tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post2704933172339067643..comments2023-10-17T08:19:17.319-07:00Comments on Conditioning Research: Revisiting this idea of functional trainingChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-28329715061672911192011-04-24T06:59:14.901-07:002011-04-24T06:59:14.901-07:00It is a shame when presented with the facts people...It is a shame when presented with the facts people still fall back on what they believe rather then simple honest truths. Functional training and many of the newest "fitness" fads and routines are money making schemes that someone adopted and then tried to put science behind it. If one takes away all the fluff and all the whistles and bells that help sell some of these activities and take a look at the results they are creating or not creating. One can surly see that most things in the "fitness" industry are very ineffective, have a very low return on investment of time and many are just dangerous. We should be exercising to enhance life, not doing things that create injury and take so much time that we don't have time to do other things we enjoy.Dwayne Wimmerhttp://www.vertexfit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-61217756403970574082011-03-30T21:51:07.310-07:002011-03-30T21:51:07.310-07:00It's really good to know the idea of functiona...It's really good to know the idea of functional training. Thanks a lot for sharing that information.Vitamins Canadahttp://www.nutrawayscanada.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-75360998558573995632009-05-31T03:04:03.978-07:002009-05-31T03:04:03.978-07:00Good interview. For the record, Dan Riley was let ...Good interview. For the record, Dan Riley was let go by the Houston Texans. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-84836058146170523432009-05-05T07:40:00.000-07:002009-05-05T07:40:00.000-07:00Thanks for this interview. Now I have realized tha...Thanks for this interview. Now I have realized that sports is scientific. I am coaching grade school basketball players and we give a lot of stuff to the players that made them tired instead of making them fruitful and good in basketball. I hope you will send me some research-based articles so i can guide more our players. This is a good education for and and I will really apply this new trend or approach to the players so they will may slowly become productive.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04090396082315756603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-37635003559283610212009-04-29T06:01:00.000-07:002009-04-29T06:01:00.000-07:00Thanks for that pdf link - great stuff, really hel...Thanks for that pdf link - great stuff, really helpful.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-18596915279477990132009-04-29T05:17:00.000-07:002009-04-29T05:17:00.000-07:00"Human movement is greater than the sum of th..."Human movement is greater than the sum of the parts. Whilst I would not advocate punching with dumbells for example, I would recommend swings. Why? Because the kinetic chain "reflects" the same power generation required to strike."<br /><br />Imagine a runner running with a pack on -the runner believes he is making the run harder which will make him run faster without his pack but running is a very specific skill (as is punching) and when he runs with the pack on he changes his stride pattern & body movements to accommodate this which retrains his running skills so when he returns to running without the pack his motor skills , body movements, pacing, stride pattern are all askew which hinders his performance. Attempting a skill transfer from something that isn't the skill itself has only a negative transfer. <br />It's very simple if you want to be a good 400m runner run 400m as fast as you can and strengthen the muscles used in this movement. In the 1970s Project Total Conditioning at West Point Academy provided great improvements in running(as well as cardiovascular ability, flexibility and of course strength) with only strength training:<br /><br />http://www.coreconditioning.info/articles/documents/TOTALCONDITIONING.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-9364908418878532042009-04-24T17:28:00.000-07:002009-04-24T17:28:00.000-07:00Mike, Rannoch
thanks for some great commentsMike, Rannoch<br /><br />thanks for some great commentsChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-48705601762640997862009-04-24T11:59:00.000-07:002009-04-24T11:59:00.000-07:00I just put a comment in
http://conditioningresea...I just put a comment in <br /><br />http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2009/04/coments-on-functional-traiing-debate.html<br /><br />to try to clear up some stuff; so check it out there.<br /><br />It is my view, that sports performance is WAY more than just strength translated. It has to do with <br />1) visual info<br />2) proprioceptive info (from joints)<br />3) vestibular (inner ear "balance")<br />4) cognitive <br />5) strength<br /><br />Rock on<br />Mike T Nelson<br />PhD(c), CSCSMike T Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14997800230648983026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-47087309557724342932009-04-24T09:23:00.000-07:002009-04-24T09:23:00.000-07:00Science is our attempt to make sense of nature. Na...Science is our attempt to make sense of nature. Nature does not confrom. So what we see as cause and effect can be entriely unrelated. <br /><br />We all want to "understand" but my personal experience will always trump your analysis. But just because it's right for me doesn't mean it's right for you. Science looks for definitions that require a predictable outcome from a particular input. Nature does not conform.<br />RRannoch Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03626186803479276281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-34427839738569950732009-04-23T10:48:00.000-07:002009-04-23T10:48:00.000-07:00Hey Chris,
Great post. The comments are at least...Hey Chris,<br /><br />Great post. The comments are at least as useful as the article itself.<br /><br />Unfortunately I am at least as confused as I was before. Everyone supposedly has "science" on their side yet most are either for something or against it. I don't get it and it leaves me as it always does on other things. Try it out myself and see if it works. <br /><br />Without being called upon to prove the negative it would be nice to get a closer look at the science behind methods other than SS/HIT and to have those folks blow holes in their theory without resorting to anecdote.<br /><br />jeffJeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13704929106479058019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-21392961724001367662009-04-23T07:42:00.000-07:002009-04-23T07:42:00.000-07:00I believe that the deadlift, due to its incredible...I believe that the deadlift, due to its incredible capacity to strengthen the 'involved muscles' for everything, DOES carry over to athletic and everyday movements. With the exception of the pectorals, I can't think of a major muscle that isn't strengthened by performing heavy deadlifts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-39448581797966219932009-04-23T06:03:00.000-07:002009-04-23T06:03:00.000-07:00Thanks Rannoch. Good stuff.
I'm still chewing th...Thanks Rannoch. Good stuff.<br /><br />I'm still chewing this stuff overChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-84760986340089374632009-04-23T05:53:00.000-07:002009-04-23T05:53:00.000-07:00Wow! Great stuff. There is no strength training ex...Wow! Great stuff. There is no strength training exercise that carries over to athletic or everyday movements? Really? We can choose to isolate the individual functions of muscles in the body but it happens at the expense of moving as a complete unit. <br /><br />Human movement is greater than the sum of the parts. Whilst I would not advocate punching with dumbells for example, I would recommend swings. Why? Because the kinetic chain "reflects" the same power generation required to strike.<br /><br />Most people lose physical sophistication over time. Our sedentary, desk sitting makes sure of that. Challenging training using a variety of stimuli is key. <br /><br />Mobility followed by bodyweight followed by load based actvities, all in an effort to create a complete practice.<br /><br />Whilst athletes may operate at the edges average people don't. We need to integrate our conditoining, our activities and our sports training.Rannoch Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03626186803479276281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-32145191708226481632009-04-22T14:00:00.000-07:002009-04-22T14:00:00.000-07:00Thinking through these comments I still don't thin...Thinking through these comments I still don't think that people fully get what this guy is saying.<br /><br /><B>There is no strength training exercise that carries over to athletic or everyday movements.</B>That is radical stuff. If true ( and I keep getting told that the science says it is) then that should have profound implications for training. <br /><br /> I think perhaps people are forgetting that the principle is that you still need to train your athletic movements, e.g in rugby you need to practice tacking, kicking, lineouts, scrums, sprints, sidesteps etc. And you need to practice a lot. <br /><br />However as I understand it the appropriate strength training for rugby is to efficiently strengthen the involved muscles. jump squats with weight will not directly make you better in the line out. you need to get stronger in the legs/posterior chain and then practice your line out skills.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-52308396514059043262009-04-22T11:30:00.000-07:002009-04-22T11:30:00.000-07:00"Keith frequently discusses the notion that always..."Keith frequently discusses the notion that always moving slowly trains the muscles to contract slowly, and that training explosively teaches the muscles to contract more quickly. Isn't there research to support this? I feel that long slow distance makes me a worse sprinter, and sprinting makes me a better sprinter and jumper. Am I wrong?"<br /><br />Totally different, as distance running is low intensity for extended periods of time, not necessarily a "slow movement" as the elite distance runners provide evidence of.<br /><br />One could train superslow and superheavy, averaging TUL's in the 40 to 60 second range and trying like hell to explode the movement but being unable to because the weight is just too heavy. Look at a powerlifter doing max singles/doubles/triples: they're not moving fast but they're trying like hell to do so.Skylerhttp://skylertanner.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-17473617292061096022009-04-22T07:52:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:52:00.000-07:00...which brings me back to what I've always preach......which brings me back to what I've always preached -- train the specified weakness, in the context of current circumstance, via the most appropriate methodology available in order to reach your defined goal. What's the best tool at the moment? Oly lifts? SS/HIT? CrossFit? Kettlebells? What energy system do we want to emphasize? The truth of the matter is, it depends. Unfortunately, guys like Dan Riley rarely have access to the time, resources (or, as AL pointed out) the trainee dedication to successfully pull this off w/in a diverse group. Football players might as well be 4 or 5 completely different groups of athletes, based on the requirements of their positions. I hate to lay out a shameless plug here, but I've got a post that ought to go up this evening covering this very topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-59180719522057692292009-04-22T07:29:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:29:00.000-07:00Chris,
As usual thanks for an awesome post!
Wait ...Chris,<br />As usual thanks for an awesome post!<br /><br />Wait ... on second thought, damn you for challenging my beliefs that functional/explosive training is necessary! j/k. I will say that this piece, along with a lot of other stuff I've read recently, has definitely made me question why I train the movements I do. It seems the more specified and technical a movement, the more I have to decide if I really want to be good at it. So far, I haven't removed much from my routine, because I do want to be good at things like hand balancing, pistols, muscle ups on bars/rings/etc, and deadlifting/cleaning. But that's as much because they are impressive skills to be able to bust out, as it is because I notice their carry over to other areas.<br /><br />I will say that one area where functional movement trumps the machine for me, personally, is withoverhead lifting. When I added the standing barbell press (or heavy double KB press) to my routine, I noticed the development of abdominal musculature that I'd never noticed in years of seated presses, or presses on machines (or any amount crunches/situps/ab work for that matter). Load overhead, while standing, challenges your body's ability to apply power/stabilization from the ground up. <br /><br />You might be able to replicate this with a simply more complicated machine, but I just feel that the thing that makes the trunk activate in a barbell press is the fact that the weight wants to move in odd directions. If the weight doesn't try to do that, the trunk won't be activated in the same way, even though the shoulders might be significantly strengthened. So the machine would have to replicated the weight's desire to fall/shift, but at this point, wouldn't a barbell more easily accomplish this?<br /><br />Keith frequently discusses the notion that always moving slowly trains the muscles to contract slowly, and that training explosively teaches the muscles to contract more quickly. Isn't there research to support this? I feel that long slow distance makes me a worse sprinter, and sprinting makes me a better sprinter and jumper. Am I wrong?<br /><br />If somebody more knowledgeable than me could offer some insight (especially backed by research), I'd so greatly appreciate it!<br /><br />Thanks always for the great blog,<br /><br />-BryceBrycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07485589400686017338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-11179292710954968662009-04-22T07:28:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:28:00.000-07:00Re: Crossfit. I thought the t-nation article was ...Re: Crossfit. I thought the t-nation article was actually a pretty even handed and fair presentation of Crossfit.<br /><br />The issue of high rep O-lifts comes up often, and I think it really depends on what the athlete's goals are. Certainly if they want to excel as an o-lifter this is a bad idea, since you'll be ingraining sloppy form and the like.<br /><br />For people who are only using the lifts as a means to an end, I'm less convinced it's a problem. Certainly dangerous form (back rounding, knee buckling, etc..) needs to be stopped at once. But form that is safe, but merely not idea (say, early arm bend) won't diminish the metabolic demand of the workout, and does not endanger the athlete.<br /><br />It (like everything else in training) comes to do the question of "what are your goals"?Chris - fitnessfail.comhttp://www.fitnessfail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-28076882915336903452009-04-22T05:41:00.000-07:002009-04-22T05:41:00.000-07:00Keith,
If they NFL works as a case study, then th...Keith,<br /><br />If they NFL works as a case study, then the oly lifts the Lions are doing imply they make athletes awful. Right? Right? I know you weren't running this far, but this is how correlation suddenly becomes causation.<br /><br />Use of HIT for the sake of adding muscle tissue during certain portions of a grander training scheme would be helpful for an athlete. Bigger muscle = stronger muscle (generally), but if you've just come out of an intense season, are frazzled and have lost muscle mass,why the hell not? Less volume, more muscle. It has its place for an athlete.<br /><br />RE: Crossfit; T-nation just posted a great article taking the piss out of crossfit. Only when you're drinking that kool-aid do you think that doing technically poor oly lifts for high reps while metabolically destroyed is a good idea.Skylerhttp://skylertanner.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-45390899378539790872009-04-22T04:59:00.000-07:002009-04-22T04:59:00.000-07:00Keith,
Please go back and look up the stats on Da...Keith,<br /><br />Please go back and look up the stats on Dan Riley's days with the Redskins. He had one of the lowest injury rates in the NFL for close to two decades.<br /><br />How can a program that kept athletes injury free for so long be responsible for a plethora of injuries all of the sudden? Short answer: it can't. The injuries of the Texans are likely unrelated to the strength training program.<br /><br />People who say this sort of thing have obviously never been around the weight room of a pro sports team. Only about a third of the players actually have the ability to listen to instruction and are serious about what they do. Most would be SHOCKED at how little intensity some of those guys train with. It is all genetics and selection bias. <br /><br />PROPER HIT requires attention to detail and usually requires someone with a slightly higher than average IQ. This is the advantage of funtional training as minimal equipment is required, the movements are "fun" and entertaining which lessons the need for a high level of detail. I'm not really refering to Crossfit. Even though I don't agree with many of the things they do, I can't say they don't work there asses off. Just take a quick look through Mark Ripptoe's books. Incredibly detailed and thourough. <br /><br />AlAlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-66402407863938657282009-04-22T02:31:00.000-07:002009-04-22T02:31:00.000-07:00I would point out that Dan Riley was recently fire...I would point out that Dan Riley was recently fired as the head S & C coach for the Houston Texans. Now, I'd put Dan right up there with Boyd Epley (formerly of the U of Nebraska)as the "founding fathers" of S & C, but he has long been criticized (and the reason, in fact, for why he was let go in Houston) for being associated with massive injury-reserve lists and under-performing athletes. Of course, many, many factors contribute to "injury" and "under-performance", however, the NFL offers a pretty unique case study for evaluating the effectiveness of various training protocols, as the division of talent (as are the inherent hazards) is, more or less, equitable team to team.<br /><br />Again, I'm not a SS/HIT hater, as I do think this method has a legit place along side more traditional methods for developing strength. Strength, though, is only component of the overall objective of high-level training. I think Dave Tate's use of SS/HIT by the way, is totally appropriate for his pursuit of powerlifting gains. The demands of powerlifting, though, are a far cry from those of sports like rugby or football.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-17483911150743042652009-04-21T23:13:00.000-07:002009-04-21T23:13:00.000-07:00Michael
McGuff's attitude to aerobics is a bit m...Michael <br /><br />McGuff's attitude to aerobics is a bit more complex than that - check out this video:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiHhc7eLpQY<br /><br />Relevant to this discussion is also the fact that the stuff on the Discover Strength site that got me interested was the fact that they had written all this material about applying appropriate strength training to distance running.<br /><br />Despite what T nation says (and what they promote is of variable quality with lots of steroid freaks) the research I've seen doesn't indicate that you need to move explosively to hit the fast twitch fibres.<br /><br />I've got Barry Ross' e book and think it is pretty good. Again he stresses basic strength and then applying it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223657383325055342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-12946572634466078552009-04-21T18:47:00.000-07:002009-04-21T18:47:00.000-07:00I dunno.... sounds just like any other HIT guy. Ma...I dunno.... sounds just like any other HIT guy. Mantra: ballistics are demos of strength, not strengthening moves, therefore nix the cleans and snatches, do grinds instead. <br /><br />Barry Ross, the sprinting coach, insists deadlifts, not cleans and other Oly lifts, increase sprinting speed if performed in a manner to not increase mass, only strength.<br /><br />Luke's last paragraph got me scratching my head over the articles on T-mag by Chris Shugart and Chad Waterbury who write that lifting fast, or explosively, DOES recruit the very muscle fibers that Luke says can only be recruited, safely, by using explosive INTENT with heavy weights, (instead of lifting a 50 or 70% 1RM (or even 5RM) quickly. <br /><br />Anecdotal 'evidence' from coaches usually support doing the Oly lifts. However, I think the Oly ballistic lifts destroy the joints. How many guys over 40 or 50 at your gym are doing snatches? <br /><br />Finally, I would like to see more of what Luke writes regarding how machines DO use synergistic muscles and stabilizers... I have not seen that before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-25384981422431072452009-04-21T16:16:00.000-07:002009-04-21T16:16:00.000-07:00great interview. however, i don't know if this ap...great interview. however, i don't know if this approach to training provides the endurance benefits of other types of training, such as crossfit or met con. <br /><br />if i recall, the body by science author's answer to endurance was a anecdote about walking up stairs. he essentially said that greater strenght means less need for aerobic capacity.<br /><br />this issue concerns me. HIT training may be fine for strength gains alone, but it does not seem, to me, that these trainers are concerned as much with a person's ability to sustain effort over time. should HIT type training be combined with tabata and sprint training, then?<br /><br />i'd appreciate any responses to this concern.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15023074892005971742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2467994117916260529.post-9435465717691317262009-04-21T16:10:00.000-07:002009-04-21T16:10:00.000-07:00Gang,
For those who worry about "high level athlet...Gang,<br />For those who worry about "high level athletes" training this way, namely Keith, check out the videos from this HIT gym. They used to have videos of college athletes getting drill this way in the summer, and I think some college football players are buried in the "squatfest" video:<br />http://www.gridironincny.com/videos/#<br /><br />Dave Tate uses HIT principles as part of his "Stong(er)" training routine (based on a recent interview). <br /><br />Dan Riley, strength coach of the Houston Texans, also uses HIT principles.<br /><br />And before I sound like such a homer, I'm currently using the "Westside for Skinny Bastards" template, which isn't HIT in any way shape or form.Skylerhttp://skylertanner.comnoreply@blogger.com