Creating a standard program where the change or variation is simply a few exercises and a change in repetition schemes is easy to put together. There is change and this does help, but I would argue that constant variation of a more extreme type not only avoids plateaus, but also helps facilitate muscle growth, strength gains, speed gains, athleticism gains, etc. Below is a graphical representation of what I'm talking about:
Without variation, our muscles become accustomed to the same movements. Sometimes, athletes may actually experience a decrease in strength because the monotonous program has left its toll on the psychology of the athlete. When formulating your training modules, remember to incorporate variety. It will be tempting to constantly re-use the same workouts, but try to think outside the box and incorporate radically different approaches to training. Go to Yoga or try Russian Kettlebell training. Maybe even try doing some Mixed Martial Arts training. All have benefits for all types of athletes.
What looks cooler: bench pressing 185lbs or doing 10 pull-ups? Well, bench pressing of course. The weights make noise, look really big, and make us look tough. Pull-ups are cool too, but they don't convey the same sense of strength and power. These perceptions have led many young athletes down a dangerous path. They have resorted to simply trying to lift the most weight on a predictable set of exercises: bench, squat, dead-lift, hang clean, etc. This is good to an extent. In many sports, we want athletes that can lift heavy weights. But we also want functional strength. That is, strength that optimizes performance on the field in all the dynamic ways in which strength can be applied. Imagine a wide receiver sprinting 20 meters, cutting, jumping into the air 2 feet, twisting his body to catch the ball, planting his feet, cutting to avoid a tackle, dropping his shoulder to break another one, etc. The movements in this sequence occur all the time on the field, but aren't even closely touched in the weight room (I don't think you really can, but we can at least attempt to make more dynamic movements and less stationary ones).
Calisthenics are good because they require stabilization of the body. For example, a tough pull-up workout will often cause athletes to get sore in their core. Why? Well, in order to move the body up and down without shaking requires a level of stabilization. After doing push-ups, the same can be said. The body must stay linear and so while the chest and shoulders are pushing the body up off the ground, the core must be activated and keeping the legs linear with the torso. The ability to keep one's body linear or to control it when working with another muscle group (the back and arms in this case) is enormously beneficial. In fact, learning to do this is exactly what a wide receiver must do in order to jump, maintain body control, and catch a ball!!
Besides the added dynamic of stabilization - which is a huge asset in contact sports - calisthenics are also good for younger athletes. Many young athletes come into the weight room wanting to lift huge weights because the older boys or girls are doing so. The older kids have gone through puberty and have the testosterone, however, to make significant strength gains. Younger kids often don't. They can get stronger, but the gains are minimal relative to the gains they will experience later. For example, if we gave a 8th, 10th, and 12th grade boy (let's say the same boy, same genetics, just three different ages) the same workout program, the 12th grade boy would get stronger and bigger. Often the 10th grade boy will lose his baby fat and gain some muscle, but often he will not be ready for much muscle gain. The 8th grade boy will get stronger, and will learn the lifts well, but he won't pack muscle on at all (generally).
This is where calisthenics are extremely helpful. They are safe exercises, they help young athletes become more coordinated, and more in tune with their bodies. Coupled with learning how to lift, calisthenics provide a great way to build strength and lay a good foundation for future growth.
Unfortunately, they stay overlooked and under appreciated. The fancy shiny weights are just too glamorous.
We take a lot of things for granted. The tough thing, as Ken Robinson - a British speaker, intellectual notes, is that it is very hard to know what you take for granted. If you're a parent, a quick example may help you envision this. Do you have a wrist-watch on? Interestingly, many of you do. But most of your kids don't. The reason - well, it's a single-function device that doesn't really do much. Plus, I can use my Smart Phone to find the time as well as anything in the world on Wikipedia.
In athletic training we take a lot of things for granted as well. IF you notice most of the exercises done in the weight room, you will see that most of them are done relatively stationary. The objective is to lift the bar from Point A to Point B. Compound exercises use multiple muscle groups, but even lifts like the Squat and Hang Cleans are relatively stationary. In games, we are moving, using our mental abilities to attempt to see where the play is going, and when we do exert force, generally, it is not done just straight up and down, but at angles, off balance, etc. Hopefully you can see the picture I am attempting to describe.
We know that combines, for instance, are poor predictors of future success for NFL players. This from an article in the Wall Street Journal:
According to a recent study by economists at the University of Louisville, there's no "consistent statistical relationship" between the results of players at the Combine and subsequent NFL performance.
Why is this the case? I don't have scientific data on this, but I'd be willing to put my money on this answer: the 40 yard dash, the bench press, the squat, and the vertical jump are all tests that are, for convenience sake, simple to administer but not very game like. A wide receiver that can run a fast 40 yard dash but not catch the ball is worthless - the test obviously doesn't measure his ability to catch. The squat measures strength, but what about technique on the line or football sense?
What are the implications of everything I'm taking about? We need to stop taking for granted training methods which aren't the best. WE know that humans can innovate and change and that over time we ALWAYS come up with better techniques/methods. Today is the time to do this with athletic training. We want our players to become more athletic. How can you do this:
For example, you can have them do agility drills with their heads up and have them yell numbers according to certain commands by the instructor. Or you could have them run the 40 yard dash while making catches from 3 different passers along the way. Or you could design speed drills where athletes have to maneuver through each other, forcing them to keep their heads up just like the real games.
I don't know the answer exactly, but I do know we can always do better. Progress never stops.
It's much harder than it looks. The overhead squat engages the core more than a traditional back squat. It also forces an athlete to maintain good balance.
In the spring of many high school seniors final year, they are still required to ask for permission to go to the bathroom. Yet, only several months after they graduate, we expect them to go out on their own, live with others, and take on a whole host of responsibilities. What changed between the spring of their senior year and college just three months later? I guess three months would be the answer.
For far too long we have placed our kids into little boxes and told them that they need to work within the confines or parameters of a system. Our school system is still set up on the factory-mill model: bells signal changes in shifts, classrooms are often linearly organized in rows, etc. The Horace Mann system of public education made a lot of sense in the early 1900s. We needed workers that had basic numeracy and literacy skills. The elites could go onto college and become the managers and entrepreneurs. Today, however, our economy is increasingly demanding more creativity, problem solving, and hypothetical/abstract thought skills than ever before.
To teach these skills we need to give our kids responsibilities. They need more autonomy over their education. In one of my education psychology classes, we watched a video of a Japanese pre-school. The teacher was inside the classroom, the kids outside were playing. One of the boys began to act out and was misbehaving. A young Japanese girl ran into the classroom and told the teacher. The teacher's response: "Go fix the problem, don't just tell me about it." It was absolutely amazing to witness this. After watching the video I concluded that Japanese pre-school students have more responsibility than the average American high school senior. If true, that is a sad reality.
Kids are going to make mistakes, but this shouldn't stop us from giving them responsibility. In fact, we should reward them with more and more autonomy, instead of simply punishing them for breaking rules, for breaking with conformity.
I know that as a high school student I felt trapped a lot. One quick and easy example will make this clear to the reader. When I was a senior I wanted to take Latin, but I didn't have room in my schedule to do it. I spoke with the Latin teacher who told me I could do all the assignments and take the tests; he would help me. I just had to get it approved by school administrators. You want to know what I was told? They said, "If we let you do this, then other kids will want to do it too."
To summarize:
1) Empower students by rewarding good behavior with increased responsibility.
2) Give students more autonomy over their education. We know from basic motivational psychology that autonomy is a key factor in motivating individuals.
The graph above has the 50 meter sprint on the horizontal x-axis and vertical jump on the vertical y-axis. As you'll notice, the higher an athlete can jump, typically the faster he can run.
Implications of this correlation:
1) Vertical jump training may be great for increasing speed. I don't have the scientific data, but I would venture to guess that the shorter the sprint, the more correlated vertical jump height is with speed.
2) Outliers on the graph may represent quick individuals who are not fast. What this means is that they are explosive and can reach top speed quickly, but their top speed is lower than less explosive individuals. This is reflected in their vertical jump being higher than the averaged line you see.
3) Outliers below the curve may represent individuals who are fast, but not quick. Their low vertical jump indicates a lack of explosion from the 0-15 meter range, let's say for example, but does not accurately indicate their top speed, which may be reached at 20 meters or 25 meters. They therefore run faster times with lower than expected vertical jump scores.
4) Outliers below the line should train explosiveness while outliers above the line should train to increase top speed.
**Always note that correlation does not mean causation! That is, although vertical jump and sprint speeds are correlated, it does not necessarily mean that increasing vertical jump scores will increase sprint speeds. Although I personally feel that this is the case, I have not presented enough evidence to ensure that one variable (vertical jump) is causing another variable to increase (sprint speed).
This past weekend I went on a trip with the Princeton Girl's Rugby team to the University of Virginia. (I've been training them for the past 15 weeks or so). It was a great experience and along the way I learned a lot about the sport of Rugby. There were a couple observations that I did take away from the game and the experience as a whole:
1) We have so much to learn from other sports. As I was sitting up on the hill next to the field watching the girls warm-up. They got into a square, with a line behind each corner. They went through a set of warm-up drills where they run toward the middle and pass or hand off. As the warm-up progresses, more balls are added to the drill. Basically, by the end four girls are navigating through a small space in the middle of a small square. The drill requires intense communication, visual, and coordination skills.
2) Last week I had messed up on the F = M*A calculations. I wasn't measuring acceleration but rather velocity (speed). Mass * Velocity = momentum. So in terms of momentum the calculations were right. But we can also think of the difference between two athletes by looking at the power they can each generate. Power is determined by the following equation: (1/2(Mass)(Velocity^2))/TIME. If you work out the math, it is easy to see how influential velocity is in determining power output measured in watts. You will also see that gains made in mass alone are cut in half.
3) The low man (or woman) wins. Well, if it were easy then we would all just get lower. It's not easy, though. Getting into a low position (squat) is difficult because maintaining that position requires muscular endurance, strength, and coordination. We naturally want to stand up when we get tired, not squat down. Training for contact sports like rugby should focus on getting girls (and boys) down into a squatting position.
4) Sports should be fun
That's all I've got for now. Check back later for more! Or go to the website at www.thefortisacademy.com
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where groups of individuals come together and make a decision in such a way that discourages opposing viewpoints, creativity, openness, and debate. This often occurs when the top echelon of leaders in an organization "force" their opinions upon their subordinates by making it clear that non-conformist opinions will not be tolerated well. We have seen this psychological process occur in many instances - one famous one would be with the Johnson administration in Vietnam. But without getting into politics, it would be wise to also look at Groupthink in the context of coaching or leading a team.
The problem with opposing opinions is that we often feel that when they are presented that they represent opposition. We equate a different opinion than our own as anti-us. This is the wrong way to think about coaching or leading! Different opinions are the life-blood of good coaching and of good leaders in all types of organizations.
Now, there is something to be said of time and place. An assistant coach shouldn't call to question a drill or comment by the head coach in front of the entire team (or anyone on the team for that matter). Differing opinions are valuable when they are done with confidence, but can destroy a team if done in a negative manner.
If you're a coach or a captain on a team, it is important to be aware of the trappings of Groupthink. One way to avoid this is to ask questions instead of stating facts. If I'm the leader of a team and I tell the team that I think we should do Plan A, it will be difficult for most to respond with a differing opinion, let's call it Plan B. But if I ask, what should we be doing to get better? The response might involve several methods which I had not even thought of.
It is also important to establish a culture that rewards dissent as much as conformity. Loyalty is necessary on a team. A coach can't have an assistant being disloyal and talking behind his or her back. At the same time, that assistant has to be able to speak his mind and let the coach know what he thinks! Often and especially when the chips are down, it is easy to revert to Groupthink postures. That is, it is easy to look for (subconsciously) people who agree with you. As the situation gets worse, we look harder for a rational behind our previous actions. The stakes to change become more costly because change means admitting failure (and the longer the failure, the higher the cost to admit it).
Avoid Groupthink at all costs. It is the silent disease that kills innovation, creativity, and progress in business, politics, and sports.
Core training is extremely important in football. I hope that the picture to the left clearly demonstrates why. The running back, Chris Johnson, is being tackled from the side, he is on one foot, and needs to break from the grip of the opposing player.
Think of two types of cars: a jeep and a low riding sports car. Which one will tip on fast turns? The jeep because it doesn't have a very low center of gravity. As athletes, we want to be compact and strong throughout our bodies. Many athletes, boys especially, like to build their chest and bicep muscles. They may look strong, but don't be fooled. Without a strong core, a player that is hit will have trouble balancing and leveraging upper body and lower body strength.
If a player gets hit at shoulder level, from the right side, his left leg should be planted into the ground to absorb the tackle. The leg muscles will exert force against the opposing player. If the core is weak, however, and cannot keep the player's momentum in the opposite direction of the tackle, the legs will need to compensate. And if the legs are weak, then all is lost. Yet, if a player has strong legs and a strong core with a moderately weak upper body, it seems perfectly reasonable that he could absorb a hit. Most of the force from the hit comes from power exerted through the legs and most of the force required to absorb the hit will likewise come from the legs.
Key Points: - Core Training is essential to leveraging upper body and lower body strength. At Fortis, we believe that a stronger core increases overall strength on all lifts. - Leg strength is superior to arm and chest strength.
