Should we train movements or muscles?
providing useful and insightful science based training material
Here is a simple little tutorial on how to perform banded deadlifts without having and hooks or pegs
What you need?
Take the band “long-ways”, so it would be a big oval if you just plopped it on the ground and then hang it over the bar. Image below
Once the band is hanging, it should look similar to the picture above.
Force potential is the maximal amount of force one could possibly express if all contractile properties were to act in an optimal fashion. It is dependent on the raw physiological properties of the body. Force expression is the amount of force one actually expresses in a movement. Force expression is much more complex. It involves the dynamic nature of skill (neuromuscular timing), which is what ultimately the limiting variable in force expression. Think about jumping to dunk versus performing a single arm, maximal arm flexion against an isokinetic device. Both movements require maximal force expression (in context) to get the best results, but the complexity of the jump compared to the single arm flexion is exponentially greater.
Strength training, in the grande scheme of this world, is relatively new. Math has been around for centuries yet organized weight training has arguably been around for only decades. Yet, the roots of weight training do not find themselves in embedded in a unique soil. Instead, weight training’s seed is buried in the grounds of many different sciences. Thus, despite weight training being a relatively “new” concept, its foundations have had many years of refinement, dating back to Sir Isaac Newton himself.
Research can thank the Russian’s for their obsessive drive to show world dominance through physical feats (i.e olympics). This obsession expedited the scientific understanding of human adaptation to physical stressors (weight training). Thus, sprouting from behind the iron curtain were many of the basic concepts that create the foundation of any strength and conditioning program. Russian’s clearly understood that strength mattered and not only strength, but the context of strength. By melding physiology and physics, the newtonian output of performance and the biological process of obtaining said outputs were formed. Thus, one could argue physics, physiology and sprinkle of psychology could just about answer any sporting action.
By understanding some of the basic scientific roots from which strength training has grown from, we as consumers and learners can avoid dangerous pitfalls. Instead of chasing shiny objects hanging from the top branches, we can use our basic understandings to discern whether or not such a leap of faith is worthwhile. This is not to say that new discoveries cannot be made. However, there is a reason why we didn’t go from horse and buddy to Tesla sports cars. Discovery is progressive in nature and doesn’t seem to take such wild quantum leaps like we may think.
https://strongbyscience.net/product/power-house-squat-cycle/
https://strongbyscience.net/product/strength-3-week-base-strength-block/
Power development is one of the most sought after training adaptations. In order to understand how to develop power, one has to first understand the physics behind power and how power expression is quite contextual.
Power is the ability to express force at a given velocity. The interesting thing about human movement is that velocity is always changing. Think about a jump starting from a static position. The athlete starts at a velocity of zero and then finishes with a velocity of say 3.8m/s. This means the individual had to continue to produce force as they gained velocity through the different portions of the movement. Because of this, one can quickly see how power development over a spectrum of velocities is needed. The whole idea of power is kind of a funny forward loop, more force expressed equals higher acceleration (highest acceleration is during the initial stages of the movement), which means greater changes in velocity and then the need to express force against an even higher velocity than before! So as we gain momentum throughout a movement, power output becomes greatly influenced by the increasing velocities.
Well, only training force expression against heavy loads and slow velocities will only go so far. Yes, it is true that the expression of large forces at slow velocities is what will be responsible for the greatest amounts of acceleration, but that isn’t the whole story.
Training the ability to continually express force throughout the full range of motion and at regions that are responsible for high velocity (high knee angles) is critical for power development (more force at a given velocity = more power).
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acC9T7tFITM[/embedyt]
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzJ5haNQmM[/embedyt]
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vBWO0Difmc[/embedyt]
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTAT30x0W3E[/embedyt]
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzJ5haNQmM[/embedyt][embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMJRHTKa3c8[/embedyt]
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajRi3RUuxNQ[/embedyt]
Training for power is not just about chasing a number. Power is contextual to the velocity at which the force is being produced. Thus, training ranges of motion and movements that are responsible for specific velocities can help optimize the full power producing abilities of an athlete.
Human’s love immediate feedback, especially numerical feedback. We have all read the studies on how performance feedback on bar speeds and jump height have been shown to increase the performance of an athlete. It is human nature to be competitive and its human nature to try and improve. However, I am going to make a short little argument as to why I think technologically driven feedback regarding performance scores (not technique or skill) is more effective than human feedback. This is not based on any research I have come across, it is merely based on opinion. so feel free to disagree.
The funny thing about technology is that we don’t humanize it. People don’t think computers have feelings like one might think an animal, plant or person has. For the most part, we see them as a bunch of circuits and wires made to unbiasedly provide a service. For example, when a computer gives you feedback on your search engine, you don’t get mad if its right or wrong, you just use it as a means to obtain the information. However, if your friend were to give you the wrong directions to a store, you might think they are “out to get you”. Long story short, computers don’t have emotions and technology doesn’t care about you, so naturally you don’t care about it.
Exercise is about stress and stress causes adaptation (only when recovery is met). However, the way an exercise stresses the body doesn’t just depend on how heavy the weight is. Think about it, when are you the most sore after a workout? Probably when you did an exercise for the first time in a long time. The opposite is true when you do the same exercise over and over again (not sore).
As coaches, we are always seeking betters ways to help our athletes achieve their goals. With that being said, we are always on the lookout for new methods that we can integrated into our programs to get that competitive advantage. This is all part of the learning process! You never know if a food tastes good until you try it!
In my opinion, I think there are a couple steps a coach/sport scientist should take when applying a new concept into an already existing program and below, I will share my two cents.
Understanding how the muscle and tendon work together in movement is an integral part of program design. Depending on how you move, what you are doing and the speed at which you are doing it, the tendon/muscle may play a different role.
In short, the muscle and tendon act to compliment each other. When one is taught, the other is compliant (compliant meaning changes in length). These roles can flip when depending on the movement being performed. For example, during repeat pogo hops, the tendon becomes compliant and deforms upon ground contact, while the muscle becomes stiff and the fascicles do not go through much of a change. However, the opposite is true for lifting. When lifting weights, the tendon is taught and the muscle fascicle lengths go through large changes in length. Thus, depending on the type of exercise, the role of the tendon and the muscle may change.
Isometric strength training is an interesting subject. It has an odd little history behind it and some of its popularity quickly faded when it was shown that it was not the golden goose that it was initially proposed to be. However, just because it didn’t yield the slightly outrageous results that it was initially proclaimed to produce, doesn’t mean it is not an effective training method.
You must be logged in to post a comment.