Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1 Simple answer is we have an ongoing program where people start and stop at various times, said differently we have no real start or end. Also, it allows a high volume, high-intensity exposure back to back to optimize motor pattern development.
2 Try to alternate based on stance/grip, position of external load, and angle of body/load to gravity.
3 The third is less utilized patterns like split squat, deadlift, overhead press, bent over row. We find more ROI from big bang-for-the-buck patterns like squat, trap bar deadlift, dips, pullup variations.
– We have a Level I Biomechanics course that goes a lot into this coming up in May and September – you should do that.
4 Keeping average intensity between 8-15% is the primary reason we choose one focal point over another, other consideration is a lot around logistics and being able to execute at scale.
– Level II Physiology goes into this pretty significant detail. Looking at 2025 to offer that course.
We run three levels of staff:
– Associate Coaches – Facilitate a great hour: Coach Classes, Coach Privates, Run Consults, Run Screens
– Lead Coach – Facilitate a great shift: Program for Private Clients, Lead/Instruct/Support Associate Coaches, Coach Classes, Coach Privates, Run Consults, Run Screens
– Head Coach – Facilitate a great week: Schedule, Staff Meetings, Training New Staff, Program for Private Clients, Lead/Instruct/Support Lead and Associate Coaches, Coach Classes, Coach Privates, Run Consults, Run ScreensEach phase is based on both tenure, performance, and acquired skills. We run training off Trainual (Staff Training, which is built around deficiency) and this Curriculum (Staff Education, which is built around learning new concepts). The idea is that we build an infrastructure of capable and autonomous coaches that have a strong support network.
The idea stems from horizontal leadership structures – you are control when you are in front of a client or group. You need to be competent and confident in that situation. We have structure but dont want to limit creative solutions in complex environments. Simply put, we want our coaches to be critical thinkers and problem solvers with the benefit of systems.
Yeah thats my hunch too – without it we cannot produce force. There has to be something w/ Fascia and propogating forces from where more contractile units are available, as well momentum of fluid w/in the joint but simply put if we have contractile units we can produce force.
Which is the challenge of asking for feedback, it really is an inconvenience and uncomfortable to say something could be better or you perspective is limited – but it makes having people that do that much more valuable. Without it, bias is inevitable
Do you ever find you are biased in your assessment? Do you take outside assessment to ensure you are avoiding personal bias on something?
I hear that, its the idea of train slow be slow and being frustrated with what appears of misguided logic with elements of training that does not help you directly with sports. But that was a dogma of physical fitness for so long, you feel almost compelled to be completey contrarian to everything about it. Bias is hard to overcome sometimes.
For sure, this is central when looking at Complex Problems. There is no real black and white answer theres only probabilities.
That was the hope from that module, if we have these markers in a better spot can we handle more stress? Lowered HRV or Elevated RHR would mean we are stressed in some way and we are not as capable of handing stress in a meaningful way. Alternatively if those metrics are better we can handle stress more effectively, so that would lead to increased variability.
I think thats spot on the first answer. The idea of context and getting more detail seem to be really interdependent. Having a situation that requires more information determines the need to get more info.
Second answer, I have to say I am biassed in that the entire movement curriculum is based on that notion. But it does make sense, if we do not have range of motion, how can we have anything else? If we set ROM as the prerequisite, then we can have more form our training.
Variability Question 2:
We have so many things to evaluate at once with movement, context determines function. Do we need to evaluate ROM based on the function that ROM serves or ROM based regardless of Function?
Next question, based on B, would be how do you determine Quality within you program?
We talked about in the module about B (Practical) that I determine Quality based on:
– Quality/Safety (Reliability) – Techniques that were taught/instructed
– Compliance/Identity (Reliability) – Constraints on program that are adhered to
– Performance/Purpose (Validity) – Attainment of something that is better than we startedDo you agree with that criteria? Anything you would add or take away?
I think the concept of bedrock of language, we bring so much personal bias and agenda to conversation as well there is so many context dependent variables such as environment or size of the group. Principles eliminate what is not real or context dependent. To me is the speaking to alien with no context on what you mean, you have to strip everything down to what is true to have effective communication. Once we understand what is true we can then begin to decipher what is quality and how to manage that. If we all are working with various definitions of good or bad, we cannot come to a consensus on what is quality.
I think the Progression Module is a really good one for this in our Training Course.
But the idea is less about training accumen, if you think about it certain performance standards with exercises like clean, squat, deadlift are arbitrary and conditionally dependent on that exercise. Im sure some might disagree with me saying that being able to squat 500 is arbitrary, but that has so many variables associated with it such as technique, anthropometrics, exposure, equipment it diminishes the potential transfer or being used as indicator of what else to do.
I think the point of using CMJ vs NCMJ is to remove the limited nature of exercise performance to more clearly defined characteristics. It also prioritizes Correspondence to sport skill.
To directly answer your question what triggers using using strength deficit model, to me its training age (>3years). At that point we already maximized training potential with a more traditional program. We understand their bandwidth to train from a psychological and physiological standpoint. And lastly they are at the final phase of development to peak for their sport – or the SPP phase.
Great question
Check out the Movement Screen module in the movement course as well the nutritional screen in the nutrition course, reality is no one can be on the same program but we need systems in order to control who is doing what and why.
We base everything off screening: Movement Screen (Forceplate, Nordic, Grip, FMS, Table tests) and Nutrtional Screen (Resting HR, Blood Pressure, Body Comp, Bodymass) – that dictates how we can customize the program in a group or team setting. Third book dives a lot into this a group/team setting.
1 I hope all is well. I had a question regarding the programming you provide at Allegiate. Specifically, how do you navigate around members who aren’t as consistent with their training? For instance, if you had a client who has to frequently travel, do you keep them on the block of training they were on when they last came in or do you place them right back in with the rest of the team and the team’s current program?
– Two parts this one: membership based and three day class rotation. All of our members are on membership which gives them unlimited access to the classes, barring clearance (see Movement Screen Module in the Movement Course). This allows for members to be more fluid with their schedule. It also gives credence to macro average over micro organization. What I mean by that is that we encourage getting three sessions per week. Sometimes that may mean a couple of weeks of 4x, a couple of 2x, a couple of 5x, a couple of 1x. The overall average (getting 150 training sessions a year) plays out towards larger goals. This leads to organization of a three day total body split that rotates for a calendar month: workout 1, workout 2, workout 3, workout 1….. So each week you show up every other day you get all three workouts, but if you have to go back to back you can get multiple days and still travel.
With group based training both sides need to make compromise. You serving the regression to the mean, not the individual. If all your members average 3x a week thats a huge win. If build your program around structural balance and then performance you should be ok. If clients have very difficult schedules combined with very specific needs we push them to private training.
Nothing is perfect, but this works out well for us. We have around 2.5 average session per member week, 97% retention rate month over month and we continuously show improvement with KPIs of body comp and relative strength. In the end thats all that matters.
