InPart I, The Truth About Quickness Author Kelly Baggett and I discussed his unique background, the importance of perspective, and common mistakes performance enhancement specialists (not to be confused with "strength and conditioning specialists") make. We began to touch on the topic of testing athletes, so let's pick up where we left off.
EC: With optimal testing frequency down, let's cover the tests themselves. Which tests are good? Which ones are outdated?
KB: Any test that gets an athlete injured is obviously no good. For this reason there are times (e.g. inexperienced athlete) when it can be counterproductive to perform certain tests like low-rep squats, bench presses, etc. Any test can be improved with practice and I really like tests that don't require much if any practice. Now, for specific tests I really don't like the 225 max reps test for obvious reasons. There is also too much emphasis on a 40-yard dash. I like the test itself but don't like how coaches give so many points based on a player's "40." Agility tests are useful but they can also be improved dramatically with practice and are pre-rehearsed, so they aren't always accurate. Statistical data shows the only test the NFL uses that has much reliable correlation to playing ability is the vertical jump test. Interestingly, it would also seem to be the least "football specific" of all these tests. I'm also all for certain postural tests, length-tension assessments, and the like because these will go a long way in eliminating injuries, optimizing movement efficiency, and helping everything run smoother from the ground up.
EC: New tests that you have to introduce? I know you and I are both are big proponents of the vertical jump vs. counter movement jump comparison. Any others?
KB: When it comes to using tests to determine training focus, the vertical jump with and without counter movement is useful to determine strength functions. As an extension of the one you mentioned, try this: sit back on a chair in a ¼ squat and jump up and then compare this to your regular down-and-up jump. If the difference is less than 10%, it indicates that you rely on more pure muscular explosive strength and need plyometric/reactive work. If the difference is greater than 30%, it indicates you need more muscular/explosive strength because you rely largely on the reflexive/plyometric effect. This test is okay, but I still prefer a reactive jump test. The chair version will often give false results because people simply aren't used to jumping from a pure standstill. If I was only able to use one test to indicate ones optimal training focus, strengths, and weaknesses, I'd use the reactive jump test because it tells so much. Not only are the results important in terms of jumping, but they can also be carried over to sprinting, agility, and multiple sports movements. I ran across it in some writings by Schmidbleicher and am surprised that it hasn?t been used more. I've been using it for a year and a half now, and it is very effective; DB Hammer is a true master of testing and finding athletes' weaknesses and he also uses a version of this test but with a specialized reactive jump pad that measures the amortization phase. It's a nice addition, but most aren't going to have access to it and it's not really necessary anyway. The test enables you to gradually increase plyometric contribution and see how the body responds.
EC: For our readers who aren't familiar with the VJ vs. CMJ test, how about tossing out a brief outline?
KB: No problem. Generally, when reactive ability is good, the amount of energy that you put out in a movement will be directly proportional to the energy you take in. So, if you absorb more force, you develop more force. What you do on the reactive jump test is measure how much force you take in and compare this to how much power you put out. First, measure a regular down-and-up jump. Then, you use boxes and starting from around 12-inches perform a depth jump. Step off the box, jump as high as possible when you hit the ground and measure the height you jump. If it's less than your regular VJ, you can stop there because it's obvious you are lacking in reactive ability. Your ability to absorb negative force and transfer it into positive power is lacking. You'll want to start using reactive and power training immediately; altitude landings would also be good for training your system to better absorb force. Once you become proficient, you then just follow the altitude landings up with reactive jumps.
Now, if your 12-inch reactive jump was better than your VJ, you keep increasing the height of the box in 6-inch increments until you find where your reactive jump drops below your vertical jump. The greater the height of the box when you reach that point, the greater the reactive ability. For some, there will be a gradual increase with each increase in box height. They may find their best jump comes off a 30 -inch box or better. These people are very plyometrically efficient so they need to emphasize muscular strength and hypertrophy to create more resources they can draw from in a plyometric movement - and nearly all sports movements are plyometric dominant. The test also will establish the optimal height of the box one should use for depth jumps; simply use the box that gives you the best reactive jump height.
EC: This test also underscores the importance of postural assessments and seeking connections between different tests. If someone has dysfunction at the subtalar joint, it won't matter if they have potential for excellent plyometric abilities at the plantarflexors, knee extensors, and hip extensors. If they're excessively pronating, they'll cushion the shock too well, spending a lot of time on the ground because they can't switch over to supination, which provides a firm base for propulsion. They'll probably wind up with plantar fasciitis, an ACL tear, patellofemoral dysfunction, hip or lower back pain, or sacroiliac dysfunction. You can do power and explosive training until you're blue in the face, but unless you correct the underlying problem with orthotics or specific stretching and strengthening interventions, the exercises to make an athlete proficient will really only make them deficient: injured. Likewise, if someone has excessive supination, they'll be fine with the propulsion aspect, but won't be able to cushion landings well at all. These individuals will wind up with lots of lateral ankle sprains, iliotibial band friction syndrome, pain deep to the kneecap, or problems in the lower back and hip. They're easily spotted, as they don't get immediate knee flexion when upon landing. Again, corrective exercise initiatives have to precede corrective initiatives! Just my little aside; I couldn't keep my mouth shut for this entire interview! Where were we? Oh yeah - any more tests?
KB: Let's see...another test that I like to use is the speed rep test; this can easily be implemented for the squat and bench press. You want to be able to explosively and quickly move a load that is fairly close to your limit strength so that you stay to the left on the force/time curve. Instead of basing your explosive training off of percentages you base it on the time it takes you to complete your reps. You simply try to get one rep for every second. You can go two reps in two seconds, three reps in three seconds, or five reps in five seconds. The percentages will vary among athletes, but I like to see bench press numbers up around 65-70%, achieving five reps in five seconds. The squat should be up around 55-60%.
The higher the percentage weight you use relative to your 1RM, the faster you are and the more of your max strength you'll be able to use in a short sports movement.
The converse is also true; the lower the percentage relative to your 1RM, the slower you are. You want to gradually push up your max numbers while maintaining or improving the % of your maximum you can move quickly. If you're up around 70% for bench press, it's time to focus more on pure strength. If you're down around 50%, you need more speed. I should also note that it's not absolutely necessary to know your 1RMs for these tests. Very simply, the more you increase the weight you can use for this one rep per second explosive training protocol, the more explosive you will be in your sport.
EC: Good stuff. I know you've got some excellent points on 1RMs; care to enlighten our readers?
KB: Sure. For 1RMs, one thing I've picked up from Buchenholz is to look at the time it takes to complete the lift instead of just analyzing the weight lifted. There is a reason why so many people are divided on whether a maximal squat will transfer to added speed or power. It's because the time it takes you to complete a maximal squat is much more relevant to sport transfer; those who achieve their 1RMs with great speed tend to have greater carryover of pure strength into sport than those who lift slower. Watch the guys who naturally lift a max load fast and compare their athletic abilities to those who lift slowly and you'll see what I mean.
To give you an idea, Fred Hatfield completed his former world record 1014 lb. squat from start to finish in under 3 seconds! That's what you call being explosive with a high percentage of your limit strength. I'm not saying that the squat is the best activity to directly transfer to a jump, but it's no wonder that he (at one time) had a vertical jump around 40 inches without any specific training for it! A guy who can complete a true 1RM bench or squat in around four seconds or less from start to finish will often be able to train with more heavy strength training and hypertrophy work and get a good sport carryover. A guy who takes seven seconds or more to complete a 1RM attempt is too slow when applying his maximal strength to get much carryover. Even though he may be very strong, it doesn't matter - nearly all sports movements are quick. He'll need to back off on the heavy stuff and work on rate of force development (RFD) and reactive ability so that he can use a given percentage of his absolute force capabilities quicker. The test to which I just alluded is also useful because it will automatically encourage athletes psychologically to explode more in any of their lifts because they'll realize how important rep speed is. You just have to be careful people aren't going to try to go too fast, increasing the likelihood of injury.
EC: Any norms for these tests? What do you typically find?
KB: What is interesting about this is that the majority of genetically gifted professional and upper level collegiate athletes are going to fit into the first - naturally more explosive - group. In other words, basic heavy training will work for them - which is what most programs are focused on. What about the guys who are in the other group, though? What if they have to be thrown in on the same program with all the other guys? Unfortunately, they probably won't make optimal progress on the same plan. They need something designed to optimize their attributes and overcome their deficiencies. This is what I meant when I said that we'll see better athletes in all sports as the body of knowledge on training increases. Instead of arguing about basic heavy weights vs. Olympic lifts etc., more strength and conditioning coaches will understand what the best plan is for any given individual or group and train them accordingly. Toss preconceived notions and prejudices out the window and let the athlete be your guide.
EC: Optimize attributes and overcome deficiencies? Ubiquitous intelligent strength coaches? You're a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, aren't you Kelly? I mean, honestly, no arguments in the field of strength and conditioning? I can't decide if it would be a good thing because it'll quiet down all the HIT Jedis, or a bad thing because it means we won't be able to torture on them any more. While I search for answers, feel free to tell our audience about any other tests you use.
KB: When it comes to speed and finding the right training focus, it's useful is to look at split times. During the start of a sprint - especially for the first 20-30 yards - relative body strength is key. After the initial acceleration period, reactivity becomes dominant, so it's important to find where in the race the athlete is weak. Someone who has a strong start but weak finish is likely strong, but is trying to muscle his sprinting stride. His hips may drop and he'll be unable to run smoothly, allowing his hips and hamstrings to contract reflexively. It could be that his heavy training is getting in the way of relaxation and messing up his reflexive ability. For example, if someone has a 1.4 second 10 yard-dash, but only a 4.9 40, it's pretty obvious that he's explosive and strong. However, when reactive ability takes over, he suffers. He needs more speed work - either through flying runs, longer sprints, or quick action plyometric drills - where relaxation and reflexive action is key. If a guy is fast over the second half of a timed split but has a slow start and acceleration, he just needs to emphasize basic relative strength and explosiveness.
EC: As a kinesiology and biomechanics dork, I have to ask: how about actual movement analysis?
KB: Instead of evaluating posterior chain strength in the weight room and flexibility with static stretches, just watch how an athlete runs and moves. Is he getting triple extension of the ankles, knees, and hips with each stride, or is he chopping his stride short? This can indicate weak hamstrings or a flexibility or postural issue. Often, there is also a poor correlation between posterior chain strength demonstrated in the weight room and function of the posterior chain during a sprint, so you have to look at function instead of just numbers. If the function isn't there but the strength is, you?ll need to cut back on the weight work and focus more on things closely related to the specific activity.
EC: Let's talk about the future of sports training. What do you think are the biggest issues on this front, and what can we expect to see in the years to come?
KB: I think that the controversy over manufacturing athletes vs. letting nature do all the work will become even more of an issue than it already is. It's obvious that the U.S. is falling behind and it's readily evident by the number of what one could call naturally physically inferior European NBA players in the NBA now. It's getting to a point where the athletes born with the ability aren't the only ones who succeed, although that's pretty much the way it's always been.
EC: You gotta' love the Larry Birds of the world; they do a great job of throwing wrenches in the model for the perfect athlete on paper. That's not to say that we can't make every athlete better with proper training, though.
KB: I agree; with improved training methods, you'll see a lot more athletes with inferior physiques and skills (at least initially) make it to the top. The level of training will rise up so that someone who is born without any great physical abilities will be able to improve his abilities above and beyond someone who is born with them but doesn't work at it.
Now, we have all these sports performance centers popping up across the US. I feel that's a good thing but they, of course, require money. The people who are able to take advantage of places like these will be well ahead of the guys who just have a school program. This will become even more apparent in the coming years, especially as the people running these places get even better at their jobs. I think Shaq said it best a few years ago; he may have been joking, but I don't know. When asked how he saw the NBA in ten years, he responded, "They'll be a bunch of white guys who can run and dunk as well as shoot!" We'll just have to wait and see?
EC: Definitely. Okay, time for a little change of pace. We've focused on performance-based training exclusively thus far, but I know you have some insights regarding how to effecting positive changes in body composition and even bodybuilding-oriented training and nutrition tactics. The floor is yours...
KB: Bodybuilders and those interested in physique enhancement need to learn how to better work from the inside out rather than the outside in. Hormones are always going to be at least, if not more important than external initiatives with exercise and diet when it comes to determining what happens with our body composition (muscle gain and fat loss). Any male will put on a good 40 lbs of muscle without doing anything when he goes through puberty. The reverse will also gradually occur with age; that's just how powerful the hormonal effect is. True, we can influence our hormonal state and internal chemistry by what we do, but people interested in the best gains of their life need to learn exactly what is going on inside them and how to best influence everything through diet and exercise to mimic as close as possible that natural hormonal growth surge. In other words, they must learn to optimize their internal chemistry so that fat will melt off or muscle will go on in slabs.
Contributors from science and real world-based information sources are really advancing what we know about physical change related internal chemistry: how hormones affect us, what we can do to change certain signals, etc. Up until now, the only approach was to do a few things right and hope everything fell into place. Simply stated: eat like a horse and train heavy, or starve and eat a low calorie diet to lose fat - or load yourself up on steroids and a host of other drugs. Those approaches definitely work and will always work, but I feel they're getting outdated.
For example, when it comes to fat loss and stress, leptin has been touted as the major controller of all things related to bodyfat and bodyfat setpoint over the past few years. I believe that the function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the stress response is as important, if not more important than leptin. The HPA axis and related central controls will largely dictate partitioning of nutrients, thyroid levels, androgen levels, and overall anabolism/catabolism. We know about too much stress and its effects on cortisol, but it's important to remember that having a lowered response to stress can be just as problematic as having too much. There's no doubt in my mind that methods to more optimally manipulate all these central controls will become very popular in the next couple of years
EC: It speaks volumes for knowing something about everything. It's not enough to be a strength coach that only understands training; you have to be up-to-date on nutrition, endocrinology, anatomy, biomechanics, rehabilitation, supplementation, motivation, equipment, and how they all are interrelated. There aren't many coaches out there that are that good, but you're definitely one of them, Kelly. Thanks for your time.
KB: No problem; thanks for having me!
EC: For more information on Kelly, check out the outstanding product he and Alex Maroko created, The Truth About Quickness.
Q: Eric – some thoughts on the overhead pressing and a question. Obviously, if the motion was symptomatic, you wouldn't do it. However, if after soft tissue work and then thoracic mobilization and activation work on the scapular muscles, the athlete could do the ROM without the symptoms, would that be a time to introduce very light OH pressing to reinforce the activation work, and re-teach the motor pattern. As Dr. Eric Cobb says, ‘strength training "cements" your neural patterns.'
A: First off, I agree with Dr. Cobb completely; it’s why resistance training is a strong foundation for most of modern physical therapy.
For your question, though, the answer is maybe. It depends on whether you've got someone with a lot of bone spurring. Even if you've optimized upward rotation patterns, you're still dealing with a 5mm subacromial clearance zone before the bone spurs are taken into account.
Additionally, you have to take into account the population in question. Laudner et al. found that at 60 and 90 degrees of humeral elevation, pitchers had less upward rotation than position players. We might be able to make it better, but that’s not to say that we can ever optimize it – especially under load – with the amount of throwing they do. We don’t do anything overhead with humeral head approximation except for isometric DB holds where upward rotation isn’t occurring (we’re cueing a specific scapular positioning). Gray Cook has some excellent ideas on this front in his Secrets of the Shoulder DVD.
My personal rule of thumb is that if someone feels like they need to get back to overhead pressing after a shoulder injury, they need to be pain-free for at least six months before we do so. We start with steep incline pressing with a neutral grip and move to a 1-arm DB push press - and go from there.
Q: Eric – I read your article, “It Looked Good on Paper,” where you recommended the following for an experienced lifter who is too weak for his cross-sectional area:Week 1: 8 singles over 90%
Week 2: 6 singles over 90%
Week 3: 10 singles over 90%
Week 4: 2 singles over 90%, or 2x3 easy (5RM load)My questions are:1. Do you test out each week?
2. How many times do you do this protocol per week for an exercise - once I am assuming or am I incorrect.
3. When you hit failure just after PR , how do you approach the next set. Drop down slightly and try stay at the highest possible load or back off fully to the drop off threshold and try work back up again (does it matter)?
A: This would only be performed once a week on a lower and/or upper body day. There are essentially tests built in to each session.
For the singles over 90% stuff, how you get those numbers will depend on your best for the day. Here's what it might look like on a bench for you:
45x10
135x5
185x3
205x1
225x1
230x1 (PR for the day) - 90% of 230 is 207, so only the 225x1 would count toward your total (you've got two over 90% by this point)
So, to get five more singles, you'd take between 210 and 220 for your remaining sets.
If you MISS a rep, count it as two singles over 90%. The idea is to NOT miss reps, though.
Remember that you aren't going to be using the same exercise each week; you'll want to rotate more frequently than that.
I’m going to let you in on a little secret: not all our athletes squat, and the older and more banged up they get, the less they squat.
We’ve all been told that “squats are king” when it comes to leg development, and the carryover of squat variations to athletic performance cannot be overstated. Squats even have a place in corrective exercise settings; I’ve frequently used box squats to help iron out quad-dominant vs. hip dominant imbalances. And, the eccentric strength attained from squatting is of undeniable importance in active deceleration in sports – thus taking the stress off of the passive restraints like menisci, ligaments, and discs. The list of benefits goes on and on.
As with anything in life, though, there’s a downside: you get some pretty crazy compressive loads on the spine when you get stronger:
Cappozzo et al. found that squatting to parallel with 1.6 times body weight (what I’d call “average” for an ordinary weekend warrior who lifts recreationally) led to compressive loads of ten times body weight at L3-L4 (1). That’s 7000N for a guy who weighs about about 150.
Meanwhile, in a study of 57 Olympic lifters, Cholewicki et al. found that L4-L5 compressive loads were greater than 17,000N (2). It’s no wonder that retired weightlifters have reduced intervertebral disc heights under MRI.
The spine doesn’t buckle until 12,000-15,000N of pressure is applied in compression (or 1,800-2,800N in shear) – so it goes without saying that we’re playing with fire, to a degree.
Fortunately, our body can adapt reasonable well – but not if you train like an idiot and ignore marked inefficiencies. Think of it this way:
Roughly 3/4 of all athletes have disc bulges/herniations that go completely undiagnosed.
It’s estimated that 4.4% of six-year olds have spondylolysis (lumbar fracture[s] (3)).
Presence of spondylolyis is estimated at 15-63% in ordinary athletes (highest is among weightlifters) – yet only 50-60% of those diagnosed under imaging actually report lower back pain (4).
This isn’t the only place in the body where this happens. If you’re a pitcher, you’re going to have a ripped up shoulder labrum – but that doesn’t mean that you’re symptomatic. If you’re a pitcher with a junk labrum AND a lack of internal rotation range-of-motion, though, chances are that you’re hurtin’.
What does this tell us? Inefficiency is as important – and possibly MORE important – than pathology.
So, let’s assume for a second that everyone in the world had spondylolysis, disc bulges, and explosive diarrhea (just for shits and giggles – pun intended, if you’d like). To take it a step further, though, let’s say that everyone insisted that they squat and we didn’t have the option of saying “no.” What would I do, in this instance?
1.Avoid Lumbar Flexion. The aforementioned Cappozzo et al. study demonstrated that as lumbar flexion increased under load, compressive load also increased (1). In other words, if you aren’t mobile enough to squat deep, you need to squat a little higher. I’ll use light “tap and go” (to a box) variations in my strength training programs to teach proper depth to those who lack flexibility.
2. Optimize hip range-of-motion. If your hips are stiffer than your lumbar spine, you’ll move at your spine first. Those who move at the lumbar spine get hurt; spine range of motion and power are highly correlated with injury risk. Some schmucks named Cressey and Robertson made a DVD called Assess and Correct that seems to help on this front… I incorporate these in all of my weight lifting programs.
3. Optimize ankle range-of-motion. Those with poor ankle mobility will turn the toes out considerable when they squat in order to make up for a lack of dorsiflexion ROM. When they can’t externally rotate any more, they’ll start to flex at the lumbar spine (mostly because their hip mobility is also atrocious).
4.Optimize thoracic spine range-of-motion. Look at the guys who are lifting the biggest weights injury-free, and examine the way their erector musculature is “allocated.” You’ll notice that the meat is in the upper lumbar and thoracic regions – not the “true” lower back. Why? They subconsciously know to avoid motion in those segments most predisposed to injury, and the extra meat a bit higher up works to buttress the shearing stress that may come from any flexion that might occur higher up. Novice lifters, on the other hand, tend to get flexion at those segments – L5-S1, L4-L5, L3-L4, L2-L3 – at which you want to avoid flexion at all costs. Our body is great at adapting to protect itself - especially as we become better athletes and can impose that much more loading on our bodies. Just ask Olexsandr Kutcher, who’s pulling close to 800 and squatting close to 900 at sub-200 body weights.
5. Stabilize the @#*$_@^ out of your lumbar spine. This does not mean sit-ups, crunches, sidebends, hyperextensions, or the majority of what you’ll encounter in yoga (although some variations are sufficient). Lumbar rotation, flexion, and hyperextension serve to make the spine less stiff relative to the hips. Your back may feel tight, but stretching it is quite possibly the silliest thing you can do, as you’d be encouraging more problems long-term in the process. Tony Gentilcore likes to talk about how it’s like picking a scab; it feels good in the meantime, but only hurts you in the long-run. Yeah, I think Tony is odd, too.
If I can get my act together, I’ll have a full detailed progression ready for you in a few weeks.
6. Deload the spine once-a-month if you’ve been at this a while. There’s nothing wrong with dropping squatting for a week each month to focus on extra single-leg work, movement training, pull-throughs…you name it. I know of a lot of powerlifters who do it for 3-4 weeks at a time, so one week won’t kill you. Having a balanced workout routine is key to healthy lifting.
7. Avoid training first thing in the morning. Because we’ve decompressed overnight, our spines are “superhydrated” when we first wake up in the morning; this places more stress on the ligaments and discs and less on the supporting musculature. As a little frame of reference, full flexion reduces buttressing strength against shear by 23-43% depending on the time of day – meaning that your spine might be 20% safer later in the day even if exercise selection is held constant. Give the spine a bit of time to “dehydrate” and you’ll be much better off.
8. Get Lean. Ever wonder why pregnant women are always having lower back pain? Could it be that they're hyperextending (overusing the lumbar erectors) to offset the new weight they're carrying in the abdomen? Beer bellies work the same way.
9. Keep moving throughout the day. It takes about 20 minutes for "creep" to kick in with your muscles - and the less you let that happen, the better. The best posture is the one that is constantly changing.
10. Fix asymmetries. Okay, so we know that compression is probably a necessary evil. And, we know that flexion + compression is even worse. And, wouldn’t you know? We can actually make things worse by adding in an element of lumbar rotation. Who rotates at the lumbar spine? Usually, it’s those with asymmetries in mobility or strength at the ankle, hip, or thoracic spine. Compare ROM side-to-side and check side bridge endurance time; fix what’s out of whack.
Obviously, a lot of this requires some more involved functional tests, a solid background in functional anatomy, and an understanding of how to fix what’s wrong. In my most recent product, The High Performance Handbook, I've outlined a Four Phase System that incorporates a self-assessment, proper strength routine, mobility exercises, and de-loading phases for healthy, rapid results. If you're ready to take a good hard look at your routine, you can find more information here.
References:
1. Cappozzo A, Felici F, Figura F, Gazzani F. Lumbar spine loading during half-squat exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc.1985; 17:613 -20.
2. Cholewicki J, McGill SM, Norman RW. Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc.1991; 23:1179 -86.
3. Morita T, Ikata T, Katoh S, Miyake R. Lumbar spondylolysis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Jul 1995;77(4):620-5.
4. Soler T, Calderon C: The prevalence of spondylolysis in the Spanish elite athlete. Am J Sports Med 2000 Jan-Feb; 28(1):57-62.
Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter and receive a four-part video series on how to deadlift!
I'm an example of a static guy who needed to train reactive ability hard to do this. For spring guys, it's as simple as getting stronger. The only way to find out where you stand is to test - and I outline those tests in the Ultimate Off-Season Training Manual.
Q: Why is it that training that is very CNS demanding requires such long recovery periods between workouts. I understand the need for long recoveries between sets, but not between workouts. So why is it that many coaches recommend training things like depth jumps, or speed and agility drills only 1-2 times per week?
A: The truth is that we really don't understand neural fatigue to the extent that we'd like simply because it isn't as easy to quantify or observe. With muscular damage, we can use biopsies in the lab and blood measures (creatine kinase, for instance). Neural fatigue is really only truly assessed by performance measures; it's why "a decline in performance" is about the only true definition of non-volume-induced overtraining.
Some guys can train at a high-intensity more frequently, while others have to take more time between efforts. This is where it’s as much a science of interpretation as it is of experimentation and application; you’ve got to respond to how each athlete recovers a bit differently.
Anna and I have probably already told most of you about the poor weather on our trip to Florida, but I'd say that this video confirms just how desperate we were to keep our minds off the lack of sunshine!
Check this out (from impackfitness.com):
"Prowler/Farmer's Walk Finisher that took place featuring San Francisco Giants Right Fielder Eddy Martenez-Estve and World Renowned Strength Coach Eric Cressey and girlfriend. Needless to say I’ve heard how Boston cats get down but now I now first hand…"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1IRVKtiwLU
Anna and I got in a lift with Matt Pack, a great strength coach and buddy of mine who trains strongman out of his garage down there. Martenez was the first round pick out of Florida State back in 2004.
They didn't get any footage of the tire flipping, sledgehammer work, sandbag carries, or rope climbing - but we definitely did it all!
And it once again reiterates that I have the coolest girlfriend ever!
Does Mike Huckabee have Chuck Norris in mind for his vice-presidential candidate?
This might be the single-most intelligent political strategic move in history: scare the voters into supporting you! Let’s look at a few comparisons between the GOP candidate and his potential roundhouse-kick-dealing running mate:
Mike Huckabee has voted to cut taxes 94 times in his political career. When tax season rolls around for Chuck Norris, though, he mails in blank tax sheets and a picture of himself crouched and ready to attack. Chuck Norris has never had to pay taxes.
Huckabee is a Baptist minister. Norris, on the other hand, was actually the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of ‘beard.’ Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly thereafter, all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
Huckabee is pro-life. What many people don’t know is that Chuck Norris is, in fact, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Not even unborn children can escape his wrath.
Huckabee has played the guitar in numerous public appearances. Chuck Norris’ first public performance ended in disaster, though. His first appearance on “Dancing with the Stars” never aired because it opened with an eloquent roundhouse kick to the face of his partner.
Q: I want to ask for some advice on transforming my body so that I can become an elite athlete.
Current Stats : Age - 17 Height - 193cm Weight - 85kg Gender - Male
My goals are : - Increase speed and vertical leap - Get bigger and stronger - Increase flexibility and range of motion - Improve endurance level - Keep body fat percentage low - Improve basketball skills (eg shooting, passing, dribbling)
The sport that I compete in is basketball. I do MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) as training and for fun as well.
What sort of training should I do considering what my goals are and what sports I am doing?
I have done lots of research on athletic improvement but there is so much information out there and it is hard to know what information I should use. None of the countless number of training books and programs I have bought tailors specifically to what my goals are either; I’ve read DeFranco, Cosgrove, Ferruggia, and Baggett.
A: 1. Recognize that you cannot ride two horses with one saddle. It's very difficult to develop endurance and maximal strength/power simultaneously, but at your age, it's still likely a possibility. Strength endurance is dependent on maximal strength, so if you get stronger, you'll automatically improve endurance-wise regardless of what endurance-specific activities you do.
2. There are many ways to skin a cat. DeFranco, Baggett, Cosgrove, and Ferruggia are all good friends of mine and all of them get results. Additionally, there are hundreds of other coaches getting results - and all of them are using unique programs. What you'll find is that we all agree on the 90% and play around with the leftover 10%. And, what you’re also find is that no matter how well written a book is, it’ll never cater to your specific situation perfectly.
3. A large portion (probably 75%) of my athletes are your age, and I have an appreciation for what it takes for you to compete at the next level, if that's of interest to you. Right now, focus on becoming a better ATHLETE before you work overtime becoming a better basketball player, MMA fighter, etc. Can you jump rope? Can you do a clean push-up? Can you even skip? How about sprint mechanics; are they good? If you're like most of the kids who walk into Cressey Performance on Day 1, the answer is NO - and we need to backtrack a bit.
I got this email last night and thought you’d all (or at least everyone who doesn’t live in New York) would enjoy it:
A man in Topeka, Kansas decided to write a book about Churches around the
country. He started by flying to San Francisco and started working east from
there.
Going to a very large church, he began taking photographs and making notes.
He spotted a golden telephone on the vestibule wall and was intrigued with a sign, which read 'Calls: $10,000 a minute.
Seeking out the pastor he asked about the phone and the sign. The pastor answered that this golden phone is, in fact, a direct line to heaven
and if he pays the price he can talk directly to God.
The man thanked the pastor and continued on his way. As he continued To
visit churches in Seattle, Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and around the United States, he found more phones, with the same sign, and the same answer from each pastor.
Finally, he arrived in Massachusetts. Upon entering a church in Boston, MA... Behold - he saw the usual golden telephone.
But THIS time, the sign read "Calls: .35 cents."
Fascinated, he asked to talk to the pastor, "Reverend, I have been in cities all across the country and in each church I have found this golden telephone and have been told it is a direct line to Heaven and that I could talk to God, but in the other churches the cost was $10,000 a minute. Your sign reads only .35 cents a call. Why? Why?"
The pastor, smiling benignly, replied :
"Son, you're in Boston, Massachusetts now, home of the Boston Red Sox, the
Patriots, Celtics, Bruins and Boston College! "
You're in God's Country, It's a local call.