Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think FRC does a pretty good job laying it out. Load > Capacity = injury, Capacity > Load = prevention. This could apply to joint health, training volume, etc.
You absolutely nailed it. I always have to work through this process of not wanting to reach out because I don’t want to be a bother or inconvenience. It is uncomfortable, and something I need to prioritize more of.
I like to think I am unbiased, but no doubt there’s some as I work through. I’ve looked for feedback from clients/potential clients/missed clients. I’ve found they’ll typically just tell me what they think I want to hear.
Really enjoying the in the lab series! I think traditional sauna is the way to go as well. I know you mentioned not wanting to turn this into a product placement, but would you be willing to lay out what brands you looked at that met your criteria and what you ultimately picked?
I used to ignore the role of the aerobic system in performance. Part of it was not fully understanding the TCA cycle and mitochondria as a whole. An even bigger part of it I feel like is from my time in the Army. Most of what we did for PT was long runs, or some other random workout someone comes up with on the spot that will also probably involve some sort of running. It was boring, and it got people hurt.
From learning with Rob Jacobs, I’ve shifted my mentality quite a bit and feel that I understand energy systems and mitochondrial function at a much deeper level even though I still have a ways to go.
I try to make sure to do an assessment of my strengths and weaknesses, and then I try to make sure anything I attend is addressing a weakness and need in my current abilities.
This is a good question. I don’t think there’s an easy answer to it, though. It is a way to measure increased variability, but I think we can
get in trouble looking at a single metric in isolation.It’s like looking at high employment to decide the status of a good economy – it doesn’t necessarily pan out 1 to 1.
An extreme example could be an improper cut for a weight-class sport. Body comp would be down, but it’s going to come at the detriment of performance.
I think variability as a whole is a good strategy in increasing the likelihood of success. If we’re increasing variability, we’re building a robustness that previously wasn’t present. The ability to tolerate different stressors is a big factor in success. I like the HR example you use a lot. If my RHR is 70/80 bpm and my max is 190, there’s not a lot of bandwidth to work in there. But if I’m 50bpm resting, there’s a lot more bandwidth to work with. We could even look at the interplay between the systems. High RHR probably has a low HRV leading to a reduced tolerance to handle stress, reduced immune function, inability to recover from a nervous system standpoint. If we can improve the variability of these systems, the way they interact with each other is likely going to be better as well.
I think variability as a whole is a good strategy in increasing the likelihood of success. If we’re increasing variability, we’re building a robustness that previously wasn’t present. The ability to tolerate different stressors is a big factor in success. I like the HR example you use a lot. If my RHR is 70/80 bpm and my max is 190, there’s not a lot of bandwidth to work in there. But if I’m 50bpm resting, there’s a lot more bandwidth to work with. We could even look at the interplay between the systems. High RHR probably has a low HRV leading to a reduced tolerance to handle stress, reduced immune function, inability to recover from a nervous system standpoint. If we can improve the variability of these systems, the way they interact with each other is likely going to be better as well.
For the first question, I think context plays a role here. Do I have a complete novice that I’m starting at ground zero? Taking joints away and slowly adding them back in based on competency makes sense. It also sets the athlete up for success if they can master it and move on. If we have someone we know has been training well consistently, we’ve worked with previously, and/or have some sort of screening process on, then they’ll probably be able to start a little further up the simple -> complex continuum.
For question 2, I think we need to start with a full ROM. This is arguably the best indicator that we have that someone has “healthy” joints and a good knowledge of their body in space. If you can move pain free through full ranges of motion, I think it’s safe to say I probably don’t have to worry about orthopedic issues. Once that is established, I think it would be appropriate to look at ROM contextually. I immediately go to something like partial reps. It’s easier to do partial reps after a foundation of full reps than the other way around.
I absolutely agree with you. The more I typed out my response, the more I realized I was grasping at straws, but I felt it was a good thought experiment.
I like how you laid it out in the practical. I think this was the module you talked on your office at USC. You couldn’t hear anything, but you could see everything. It was a literal window into the efficacy of a coach into those bullet points – especially Quality and Compliance. Technique as demonstrated, right tempo, right sets and reps. I’d say if we’re getting that, we’re on a really good track.
The only thing I might change is with performance/purpose. Better than we started is kinda vague and could be misinterpreted. If I previously squatted 450, but now I can squat 505, that’s arguably better since it’s more weight, but it probably isn’t going to make a huge difference on the field. I’d tie that specifically to OKRs for that individual/group.
If critical thinking is the process of thinking carefully about a subject or idea, without allowing feelings or opinions to affect you (Cambridge dictionary), then I think we need to rely on facts to guide decision making. But, does it have to be a principle to be considered a fact? Principles are true in every situation, but couldn’t a fact be true contextually? Would it then not be a principle? I feel like none of that really makes sense and is just me spitting out a bunch of hypotheticals.
My immediate thought goes into human interactions. We know people act/react differently based a number of factors, and they’re usually outside of our control. A seemingly benign comment one day can be triggering another day. From a QC standpoint, we need to be able to read verbal and non-verbal cues. So, perhaps those cues could be argued as principles since they could be consistent with an individual.
Aside from that instance (and I feel like that is even probably a stretch), I feel like principles should provide the bedrock of our critical thinking and decision making processes. Curious to hear some other thoughts as well!
I’ll dive into that module now!
That makes sense. I was actually thinking back to my time in high school. I was always strong in the traditional sense, but after reaching a certain threshold, I kept getting beat up trying to get heavier and heavier. It never translated to the field either. I definitely could have used an approach like this to chase a specific adaptation that would have translated a little bit better to athletics. I want to make sure I’m not falling into that same trap of just chasing strength at the expense of everything else while at the same time not just doing it to do it if that makes sense, and I think being able to have those CMJ/NCMJ numbers will help keep me honest for sure.
