Going through the motions with mobility

Today I just want to take a second and clean up some technique with a common exercise that I see being done on a daily basis: Leg swings against a wall.

Here's a clip of the exercise done fairly well (check around the 35 second mark):

This is a great example of why I usually answer "depends" when I get asked the question, "What's a good exercise for 'x'"? Remember, there are no good or bad exercises, only good and bad application of exercises.

So what's the issue with this simple drill? 90% of gym-goers I see will swing their leg side to side very high, while allowing the foot on the down leg to turn outwards. It may seem harmless, but this is why it's important to understand exactly what the goals are for the exercise. With this example, we are working on hip mobility, but not only on the leg in motion. We are also working on internal rotation of the leg that is holding still, as our moving leg swings across our body. When the toe turns out, we let the hip externally rotate and now we've lost a big part of the exercise. Now any extra range of motion we get is a compensation of added hip flexion on the moving leg.

So, when doing these, be sure to keep your toe pointed directly at the wall, and stay tall as you go through the motion, and work with a purpose!

Have a great Wednesday,
Jon

Rosa Parks, Ghandi...and Male Hookers

Coming in to work this morning, I heard this quote on the radio...

"I'm basically doing what Rosa Parks did when she decided to sit at the front of the bus instead of the back, or what Gandhi did when he had a sit-down protest against the British Embassy...I'm basically trying to reset social norms."

The quote was funny in itself, but completely took on another meaning when you find out it was spewed by the "first legal mail prostitute" in the US.

I was planning to transition that into a training topic, but I think I'll just let that sit for a while and come back later with something real to talk about...

Have a great Tuesday,

Jon

Be a Coach

I think one of the most valuable lessons I've learned as a coach is how to connect with my athletes/clients on a daily basis. So often we see coaches or trainers draw up a program or practice plan and become so in love with the plan that they do whatever they have to do to fit the player/athlete to the plan, when in reality it needs to be vice versa.

I've talked before about the value of foam rolling, not only in improving tissue quality and overall muscle function of the users, but also in giving myself time to walk around and get an idea for how each person is feeling prior to a workout. If people are feeling crappy, were up all night doing school work, skipped the last meal, etc., then there isn't a lot to be gained from a super intense workout. With the "old-school" mentality this might be considered soft. And to be honest sometimes it is. But, as a coach, it's important to learn your athletes. Not all answers are created equal when asking these questions. For example, if you know a kid comes in complaining about something every day (we've all had them), and you ask him how he feels and he says "eh, so-so," you better believe he's getting pushed.

Now, if your team leader, who never says "boo" even when in severe pain, comes to you with that same "so-so" sentiment, what would you do? Would you make him push through a rigorous strength workout? Or would you back off, maybe do some mobility/recovery work and possibly even teach some new skills at a lower intensity? Which do you think would be more productive in the long run?

The problem with this type of training has been the complete subjectivity involved in the programming. You absolutely need a long-term plan in order to do this; having goals makes it easier to deviate from the plan when necessary, only to find your way back to it as soon as possible. However, it's hard to find solid research to back up this type of approach because of the lack of objectivity no matter how much sense it makes in practice.

I did stumble across a recent article that gave a fancy name to this style of coach called "Flexible Non-Linear Periodization". While I didn't totally agree with some of their testing methods for strength, the improvements in long-term (16 weeks) strength were significantly higher in athletes who were allowed to adjust their workouts based on how they felt that day. The overall volume and total repetitions were controlled for between groups, but the FNLP group sustained much greater gains over time.

This is a strategy that allows coaches to make for highly individualized programming within small groups, maximizing efficiency and use of time without sacrificing the individual attention that most want. The tactic has served me well working with young athletes ranging from age 10 all the way through adults and weekend-warriors. If you're not taking into account the activities your clients are doing outside of your watch, I believe you are doing them a huge disservice.

If you're interested in the study here is the citation:

McNamara, JM and Stearne, DJ. Flexible nonlinear periodization in a beginner college weight training class. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(1): 17-22, 2010.