Catching up

I've been completely MIA for a couple of weeks and a lot has happened so I wanted to do a little catching up.

1) Last week I was officially offered a job as a strength and conditioning coach at RPI in Troy. I'm really excited to be starting there and hopefully making a difference with their athletes, student body and faculty. Any one know any realtors in the area that can find decent housing?

2)I had a really busy weekend; Saturday morning I was able to put on two separate clinics. 1 for a high school girls basketball program and another one for a group of local coaches. It's always fun doing what I can to help people understand what I do and why I do it. Hopefully they had fun and learned something in the process. After I was done, however, I had completely lost my voice and had to go to a seminar near Boston without the ability to speak...

3)I attended an awesome seminar put on by Eric Cressey (Strength coach) and Mike Reinold (PT for the Red Sox as well as a Boston hospital I believe). It was 7 hours learning about movement impairments and treatments/training protocols for the shoulder. The information was great and am looking forward to learning more about the subject.

On a side note, do any other trainers out there find that most people don't realize how much goes into trying to become a decent trainer? If I get in a discussion with an accountant about taxes, I keep my mouth shut with the exception of asking questions, and I listen. But if an accountant gets in a discussion with me about training, chances are they'll argue and tell me why what they're doing at the gym is right but it's a mystery why they're always in pain and get no results. Reading Men's or Women's Health once a month, and watching the Biggest Loser, doesnt make you an expert.

4)I recently completed (almost) Cresseys' Maximum Strength program. A 16 week workout geared towards strength (duh). I have to say I feel great. Other than coming down with a cold/bacterial infection(?) during the last week, and being unable to retest, my results have been great. I don't need to test to know I am much stronger, healthier and even have less pain in my lower back. I did it as much for the process of being committed to a program as I did for the results. I actually plan on doing it once more before switching it up. It's a simple to follow, well described program that will help anyone get over any plateaus they've experienced on their own programs. I recommend checking it out.



5)Last night I received this email from an athlete of mine who just finished her senior year as a division I field hockey player. It made me feel great and I wanted to share. This is more of a testimony to her hard work than anything I did.

"Hi Jon,

I meant to e-mail you earlier right after the season ended but things got crazy trying to catch up on sleep, work and fun time. But the reason why I am e-mailing is because I just wanted to tell you that I had one of the best seasons in my field hockey career this past fall. When I came into preseason, I was one of the strongest players, physically and mentally. I killed the fitness test because of your advice that you had given me (by not running many miles). In past years, I was one of the smaller ones getting pushed around in the circle defensively and offensively, however this year I was actually knocking girls over that were bigger than me (I did not drop any shoulders into them but was able to hold my ground). When we did our weight lifting test, I was able to do 3 chin-ups (more than most of the girls on our team were able to do). My conditioning was amazing; I was able to run non-stop on the field throughout the entire game. Working with you over the summer was one of the best decisions that I had made. I am not going to lie, I was not going to go to the gym because I hate going to gyms and not comfortable enough to do it on my own, however working with you, learning how to do basic things that would prevent injuries, and seeing myself get stronger over the weeks was one of the best things."

Champs Again!

Alright, after letting it set in for a couple of days I wanted to share a couple thoughts about the Greatest Franchise ever taking home another title.

There's one thing that struck me as a little odd in my reaction to the last out on Wednesday night. It actually felt slightly anti-climactic watching the final out. But it wasn't because I didn't care. Actually I was much more into this World Series than many of the past ones the Yankees have played in, but I think the difference is in how I view things. The older I get, the less I focus on results. The process is what really matters, whether it's baseball, school (how many of us knew how to get the grade without doing any actual learning?), or life.

So even though almost every non-Yankee fan will complain about the lack of a strict salary cap and blame the Yankees for ruining baseball by buying championships, let's remember that no matter how much money you spend you don't get a free pass to the World Series. The process has to be the same for the Yankees as it would for any other team. Before the season I honestly thought it would be hard to root for the team with such high profile free agents bought last off-season, but as the summer rolled along and the more games I watched, the more I came to feel a part of this Yankees team, and that is what makes being a fan really enjoyable.

And as much as everybody hates the Yankees, it's clear that they also need the Yankees.. As much as I love watching it, baseball simply would not get the ratings it needs to survive without a villain. And if you don't think the Yankees aren't the epitome of a villain then you're crazy. Football ratings are so good because the American people love the product. Outside of the die-hards, baseball lacks the appeal of football and needs other story lines to drive ratings. Need proof? Look at the ratings for the last 2 World Series. The Yankees/Phillies averaged around a 12 (translated into X-million viewers, not sure of the exact formula), where the Phillies/Rays averaged a 7-8. That's a huge difference in number of viewers, because the Yankees will draw interest of people around the country who simply want to see them lose.

If you look at the highest rated Series in history, most of them involve the Yankees. One exception would be 2004, game 4, when the Red Sox were about to clinch their first title in a thousand years.

I'm just glad I'm on the fun side of the fence when it comes to the Yankees!

Is it important to be well-rounded?

There seems to be a sentiment today, especially among obsessive parents, that their kids need to be really "well-rounded." Now, I think it's a great idea to expose young kids to as much as possible so they know what's out there and can then decide for themselves what they are interested in and begin to choose their own path.

But what about when we get older? Is it really necessary to be so worldly once we establish ourselves in a given field? It sounds fine and dandy, but let's be honest; Does anyone really care if their car mechanic knows a lick about world history? Or how about if their Doctor can discuss the arts? I personally could care less whether or not a professional athlete could name the capital of Finland, but yet we carry this assumption that everybody should be "all-knowing," and we make fun of them (behind their back of course) if they don't.

Now, I think that everyone should be well-rounded by a different defenition. It is each person's responsibility to be as well-versed in their field as they can possibly be. In the example of the fitness industry, this means to avoid becoming a "fad" guy/girl. Now, there are plenty of top professionals who are known for one thing; "The corrective guy", "The Kettlebell Guy", "The Speed Guy", etc. But talk to any of these people and they are incredibly knowledgeable about every aspect of fitness/health and human performance.

Try to open up a debate about the economy, however, and you'd be hardpressed to get an intelligent response that doesn't directly relate to their own situation as a fitness professional.

Is this such a bad thing?

I've reference a book, Outliers, a few times in this blog. Specifically, I was blown away by the 10,000 hour rule Gladwell talks about. In short, any extremely successful individual has accumulated at least 10,000 of quality practice in their given field to get to where they are.

Now, as I think back to my college experience and how "well-rounded" it was, I wonder if it really was worth it. How many hours did I spend in class, on homework, and studying for classes that served no purpose to get me where I want to be? These required gen-ed classes probably cost me hundreds of hours that I could have used to better prepare me to be a better fitness professional (would I have used them to do that? I don't know, but work with me here). The classes that I took that actually have helped me along my path, including graduate school, could easily have been done in about 3 years.

To be honest, I think the most well-rounded people are great for Trivia games, and carrying conversations with people they don't know, which can be valuable.

I guess I'd argue that it's more valuable to be extremely knowledgeable in a single field rather than fairly knowledgeable in every field.

Thoughts?

Jon

Understanding Strength

I hear many people come to me with their "Whoa is me" tales of not being able to make any progress with their exercise routine. Many claim they can't get past plateaus even though they spend 5 days a week in the gym. Some have no idea why they can't lose those last 10 pounds, or gain 10 pounds, or do a push up, or a pull-up, or whatever the case may be. My personal favorite is when I hear the defeatist cry that "It's my metabolism", not having any clue what the word even means, assuming it's a genetic set-point like body temperature that can never change.

Well it can change. In fact, the physiological quality that best predicts metabolic rate is lean muscle mass. That's right, the more lean mass the higher the metabolic rate, the easier it is for you to get more work done and burn more fat. And unlike a lot of studies that show correllations with no reasonable argument for cause and effect, the act of increasing muscle mass will in fact increase your metabolism. Obviously this isn't the only way to lost pounds, but it is a very important component.

So here's where the problem lies: How do we build lean mass? Being a naive (fairly) young trainer, I thought everyone had a good understanding on how to build strength, but it has become clear that most gym-goers have no idea even with all the science available to them to help them out. Don't take offense if this is you, but most men who workout on their own go into the gym with no real plan (other than "it's a bench day, or today is back and bi's). Most women who go will invariably spend 30-60 minutes rotating between their favorite pieces of cardio equipment while they read about 9 ways to please their man (Hint: if none of them include leaving us alone during the game, find a new magazine. But I digress), followed by a few isolation "strength" exercises.

And what they (you!) will both do is pick your exercises and do 2-3 sets of 8-10 reps every single time. The volume never changes, the rep scheme never varies, and you try to add a little bit of weight each time (men) or use the same (extremely) light weight to try to lose their trouble areas (women). You know what else never changes? You. You'll make progress for a few weeks, then either give up or just plateau and the excuses start flying.

So how do we build strength while avoiding plateaus? Once you've adjusted to a strength training routine, you need to adjust the volume, intensity, and exercises to keep things fresh. One of the simplest ways to do this, while keeping the same exercise routine for several weeks, is to have a pre-planned variance with your sets/reps and overall volume.

Here's an example of a very basic exercise list I might use with an average client:

1a) Walking lunges
1b) Push-up progression
2a) Stability ball bridge (hip extensions)
2b) Lat pulldown
3a) Front planks
3b) Stability ball side sit-ups

Now, three of these would use resistance (lunges, push-ups, and lat pulldown, and even side sit ups in some cases). The average person would do 3 sets of 8-10 reps. The total volume, for say lunges, would be 30 reps x external resistance. In keeping the volume the same every day, the only way to progressively overload (KEY for making progress) is to add weight every session.

Well this will only work for so long before we teeter out. So we need another way to progressively add volume. So what were the other factors? Sets, reps (you could also include rest intervals). This gives us 3 other ways to increase our volume without ever even changing the weight! Here's a set/rep scheme for 4 weeks that I might use with the lunges and push ups. This is written for someone who may be working out 4x/week.

Week 1: 3x10 each (30 total reps)
Week 2: 4x6 each (24 reps)
Week 3: 4x10 each (40 reps)
Week 4: 2x10 each (20 reps)


You'll notice the volume goes up and down from week to week; this is a great way to allow the muscles to regenerate without taking time off. I stole this pattern from Eric Cressey's Maximum Strength protocol, where week 1 is high volume, week 2 is medium, week 3 is very high, and week 4 is low. It has been very effective as I've been going through his 16 week program myself.

The key to making programs like this work however, are understanding how to use the sets/reps schemes. I have been really surprised at the number of people who would pick the same exact weight for 4 sets of 6 reps, as they would for 3 sets of 10.

If you want to make progress you must pick a weight that challenges you for that set! In other words, the last 2 reps should be a little slower, and much harder (but done with perfect form) if you want to continue making progress.

This was just a very basic example, and designing programs can get to be a lot of fun with committed clients who you can really make a difference with.

I turned this post into kind of a ramble, but hopefully some of it made sense and gave you a couple of principles you can apply to your own workouts if you aren't already.

Jon

Rewards of being a trainer...

Ask any trainer/strength coach about why they got into the industry and I guarantee not one of them will say "the money." And as Mike Boyle often says, not many of us gave up brain surgery to start training athletes.

So why do we do it?

I've always known what my motivation was, but the other day it was reaffirmed by one of my young "athletes".

I recently wrote about the value of praising effort over performance, an idea I took from the book Nurture Shock. I gave a story of a young (9 year old) athlete who was struggling, and getting frustrated when he couldn't perform certain coordination drills or games. And I think I pointed out how much more effort he put in when I made it clear that effort was all I expected, and how he continued to get himself up time after time after falling down (literally a couple dozen times in a single "workout").

Well a couple of days ago, with the same class and young athlete, we did a similar workout to the one from a few weeks ago (including a lot of ladder drills, and some linear acceleration games/ball drops, etc.). The same drills that led to Ryan falling down so many times before, were almost perfected by him on Monday. And let me tell you, his eyes lit up like the 4th. His footwork was almost flawless and his feet were much quicker-and I don't think he fell once.

This isn't the first time I've seen this, but it never gets old. This is why we need to stay patient with our kids. Statistics say that Ryan will probably never be an "elite" athlete, and many parents and coaches see this as enough reason to not pay for training like we give. And many of Ryan's friends, maybe even parents, won't notice much of a difference right away, making it difficult to put a value on the training he's been given.

But I bet if they do notice anything, it's that he's willing to try anything now because he knows a concentrated effort will be rewarded in the end. It's not magic, voo-doo, or slight of hands tricks. It's simply allowing each kid to try to reach their own potential. We'll never know what the ceiling is for most of these kids, but the least we can do is get them to try to find it for themselves.

Top 9 Reasons the Yankees will win

Top 9 Reasons the Yankees will win the World Series that don’t include money…

1. Star factor…Stars seen at regular season Yankee games include Jay-Z, Kate Hudson, Spike Lee, Billy Crystal, Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Jack Nicholson, and Paul McCartney. At Philly, they’ll be lucky to get a decrepit Sylvester Stallone. Now that I think about it, if Philly decided to show this face on the Jumbo-tron while the Yankees are hitting, they may be in trouble.

2. Philly Fans are outmatched. For as much credit as Philly fans get for being insolent and completely obnoxious about their sports (which is true), I think they have been weathered a little bit after being spoiled last year by being spoon-fed in the world series by the awe-struck Tampa Bay Rays. Besides, their fans still fall a distant second to some of the crazies that frequent the Bronx.

3. Ryan Howard won’t know what to do with the short porch in right. Ever hear a hitter talk about what happens when you start trying to hit home runs? You don’t think this will happen when Howard looks down the right field line? 

4. Winning the Quadruple-A (some call it the National League) title does not mean you were playing real baseball.

5. Pedro Martinez is Philly’s number 2. Really? This is what they’re coming with? One good start in the playoffs (at age 50 I think) and he is now the savior. He was old in 2004. That was 5 years ago. Yanks will be into the Phils bullpen by the 4th inning.

6. On that note, the Philly’s don’t win without 4, 8 inning starts out of their pitchers. Their bullpen is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

7. Their nickname is the Phillies. This is the best they could do? They’re either named after female horses, or they were not creative enough to come up with a name so they just used the abbreviated version of the city name. Either way, let’s get real.

8. Derek Jeter. 9 Years without a World Series ring is considered a great career for most. That’s a drought for the Yankee captain. Plus he once said something along the lines of, "I'm not going down the Miss Universe road again." How many people can utter that phrase? The guy's a winner.

9. Kate Hudson. She gets full credit for the Arod turnaround in the playoffs. Seriously, I’d hit .450 in the postseason too if I knew I was going home to that every night.

Get better!

I talk a lot about the difference between training and working out. If you are charging people to come to you, you better deliver "training" and not "workouts."

What's the difference? Really it comes down to having long term goals, knowing what you need to improve on, and taking steps to actually get better at what you do. Does this mean getting as tired and sore as you can in a workout? Sometimes. But it shouldn't be the only goal of your program. You will burnout quick, and you may not even necessarily be getting any closer to your goals (depending on what they are).

I deal with a lot of athletes, who all have fairly similar goals (with some variation). They want to get better at their sport by getting (some combination of) faster, stronger, quicker, bigger, smaller, etc.

Piggy-backing with my last post regarding crossfit, where I pointed out the need for quality movement versus high training volume, there are ways to get closer to these goals without running the athletes into the ground.

Here's an example of a recent workout I did with some high school athletes:

I work with a small-school, varsity level high school team. This particular day, the seniors were missing for college visits and I was only left with 2 girls; both sophomores of really slender build and a general lack of strength. This is in contrast with a lot of the other girls that normally come (who I had originally planned that class around). I immediately shifted the focus of the day by asking them individually what their goals were. I knew what I was going to do with them, but I wanted them to know as well. (Good coaching tip: if the athletes feel involved in the process, their commitment level is much higher).

They both gave me great goals. Specifically, they wanted to get better at multi-directional speed. So after a good dynamic warm-up, I had a couple of options. Sure, I could've thrown some cones out there and ran them through countless repetitions of cutting drills. They would've gotten their change of direction reps in, been tired, and been nice and sore the next day from all the decelerating. But would that have made them better? Not necessarily.

With their willingness to learn, I thought it would be effective to take the time to actually break down the mechanics of a cut, have them practice it piece-by-piece until they were working at full speed. We started by learning the correct angle to place the feet when cutting, working in rehearsed patterns (where they knew where to cut), and finally to reactive full speed games (like mirror drills).



They barely got tired and would not get sore, but they both felt they got better, and that's all we can do as coaches.

After we finished this, they completed a great strength workout where they worked on improving movement patterns that we all need; lunging, pushing, pulling, and core stability.

So I hope you take the time (for yourself if not for athletes) to set goals with your training, and life for that matter, to make it easier to attack the goals aggressively but not always with misdirected wreckless abandon, as we've seen with a lot of group exercise/training classes. But if you need more visual reinforcement, here's a link that Brian "Sticks" Matthews shared with me. It contains videos that certain trainers are proud of. Hope you know enough to judge for yourself...

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F1869376&h=1ec9c17d4d3711a56205b3f3db9139ad

Jon

Assess before you guess

One of the most polarizing topics in the world of fitness and exercise science is the practices of the wildly popular systems put in place by Crossfit. Crossfit classes are characterized best as extreme interval/strength training in a group (often large group) setting. In fact, I've seen Iphone apps where you can download the workout of the day that may include upwards of 50 reps (or more) of exercises such as clean+squat, pull ups, sit ups, box jumps, etc.

Don't get me wrong, exercising is better than sitting around watching reruns of, well anything. But we hear of great success stories from systems like this at what cost? The programming of Crossfit is debatable; I'm not a big fan, but there are different philosophies on training out there and that's great. What's not debatable is the detrimental effects of performing programs like this poorly, which is inevitable in a group setting or when you encourage unsupervised weekend warriors to attempt some of these exercises. Also, the inclusion of exercises with known harmful effects to the low back, like the picture below. The science is there; the lumbar spine needs stability, not mobility. So why are we programming hyperextensions still? I guess it's because they're "hard" and the client can "really feel it," so it must be good.

Another favorite exercise complex that's a staple with crossfit is a hang clean+front squat. This is a tough exercise to master (even if you have the hip, ankle and T-spine mobility) that can take weeks to learn the right way. Now I've heard the teaching progressions are solid, but there is no way to monitor so many people and make sure it is being done safely. The first picture (pulled from a local crossfit website) below looks fairly benign at a quick glance, until you see how far onto her toes she is leaning, with her elbows dropped (all while wearing shocks-a whole other beast). Attempting to keep the bar up in this position adds a lot of compressive and shear forces to the low back. Now multiply that by probably 50 reps, and you can imagine there'd be some problems down the road.

This next picture is just ugly. If you think it's a good idea to kill yourself in an exercise session doing exercises with form like this, you might as well start booking PT right now.

Remember, the higher the reps and higher the intensity, the more perfect your form needs to be to avoid any injuries from a training program. Does stuff like this fit the bill? Before you start a program, I hope you have the awareness to realize this if your trainer doesn't, otherwise this is where we hear about those "mysterious" low back injuries and pain that "just shows up" for no reason.

There is always a reason.

Gettin' ready for the weekend

A few things to think about before the weekend...

1. While I really respect the amount of effort and schooling doctors have to go through to get to where they are, it's important to remember they are experts at only what they do. This past summer I had an athlete who worked extremely hard to recover from ACL surgery that was done in February. Attempting to get back in time for soccer season (the season started at less than 5 months post-surgery), she had a doctor her clear her for full activity. But what did he use to assess her ability to play? A quick manual muscle test on the injured knee. The ligament seemed strong, so she was good to go, right? Well what he failed to do was assess her overall movement quality (and maybe that's out of his realm) which is a huge part of assessing risk of future injury. I tried explaining this to the athlete and father, that her muscular endurance was not adequate and she was still favoring the leg, even if only for a lack of confidence. Understandably they went with the Doctors advice (why wouldn't they-it seemed more favorable to her situation, and he is of course a Doctor). Well after not hearing anything for a few weeks, and assuming no news was good news, I called to see how the soccer season was going. Long story short (too late, I know), She had just had surgery on her other ACL. I feel awful for the athlete and luckily with the timing of this one there is no reason to rush back. But I can't help but wonder if this all could have been avoided...Lesson: Ask questions and get a few different opinions from specialists before accepting a prognosis.

2. I just saw an ad for the Wii Fit Plus (or Pro, I don't know). Who are they trying to kid with this? Are people really buying this in an effort to get in shape??? I can only imagine what these meetings at Nintendo are like: "Let's take overweight kids who are already confined running around the house, and put them on a 2'x2' plate so they can't move at all, but we'll add the word 'Fit' to the system and it will be awesome." I don't even have anything intelligent to counter that with because it's not worth my thought process. If you think the Wii Fit is a good idea, then I can't help you either.

Normally I try to be PC, but if you think this is going to get you in shape, you're an idiot

3. Is it always this cold in October? Already snow around the Northeast and there may end up being 2 or 3 (if not more) playoff baseball games snowed out. I think I need to learn to ski to help me get through another winter in the adirondacks, because this isn't going to cut it.

4. If you're looking for a good read, check out Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall. Even as a coach who focuses on speed and explosiveness, it's a great look into what people were put on earth to do; run. There's a great chapter detailing the problems that started to arise when we started wearing running shoes (and paving more roads). The story itself is really enthralling as well, it's not just for runners.

It's all about the Effort

Alright, time to get back to writing. I've been slacking for a few hectic weeks but I make no excuses.

One book that I've finished in recent weeks is called Nurture Shock, by Po Bronson. Bronson explores the typical fashion in which kids are raised in the 21st century, and attempts to debunk a lot of the myths that have been perpetuated through folklore and passed down from generation to generation.






One topic that is directly applicable to the world of strength and conditioning is the argument for positive reinforcement. It seems that lately most people would agree that positive affirmations are a good way to get results out of students/athletes/kids, but what exactly does this mean? I think we all know not to call our kids or clients idiots, and tell them how terrible they are. But what kind of positive reinforcement is actually effective?

I was somewhat surprised when I read exactly how crippling it can be to tell a young student, or athlete, how good (or smart) they are at whatever it is they might be doing. Taking this approach actually leads to worse performances in the future.

Why?

Bronson makes a strong argument that this leads the kids to infer that intelligence, or in my case athletic ability, is entirely innate. In other words, you're either good enough or you're not, and there's not much you can do about it. As soon as they fail at something (do poorly on a test, lost a game, etc.) they are crushed and assume it's because they didn't have the ability in the first place.

Now, what should we do as coaches and parents to avoid this? The research was incredibly clear. Be positive about effort. I've heard many coaches and parents act disgusted when they hear people say things like "Nice try, Johnny!" after striking out, and I sometimes see their point. But, it pays off exponentially if you praise the effort of young kids, whether they ace the test, win the game or not. The key to making it effective though is Being Sincere. Kids can sniff out B.S. compliments from a mile away. If they worked hard at something, let them know. Highlight improvements. This might sound like coddling, but it is absolutely crucial to make kids understand that with consistent effort they will improve.

I saw this work first hand in the last couple weeks with a 10 year old boy that I've been working weekly for a couple of months. In his first group class, he struggled with coordination (and not to mention behaviour) and this frustrated him (and myself to a point). If he couldn't perform a skill on the first attempt he wanted no part of it, and would give up. I decided to try this approach, pulled him aside, and explained to him that all I was looking for was effort. It sounds simple, but I stuck to the approach.

After a few weeks of trying to remain patient, I noticed something.

This kid fell down more times than I've ever seen in a 45 minute class. He hit the ground, hard, a minimum of 15 times. But that's not what I noticed.

If he fell 15 times, he got up without missing a beat 15 times, and probably got up faster after the last time than the first. He kept working hard and knew I wasn't going to get on him about his skill, only his effort. He had fun, was attentive, and got better because of it. It was a very simple approach that worked wonders in this case and is supported by plenty of psychological research.

Hopefully you keep this in mind when working with your own kids or athletes!

Ten Years of Silence

Lately, my personal library has made a pretty dramatic shift in composition. A year ago my shelves were completely stocked with books only covering training, physiology, chemistry, and even a few left-over biology texts from my undergrad days (don't ever pick a major out of high school and then just go through the motions for 3 1/2 years before deciding what you want to do). Now, it's almost an even split between training and personal development/success type books. I strongly suggest you add this type of literature to your collection if you haven't already.

I've read several of these books lately and one of my favorites was Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. I've referenced this book before, and one of the points I took from Gladwell was the efficacy of the 10,000-hour rule. In a nutshell, research has shown that no "elite" level performer/businessman/entrepreneur/professional has ever reached their status without investing at least 10,000 hours of "practice" to their craft.

This led me to search out a book titled Talent is Overrated by Goeff Colvin. 90% of this book really bored me to death, but I did take a few quotes and principles that piggy-back Gladwells' findings in Outliers that I want to share.




Colvin mirrors many points by Gladwell and points out a principle he called (or quoted) the Ten Years of Silence. In the research he examined all high-quality performers had put in at least 10 years of deliberate practice before perfecting their craft. This included such "child prodigies" as Tiger Woods and Mozart.

My favorite example/anecdote Colvin uses is of Jerry Rice. Colvin says, "Of all the work Rice did to make himself a great player, practically none of it was playing football games." When it came down to numbers, less than 1% of Rice's entire career was spent on the field, in games, yet he is regarded as the best wide receiver, and possibly best football player overall, in history.

But how is this so? In our culture we have decided that exposing kids to as many off-season leagues and games as we can possibly fit in is the only way to get to the "next-level," whatever that level may be.

As defined by Colvin, deliberate practice is a very stringent routine where kids practice by having a coach "choose a comparison that stretches you just beyond your current limits." I love this definition, as this is the key to training kids in a strength and conditioning sense as well. Make a drill/exercise too difficult and the athlete either gets hurt or frustrated, and too easy and they get bored and don't improve.

But now, we are intentionally taking away this type of productive practice time for our kids to expose them to countless games and competitions to get them in front of college coaches at younger and younger ages. While playing AAU, summer baseball, off-season elite level club soccer, and the likes can be fun at times, they eventually become so competitive that they are added stressors to the athletes and at the same time they prevent them from actually practicing.

I hope there is a shift in the trend sometime soon, although it doesn't seem likely, where parents will start to follow examples like Rice, to help set their kids up for success down the road.

Follow up...

First things first...they say you learn something new everyday. Well, today I learned 2 things. 1) How to change a headlight in a Honda and 2) It's probably worth it to pay someone to change your headlight in a Honda.

Moving on...

Yesterday I wrote about not taking everything you hear as a strict law that can be applied to any situation, and gave an example of the exercise science student who was told to "never" let her knee move beyond her toes. Well I got this response from a friend of mine from grad school, Sharon, who is now teaches Kinesiology at Ithaca. It's a very well thought-out response, and will seem even more-so if you try to read it in a Briti...oops I mean Aussie accent...

"Hi Jon

I thought it was about time I read your blog, and I'm glad I did. I'd like to address your 'knees over toes' point. I am one of the several who teaches the knees behind toes general rule when performing squats / lunges, etc. I do this simply as it's a good rule of thumb when teaching technique to the general population. I'm not certain of the precise mechanism in play, but I teach this way as keeping end knee flexion ROM <90deg> both a) maintains the mechanical advantage of the patella and b) keeps the knee flexors/extensors at an ideal length for force generation (the latter of these also contributes to knee stability, crucial when overcoming heavy loads). I teach my students to supervise their clients in this way as it minimizes potential for joint injury in those who don't understand the principles behind the rules. Once you begin to deal with a 'non-general' population, the rules obviously change to suit different goals.

I appreciate that you were asking your client to adopt the knees over toes posture only as a one-off, but I wanted to clarify why I teach the posture I teach :)"

I only included the last part, the Mike Boyle bit, to show how oblivious I am with jokes. But a couple more thoughts on the subject...

She makes valid points about maintaining a mechanical advantage and an ideal length-tension relationship with knee extensors/knee flexors (knee extensors working while flexors stabilizing). This is important and can seem crucial if only looking at the knee joint. But as I alluded to (sort of) in the squatting example, we sometimes have to choose between the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils; pushing the knee out over the toes vs. increasing shear stress to the lumbar spine. The fact is, if the athlete doesn't have the ability to stabilize their knee in multiple planes, they really have no business doing any lifting under heavy load. This is one of the reasons we need sufficient dorsiflexion in the ankles, so the knee can be more stable and not try to make up for the lack of range elsewhere. Gray Cook points out that you always work, in order, mobility, then stability, and finally strength.

And not all situations are created equal...In lifting, there are times when you don't want your knee to move over your toes. This doesn't mean it should never happen. Think about an athletic position; If I put my athletes in an ideal position for multi-directional movement, their knees better be over their toes.

This hips can't move back without the knees and shoulders moving forward to keep the center of mass in a good position to move

Why??

Well, what's the first thing we tell athletes to do to get in an athletic stance? "Get low and push your hips back." Well this triggers a chain reaction that requires the knees to move forward and shoulders to move over the feet as well (We'd never squat in the position-but it does look somewhat like an RDL). This position loads the ankles to allow for more explosive plantarflexion on take off in any direction (so long as our backs stay neutral-rounded back=unloaded peroneals and weaker starting speed). As always, I credit Lee Taft with providing me with this info.

So I'm done rambling now, but I appreciate the response from Sharon, and encourage anyone else to jump in, even if it's to suggest I write about something else since this is so boring.

Jon

Thoughts from the weekend

Hey I'm back after a week long hiatus...

Coupl'a things

1) Big win for my Giants yesterday...typical W; didn't look pretty but the job got done.

2) RPI's new athletic facility might just be the nicest at the DIII level, and could stack up against a lot of DI schools' strength and conditioning centers.


3) I wrote a post a little while back about using common sense to make decisions with training and how you can't always use peer-reviewed research to guide your programming. Well Alwyn Cosgrove does a much better job of this than I ever could, so check out this link and scroll down to "Training to Maximize Fat Loss" for a great read on the subject.

4) Along those same lines, I think it's important to actively question and challenge the "norms" that we hear about every day. Recently, I wanted to check on a new clients ankle mobility as she was having trouble performing body weight squats without turning her toes out. As I put her on one knee, and asked her to push her knee as far over her toes as she could, she smiled and said "you're never supposed to over-extend your knee over your toes." She was an exercise science grad who had been told by several teachers in her program how awful this was for your knees. And as most students do, she simply accepted the information that her professors had given her. Well I convinced her that she wouldn't explode if she did this and sure enough she lacked significant mobility in her left ankle.

There are so many examples of this where professors are just doing their job. They read research (which is generally 5+ years behind practice) and they hear different things second-hand (because they don't actually work in the trenches to see what works and what doesn't) and they pass along information that students accept as gold. So next time you hear something, instead of just repeating it (Mike Boyle says there are way too many "parrots" in the industry), try to think it through and decide for yourself!

Have a great start to the week,
Jon

Principles vs. Practice

I've said before how lucky I was to learn from one of the best in the business, Lee Taft, to help put me on the right path in this industry, and I'm going to do it again here. One of the many nuggets that have stuck with me is his insistence on teaching principles as opposed to giving a big list of drills and just saying "Go". Learning why and when to work on certain skills has made me a much better coach. I can watch someone perform a drill, and decide if I like it by thinking back to the principles that need to go along with it.

Along these lines, we used to learn to program skills, and not drills. We would decide what skill we wanted to work on that day (so an example may be lateral hip strength) and then we would pick a drill in that category that would fit the athletes. We might have 3 or 4 skills planned, and then we would go to strength. It's a very effective system that I still use and will until the end of my career. I can do this because I learned the Principles first, which transcend time. No matter what changes happen in the future of training, the principles I learned will always be true.

This isn't only true with my field though, it's true in life. One of the most influential books that I have read is 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. He talks about Principles vs. Practice. Essentially, you can't tell someone exactly what to do, have them do it, and consider it "right". Decisions have to made based on sound principles to guarantee success and happiness.

Read it!

If we are taught principles correctly, that sticks with us forever. If we are taught practices we only know what to do in very specific situations. This reminds me of a pretty boring job I had where I was in front of a computer for 7 hours a day with not a lot to do besdies read. I actually taught myself how to solve a rubik's cube (yes, it was that boring) by memorizing algorithms that I found on a website. I drilled these algorithms until I had them memorized, and I could solve a cube in maybe 5 minutes consistently. Only problem was I never really learned the principles that go along with it, so now I would have no chance to finish one.

Back to training...Do you teach your athletes principles (or for that matter train yourself based on them)? I try to make my athletes think through the why's and how's of the drills and exercises we do, so I can be comfortable with them when they are on their own.

What principles do you live and train by? If you can't answer this it's time to sit down and think about it!

Jon

P.S. Anybody going to watch history on Saturday? Rachel Alexandra at the Spa!

A New Era

Yesterday, while working with a freshmen soccer player, Rebecca, trying to get back into playing shape for her fall season, I had to chuckle while watching her do a part of her strength chart.

She was performing single arm push presses with a relatively heavy kettle bell for a 14 year old female; 30 lbs I believe. She was giving great effort and using great form. The part that I laughed at was when I noticed she had freshly-painted, pink fingernails.

Rebecca has had a rough stretch since having ACL surgery in February, but has made great progress with her overall strength. She takes pride in her workouts by being competitive with herself with how much weight she uses or how many reps she can complete (with assisted pull-ups, push-ups and the like).

I realized that she epitomized the point I try to make to all the girls I work with (adults as well as athletes), that they won't get all jacked-up and manly if they accidentally touch a weight that is more than 10 lbs. This myth has been around for a long time, and hopefully that is starting to change, however slowly. The truth is, girls need to lift weights almost more than the guys. Injury rates are much higher with girls due to increased exposure to competitive sports (which is awesome) combined with a lack of proper training, nutrition, and education about how to prepare for athletics.

I promise that you WON'T look like this

Women, in general, Do not have the necessary levels of hormones to gain the bulk you see with the competitive bodybuilders. With a good strength training program, strength and muscle cross-sectional area will increase, but only in combination with a leaner frame. And the best part is, increased muscle mass does not result in "looking all jacked up." That pumped-up frame that bodybuilders work so hard to get is actually a result of higher muscle glycogen levels (which actually leads to higher water content in the cells). This gives them the puffed-up look of huge muscles, while some people who may look smaller actually have more contractile proteins in the muscle and are stronger than many bodybuilders.

To simplify, getting stronger is not a death sentence for your womanly frame. Unless you eat about 5,000 calories a day, take a few "supplements" you might find in almost any baseball clubhouse, and workout for 3-4 hours a day, you don't have anything to worry about!

Go move some weights!
Jon

Law of Common Sense

Back in high school math I remember learning about Geometry and Logic Proofs. Essentially you had to use a step by step process, by applying certain laws of logic (generally named after the people who founded them in the case of logic proofs, or names that were descriptive of the step itself) to prove a given statement to be true. Proving the statements to be true weren't generally difficult, but it could be tough to remember the actual names of the laws. One time on a test, a friend of mine finished the proof correctly for the most part, except for the supporting law on one of the steps, he used "The Law of Common Sense."

I'm not sure the teacher saw the humor in it, although I found it hilarious.

I think my friend may have been on to something though. I feel like, in today's world, we are so caught up in numbers, data, statistics and research that we forget that we can use a little common sense every now and then to come to viable conclusions.

Just last night I caught a thin-slice of a story about a Doctor who believes vaccinations may be contributing to the large number of autism cases. Most of the medical community was quick to toss him in the loony bin because "the data simply doesn't show this." I don't know if he's right or not, but given the potential implications I think common sense says to listen. Is it so crazy to think that something foreign intentionally introduced to our bodies could cause the rate of something like autism to increase 17 fold in about 15 years? It might be, but I'd want to know for sure before I dismissed it.

This same logic can be applied to the field of strength and conditioning, in a couple different ways. Sometimes the research isn't there to support something that you know is helping, so you do it anyway. For example, a few years back when I first learned of foam rolling as an intern, and was having my athletes do it before class, I was able to get a feel for how they were going to perform that day. Were they sore? Did they feel good? Did they have a tough day at school? The roller answered some of these questions, and I asked the rest while they were doing it. There are really no drawbacks in my eyes.

"Whoah! Be careful there Chris-Lets wait for the data to come out before you get yourself hurt!"

Well I had a college professor tell me he wasn't sure about foam rolling and would like to see more peer-reviewed research to show the benefits of it before making athletes do this. Really? So something that takes 4-5 minutes to do, makes my athletes feel better, gives me a chance to assess the upcoming workout, and mentally prepares the athletes for that workout is a waste of time? I don't need research to tell me to keep doing it.

On the other side of that coin though, is the possibility that research shows something to be beneficial when really we should be more cautious of applying techniques from controlled studies to the general population of athletes.

A good example of this is with plyometric training. Research has proven that exercises such as depth jumps, performed at fairly high heights, can improve vertical jump scores and lower body explosiveness. Does this mean I should have all my athletes perform depth jumps since improving vertical jump performance is desired?

Absolutely not. Especially at the heights used in some of these studies. Now, if I have an elite athlete who is trying to get a scholarship and needs an improved vertical, I may program them. And I also have kids to depth jumps from much lower heights. But why risk a serious injury (especially with some kids who may be slightly overweight) by stressing the achilles tendon to it's max potential?

Most research lacks an element or risk-reward assessment that is absolutely necessary in our field, and all fields for that matter. If there is low risk involved and the research isn't there-do your own experiments. Anecdotes aren't always wrong. And if the research is there, but you question the risks involved, make a decision for yourself on whether or not it will be beneficial for your athletes. Don't be handcuffed by numbers and statistics.

Have a great week,


Jon

ACL Shortsightedness

First off, I'm going to start with a disclaimer...I am not a Doctor, Therapist, Athletic Trainer, and I don't even have the best background in anatomy and physiology that I should to be doing what I'm doing.

That being said, I've run into a very narrow-minded point of view from PT's and ATC's when it comes to strengthening an athlete recovering from ACL surgery. I've heard, almost verbatim, from three independent sources when the topic of ACL rehabilitation was brought up:

"Oh, ACL's are easy. I just tell them 'hamstrings, hamstrings, hamstrings'."

I almost cringe when I think about how shortsighted this outlook is, and then wonder how many of these athletes end up limping off the field, after a couple days of practice after being cleared, with a quad or hamstring pull.

Now, do hamstrings need to be strengthened? Absolutely. But this is just the beginning of the story. If we only concentrate on the hamstrings, we are completely ignoring the mechanism of an ACL injury. Let's consider some basic anatomy:

The hamstring group (Semimembranosis, Semitendonosis, and the long and short head of Biceps Femoris) originates at the ischial tuberosity, with the exception of the short head which originates at the linea aspera, at the distal end of the femur. Semimembranosis and Semitendonosis attach distally on the medial side of the tibia, and both heads of the Biceps Femoris attach on the lateral head of the fibula.

This is a very simplified picture of the attachments of the Biceps Femoris

So what does this mean? Let's go back to the mechanism of injury. Most research, and I think most top trainers, PT's and Docs would agree, that the absolute last line of defense is the hamstring. The injury starts up the chain. Most notably from the gluteals. The "funny" part is, it doesn't seem to be a lack of strength that's the problem...simply a lack of activation. The proper muscles are not turned on in the correct order, leading to medial rotation of the femur and the knee going valgus, stressing the ACL, MCL and everything else that goes along with it.

Back to the hamstrings; the only part of the hamstrings that is anywhere near the femur is the short head of the biceps. Clearly strengthening the hamstrings can't be the answer for preventing future injuries. We need to strengthen, and relearn how to activate, the external rotatores of the hip; Glute max., posterior glute medius, in addition to the lateral aspect of the hamstrings.

Now, I have a second problem with how some PT's operate. I am working with a 14 year old girl, barely 6 months post-ACL surgery, who was recently cleared by the Doctor because her knee looked really strong. Well they were right, her knee is very strong...but what about the rest of her? They didn't bother asking. Long story short, after a couple days of practice, she came to me with a strained quadriceps. Hopefully mild enough to recover in a week or so but who knows. But now I'm the bad guy who has to tell her to sit out of her first soccer scrimmage of the year, even though the Doc told her she was fine.

Sometimes we need to take away the magnifying glass and look at an athlete as a whole person, not just a joint or a couple muscle attachments.

Have a great weekend!
Jon

Scary numbers...

Check out this article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32543288/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition

Jon

Little League World Series

This time of year is generally slow for sports. Baseball is dogging through August. Football is just getting into full-swing with pre-season games. There's no basketball to be spoken of. And hockey...well for all I know they may be in the middle of the Stanley Cup but I wouldn't know anyway.

One exciting sporting event taking place right now is the Little League World Series. We get the chance to see 12 and 13 year olds compete on the biggest stage for the right to be called "World Champions." We see the radar gun on the TV screen telling us how fast each pitch is if converted to Major League distance. We see home runs-a-plenty over 200 foot fences. We see kids elated, and on the other side dejected.

And the managers, parents, and fans all accept this as OK. But let me play devil's advocate here.
First off...I am all for competition. It is a fun way to get great effort out of people without just yelling and screaming at them (and if that sounds like your coaching style with kids, get a clue). We can teach lessons in competition about how to be proud in defeat and, more importantly, humble in victory. But at what expense are we exposing these kids at such a young age?

One major flaw (which may not be any one's fault, but it still exists) is with the cutoff date. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this in Outliers, which I highly recommend reading. Essentially, kids at a young age are singled out as being "elite" because they are so much bigger, stronger and faster than the rest. Well with a little digging Gladwell noted, in elite Canadian hockey leagues, that the vast majority of these "elite" players were born very close to the cutoff date (soon after). Why was this? Because at these young ages, a few months of extra growth time is a HUGE difference. These kids were physically older than their peers of seemingly the same age.




What was the result? These kids received special coaching, extra games, more practice and many eventually went on to be great players down the road.

But what happens to the kids who were left out at age 10, who may have been unlucky enough to be born at the end of the year? How many of these kids were turned off to the game at a young age? What if they had the same coaching and opportunities until they were able to hit their growth spurts and catch up with the rest?

I think the same problem exists with the Little League World Series. I haven't checked the birth dates, but I would guess a similar trend exists with these "All-Star" teams from each community.

My second problem with this competition is the lessons that are, or aren't, being taught to these young kids. There was a story the other day about a game where the pitcher on one team was instructed to intentionally walk an opposing batter. Well, on a 3-0 count the batter swung at a pitch feet outside the zone at his coaches demand. Why? Apparently to get the pitcher closer to his pitch limit and be forced to come out of the game.

Really?

This is what we want to teach our kids? Not that giving your best effort and having fun is OK...but rather trying to take advantage or rules, or lack there-of, in order to win is right.

Isn't that how we got into this whole steroids mess to begin with...You hear that argument all the time-"Well, it wasn't against the rules at the time." Now, most of the coaches I'm sure do a great job. But we don't hear about them as often.

I am personally over the Little League World Series. I am happy for the kids, and just hope they come through unscathed by some of the misguided coaches that are put in charge of them.

Jon

Great weekend

Coupl'a thoughts about the weekend...

1. Do any Yankee fans out there feel truly comfortable yet with a 7.5 game lead heading towards September? Still great to take 2 of 3 in that bandbox of a ballpark they call Fenway.

2. On that note, can someone explain to me how Jim Rice was "misquoted"?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4417140

3. I watched parts of the movie Major League on Saturday for the 548th time ("This guy here is dead!" "Well CROSS-HIM-OFF then!") After watching the Yanks on Fox and then on ESPN, isn't there a way one of these networks can pay Bob Euker enough money to make these telecasts worth listening to without putting it on mute by the 3rd inning?

4. I love Saratoga

5. Time to do a little reading and some work. Have a great start to the week!

OchoCinco

Just sitting here writing a few programs on a Friday morning, listening to Mike and Mike in the background (Eric Kuselias and Tim Kurkjian filling in) and I overheard a pretty cool story. As much as I'd rather not give someone like Chad "Ochocinco" props, the wide receiver apparently filled in for an injured kicker to hit an extra point, and follow that up with a kickoff inside the 10 yard line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFiCRzkDXOU

To me the interesting part came after the highlights though. Kuselias acted quite surprised and Kurkjian made a great point that we actually underestimate how good the top athletes really are. Seriously. He noted that almost all of these great athletes excelled at SEVERAL sports through high school. Ochocinco apparently played soccer. Lebron was an all-state football player in Ohio I believe. Many baseball players were also great basketball or football players.

So the real question is, why do we spend so much time specializing young kids at such a young age now? Have we been force-fed so much propaganda by competitive, off-season leagues that we now believe the only way to make it to the next level is to pay them your hard-earned money to gain the exposure of college coaches and big league scouts?

I had a conversation with a local basketball player recently. I asked him about a teammate of his whom I hadn't seen in a while. The teammate hit his growth spurt at an early age; was much stronger, faster and bigger than the rest of the 7th graders he competed with or against. So what did his coaches do? Made him learn how to play center. No problem here. Well at least there wouldn't have been a problem if he had continued to grow. Fast forward 2 years. The same athlete, plenty of athletic ability, is now too small to play in the post and is apparently a couple years behind on his ball-handling skills. Long story short-word is he "doesn't really like basketball that much anymore."

Can you blame him?

The main goal for youth athletics should be to be as well rounded as possible!

Any thoughts?
Jon

Overcoming Mental Hurdles

Back at Ithaca, as a grad student, I remember having an inter-departmental rivalry of sorts with the Sports Psychology peeps. After 5+ years of studying various sciences I was convinced that physiology, kinesiology and biomechanics was the be all-end all when it came to designing training programs for athletes.

Today, after working with so many kids, I realize this view was shortsighted. The mental aspect of training is undeniable. I feel like I can work with a young athlete for one session and peg, almost to a "T", the type of parents they have; overbearing, supportive, positive, etc.

Some of the best natural athletes I have struggle because they are afraid of making mistakes. They don't want to deal with the negative consequences they associate with making a mistake.
It is my job as coach to make an adjustment in my coaching style to make them realize it's OK to try something new and not be perfect the first time. It's like teaching them to clear hurdles in their head.

This essentially means that each athlete may require a different style of coaching (and probably does). I've heard so many times how coaches use negative reinforcement to "weed-out" the kids they don't want anyway. Really? How many do we leave by the wayside just to get to the select few who were probably going to be successful anyway, just to take credit for them for being their coach?

The same sort of thing happens when it comes to overcoming physical limitations or "ceilings." Sometimes an athlete can be pushed further than they believe they should be. This is not always the case, however. Some athletes need to have the reigns pulled back some (especially with weight training) as they are only interested in how much weight they can put on a bar without worrying about execution. Do you think yelling and screaming and trying to motivate this type of athlete is going to work? Hell no. Take some time to teach them the why's and how's about the exercise.

As important as it is to understanding the mental makeup of your athletes, I still believe it is most important to have an understanding of training principles, anatomy, biomechanics, and the like (I don't care how good you are with brain typing, mental training, etc...without the scientific background you should not be training. Period). However, I feel like the mental aspect of coaching is what separates the average coaches from the great ones.

Can you get the most out of each of your athletes without leaving anyone behind?

To an Athlete...

Alright I'm gonna get a little corny here. Deal with it.

A couple of weeks ago I pulled up behind a car at a stoplight with the vanity plate reading "YMIHERE." It's no question the first time a liscense plate has made me think with any sort of depth.

I got to thinking about what it is I am doing, right now, with my life. What events led me here? What choices of consequence had I made that led me to the profession of teaching kids the basics of movement and sport performance training?

I got to thinking of the days when I was an athlete in middle and high school. I was lucky to have a coach, Lee Taft, who introduced me to the practice of strength training, but more importantly taught me what it was to be an all-around person.

A matter of days later, I was rummaging through some old text books and I came acrossed a poem that Lee handed out to all of us during football season one year in high school. It's fairly corny, simple, but really hits the nail on the head. Here it is:

To An Athlete

There are little eyes upon you,

And they're watching night and day;

There are little ears that quickly

Take in every word you say;

There are little hands all eager

To do anything you do;

And little children who are dreamping

Of the day they'll be like you.

You're the little children's idol,

You're the wisest of the wise,

In their mind about you,

No suspicions ever rise;

Hold that all you say and do,

They will say and do, in your way

When they are grown-up just like you.

There are wide-eyed little children,
Who believe you're always right,

And their ears are always open,

And they watch each day and night;

You are setting an example

Every day in all you do,

For the little children who are waiting

To grow up and be like you.

This made me think back to the years before middle school, when the varsity athletes were exactly what this poem is describing. If you're an athlete, even only at the high school level, you can bet that there are kids out there who would love to be put in your situation.

Do you consider this when you make decisions on a day to day basis?

I was good about my decisions in high school, although there are some things I do regret.

If you had taken into account all people who can be affected by the consequences, before you made your choices, would you still have made the same choices?

Workout Vs. Training

Recently, in one of my bootcamp classes, a question came up regarding the plataeu effect, and why we couldn't just do more and more every day without topping out. I wrote an e-mail newsletter to the participants explaining the difference between training response and an adaptation. It was basic and contained the usual suspects; responses include increased heart rate, ventilation, doms, acute hormonal response, increased systolic blood pressure, etc.. Adaptations included increased lean muscle mass, decreased resting heart rate, increased resting metabolic rate, increased cardiac output, decreased blood pressure, etc.

The point I made to the bootcampers was that adaptations only occur during recovery. Without proper nutrition and recovery time, adaptations will not happen. Period.

So how does this relate to your training program? Well first off, do you have a training program? Or do you just go to the gym to get a "workout". If you are going just for the workout, you are in other words just looking for the response. You feel good when you've finished an exhausting workout, or you've ripped apart your muscle tissue so much you can barely move the next day. You feel like you accomplished something.

But did you?

How many times have you worked out like this only to never see the changes you truly want? I see this with athletes, adults and everything inbetween all the time. People plateau and they just keep going and pushing through, hoping things will change.

So what's the solution?

The key is to have a long range program in mind. Figure out your goals, where you'd like to be. Then find someone to help you map out how you are going to get it done. If you wanted to drive across country you wouldn't just wake up and start driving like a banshee down the road in any random direction would you?

So don't do this with your training!

Your plan should include scheduled low volume weeks to allow recovery. These recovery periods will help you get more work done in the higher intensity workouts while avoiding the plateau effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnAg4SGGHjA
Is there really a need to push yourself to the point of wanting to puke in a workout? It's amazing how many people think that's ok to do consistently.

Ask yourself that simple question: Are you working out (looking for a "quick hit"), or training (looking to make changes)?

Youth Fitness?

Before I headed out yesterday morning to train my group of kids, ranging in age from 10-20 separated into 2 groups, I caught a cliff-hangar on the news saying something to the effect of "stay tuned, a report on kids and fitness after this."

I was interested, so I hung around to watch. This is what I saw:

http://capitalnews9.com/content/health/child_wellness_wednesday/478945/make-childhood-workouts-fun/?RegionCookie=12&ap=1&MP4

If you skipped the link, take the time to watch it, it's less than 2 minutes and blew me away.

Now there's a lot of good things about the media; anyone who has a message can get it across in one way or another, whether it be on tv, internet, newspaper, whatever. But with those benefits comes irresponsible "journalism" and reports by so called "experts" who really have no hands on experience dealing with the very issue they are preaching about.

I laugh almost every time I see this woman on my local news. (I heard I actually missed one where she was recommending people do turkish get ups with an olympic bar-unreal).

There are a lot of misconceptions about youth fitness between coaches, parents, and over-zealous trainers. Reports like this simply serve to reassure those who are already way off base. The only positive thing of this story was the quote that "training needs to be fun for kids." Genius.

In 2009 a pediatrician actually said "lifting (strength training) may not be good for bone health." This was being said in the background as our "fitness expert" is teaching a kid how to use a seated leg extension machine. Other "valuable" exercises shown in the video: prone leg curls on a machine, lat pulldown on a fixed machine, a kid on a stair stepper, and a girl on a back extension machine.




So teaching a 9 year old kid to do body weight lunges, or carry a 5 pound weight with good posture, is going to stunt their growth, but these fixed machines are so expensive that they must be good.

The kicker: The pediatrician actually recommends 5th graders to train for a 5k. Even with all of the primary research in the last 10-15 years documenting the evils of distance running for almost EVERYBODY, we're gonna have our 10 year olds train for a 3 mile race. The great line right after this recommendation: "One thing to worry about is repetitive stress, overuse type injuries."

What's the number 1 cause of these injuries? Ask any PT, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say distance running.

Do they even edit, or do any real research for these reports, or do they just look up "pediatrician" in the Yellow Pages and dial a couple numbers to see what sticks?

It's kind of ironic, but this garbage reporting makes our job of educating parents and kids much more difficult, but at the same time ensures a need for good coaches who will educate themselves to know what's best for the kids.

Anyway, enough of my rant, off to train more kids and kill their bone health. Maybe I'll just take their money today and send them on an hour long run out on route 9.

Jon

Weekend that almost wasn't

They say you can tell a lot about a person by how they react to adversity. In the past this has been a problem for me. I would get angry and defensive in bad situations and I realized how terrible it was for me. So I've tried to work on it. But it's been hard to tell how I was doing as things have been pretty even-keeled and going well for a while.

Then I got on the thruway to go to Brockport

A tractor trailor maybe trying to mark his territory

So it's Friday afternoon and I'm excited for a great weekend with great friends many of whom I haven't seen in over 2 years. About half way into my trip I was side-swiped by a tractor trailor, did at least one 360, and ended up nose down in a ditch at about 45 degrees.

I learned a lot about myself in the minutes after this happened. For starters, it was my first experience with the whole potential "life flashing before your eyes" scenario.

Only it didn't.

While spinning I think I said a few choice words and was fired up when I first came to a complete stop. I got out of the car to make sure I wasn't hurt and to see the damage. And after I saw my front end completely buried in mud, and saw the damage to the panel, a calm came over me.

A year ago there is no doubt in my mind what would have happened. I would have been irate with the driver and I probably would've crawled into a hole, went back home and called the weekend a 'loss'. (In fact, the last time we all went to the same place, my phone got ruined in a pool. And I was resentful for hours, if not the whole weekend. Over a phone.)

But I didn't. I didn't get angry at the driver of the truck (even after he changed his story of what had happened) and I didn't get down on myself. I got pulled out of the ditch, gave my statement, and got back on the road to Brockport where I had an awesome weekend catching up with everyone (it's weird how nobody misses a beat-it's like the last weekend we got together never even ended).

Looking back, the way I chose to react to each situation played a direct role in my own happiness for the immediate future.

So anyway, after an Awesome weekend, it's back to work tomorrow with a long day of training surrounding a baseball camp that I am running. Should be great!

Jon

Training in the college setting

As a strength coach, it's actually very easy to write programs and get results for someone who is the "ideal" client. You know, no injury history, clear-cut goals, no overbearing parent trying to do your job for you, does everything perfectly the first time you describe it to them. However, in the real world, this client is the exception rather than the rule (if not a figment of our imagination). There are many obstacles that you encounter depending on your situation. I think one of the toughest jobs in this industry is on the college campus. It is possible to be responsible for hundreds of kids who all have different issues and have come from different backgrounds of training for 10+ years prior to you getting your hands on them. How would you handle it?

Here's an interview with RPI strength coach, and good friend, Kyle Sottung.

Enjoy.

JH: Standard first open-ended question, tell us a little about yourself…What do you do now and how did you get to this point? So basically give us your entire auto-biography in 3-4 sentences.

KS: I grew up playing all types of sports, and I played football, basketball, and baseball in high school. When I went to Ithaca College to play baseball, I was undecided on a major. Ithaca had an excellent exercise science department, so it was a natural fit for me considering my love of sports. I wanted to continue to be around athletes even after my playing days were finished. After undergraduate and graduate school at Ithaca, I joined Lee Taft in Queensbury for the opening of his new business. I learned from Lee, who I consider my mentor, for two years before taking the strength and conditioning at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

JH: I know some strength coaches at big schools are assigned to individual teams…so the football, or hockey team, may have their own coach. How is RPI set up? What is your situation?

KS: When I first arrived at RPI, they were in a transition period. There was a new Athletic Director, the two previous full-time strength and conditioning coaches had just taken jobs at Division I schools, and Athletics was moving into an amazing new facility. RPI has 21 Division III Varsity sports, and 2 Division I Varsity sports (Men’s and Women’s Hockey). I was put in charge of all of them as the only full-time strength and conditioning coach. Needless to say, I was busy. It has taken a lot of work and creativity to make sure that athletes are not falling through the cracks. I hope to build the program up enough that we have a steady supply of interns and assistants who want to be a part of a really dynamic strength and conditioning program.

JH: You were a great college pitcher at Ithaca, and one of the best overall athletes I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. Honestly, other than me owning you at darts I think I’m intimidated to play sports on Playstation against you (not to mention, with your competitiveness, I’m sure you’d be “that guy” to turn off the system if you were going to lose anyway-but I digress). How has your athleticism helped you establish yourself in your setting today?

KS: Wow, that’s a loaded question. First off, I would never turn off the Playstation. But that’s only because I would never turn it on in the first place. My video game skills end at Tetris and Big Buck Hunter Arcade. Second, I feel like I owe the athleticism that I have to my parents unknowingly providing me with the tools to be a good athlete. They took me to gymnastics when I was too young for organized sports, they encouraged me to be outside playing, swimming, and playing all sorts of sports. They put in countless hours driving me to practice and games, and were very supportive. And as we know, it’s those critical younger years where we pick up a lot of our coordination, movement skills, and love for physical activity. As far as how it has helped me in my profession, I think it makes the coaches and athletes more comfortable knowing that I understand the training needs of their sport. The term “Sport Specific” makes coaches and athletes think they need to train a different way than other sports, which is true only to a point. They still need strength, stability, flexibility, and power. If I can physically demonstrate to them how to do an exercise properly, and then demonstrate how this is going to help them perform better on the field, they are more likely to buy in and commit to the program. In addition to that, I think it’s important on some level to practice what you preach. If I tell the athletes to do something, you can guarantee that I’ve done it and understand it. I don’t have to be able to outdo them in everything, but they should know that I’m still an athlete.

JH: You know it’s funny, the first question I often get asked, especially from the high school athletes, is “how much ya bench?” I feel like I’m stuck in a combination twilight zone/Saturday night live skit from the ‘80’s. I’ve always been a poor bencher, but once I am able to demonstrate more complicated lifts a couple times they start to listen a little closer.

That’s a great that you did gymnastics. Coupled with baseball, where you really learn to excel with hand-eye coordination, overhead throwing, and rotational power, you can really see how it would all come together for you down the road. I think it really goes to show the value in an all-encompassing “training program” as a kid. Essentially it’s organized fun that works strength, power, mobility, and coordination and everything in between.

Moving on, What would you say is the biggest challenge you’ve faced at RPI? Is it programming for so many kids, long hours, dealing with demanding coaches, or anything in between?

KS: I think the biggest challenge has implementing a different philosophy of training. When I came into the program, there was an established way of doing things, and it’s hard for an athlete to change something after 3 years of training. So I had certain ideas that I waited to implement, just because I didn’t want to overhaul everything at once. I slowly started to implement my style, and as the athletes saw results, they wanted more. The questions started to come, they started to pay closer attention, and in the second year I hope to build on that, especially with a new progression aimed at incoming freshman. I can start to mold them right from the start, with 4 years of development in mind. The second biggest challenge is balancing the work schedule with my personal life. I love what I do, so it’s easy for me to work for very long hours. But I also need to take care of myself. It’s a balance I’m still working on.

JH: I know when we get together we sometimes like to vent…mostly about other peoples’ training techniques or programs, especially with athletes that think they already know it all. How tough is it to overcome that mindset of the college stud who doesn’t need any help from you? Do you chalk it up to a lost cause or try a different approach to bring him over from the dark side?

KS: It’s funny when you start to compare the ideas about strength and conditioning from the general public and the top-tier strength and conditioning coaches. A good example was the other day, when you and I were looking at a video on YouTube of an elite athlete doing a core exercise. The video was posted on YouTube and on StrengthCoach.com. The YouTube comments consisted of “awesome stuff”, “can’t wait to try it”, “what a great exercise”, etc. and the StrengthCoach.com comments were more along the lines of “I would never do this with my athletes because of the risk involved”. There’s so much bad information out there bombarding the public (I have included a picture below), and they are confused.




That being said, it’s certainly our job to get good information in the hands of the misinformed and educate them. If someone asks for my help and won’t follow my advice, then they really didn’t want my help in the first place. If I have an older athlete who is stuck in their ways, I’ll make them explain to me why their way is better. When they are put on the spot, it’s usually “well, this is how my trainer from home told me to do it” or “that’s what I read in a magazine”. Then I’ll explain the physiological or anatomical reason why it should be done a certain way. It’s a gentle way of saying “I know more about this stuff than you do, so why don’t you be quiet and do it my way” without forcing them to do it with no explanation. If you open up a dialogue, you can get a lot more accomplished. By doing this, I’ve actually learned some things from my athletes. Really, the way to get them to come over to your side is with results. If my programs are good and the athletes are increasing their performance, are avoiding injuries, and look and feel great, I don’t have to sell anything.

Thanks for your time and very thorough answers, Kyle, I'm sure we'll be hearing from you soon!

Functional Training?

One of many buzzwords that have been floating around the strength and conditioning world for a while now is "functional training." It sounds good, can catch the attention of potential clients, and can be useful if done correctly. But what exactly is it?

I remember having a discussion in a graduate school class while in Ithaca on the topic. We tried for a solid 20 minutes to come up with a workable definition and I'm not sure we ever came to a consensus. I remember discussing the merits of the bench press vs. exercises like sled pushing for offensive lineman in football. That day, I think we finally accepted the idea that "functional" simply meant "looks a lot like the sport you're training for." So, trainers watch sports and then make their athletes perform the same movements but get creative with it and add resistance. And this is the idea than many coaches, trainers and athletes have run with.

I believe this has led to 2 main problems with training:
1) Adding blind resistance to movement patterns without considering what the actual goals are of the athlete
2) Over emphasis on "gimicky" equipment; wobble boards, stability balls, vibration platforms, etc. (they do have their place-but do you really need your 10th grade running back to perform squats on a stability ball?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTCIA5umib8

I love the music they chose to have on in the background

With the first issue of blindly adding resistance, I personally think this method is a little too simplified. First of all, not all movements in sports need to be made harder with training just because the athlete has become proficient at it. And making a movement harder does not simply mean adding weight to it.

My mentor, Lee Taft, made this clear to me when he made an example with a basketball player (by the way, pretty much all of my information about training has come from him, so if I don't reference you could probably just assume). If you are a 90% shooter from the foul line, should you now practice with a weighted ball? Of course not, but this same logic has been applied to all aspects of training.

With number 2: A positive advancement in the training industry is that more and more people have gone away from fixed machines. Finally. However, many of us have gone to the extreme and really all we have accomplished is a few cool you tube videos and probably countless injuries (avoidable ones at that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pLkjqBNLQ

The best definition I have heard of Functional Training was at a conference, and I believe it was Gray Cook who was speaking. He definied it as "any training that translates into improved performance in activities of daily living." That's not word for word, but you get the idea. This means that functional carries a different meaning for everybody. The 22 year old baseball player shouldn't train the same as a 50 year old factory worker or a 75 year old woman trying to live independent of outside assistance.

I guess the lesson is to take into account 3 considerations before using a given exercise:

1) What are my goals for using this exercise?
2) Is this exercise accomplishing these goals?
3) What are the risks associated with the exercise vs. the benefits I can gain from doing it?

The 3rd question is most important. If you can't justify the risk (a la squatting on a stability ball-is the possibily of a broken neck really worth the slightly increased demand on hip adductors that you can get in a multitude of different ways while grounded?) then DON'T DO THE EXERCISE!

Happy Track Season to Upstate NY'ers!
Jon