Conditioning Research

Superb  (thanks to Keith Lee from Twitter)

Carrying on with the discussion of "functional" training I suppose, I came across an absolutely superb post from James Fisher, who has a blog that you really should be following.   James picks apart all of the arguments that are usually presented in favour of using the Olympic lifts  -  power development, skill, safety - and concludes that for the the science does not really support the use of the O lifts for conditioning.  If you are an Olympic lifter - fine - if you are not.....don't bother.  Anyway - go and read this, it is excellent Weightlifting for Strength and Conditioning - A Critical Analysis The idea of simplicity and safety are key to what I recommend in Hillfit too - you need safe exercises to get stronger and then learn how to apply that strength to your sport.

I've had lots of stuff on here over the years calling into question the idea of functional training.  There is no skill transfer from one movement to another.  Movement skills are very specific and when you change the movement you need to develop new skills.  For example in tennis using a heavier racquet would not make you able to hit harder when you switch to a ligher one  -  it is a different skill.  You would have to learn all over again how to move with the different implement.  We covered some of this in the interviews with Luke Carlson , Drew Baye and Doug McGuff . Anyway, James Steele today pointed to a new paper that addresses all this stuff Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises on performance in field based fitness tests. It is worth reading the abstract that James copies.  He concludes: As always, separate physical conditioning from skill conditioning.

A title like that is usually guaranteed to prompt outrage in the comments.  Whenever I've had things like that up here -  like this - before guys pile on with their assertions that explosive traiin has to make you explosive....look at Olympic lifters or something. The HIT school tends to say that the key is to get stronger and then learn to apply that strength explosively if that is what you sport requires.  Luke Carlson in my interview with him stated it like this: A last question – what about explosive training? This is another tactic that often comes up – “train explosively to improve speed and power”. So we see people doing Olympic lifts, bounding, doing depth jumps. Is this just a waste of energy or is there any real benefit? I think every athlete should train explosively; but this does not mean they should perform Olympic lifts, depth jumps, etc. Improvements in "explosiveness" are stimulated by the INTENT to move explosively; the outward demonstration of ...

Clarence has been around for such a long time that I sort of assume that everyone knows of him and - like me - waits each month for his site update.  But I've found that lots of people still are not aware of him. He has a couple of good posts this month: Intensity, Failure, Rep Range, Muscular Endurance, Specificity    - A review of James Steele II article that I pointed to a while ago A nice piece on cross training -    Cross-Training Doesn’t Work—Unless it’s Weight Training

A few day's ago I put up a short review of Dan John's new DVD Intervention .   I just wanted to point to his recent blog post Lifetime Warrior Workout where he puts some of the principles from that DVD into practice in a simple workout pdf. Definitely worth a look.  As Dan says: It’s a very simple sheet, but it contains, in the simplest of ways, the gems of fighting age with weights and stretching.

I've been a fan of Phil Maffetone for a while.  His philosophy of aerobic training is really useful and makes a lot of sense - moving around at a really easy pace so that you are buring fat not carbs.  I'd like to spice it up with some occaisional sprints, but for most people I think his overall philosophy of health as opposed to fitness is really important. I also think he has been ahead of his time in his approach to things like stretching, shoes and diet.  Anyway he has posted a couple of pieces recently on weight training: Part 1 Part 2 you can go and read them yourself, but a few thoughts I had: interesting how the paleo principle means different things to different folks his idea of real function movement - pick things up and carry them has echos of some Dan John (The old Get Up idea:  Our mission? To teach everyone: 1. The Body is One Piece 2. There are three kinds of strength training: Putting weight overhead, Picking it off the ground & C...

You may be aware that there have been riots in England.  I was going to write "in the UK" but as someone who live in Scotland, there is some sensitivity about this - it has been peaceful up here and we don't want to be lumped in with the animals down south.... Anyway, I think this is a joke, but if you want to be fit for some looting you might want to check out: “Lifting for Looting” – Your exercise guide for Maximum Riot Performance.

James Steele has had a peer reviewed article published identifying what protocols can be recommended for resistance training based not on tradition or fashion but on evidence!  How novel  ;-) The full article is available here   and I'd recommend you to download it and have a read.  It challenges some popular  ideas that are out there - like plyometrics - and makes some recommendations based on what the science says. It is good stuff - similar to the stufy here in fact!

This sort of follows on from the last post . I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to integrate different threads of the things that interest me in this whole physical training world. Where I am coming to at the moment maintains the differences I've learned about between skill and strength. Strength training is one distinct area and - while there are controversies - I tend to come down in the HIT school as explained by Doug or John . However I am still drawn to the general athleticism and enthusiasm of people like Erwan Le Corre or Frank Forencich . I do not see the two schools as mutually exclusive though. Where I am now is thinking of the general building of strength - intense infrequent workouts - and then learning a set of fun skills, that will also be useful in life - more regular easy practice and play. So currently I am training weights about once a week, but also training Krav Maga once a week - skill training - and doing easy playing around with other ...

There has been quite a lot on this blog in the past about "functional" training, particularly about whether there is much cross over in training. The basic science is that there is no strength training exercise that carries over to athletic or everyday movements. You can get stronger, but to get better at the skill you need to practice the skill. My interview with Luke Carlson covered all this . Anyway, I spotted this study today. It seems to say that people who do lots of sport and "leisure time physical activity" and in particular play games, have better general motor ability. Obviosuly the whole causation / correlation thing comes in again (i.e. do they play more games because they have more skilled at coordination etc or do the games make them skilled) but it is interesting to reflect on. Generalism in terms of games etc benefits general athleticism? I don't know the key is to learn the skill I think and to get stronger. Is Generic Physical Activity O...

This follows on from the post I had up on motor learning a couple of days ago . ASCLEPIUS has just posted this today which is really worth reading I have just finished reading Daniel Coyle's 'The Talent Code'. It adds some biology to the idea that 'you are what you do' and 'practice makes perfect'. It is no revelation that our brains are plastic and can adapt throughout life - but Coyle digs a little deeper. I encourage you to read more

One of the things that this blog has recorded my thoughts about recently has been the idea of skill development vs strength development. Strength development is one thing, but in order to be good at your sport or activity you need to practice the specific skills involved. There has been a lot written on motor learning which is fascinating to study. Some of the interesting stuff is of how there is little transfer between similar movements. This area of skill development came up in today's seminar with mc - which I will write more of soon (it was excellent) - but I also came across this today which is relevant to the discussions: Study shows new brain connections form rapidly during motor learning New connections begin to form between brain cells almost immediately as animals learn a new task, according to a study published this week in Nature. Led by researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the study involved detailed observations of the rewiring processes that t...

This keeps coming up - for example in a comment on the last post from Dan: Also, Olympic lifters traditionally have some of the highest vertical leaps recorded and they do mostly explosive movements. It would seem that Luke has an opinion that is not supported by much of the industry when he says that cleans are actually sending the body a signal to go slower to something like that. Everything I have read about explosive movements says that they help the body recruit more motor units and increase rate coding. Some science actually says something different. For example: EXPLOSIVE EXERCISES IN SPORTS TRAINING: A CRITICAL REVIEW This paper reviews evidence relating to the effectiveness and safety of explosive exercises, such as Olympic style weight lifting, other weight training exercises performed at a fast cadence, and plyometric exercises, that are commonly used in the strength and conditioning training of athletes. Contrary to popular belief and the practices of many athletes, the ...

I interviewed Luke a few months ago.

Interview with dr mc schraefel - kettlebells, z health and more! For quite a while now I have been reading the fascinating blog ( begin 2 dig ) of someone who was only iden tified as “mc”. mc (a he or she - for a while I wasn’t sure) addresses physical culture and movement issues with a depth that you rarely come across. With some tenacity she really resear ches in depth and then explains her findings clearly so you can apply them. It is a fantastic resource. I was very happy to find out that my friend Rannoch (whom I also interviewed here ) is hosting mc for a seminar at the end of the month . Rannoch suggested that I do an interview to dig a little more into mc and her approach. I think you will like this interview - we go through some interesting material and - as ever - mc puts things in a clear way with great enthusiasm. mc, I’ve been reading your material for a while now and it will be great to be able to meet you. I’m looking forward to the seminar . Me too on...

There has been some debate here in the past on "functional training" - e.g. Luke's Carlson's interview here . Rob from Mountain Athlete has some good comments today : QUESTION I have started your 2 weeks of strength training for skiing... pretty cool!! I would have maybe one recommendation/question. I got an ACL reconstruction about 18 months ago and the quad on which I had surgery is still a little smaller than the other one (on the inside side of the leg). Now, I can do everything I was doing before without even thinking about it, but sometime it feels like something is still not moving right (a lot of "poping" and tendonitis feeling). One exercise that I discover recently is the "pistol" (single legged squat). It is a great exercise for me because it trains each leg separately, it is surprisingly hard and it works a LOT on the balance and the stability of the knee. Furthermore, I found that it improved the way my injured leg is now absorbing the...

Some of Rannoch 's comments on recent posts have got me thinking. He is right. So much of what you read is written as if the average trainee is an elite athlete training for the national championships. In general that is not true. Most of us are just average guys wanting to keep fit and healthy. We want to be better than average but we also are not elite. We do not need the routines of the champions. We need to move more, to do the basics and get better at basic movements. Here are the comments, which are worth a post of their own: On Craig Ballantyne Whilst CB's sales pitch is relentless, here offers simple effective methods for average people. And this is the key. You talk about training enrgy systems and training geared towards specific activities. well I am afraid that applies to a very small percentage of folks out there. In fact ,if I were to identify one thing that stops people making progress it is trying to adhere to routines and protocols that are beyond the aver...

If you have followed this blog for a while you'll have seen the discussions of "functional training". The High Intensity Training position more or less is that there is no such thing. Everything is specific. You can develop strength and fitness, but the sports specific skills must be developed separately by practising those skills - i.e. bench presses will make you stronger but to be a better puncher you must punch well. Luke went through all this in the interview here . Vern Gambetta had a good piece on his blog today on this area: General or Specific Jay Johnson asked me to comment on balancing specificity and generality in training. Jay is a middle distance and distance coach, but I will broaden this to include all events and all sports. Obviously the highest degree of specificity of training and the most direct transfer occurs when you do the activity itself. Frankly this is where training has advanced significantly over the last sixty years. We realized that stayin...

This is an interesting looking discussion paper. Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise's complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery. I've not read the whole thing, but this statement stood out in the abstract: Normal physiological processes are dynamic, integrated, periodic, and therefore, it is difficult to define normal physiological function by looking at a single time point or single process in a non-stressed subject. The paper is challenging this idea of an exercise pill - this concept that a drug could be developed to mimic the beneficial effects of exercise. The authors object: The concept of an "exercise pill/exercise mimetic" demonstrates an inadequate appreciation for the complexities in integrating cell, tissue, organ, and systems during both acute disruptions in homeostasis by a single bout of exercise, and longer-term chronic adaptations to different types of exercise such as resistance and endura...