe in the program and buy-in to what you are doing, are their specific conditioning and ESD demands improving?

Below is a questionnaire I gave to 153 of my athletes and to 3 sport coaches to fill out and asked them to be brutally honest with their responses.

This might seem very scary or exposing for a coach, but doesn't it make sense to actually get a sense of what those experiencing your coaching are feeling?

If you are afraid of what your athletes and coaches will write, then that alone should tell you something. You should be excited and confident to hear the responses and use the info to make yourself an even better coach.

Here are the simple questions I asked. The 153 athletes I asked included athletes from 7th grade â€“ seniors in college - to professional athletes.   They didn't put their name on the sheet and again I told them to be brutally honest, my feelings wouldn't be hurt!

1.     Male or Female?

2.     What is your favorite part of this S&C program?

3.     What is your LEAST favorite part of this S&C program?

4.     What is your favorite exercise?

5.     What is your LEAST favorite exercise?

6.     What do you wish weâ€™d do more of?

7.     What do you wish weâ€™d do less of?

8. Do you feel you have improved since we've started to now? In what areas do you feel have improved the most?

9.   In what area do you feel you're stagnating or feel we could a better job addressing?

10.   If you could change 1 thing or make 1 suggestion to this S&C program or for how I can improve as a coach, what would it be?

It was honestly refreshing to receive this feedback and delving into the information has been very beneficial to me as a coach â€“ I urge you to do the same.

After going over all the responses 3-4 times, a couple of things really stand out to me as interesting, and I think can really help all coaches out there.   Here they are in no particular order.

Gender Differences

Females asked for much more feedback on technique.

I take this as a compliment and also great tool for improving my coaching.

I am very open to having my athletes all exhibit differences in technique and giving them autonomy and freedom in their movements. If I have 12 athletes squatting, they will all look different, with different depths, different stances, different toe angles, etc.

With that being said, I have noticed that females tend to be more skeptical of their technique and lack a little confidence with their technique. I will often tell a girl everything looks great technique wise, and they'll often come back and ask me to watch again to make sure here technique is solid.

So my takeaway is when working with females, put more emphasis and feedback on technique and ensuring you are giving valuable and specific information on technique.

Have Fun

One of the common themes in the feedback was that just about every response said their favorite aspect was how I made the program fun and the enjoyed the games/competitive aspects of the program.

Let me repeat that:

All ages, even professional and high level college athletes all stated they enjoye games, competitions, and play

We are a species that enjoys and thrives with play.

One reason I dislike the idea of working in bigger college or professional settings is they tend to be really serious. Their athletes can't be having fun or involved in "silly" games, and this is something I whole-heartedly disagree with.

Not only do games and play-type environments enhance the enjoyment and fun for the athletes, but they also encourage the use of creativity, open-sided and reactive movements, stimulate cognitive function and recognition, encourage competition, and involve strategy and communication with teammates.

Please tell me how this isn't beneficial for athletes?

Moral of the story, find ways to make your training more game-based, open, and competitive.

Least Favorite Exercise

Everyone really hates the ISO BSS.

This means I'll most definitely continue to include this in their programs!

Morning Training?

People do not like early morning lifting, especially if the are doing it 3-4 times a week. And to be honest, I really don't enjoy as a coach either. I've been getting up at 4:45am, every week day, for 2+ years, and I'd be lying if I said I absolutely love it when my alarm goes off.

What's interesting to me is we know the importance of sleep and how a lack of sleep has numerous negative effects on various areas of an athletes health and performance, but we continue to ask for 5:30 or 6:00am lifting sessions?

Obviously, those of us working in a University setting are restricted by things we simply canâ€™t get around. The fact that is we work with student-athletes and they tend to have classes from 8am-2pm and there aren't a plethora of time options for training times.

But can we shift the believe that these early morning sessions are essential??

I breakdown all of my college athletes sleep and bed times on a DAILY basis, and itâ€™s rare to see these athletes in bed before 11pm despite the urging and preaching about the importance of sleep. I can get pissed at them and try to educate them until I'm red in the face, but what better am I if I then go and have them train at 6 or 7am, for 3-4 times a week, knowing they are only getting 6-7 hours of sleep, at max each night.

Obviously education is a integral part to helping our athletes and trying to get them to buy-into getting to bed earlier and improving their sleep habits, but I also feel we as coaches are often hypocrites when we continue to make them be up at 5am each morning.

The feedback I received was very clear, they do not like getting up for 6am workouts.  My thoughts are this - if we can avoid these early morning sessions, then we absolutely should. Obviously in a college setting, with limitations of resources, class conflicts, etc - then yes we need to use these early morning time-frames, but maybe we need to find ways to rotate teams, so it's not the same teams/athletes doing 6am every single day.

I look at it as, if we can even reduce a specific team needing to train at 6am, just 1-day a week, we are likely adding 2-3 additional hours of sleep a week for these athletes - which could be huge for performance and recovery.

Buzz Words

Athletes have a decent understanding of buzz words and they want to perform those buzz words.

In the question, what do you wish we did more of â€“ three common responses occurred.

1. Core
2. Explosive Exercises
3. Arms

Two of the three responses would be what I would consider buzz terms. Athletes probably couldn't even tell you what the "core" is or what muscles make up the "core", to them it just means abs.

Maybe throwing in an ab or arm burner at the end of sessions is a good idea from time to time. Plus these wonâ€™t negatively effect or pull away from the CNS stimulus you're trying have the body adapt to.

Those questioned also tended to make notes to wanting to do more explosive type exercises. We know we perform different med ball variations or jumping/bounding movements to train various power production applications, but do they?

Just adding, hey this is to work on our explosiveness, might be something they really want to hear and enhance the intent of the drill.

Conclusion

Well I hope this sheds some light as a way to give greater insight into your coaching. I think ever coach should give this questionnaire at the end of a semester or year and really evaluate what you are doing as a coach. This will definitely be something I address with my athletes and coaches every year from here on out and I encourage you to do the same or share your results as well!

3 Comments

Random Speed Thoughts

2/12/2016

0 Comments

Enjoy these random thoughts on speed!

Speed is about producing force in the right direction and applying that force in the shortest amount of time - This means neuromuscular efficiency, technical/mechanical mastery, stiffness, usage of elastic components, relaxation, rhythm, timing, coordination are all important

Research has shown that triple extension is neither optimal nor necessary in many of the steps during acceleration or top-end speed - what again is the fascination with triple extension?

The main goal in top-end sprinting is front side mechanics. A common error is what path the foot travels at toe-off. Does it keep traveling backwards & upwards or does it travels forward & upward? Upwards and forward is optimal - backwards and upward is wasted motion and time. Pause the video at 5-seconds and see the difference of foot location.

An easy way to look for efficient front side mechanics is to look where the knees are at ground contact. During optimal and efficient mechanics, the knees will line-up at foot contact. During poor mechanics and backside dominant mechanics, the flight leg knee will lag behind. Pause the above video at 6-seconds and look at the differences in knee location and it's clear to see wasted time and what will be a lack of front side mechanics by the athlete on the right, which will in turn equate to less force production.

A favorite drill of mine to improve front side mechanics and "naturally" develop better positioning at foot contact is wickets

Errors made during acceleration lead to errors in top-end speed. Quality acceleration = quality top-end

Relaxation is key for top-end speed. As Yuri Verkhoshansky stated, "Relaxation is very important for high velocity movements". Being able to quickly contract and relax is vitally important for maximum efficiency - and not being able to relax will lead to early fatigue, loss of mechanics, and tightening up - all equal a loss of speed and recovery. An easy place to look as at the face or shoulders - are they tense and stiff? If so, the athlete needs to work on relaxation. - Also read THIS

A key area I see missing in athletes in ankle stiffness. More ankle stiffness = better stored elastic energy, lower GCT, and more effective force transfer into the ground. This is achieved by better foot/ankle positioning during ground prep and ground contact - mainly dorsiflexion. Also, I'm a big fan of longer duration, low intensity hopping/jumping exercises - This teaches proper ground contact positioning and builds the base of ankle/foot stiffness needed for high speed running.

Speed drills don't directly make one faster - what they do is create context and give the athlete a better understanding and feel of body positioning, trunk and shin angles, tempo, rhythm, posture, and coordination needed to accelerate and reach top-end properly. Drills take time for transfer, but over time, the qualities gained and developed through the context of drills WILL transfer towards better, more efficient mechanics.

Getting faster will increase numbers in the weight room, but increasing numbers in the weight room will not necessarily improve sprinting speed

The foot contacts behind the COM during the first 1-4 step during acceleration = body positioning, shin angle. I keep hearing a big name coach say this doesn't happen and it drives me nuts - Read this MONSTER

Continuing on the dorsiflexion path - can't emphasize enough the importance of getting proper dorsiflexion and gaining dorsiflexion ROM. Faster sprinter's not only exhibit dorsiflexion during ground prep and contact, but they initiate the dorsiflexion signal earlier at toe-off. Ingraining dorsiflexion in as many movements as possible innately teaches the athlete the crossed extensor reflex - which leads to shorter GCT and quicker flexion after toe-off.

Arms are neither a maker or breaker of high running speeds. They do contribute to certain aspects of speed enhancement, but they DO NOT lead the legs and are not going to be the major difference in speed enhancement.

The majority of team sports should focus much of their attention on acceleration speed. They should also do so from various start positions, various stimulus to react to, various movements to proceed the acceleration, etc.

Probably the quickest way to instantly improve speed is to improve body composition/lose weight. As Charlie Francis said, "Fat don't Fly!"

Technique matters:

What we say as a coach can effect speed performance. External cues have been shown to be effective at enhancing speed performance

- Acceleration = PUSH, Drive the ground behind you, Explode like being shot out of a cannon, Drive your knee forward like your breaking a glass window
- Top-End = Stay tall, Bounce, Snap off the ground, Act like your running on hot coals, Imagine your running in knee high grass, Imagine a Lion is chasing you

The Crossed Extensor Reflex is a very interesting concept, and one that I believe plays a big role. The hard part is trying to train or develop this reflex into our athletes. My thought is repetitions and repetitions of dorsiflexion to ingrain it subconsciously.

That's all for now.

Go Get 'Em!

0 Comments

Why We Don't Olympic Lift

5/24/2015

0 Comments

Every Thursday we have a staff meeting where we discuss various topics or bring in presenters to help our continued education. This past Thursday we had a debate on Olympic lifting and whether they should be used by athletes.

We had a great group with people from many backgrounds and experiences, which of course gave us an insightful debate on the Oly's.

For those of you that know us here at BBA know we don't use Olympic lifts, something that surprises many athletes and coaches when we tell them.

We explain why we feel they aren't necessary, why we avoid them and the severe short-comings of strictly performing Oly's. Below we outline why we don't perform them and our reasoning.

1. Why Are You Doing Them?

The first question I always ask is why are you performing Oly lifts? Is it because you've seen other people do them, or they look cool, or is it for a specific purpose. I could go and ask High School programs why they are programming Olympic lifts and I wouldn't get a very good answer other than it's what everybody does - unfortunately that's not a very good answer.

If you are going to perform them, then have a concrete reason. If it's because of the power production you can get from them, great. There are many ways to skin a cat and we'll dive into what we think are better ways to develop power in a more time efficient and safe manner. But if you honestly can't answer that question or aren't qualified to answer that question, then you shouldn't be performing Olympic lifts.

2. Assessing Your Athletes

Going hand-in-hand with the question, "why are you performing them", comes this question - Are your athletes qualified for them? Contrary to belief not everyone is suited or ready for the various Olympic lifts.

I ask you, does your athlete have adequate upward rotation of the scapula? Are they clear of valgus sign at the elbow and knee? Can they achieve full shoulder flexion without extending their lumbar spine or "breaking" at the ribs? Is your athlete free of history of shoulder injury? Is your athlete primarily an OH athlete?

If you answered no to any of these questions, then sorry to break it to you, it's wise to avoid Olympic lifts.

3. Wear and Tear

Being an athlete is a tough life and the body takes a beating. All sports, but especially contact and collision sports, put tremendous amounts of stress and beating on the bodies joints. If you look at sports like football, baseball, rugby, volleyball, basketball, wrestling - these sports beat the crap out of an athletes wrists, elbows, shoulders, and spine.

Olympic lifts do the same, they bang up these joints and as a coach I'd rather not put more stress and beating on them. The catch of a clean, jerk, and/or snatch is extremely tough on the body and it's not uncommon to see these joints get gunky, bruised, and beat-up when performing these lifts.

I can tell you as a former football player, I hated the Olympic lifts for these reason, my chest/shoulders/wrists always felt cranky and we're never given a rest from practice and them moving on to Oly's during the off-season.

4. Transfer

The goal of Olympic lifting is for power production, and they do a good job at that, specifically in high level performers. Unfortunately the nature of Oly's is strictly a sagittal plane movement. This is fine and dandy for this specific movement, but athletics require a athletes to produce force and movement in many different planes. For success on the field, plane specific movements are needed.

Instead of dedicating 10-15min on doing 6x3 of an Oly variation, we'd rather choose to perform our power work in many different forms and fashions. So in the same amount of time, we can get 2-3 sets of KB swings, Med Ball variation, S/L variation, Transverse variation, etc.

Now I know including Oly's in your program doesn't omit these other variations, but it does typically reduce the amount of time dedicated towards them. From my experience as a player and coach in the college settings, typically 10-20min of daily training time was dedicated to warming-up and performing working sets of a single Oly variation. I just feel there are better uses of time and more focused work.

To get the most transfer to your sport, movements need to be plane specific.

5. Time

The classic argument against Oly's is the amount of time it takes to teach and learn. The fact is Olympic lifts are an actual sport, with all the details and intricacies that come with a sport. Athletes that compete in the Olympic lifts take years and years to learn and master the movements, and here we are trying to teach athletes of another sport to master these same movements?

Depending on the setting, age of the athlete, and how good of a coach you are, it can take anywhere from 1-session (being generous here) to 2 weeks to 1 full year before an athlete is proficient enough to actually perform with a significant load and perform an adequate Olympic lift.

In a 1-on-1 setting, sure an athlete can learn faster but in a team setting with 30-40 athletes to 1-3 coaches - the logistics just don't make sense. .

Now on the other hand, I can teach a hex bar jump squat and have the athlete loading and performing this movement in 30-seconds. So while the other athlete is taking precious to learn a movement before getting any significant benefit, I can have this other athlete getting hundreds of loaded reps in the same time. Plus all the time saved means I can focus on other plane specific movements or any other skill/quality I want.

Again to reiterate my experience as an athlete and college coach, a typical Oly session will consist of 6-8sets x 1-3 reps. This means only 6-24 total reps in the span of 15-25 minutes, if you're taking adequate rest to maximize training power production.

Instead, I could get 25-40 med ball throws/kettlebell swings/bounds/jumps in 10-q5 minutes. The peak power output of these movements may be slightly lower than Oly's (in some, but not all), but I also performed 9-31 additional reps, at varying loads (surfing the F-V curve) and saved 10-15minutes.

Long story short, our thought process is - not only is time taken to learn and teach longer, but total time during sessions is also longer to potentially perform less work and volume. Again I can take this time on work on other skills/movements that would otherwise be neglected.

6. Coaching and Execution

Maybe my biggest qualm with Olympic lifts is my lack of 100% comfort in teaching them. I can admit that I don't feel comfortable teaching the ins and outs of Olympic lifts, and that's a major reason I don't have my athletes perform them.

I can admit to this, yet the same can be said for most High School coaches and even college coaches. I actually have plenty of experience not only performing Oly's but teaching them to many different populations and I still don't feel competent in teaching them. This leads me to question why so many programs include them yet the coach teaching them has no business teaching them.

If a coach doesn't hold a USAW certification, they probably shouldn't be coaching them. Compound this with what we mentioned earlier, most settings involve a ton of athletes to very few coaches. The overall logistics don't make sense to us and we aren't one to over step the scope of our abilities.

7. Risk Isn't Worth the Reward

The health and safety of our athletes is our number 1 concern and with this in mind, Oly's don't fit into this philosophy. The number of times we've seen athletes doing cleans, snatches, or jerks despite not having full shoulder flexion ROM is difficult to comprehend. Add in seeing athletes who present valgus signs at the elbow performing OH Oly's is another concerning subject. Then add in athletes who can't even perform a quality squat or hip hinge and are trying to perform Oly's is common place.

Look at HS or College teams performing Oly's on Youtube or in person and you'll likely see some very poor execution of the lifts. I've seen athlete break their wrist, bruise AC joints/collarbones, strain rotator cuffs, have weights fall on them, sprain wrists, dislocate elbows, tear their biceps, strain UCL's.

I just don't find the risk worth the reward. I question where the benefit of Oly's is over loaded jumping, bounding, KB swings, jump squats, etc in terms of both power production and safety.

Go Your Own Way

The biggest takeaway we had from our debate is that there isn't necessarily a right or wrong way. As a coach you have to weigh the pros and cons of your situation and figure out what's best for your athletes. At BBA we critically think about everything we do, and when we critically think about performing Oly's it just doesn't fit our philosophy. The important thing is to do what you believe in and what fits your philosophy; not just what you see others doing.

Hope this information helps your created your own path and philosophy and where the Olympic lifts fit into that scheme.

0 Comments

Blog

The Weight Belt: Should You Wear One?

Squat Science - Why We All Squat Differently

The Myth of the FMS

The Myth of Triple Extension?

The Best Athlete I've Played/Coached With

Random Thoughts

Audit Your Coaching

Random Speed Thoughts

Why We Don't Olympic Lift

Categories

Blog

Subscribe To Email List

Subscribe To Email List

Subscribe To Email List

Subscribe To Email List

Categories