Author: Vernon Gambetta
Overhead Training for Overhead Athletes
If you are an overhead athlete, a thrower, tennis player, swimmer, volleyball player etc. you need to use strengthening exercises that involve overhead movements. This is another myth that seems to pervade the exercise community and has definitely sprinted in to the athletic development community. You need to pay close attention to how you get overhead. You must get hip to the shoulder. Cheat and use the legs and tilt the trunk to get the arm overhead. I stay away from seated overhead pressing because you cannot get proper trunk tilt and you cannot use the legs to help connect the shoulder to the hip. In season I tend to stay away from straight bar benching, because the bar locks the hand in one position. Instead I use dumbbell bench and it various permutations, with dumbbells you can accommodate and adjust hand position to alleviate any stress on the shoulder. I do also avoid behind the neck pull downs, use front pull downs instead. A key here is to avoid adding stress to stress to stress. For example during periods of high volume throwing, hitting in volleyball or yardage in swimming the amount of overhead lifting is significantly reduced. I usually make up that volume in rotational medicine ball work and more emphasis on hip mobility. It is important to have your greatest emphasis on upper quadrant strengthening precede this high volume overhead periods to sufficiently prepare. Also during these times pay more attention to pec, lat and psoas stretching. (Please note I did NOT say more stretching of the shoulder joint) Keeping those areas supple will enhance hip to shoulder connection and reduce stress on the shoulder. The shoulder is a remarkable mobile joint that needs a lot of help to do its job properly, that help comes from the trunk and the hips. If you do not strengthen using the overhead movements you are selling out. Lets also not forget proper mechanics. Put the whole body in position for the arm and shoulder to produce and reduce force optimally. Good mechanics is related to how you get the arm overhead. That is the topic of another post.
Being Average
I am reading Seth Godin’s new book Linchpin (Really thought provoking so far), he got me thinking of how hard people work at being average. It caused me to reflect on people and situations I have seen throughout my career. He is absolutely correct; people that are average, into job preservation really do work at it. They avoid risk and conflict for fear that someone will notice them. They talk more about being excellent than any of the champions I have been around and do more to avoid being the best. People told me you could not win at Cal and we did, we set out with a plan and executed it. Meanwhile the other coaches were sitting around talking about how hard it was going to be to win and we were doing it. It was not easy and it made a lot of people uncomfortable. The same with baseball, I was told in 1987 that I could not do the things that I was proposing to do. We did it and got the players healthy and better. There are still people in baseball trying to figure it out, spending countless hours and millions of dollars to no avail. They accept the status and work hard to maintain it. I am not interested in being average and I assume you are not or you probably would not be reading this blog. Avoid trying to fit in and be a cog in the wheel, be exceptional, outspoken if necessary. Take some risks and try new things. It is much easier, more fun and challenging. Lead don't follow. Above all you will be true to yourself.
Technique
"Strength and conditioning will get you lengths and lengths. Technique will get you inches." Karl Adam, German Rowing Coach. I would add my comment to Coach Adams statement, the two must be developed concurrently, not separately. The more they are combined and blended the higher the level of possible performance. They go together like hand in glove as the old saying goes. If you don't have the lengths the inches are for naught. All that being said beware of strength and conditioning as a trap. There is always the feeling that you need more, not always the case. Seek the optimum level that allows to express technique that is most efficient and fits you the individual. Yin and Yang, a fine balance that is ever changing as the athletes travels the path toward high performance.
Stones into Schools
I really enjoyed this book on many levels. Greg Mortenson is a very intersting and inspirational man. His passion for what he does without any motive for personal gain is inspiring. This along with Three Cups of Tea are books that everyone should read. Tremendous insights into Afghanistan and Pakistan, the people and the culture. This is the straight stuff, no spin masters or political agendas here. A true humanitarian effort. Once I started it I could not put it down. The fact that there are people like Greg Mortensonout there certainly gives me hope for good and peace in the world. I hope someday I can meet this guy. He is on my list. One of the funniest scenes in the book is when some elders visit one of the schools and play on the playground equipment for 30 minutes. They gave permission to build a school in their area on the condition that it have a playground.
Wilf Paish – A Real Pioneer
Many of you do not know who Wilf Paish was. Wilf was a British track & Field coach who passed away this past week For me Will was and is an iconic figure in coaching. It was sad to hear of his passing, but it brought back a rush of memories. I did not know Wilf personally, although many of my close colleagues did. My introduction to Wilf Paish came in my first year coaching when I bought the whole British Amateur Athletic Coaching series. Wilf wrote Javelin Throwing, a booklet that I read and reread as I was trying to learn the event as an athlete as well as a coach. Then I began to subscribe to the technical publication of the BAAB, Athletics Coach. He seemed to have an article in every issue. His articles were gems; I always found his ideas were ideas I could understand and immediately apply to my coaching. His background as a physical education teacher came through loud and clear. In 1978 at the Sports Science Congress before the Commonwealth games in Edmonton, Canada I finally got to hear him speak. He was a fiery presenter that left no doubt where he stood. During that presentation I picked one coaching cue for the throws – Chin/Knee/Toe – See it go and a concept I have used ever sense – Toenails to fingernails. (For those of you who know Kelvin Giles, I am convinced that Wilf taught Kelvin his presentation style as part of his mentoring of Kelvin) Daley Thompson introduced me to Wilf briefly at the Olympic Village at UCLA right before the LA Olympics, he could not talk because he was off to coach Tessa Sanderson, the Gold medal winner in the javelin in one of her final training sessions before the games. He also originated the throws pentathlon that is still popular and used today. This man contributed so much to sport, it is hard to find words to express his contributions. He is one of a great generation of coaches that taught and inspired many of us. As each of them pass away I hope you younger coaches will take the time to learn what these people contributed to the great sport of track and field. People like Sam Adams, Harmon Brown and Ed Parker in this country have all passed away in the in the last eighteen months. Great people and great coaches who loved the sport like Wilf did. There are many from that generation out here right now that we need to stay in touch with and continue to learn from. I really wish someone would do an oral history project and a Ken Burns style documentary on these people to keep their ideas and memories alive. I really hope there are more Wilf Paish’s out there in the up and coming generation of coaches. We need people to innovate, stand up for they believe in and carry the torch as he did.
Barefoot Foot – Some Facts
Reprinted this from http://www.sportsscientists.com/ (Great blog by the way) Some outstanding comments. Think,Think,Think before you jump on the bandwagon. This study has already been massively quoted out of context. I am a big advocate of barefoot work where and when it is appropriate and with whom. Each foot is different. There is no universal prescription. The first day I wore the Vibrams I pulled my calve, I should know better. I was looking for something that would allow me run on the wet (Hard packed sand) at the beach without cutting up my feet on the little shells. Read this and then read the study very critically, then think again how you would barefoot work. Notice I said barefoot work, not just running. Agility work and some plyo's done barefoot can be very beneficial. Friday, January 29, 2010 Running barefoot vs shoes Barefoot running – new evidence, same debate It's been a rather frantic week, and I know there is a series on weight hanging in between Part 3 and Part 4. I'm hoping to get to that next week, when hopefully I'll have a little more time! But today, I have to comment on this latest study, which I know will become bigger in the coming days – it is a new study that will reignite the barefoot vs. shoe debate, one of the more controversial issues in running. I am actually planning a whole series on this topic, because I was recently interviewed by a Dutch Running magazine, Run2Day, and I'm going to post that entire interview (with additions) on the site at some point in February. The study For now though, the paper is called Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners, and it is published in Nature (Full reference: Lieberman et al., Nature, 463, 531 – 535). The scientists took five group of runners and had them run both barefoot and in shoes. The groups were: Habitually shod adults in the USA, Recently shod adults in Kenya, Habitually barefoot adults in the USA, Barefoot adolescents in Kenya, and Shod adolescents in Kenya. Each group ran in shoes and barefoot and they measured foot-strike pattern (whether the runner lands on the heel, midfoot or forefoot) and kinematic and kinetic variables like impact force, loading rate, and joint angles. The findings – a shift in landing, a reduction in force It turns out that people who run barefoot, even when shifting from shoes to the barefoot condition (the habitually shod groups), shift the landing point to the forefoot. There's nothing new there – it's been known for many years that running barefoot changes the footstrike. Hundreds of studies exist to show this. The next difference is the ankle angle – the barefoot runner has a more plantarflexed ankle when they land – what this means is that the toe is pointed away from the body more (compared to dorsiflexion, when you pull it back towards you at the ankle). Again, hundreds of studies have shown this. Next are the impact forces. Here's where there is some disagreement. Previous studies have occasionally disagreed on how barefoot running affects impact forces – some say it actually increases them, with high variability between individuals. Most suggest a reduction, particularly early on during impact (first impact). The Nature study has found that being barefoot AND landing on the forefoot reduces both the loading rate and the peak impact force. In fact, it's three times lower in barefoot runners who forefoot strike (which is most of them) than in heel strikers wearing shoes. In theory (though this too is disputed), higher impact forces and loading rates equals greater injury risk, and so the study is suggesting that perhaps people who are barefoot or minimally shod have a better chance of avoiding injury. A stimulus plan for physical therapists and podiatrists? And here is where it gets tricky. I must point out that the title of the paper is Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. I highlight the word "habitually", because it's quite important to appreciate the impact that this word may have on how you apply this finding. I guarantee that the media are going to be all over this and they are going to tell you that you should be running barefoot or in Vibrams. You will hear how science has proven that being barefoot will prevent injuries, and that those of you who are injured should blame your shoes as you lob them into the garbage bin. None of these suggestions is true, yet. And Dan Lieberman who headed up this latest study would not even be suggesting this himself. The final sentence in the paper in fact reads "controlled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced injury rates" (good science always recognizes what it DOESN'T say, and Lieberman and co fit this category). What the Nature study hasn't measured is the long term (or even the short term) effects of the change on loading rates on different joints. If you wish to guarantee yourself an injury, then go out for a 2km run barefoot on a hard surface, and you will be asking your calf muscles and Achilles tendons to do work that for perhaps 30 years, they haven't had to do. And I will illustrate this with our own insight into footstrike and injury. When the Pose research was done in Cape Town, athletes basically had their footstrike patterns changed through 2 weeks of training in the new method. The biomechanical analysis found lower impact forces (sound familiar? Same as the Nature paper), and even less work on the knee joint. This was hailed as a breakthrough against running injuries, because lower impact plus lower work on the knee meant less chance of injury. Jump ahead 2 weeks, and 19 out of 20 runners had broken down injured. Why? Because their calves and ankles were murdered by the sudden change. And the science showed this – the work on the ANKLE was significantly INCREASED during the forefoot landing. The point is, changing how you run, whether by technique training or a change in shoes (like running barefoot) will load muscles that may be very weak, and joints and tendons well beyond their means. If however, you are a habitually barefoot runner, then you can do this, because your body has been prepared for it. For everyone else, I think we may be underestimating the time it will take to transition successfully to barefoot running (or forefoot striking, if you're going to force that change 'unnaturally'). And there is my point – taking this kind of interesting study, and dispensing advice, is a risky business. As a friend pointed out yesterday – the media's interpretation of this study will be a "stimulus plan for physical therapists and podiatrists". Going from years of shoes into minimal shoes or barefoot will injure you if you are not careful. Conclusion The Nature study provides a good discussion point. It's intriguing, and certainly does suggest advantages to barefoot running. It is not the last word, but rather the latest word in this debate. Nor is it revolutionary, because for many years, we've known that being barefoot changes ankle angle on impact, footstrike and loading rates (though quite how they change is not agreed upon). I'm sure a lot more will be written – I'll even cover some of it when I do that interview series on this topic in the coming weeks. For now, that's the last I'll say on this particular issue, but debate is always welcome! Ross P.S. Daniel Lieberman has launched a website on this topic, and it's well worth a look. It is obviously based on his research (this study forms the bulk of it), but it's a good, clear explanation of the concepts. Again, the same word of caution applies – don't jump from one to the other. If there is one section of that website that you should read over and over, it is the Training tips section. Most will not, and they'll become the statistics (and the stimulus for physical therapy), but if you manage it right, then the site will be a great help to you!
Continual Adaptation
The concept of continual adaptation is something I have been working to get my arms around since we all met to plan the Michigan Women’s swim dryland program this past September. Jim Richardson, Women’s swim coach at Michigan got me thinking about this. Continual adaptation is not continual improvement. Continual adaptation is a viable concept because different physical qualities adapt at different rates. By taking advantage of and manipulating the differing adaptation times it is possible to achieve continual adaptation. It is not liner it is an ever-ascending sinusoidal curve. Progress in performance is very step like. I liken it to a series of small plateaus with stairs in between the plateaus climbing to the desired peak performance in the peak competitive season. We must provide an optimal environment for continual adaptation by manipulating the training variables in a very systematic and sequential manner. Never lose sight of the fact that all systems of the body work at the same time very synergistically. Despite conventional wisdom that attempts to isolate systems of the body and then bring them back together at some magical time in the future. This is a process that is obviously coach driven. It demands careful monitoring of the key training parameters in the athletes program.
Training – It’s More Than a Workout
Training is a cumulative process. The workout is one piece of a much bigger picture. Training is not one spectacular or particularly tough workout, rather it is a succession of workouts designed to fit into the overall plan in pursuit of specific training objectives. Anyone can make a workout hard, but the essential element is context. Where does it fit? One workout cannot stand alone. One great workout does not necessarily lead to a great competition result. In fact it can be detrimental. To achieve an outstanding workout the athlete may have to dig deep into physiological, psychological, and emotional reserves to achieve that result. That potentially may detract from competition performance. The concept that has stood the test of time for me is Bill Bowernan’s concept of hard easy rhythm of training days. As the athlete progresses in their career and you can assess their adaptability you can progress to a hard day, followed by a medium day, followed by an easy day. Too many hard days without easy days to balance them out will result in failing adaptation. Ideally we want to achieve continual adaptation as a consequence of supercompensation. You achieve this by having clearly defined training goals, a sound plan to achieve those goals, a thorough knowledge of the athletes physical capabilities and specific competitive goals. Remember one workout cannot make an athlete, but one workout can break an athlete.