I maybe convinced Bret Contreras to attend the seminar

[Neal Winkler]

I peaked Bret Contreras' interest in looking up Coach Sommer and maybe attending the seminar in September.

http://bretcontreras.wordpress.com/2010 ... omment-924

For those of you who don't know, Bret is a great new "guru" on the fitness scene and I've posted his videos on here a bunch of times. He's a very open minded and innovative person so I think he would be able to learn a lot and in turn improve our understanding of how to integrate gymnastics training into an overall fitness/sport paradigm. I HIGHLY suggest that you read his blog, there is TON of great material on it.

Here's a few really good posts that I recommend...

Basic assessments: http://bretcontreras.wordpress.com/2010 ... ssessment/

Load Vector Training: http://bretcontreras.wordpress.com/2010 ... ining-lvt/

The dangers of sitting: http://bretcontreras.wordpress.com/2010 ... -in-vices/

Here's one of his videos showing many hamstring exercises:

5UhQ3sILuTY

[Joshua Naterman]

That would be interesting.

The concepts in his load vector blog are important, but I see the same weakness as classic beaurocracy. Yes, a strange parallel. I will try to quickly un-strange it.

The hallmark of beaurocracy is inefficiency due to breaking down every single task into as many different functions as can possibly be checked, and requiring each of these things to be done in a certain order with no exceptions. This process quickly leads to a very, very complicated process for activities which are actually quite simple. More and more definition is applied to a situation until that situation, such as processing a vehicle registration change, ends up passing through a number of hands and taking far longer than it should, with no one person able to explain why the hell this shit is taking so damn long.

The throwing in of all this new jargon makes sports science more complicated, when it is more or less a simple pursuit. It is not important to have a word for every single little thing when it comes to practical application. I didn't know what the fuck to call a "Valsalva" before the weight belt thread, but I sure as fuck knew I needed to create abdominal pressure by restricting my exhalation and sometimes briefly holding my breath!

Sports science doesn't need more terms half as much as it needs to go all the way back to basics and build off of there. Instead of worrying about planar or vector terminology, start learning how to make the body as stable as possible, how to maximize performance in the basic human movements, and how to maintain strength balance in an athlete striving for perfection in his or her chosen sport(s).

A good, basic flow chart starting from the basics and branching off into whatever sport you want to train for is much more important than 50 new ways to describe movement.

Of course, this is coming from a practical application perspective and not from a research perspective. Researchers get lost in minutia, which is why it is very hard to understand research papers, even for other scientists. That makes it EXTREMELY HARD to make use of prior research once you go beyond a certain level of complexity. That is not a good way to make anything approachable, however useful it may seem.

At first glance would seem to be a good thing for sports as well, since the more detail you have the more specific you can be in training. I do not believe this to be the case.

I believe the first goal should be to create a high performance human body, which isn't a horribly difficult nor complicated thing to do. The WOD training cycle here is almost perfect. Throw in some weighted back squats and perhaps deadlifts and you're there, though that is obviously not what most gymnasts need, which is why it isn't a part of the WODs. Once that is accomplished, which shouldn't take more than 2-3 years, you start to pay special attention to A) whatever is going to maximize sport performance for the chosen sport, and B) how to keep the body's overall strength and flexibility balance. That's seriously it.

It's not all that hard to create a flowchart that could easily map that, and I think that is what applied sport science needs.

Having said all that, Bret seems to be quite knowledgeable and it would be really fun to pick his brain!

I am also interested in seeing what he can actually do. Knowing vectors, planes, and exercises is a lot different than being able to perform at a high level.

I'm not saying that to try and cut him down, but a man like Charles Poliquin, regardless of how batshit crazy you may think he is, can step up to any lift or strength/speed performance test and perform well above average. THAT catches my attention much more than anything else.

I'm not all up on his or anyone else's nuts, but I recognize the rarity of a coach that not only creates champions in dozens of different sports but also performs at an extremely high level himself. I do not think these two happenings are coincidence. I think that the understanding he has gotten from practicing what he preaches is what makes him one of the best in the world at what he does.

Boy, I really hate over-complicated explanations. While it would be a great ego boost for ANYONE to have their personal vocabulary become part of their field's lingo, I'd rather see someone simplify things to where anyone can create incredible athletes by following the flow chart. That, I think, is Coach's great achievement here.

I should really apologize in advance to Bret for this post, because I think this is one of the most antagonistic things I have ever said or written. I just can't stand people making things even more complicated than they already are, even when only the best of intentions are involved.

I do think that the concepts he discusses, as far as application to testing and training, are good. I just thought more people knew to do these things. If people are really missing this stuff, then more power to him and I hope the message gets through.

[Neal Winkler]

If that's your quick explanation I would hate to see your long one. LOL.

You're point, that overly complicating things is bad and simplicity is good, is obvious and no one would disagree with it in itself.

However, if Contreras' load vector concepts are truly over-complicating things, then the insights that we thought came from them should of already been discovered from simpler concepts, or could be derived from simpler concepts.

Load vectors, for example, explain different recruitment patterns of the same muscles/muscle groups in different but seemingly similar movements. For example, the different recruitment in a sprint vs. a jump. Both involve hip and knee extension and have traditionally been trained using the same programs. However, his EMG experiments show these movements actually have important differences. These differences, in turn, give new insights into optimal training, e.g. hip thrusts are more important for a sprinter than a volleyball player, and olympic lifts are more important for the latter than the former.

So, perhaps it is overly-complicated, but what simpler concepts could we use to derive the same knowledge? If there are none, then it is just as complicated as it has to be.

[Joshua Naterman]

If that's your quick explanation I would hate to see your long one. LOL.

You're point, that overly complicating things is bad and simplicity is good, is obvious and no one would disagree with it in itself.

However, if Contreras' load vector concepts are truly over-complicating things, then the insights that we thought came from them should of already been discovered from simpler concepts, or could be derived from simpler concepts.

Load vectors, for example, explain different recruitment patterns of the same muscles/muscle groups in different but seemingly similar movements. For example, the different recruitment in a sprint vs. a jump. Both involve hip and knee extension and have traditionally been trained using the same programs. However, his EMG experiments show these movements actually have important differences. These differences, in turn, give new insights into optimal training, e.g. hip thrusts are more important for a sprinter than a volleyball player, and olympic lifts are more important for the latter than the former.

So, perhaps it is overly-complicated, but what simpler concepts could we use to derive the same knowledge? If there are none, then it is just as complicated as it has to be.

I know. I'm just a hater when it comes to overly complicated stuff lol!

To be honest, I think that a simple look at a movement through its full range of motion should be enough to figure out exactly what needs to be done.

Anyone who things sprinting and jumping work the same way has clearly never sprinted or jumped much.

Personally, I simply don't like the "anteroposterior" blah blah etcetera. Look man, front to back works just as well, and people don't have to try and remember Latin grammar in the process.

On another, simpler note, instead of trying to dissect specific movements and train them specifically, why not just train for ultimate ability in all the "load vectors"? There are only six, according to him. That should be stupefyingly easy, at least to my mind. I think that my experience with my own training and my 'clients,' along with my intuitive understanding of these things, interferes with my ability to recognize why this dissection may be helpful to others. To me it just makes a simple concept complicated.

I just don't understand why people need to label this plane or that plane, or this load vector or that load vector, and try to explain every single movement through them, properly categorized and punctuated. But just because I don't understand the need doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I just think people should be taught to see the body as a single unit, without all the crazy planar or vector terminology. In the end, it serves primarily to make the few who use it look or feel smarter than the people who understand the exact same concepts but do not use the fancy words. Fancy words make this unapproachable by the public, and THEY are the ones who should be able to understand it. After all, if Joe Shmoe can't understand it, why the fuck should he use it?

The approachability is my primary concern. To be honest, all this saggital, transverse, and whatever the third plane name is should be tossed out for the most part in my opinion. You move up and down, forward or back, or sideways. You twist left or right. Sometimes you're in a weird position and gravity pulls on you in a certain position, such as when sprinting, in such a way that a certain combination of movements is happening. You're falling forward, and the only way you can keep your face off the track is to get your foot in position faster than you are falling. This requires an ideal angle. What does it take to maintain this ideal angle? Thrust from the leg. Stability through the spine to transfer the leg thrust into the core and upper body without losing power to compression or position alteration. The ability to twist the hips while maintaining a rigid spine and upper body position. The arms must be able to pump hard enough to offset the inertia of the leg thrust. The arms must also be able to pump fast enough to keep up with the alternating leg thrusts. The hips must be strong and stable enough to maintain perfect leg position throughout the leg thrust, leg retraction, and extention. Finally, or perhaps firstly, you have to have proper motor patterns. You need the right muscles to fire at the right time. You need to have as many motor units turning on simultaneously as possible. You need this motor unit activation to happen as quickly as possible.

You need to use isometrics and perhaps loaded stretching to program correct motor unit activation, and explosive isometrics to teach the nervous system to explode quickly and with power off the blocks once sufficient basic strength has been achieved.

Basic strength for sprinting is achieved through full ROM squatting, both SLS and weighted back squats, for the leg thrust. For leg retraction you need Natural GHR, perhaps machine GHR, and full ROM HLL progressions. For spinal rigidity there are a number of options. The back squatting will build a lot on it's own. but it won't hurt to slowly progress to fast deadlifts with 70-100% BW. Power cleans could also be an option, but are more technical in nature. Kettlebell swings are also a good option, but I wonder how that would affect motor learning. That would take a closer examination, though I doubt that doing them once every 8-10 days would hurt anything. For slower basic strength arch holds and calisthenic back extensions will build a good base.

For core stability, body lever holds. For rotational hip ability and maintaining a stiff upper body and spine, body lever or front lever windshield wipers.

For the arm pumping: swinging dips, XR push ups and PPP, neutral grip pull ups and body rows.Inverted XR curls are also a good addition.

For the neck, some light (30-40 lbs eventually) neck squats loaded with a head strap, perhaps done as a warm up 2-3x per week.

For the lower legs, full ROM calf extensions and weighted toe raises. Eventually there will be explosive ankle hops, but that's later.

Outside of that, you need to try to balance the strength of whatever antagonists are being missed.

Now, that will build a completely conditioned athlete, even though we are just building a sprinter. It doesn't matter what sport someone plays, this basic strength work will have them completely prepared if done properly and without wrist straps. They only thing being skipped is overhead lifting/handstand work. That is not necessary for a sprinter, though it could be thrown in without detrimental effects and I would probably have some in the program for muscle balance.

Building the appropriate explosive and reactive abilities is a similarly simple process.

I want you to count how many times I used load vector or planar terminology. None, to my count, unless you could my mention of hip rotation with core and upper body stability. It really is this easy. That is why I am put off by all the jargon!

We have just build an athlete that is supremely capable in any sport that depends on speed/strength, which is almost every athletic event.

If you notice, the WODs here build similarly capable athletes. The only real difference is the lack of lower body weighted work, which seems to not be ideal for most gymnasts.

The focus of sport science must return to creating supremely capable human bodies first and foremost. The technical aspects of building high skill levels in activities like pitching, batting, kicking, etc, will need to be taught by experts, and there I could see, PERHAPS, some need for more appropriate terminology, but by training the body to be explosive, stable, and strong in all the ways it can move is relatively straight forward and creates athletes that are "naturally" going to be very good at all of these things. That's really it, in my opinion and experience.

There, my long answer lol! Sorry, I know you hate me now!

[Neal Winkler]

To be honest, I think that a simple look at a movement through its full range of motion should be enough to figure out exactly what needs to be done.

But no one ever seemed to notice the difference between hip extension and hip hyperextension, and that some exercises do not go into hip hyperextension, which is why Contreras started doing hip hyperextension exercises like weighted glute bridges, hip thrusts, weighted quadruped hip extensions, ect.

Anyone who things sprinting and jumping work the same way has clearly never sprinted or jumped much.

You say that yet virtually every expert track and field coach in the history of strength and conditioning programed strength exercises for jumps and sprints the same. For example, I have Kelly Baggetts "Vertical Jump Bible" and "No Bull Speed Manual." One is for jumping and one is for sprinting. The strength programs for each are virtually identical. There is no mention of exercises that train hip hyperextension and why this would be important.

On another, simpler note, instead of trying to dissect specific movements and train them specifically, why not just train for ultimate ability in all the "load vectors"?

Because not every sport utilizes all the load vectors to the same degree and therefore different sports will need different emphasis.

I just think people should be taught to see the body as a single unit, without all the crazy planar or vector terminology. In the end, it serves primarily to make the few who use it look or feel smarter than the people who understand the exact same concepts but do not use the fancy words.

But you didn't understand the same concepts in simpler or intuitive terms. Your intuitive understanding left you with a very good analysis of what needs to be done but it left you farther from optimal programming than load vector concepts can get you. I'll show this below.

Think about newtonian mechanics vs. general relativity. Newtonian mechanics is a pretty darn good explanation of the universe but general relativity gets you a little bit farther and allows you to do things that you couldn't quite figure out without it.

Basic strength for sprinting is achieved through full ROM squatting, both SLS and weighted back squats, for the leg thrust. For leg retraction you need Natural GHR, perhaps machine GHR, and full ROM HLL progressions. For spinal rigidity there are a number of options. The back squatting will build a lot on it's own. but it won't hurt to slowly progress to fast deadlifts with 70-100% BW. Power cleans could also be an option, but are more technical in nature. Kettlebell swings are also a good option, but I wonder how that would affect motor learning. That would take a closer examination, though I doubt that doing them once every 8-10 days would hurt anything. For slower basic strength arch holds and calisthenic back extensions will build a good base.

For core stability, body lever holds. For rotational hip ability and maintaining a stiff upper body and spine, body lever or front lever windshield wipers.

For the arm pumping: swinging dips, XR push ups and PPP, neutral grip pull ups and body rows.Inverted XR curls are also a good addition.

For the neck, some light (30-40 lbs eventually) neck squats loaded with a head strap, perhaps done as a warm up 2-3x per week.

For the lower legs, full ROM calf extensions and weighted toe raises. Eventually there will be explosive ankle hops, but that's later.

Outside of that, you need to try to balance the strength of whatever antagonists are being missed.

This is what I meant above about you not getting everything out of your intuitive or simpler understanding than you think you do. You're exercise selection for "basic strength for sprinting" is good and will build a fast sprinter, but it is on the level of Newtonian mechanics. You left out important strength exercises that will help increase max sprint speed even further such as weighted glute bridges, hip trusts, and pendulum donkey kicks that would put you on the level of General Relativity.

jVlQhlKf-5Q

Q-4-GwGnDMs

VT3K-Nkn7bw

[Nick Van Bockxmeer]

I think there is a simplified way of saying all this:

train movements not muscles

in the beginning stages of training, adaptions to training loads will see increases pretty much across the board. However, as progress is made there is no guarantee that training will lead to improvements if the training methods do not reflect the desired goal. A movement is defined by so many things that merely working out what muscles are used and then applying a general strength exercise to those muscles will not be a good use of time for anyone who already has good general preparation. Otherwise bodybuilders would excell at every sporting event.

you can break down a movement into all its components and then choose exercises that best address the requirements of the movement and then train in a fashion that represents the conditions the movement will be performed in.

Of course this applies more to some sports than others. Track and field events are all predetermined, whereas most ball sports contain a mix of random and known elements. The transition from general physical preparation to sports specific preparation needs to be planned over the course of the year as well as the career of the athlete. Too little general preparation, or an over emphasis on specific training too early means a failure to reach potential and more disposition to injuries. If specialisation never occurs...well no one would ever get really good at anything.

[Joshua Naterman]

To be honest, I think that a simple look at a movement through its full range of motion should be enough to figure out exactly what needs to be done.

But no one ever seemed to notice the difference between hip extension and hip hyperextension, and that some exercises do not go into hip hyperextension, which is why Contreras started doing hip hyperextension exercises like weighted glute bridges, hip thrusts, weighted quadruped hip extensions, ect.

True, and while those exercises are great, properly performed clean pulls also go well into hip hyper-extension. That's why they are so great for explosive ability. I would definitely agree that working into 'hyper-extension' is massively important and that there are many training programs that do not do this. Even for athletic events where that part of the ROM is not usually used, by building strength, flexibility and explosive ability there you end up training the nervous system to lower its inhibitions throughout the hip's entire extension ROM.

Anyone who things sprinting and jumping work the same way has clearly never sprinted or jumped much.

You say that yet virtually every expert track and field coach in the history of strength and conditioning programed strength exercises for jumps and sprints the same. For example, I have Kelly Baggetts "Vertical Jump Bible" and "No Bull Speed Manual." One is for jumping and one is for sprinting. The strength programs for each are virtually identical. There is no mention of exercises that train hip hyperextension and why this would be important.

I absolutely agree with your point that hip 'hyper-extension' is a hugely important and often missed aspect of training the hip girdle. However, while the recruitment patterns are different, most of the same muscles are used in both jumping and sprinting. There is no reason for a massively different protocol, because both require energy to be absorbed and redirected at maximum possible velocities. By maximum possible velocity, I mean the maximum possible direction speed it is possible to make your body move at or absorb during these activities.

Also, I put 'hyper-extension' in single quotes because the term hyperextension means to move past the point of maximum intended extension for that joint, and the hip is a ball and socket joint. There's no reason for it to have to stop at any particular point, and so the term 'hyper-extension' is somewhat misplaced. But, I guess it's used so much that we just have to accept it!

On another, simpler note, instead of trying to dissect specific movements and train them specifically, why not just train for ultimate ability in all the "load vectors"?

Because not every sport utilizes all the load vectors to the same degree and therefore different sports will need different emphasis.

Doesn't matter. This mindset, in my personal opinion, is why we have as many injuries as we do in sports. An athlete who has developed his or her abilities in all 'load vectors' as completely as possible will ALWAYS be able to do things in that sport, even if the occasion for these events is rare, that an athlete with lesser abilities simply can not do. At the same time, this athlete will be able to compete with any other athlete in his sport in regards to the "regular" 'load vectors' that the sport relies most heavily upon.

Case in point are the famous Bo Jackson wall run catches. He was able to make plays that no other baseball player will ever make again until another player has his abilities developed to the same degree as Bo's were.

Now, Bo was a genetic anomaly. I don't think anyone can successfully argue otherwise. I don't know much about his training, though I hope to be able to talk to him about it someday. I DO know that his wide range of athletically superior abilities are what allowed him to be the dominating athlete that he was, in TWO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. These abilities would not be listed under "primary strengths" for baseball OR American football, and yet these abilities are what made him a true game-changer when he stepped on the field.

I will also point out that Coach has recently been much more aware of how important it is for his high level athletes to keep working hard on all the FSP, even though some are not used in competition at all. The National Champ is recovering from some unfortunate injuries that Coach is fairly sure are due to his not insisting on the continued development of Manna and some of the other skills, and focusing too much on what Allan uses the most in competition. The muscle and strength balance issues must not be ignored.

This is, of course, just my personal opinion, but I think it has a lot of valid experience backing it up, as well as basic logic.

I just think people should be taught to see the body as a single unit, without all the crazy planar or vector terminology. In the end, it serves primarily to make the few who use it look or feel smarter than the people who understand the exact same concepts but do not use the fancy words.

But you didn't understand the same concepts in simpler or intuitive terms. Your intuitive understanding left you with a very good analysis of what needs to be done but it left you farther from optimal programming than load vector concepts can get you. I'll show this below.

Think about newtonian mechanics vs. general relativity. Newtonian mechanics is a pretty darn good explanation of the universe but general relativity gets you a little bit farther and allows you to do things that you couldn't quite figure out without it.

Basic strength for sprinting is achieved through full ROM squatting, both SLS and weighted back squats, for the leg thrust. For leg retraction you need Natural GHR, perhaps machine GHR, and full ROM HLL progressions. For spinal rigidity there are a number of options. The back squatting will build a lot on it's own. but it won't hurt to slowly progress to fast deadlifts with 70-100% BW. Power cleans could also be an option, but are more technical in nature. Kettlebell swings are also a good option, but I wonder how that would affect motor learning. That would take a closer examination, though I doubt that doing them once every 8-10 days would hurt anything. For slower basic strength arch holds and calisthenic back extensions will build a good base.

For core stability, body lever holds. For rotational hip ability and maintaining a stiff upper body and spine, body lever or front lever windshield wipers.

For the arm pumping: swinging dips, XR push ups and PPP, neutral grip pull ups and body rows.Inverted XR curls are also a good addition.

For the neck, some light (30-40 lbs eventually) neck squats loaded with a head strap, perhaps done as a warm up 2-3x per week.

For the lower legs, full ROM calf extensions and weighted toe raises. Eventually there will be explosive ankle hops, but that's later.

Outside of that, you need to try to balance the strength of whatever antagonists are being missed.

This is what I meant above about you not getting everything out of your intuitive or simpler understanding than you think you do. You're exercise selection for "basic strength for sprinting" is good and will build a fast sprinter, but it is on the level of Newtonian mechanics. You left out important strength exercises that will help increase max sprint speed even further such as weighted glute bridges, hip trusts, and pendulum donkey kicks that would put you on the level of General Relativity.

If you would please note that the power cleans are in there, as a hip 'hyper-extension' element. I WILL grant that I did not emphasize that enough, and I do appreciate you pointing that out! It is very important and should not have been missed.

I typed that list without planning for a truly perfect human body. I was just pointing out how simple it really is to create a superb specialized athlete. There are only a few things that are missed, like the bridging work, as well as overhead and more complete multiplanar work. I certainly didn't cover pre-hab work or anything else. Just basic strength for sprinting. It is about 90%+ identical to basic strength for almost any other athletic endeavor. That was my point. Throwing in muscle ups, FL and Front pulls, Tops pulls, etc, on the appropriate training days as the athlete is able to perform them, is absolutely essential to maximum human performance. That still goes beyond basic strength, which is to my mind what you build for Ground Zero. Before multiplanar stuff, even.

The exercises you mention are beyond basic strength, but are definitely important. I specifically mentioned there were more levels of training to be done. These do fall in that category. I may be forced to revise my ideas on what I consider to be basic strength, because when i think about it, the hip thrusts and bridging are indeed important. I have not tried these pendulum hip extensions, but I don't think they are any better than single leg bridge push ups, which I would much prefer. I could be wrong about that.

Like I said, things are not as complicated as the terminology would make them seem. Your very observation shows that! The CONCEPT that we should be looking at motions and not planes for our primary decisions is absolutely on point, but I hope that THAT is the message that gets accepted. The terminology I can live without, but it may be necessary for the scientific community to accept Bret's ideas, which are quite intelligent!

The load vector terminology is not anywhere near as useful as strengthening the joints through all possible ranges of motion. You don't need special words for that, all you need is eyes and your body! If your body is designed to move in a certain direction without injury, that should be strengthened. period. Nothing should be left on the back burner! If it is, you will end up with unintentional but performance-limiting weaknesses. I suspect these will be primarily found as neural inhibition, an artificial limitation on action potentials caused by the body not being trained to have the antagonists deal with maximal forces as often or to the same relative degree as the agonists. The neural feedback will cause the body to limit action potentials and therefore performance.

I definitely believe that my current model is not mature. I have not given it much thought beyond developing a basic model. I would need to look at the basic components of each human action to really determine the absolute optimal progressions for reaching the true athletic limitations of the body. I have not yet done this, and your posts have definitely reminded me that this is very important! Thank you.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think there is a simplified way of saying all this:

train movements not muscles

in the beginning stages of training, adaptions to training loads will see increases pretty much across the board. However, as progress is made there is no guarantee that training will lead to improvements if the training methods do not reflect the desired goal. A movement is defined by so many things that merely working out what muscles are used and then applying a general strength exercise to those muscles will not be a good use of time for anyone who already has good general preparation. Otherwise bodybuilders would excell at every sporting event.

I don't think I can agree with anything except the first sentence. Bodybuilders do not focus on maximal development of strength/speed, which is the foundation of most sporting events. The one thing the good ones DO have is excellent muscle balance. We can see how that translated to quick Planche progress with Jesiah, the guy in the youtube video who got his planche push ups in 6 months. Granted, his static hold sucked. Anyhow, bodybuilders do not train for human athletic expression, and as such are handicapped in most athletic events compared to an athlete who does train for maximal athletic expression. So I suppose I do actually agree with your statement that if you are not training for athletic expression, you probably won't become a great athlete as well! I don't know if this needed to be said, but it's certainly true lol!

you can break down a movement into all its components and then choose exercises that best address the requirements of the movement and then train in a fashion that represents the conditions the movement will be performed in.

Of course this applies more to some sports than others. Track and field events are all predetermined, whereas most ball sports contain a mix of random and known elements. The transition from general physical preparation to sports specific preparation needs to be planned over the course of the year as well as the career of the athlete. Too little general preparation, or an over emphasis on specific training too early means a failure to reach potential and more disposition to injuries. If specialisation never occurs...well no one would ever get really good at anything.

I think here you are confusing specialization of SKILL acquisition with specialization of athletic ability development. I think a more appropriate statement would be "if specialization never occurs... well everyone would get really good at everything!"

The truth is that at the highest levels of competition the most genetically/anatomically gifted athlete for that sport will get the best results. Usain Bolt is a great example. Look how much longer his legs are! If he keeps the same stride pace as everyone else and gets full extension with each stride there's no way anyone will ever beat him until someone comes along with legs that can move faster or are longer, or both, than his!

Perhaps if sprinters trained for more complete human expression, and keep in mind I haven't the slightest clue as to how each of the world elites train, they would be even faster than they are now. As it is, a truly well designed sprinting program will be damn close to that.

I definitely think that there is some truth to the role of specialization in elite athletics, but that specialization should occur in neural learning and not in the acquisition or balance of relative strength/speed. The athlete wishing to be the GREATEST must always strive to keep all these abilities as maximized as possible.

I suppose there could be some exceptions in the world of track and field, where often there are events that literally encompass exactly ONE human expression, running, and perhaps the broad jump if that still exists. Every other event, even hurdles, encompasses a far wider array of expressions.

Crap, I'm getting the evil eye. Good night!

[Joshua Naterman]

So, I can never sleep when I feel like something I have said is not complete, or when I start to re-think anything. So, first off, when I say the words "athletic expression" or "Human expression" I am talking purely in terms of strength/speed, not skills like curveball vs fastball or one armed handstands. Those are certainly human expressions, but one armed handstands are not power movements and curveball/fastball are both very similar power expressions, differing primarily in fine motor skill instead of the broader strength/speed expression of the single arm throw, which is the same for each until you get down to the finger position and perhaps some wrist torque. The expressions, in my use of the word, are the basic movements the body uses for strength/speed, more commonly called power.

Nick, I think that in sports like track and field, where events sometimes have a very focused and exclusionary use of certain types of expression, those expressions and their antagonistic expressions are the ones that must be focused on maximally developing, with the other expressions being focused on the highest degree of balanced development that can be developed without negatively affecting or limiting the development of the expressions that are exclusively used in the sport. That way you maintain balance without limiting the development of very exclusive skills. I would love to conduct a study testing this concept, because I am honestly still not sure that is correct.

For most team sports there are situations, however rare, that pretty much every expression is used. For these athletes I think it's important to go for an all-out effort at developing the expressions to the highest degree possible. There are certain specialized positions, and quite a few of them, that may want to focus more energy specifically on a certain set of expressions for certain periods of time but I think it is a mistake even for these positions, like linemen, to not develop everything to the highest degree they can. It just doesn't take that much training time or frequency for any one expression, and they don't detract from one another, to be able to justify not developing them all.

Most of the time spent by team athletes, and most athletes in general, is in skill acquisition and not strength/speed development. That's because it doesn't take that much stimulation, relatively speaking, to develop basic human expressions when they are compared to the amount of stimulation it takes to take one specific movement, such as a specific pitch or receiving pattern. Practicing a pitch or pattern is skill work, and makes use of currently developed basic expressions, like power generation through the hip, shoulder and elbow joints or the ability to absorb and redirect force through the legs(for the receiving pattern). Those should be developed separately and skill work should exist only within the boundaries of those basic expressions being used.

Does any of this I am saying make sense? Am I just sounding like an idiot?

Triangle:

I just don't want to have to use and describe exercises with six new words that limit my ability to interact with athletes, trainers, and the public at large. Bret's concepts behind his vocabulary are spot on, and I love and agree with them. In the end, I will probably have to learn that shit because it seems that academia is only interested in making things more complicated... sigh. It probably will help in the end, as much as I hate it. I shouldn't let my personal bias make me unfair.

[Cole Dano]

Slizz, the new jargon isn't anything new at all. Its all really language that one learns the first day of anatomy class. Its been around for a LONG time now and it seems that Bret is just trying in his own way to educate trainers about some very basic stuff.

Having lived in the yoga world, i was expected to know this stuff as part of my first teacher training. The language that is. Its not that we use it in teaching classes, but since its the accepted standard if we want to go at all further in our learning about body structure and mechanics we have to learn the language that people in that field use. Since yoga is in one regard used as a therapy, it was essential for us to have at least a basic knowledge of anatomy.

I think this should be just as true in the fitness world, and am really glad to see that there are signs of change. Function is beginning to be understood as more important than appearance. As you well know, our training needs to include the whole package. Prehab, strength, mobility, restorative, rehab etc...

As 'physical culturalists' we are really just beginning to get back on track after being thrown far off course in the 70's with the machine gym, body building phenomenon. (That and low fat foods are two of the biggest dead end roads we have ever gone down.)

In order to get back up to speed and continue to learn and progress we really need to know some very basic terminology as the 'semi-professionals' we are. How else can we study these basics if we don't even know the basic language?

Its really that simple, Bret is not inventing anything new here, just trying to give it a spin that trainers might pick up on.

P.S.-

I find it really funny all this 'glute stuff' because it all looks like what we've been doing in yoga for along time now. The thing i find intriguing is the addition of weights, something that most yoga teachers scoff at. I think this is because of the poor standard of the fitness industry and its total lack of the 'big picture'. It gave yoga teachers an easy out.

For the first time in over 20 years i'm actually beginning to look at what the strength people have to say, because of bringing the 'big picture' back into the game, i'd love to see this go beyond yoga's knowledge, since it has its own set of pitfalls.

[Joshua Naterman]

You're right, Brady. I suppose that just goes to show how many of us are not aware of appropriate nomenclature. I hate that word too... nomenclature. Why can't we just call it vocabulary? Argh.

This 'additional' vocabulary may very well be a huge eye opener for trainers who don't already think in those terms, and that would indeed be great. It sucks that I'm going to have to learn the right terms so I don't sound like an idiot, but there we go, I guess. And yes, I know I'm being a baby about still complaining. I'll stop!

I would like to see trainers and therapists be forced to use layman explanations too, just so that they can communicate with the many non-professionals that need to know this stuff as well! My biggest concern is that exclusive use of the appropriate nomenclature will create a situation where professionals can't effectively communicate with their clients, and that is often the difference between the client understanding the need to do certain things.

[Cole Dano]

You're right about that! Actually the best are the ones who even though they know, can express things in clear and simple ways. And from that point of view i totally understand where you are coming from. Its a hard balance to strike, but its the price of learning i guess. You don't need to turn into a pompous ass though.

One smart guy i've been getting allot from lately is Stuart McGill. I have to say now that i've looked more into what he's saying that its very interesting. Moreover, he can use technical and everyday language equally well to get his point across. And that's a PhD researcher. Well ok he is Canadian...