Doctors like Janda, Vojta, Lewit and Kolar have made great strides in applying concepts from childhood development to physical rehabilitation of adults.  Additionally, Gray Cook and Lee Burton have taken some of these same concepts and applied them in their Functional Movement Screen.

Below are a few notes from developmental kinesiology and what they mean to program design for our clients.

Infant Reflexes

Reflexes are movements that occur automatically (like blinking).  While a number of our reflexes occur throughout our entire life, some reflexes are only present when we are babies.  These are referred to as infantile reflexes.  There are three kinds of infantile reflexes – primitive, postural, and locomotor.

Primitive Reflexes – These are reflexes that deal with an infant producing an involuntary response to specific stimuli.  An example of this would be when you place your finger in the palm of a baby; the baby reflexively grasps your finger and squeezes it.  Other examples of primitive reflexes are:

• Sucking reflex– brought on by touching the face above or below the lip
• Asymmetrical tonic neck reflex– brought on when the head is turned to one side, causing the same side arm and leg to extend
• Startle reflex – brought on by tapping the abdomen or attempting to startle the infant, causing the arms and legs to flex
• Babinski reflex – brought on by stroking the bottom of the foot from heel to toe, causing the toes to extend

Postural Reflexes – These are reflexes that allow the infant to automatically adapt their posture to changes in environment.  These are also referred to as gravitational reflexes, as aside from the derotative righting reflex (which occurs in a supine position), the other reflexes in this category pertain to the baby being supported upright, sitting, or being lowered towards the floor, and how the infant reflexes prepares for different situations in these postures.  Some examples of postural reflexes are:

• Derotative righting – In supine, if the infant turns their legs and pelvis towards one side, the trunk and head will follow the rotation.  Similarly, if the head is turned towards one side, the body follows the head in that rotation.  This occurs around four months of age.
• Labyrinthe righting – When the infant is supported upright, if you tilt the infant, they will reflexively move the head to stay upright
• Parachute Reflex – While holding the infant upright, if you lower them towards the floor rapidly, their legs will extend reflexively in preparation for landing.  If you tilt the baby forward, sideways, or backwards, their arms will reflexively extend.

Locomotor Reflexes – As the name implies, these reflexes have to do with our movement.  There are three reflexes that make up this category:crawling, stepping, and swimming (Remember those evil moms that you would see throwing their infants into the swimming pool for swim lessons? It turns out…babies could swim!)

I hope those babies don’t plan on peeing in the pool!

What does this all mean to training adults?

As we develop, these reflexive movements start to become more refined, coordinated and complex, ultimately leading to the specific movements we produce later in life – walking, running, jumping, reaching, grasping, etc.

However, developing these skills does not just happen magically.  Learning to control the body and developing fundamental skills make up our motor milestones.  Each of these milestones marks a turning point in our development and there is a progression that these milestones follow.  In simplistic terms, we need to be able to lift our head and support it, roll over, crawl and creep, support ourselves upright, walk with assistance, and then walk without support.

We can draw many parallels between motor milestones and theFunctional Movement Screen and the way we develop training progressions for our clients.

The Functional Movement Screen and Evaluation of Primitive Movements

The Functional Movement Screen evaluates seven basic movement patterns, and those patterns are then graded on a 1-3 scale as far as the quality of movement being produced, with a score of 0 meaning that the client experienced pain during the movement.  The seven tests are:

1. Overhead Deep Squat
2. Hurdle Step
3. Inline Lunge
4. Shoulder Mobility
5. Active Straight Leg Raise
6. Trunk Stability Push Up
7. Rotary Stability

At first glance the, it looks like a series of movement tests (which is it).  The first three tests are looking at large global patterns and basically evaluating how well the joints of the body, both mobility and stability, play with each other.  Tests four and five can be considered mobility tests, as they evaluate what kind of range of motion we can move through at specific areas of our body, and the last two are stability tests, which look at how well we stabilize ourselves.

If I re-arrange the order of these tests to represent our motor milestones, suddenly the movement screen will look very different:

1. Active Straight Leg Raise
2. Shoulder Mobility
3. Rotary Stability
4. Trunk Stability Push Up
5. Overhead Deep Squat
6. Hurdle Step
7. Inline Lunge

The tests are now in an order that represents our movement milestones.

The first test, Active Straight Leg Raise, represents the spontaneous movement of supine kicking that we display as infants.  When lied on their back, infants will raise their legs up and kick them back and forth.  Additionally, at a young age, babies lie on their backs and play with their toes, which incorporates both hip flexion (Active Straight Leg Raise)and shoulder/arm movement (Shoulder Mobility).  Furthermore, theShoulder Mobility test looks not only at shoulder mobility, but really how well the thoracic spine functions, as limitations in thoracic extension will surely lead to a poor score in this test.

 

Creeping and Crawling patterns are the first ways that the infant actually moves around.  Creeping is the infants first attempt at crawling and can be viewed as a crawl except the infant is moving close to the ground – belly on the ground – similar to a combat crawl.  Crawling is the progression from creeping, where the infant is now moving on their hands and knees.  Before the infant can get to a creeping or crawling position, they must first be able to roll over.  The Rotary Stability Test not only evaluates the individuals stability in a quadruped (all fours) position, but also tests the individuals rotational stability, which would be needed to perform a proper roll from supine (face up) to prone (face down), which is part of our infantile reflexes.  The Trunk Stability Push Up is a representation of the infant pushing itself up in preparation for standing and upright posture.

The Overhead Deep Squat would represent the infant’s ability to stand up without help.  As a continuation of the two previous tests, this is in line with our motor milestones as the child first rolls over and crawls (rotary stability), then pushes itself up onto the couch (trunk stability push up), and finally transitions to standing (Overhead Deep Squat).

The Hurdle Step is next in the progression as it represents us actually taking a step and how well we can establish single-leg stance.  After taking that first step, we typically fall and catch ourselves, and prepare to stand up again (Inline Lunge).

Rolling Assessment

Another important evaluation that can be used in the Functional Movement Screen is the multi segmental rolling pattern, where the client is asked to roll them self from both supine to prone and prone to supine using only their upper or lower extremity.  Multi segmental rolling is an evaluation of the pattern of rolling over, which is the part of the derotative righting reflex discussed above.  This tests gives us an appreciation for both stability and mobility of the client, as limitations in mobility will lead to the individual attempting to draw stability from somewhere else in order to complete the movement and appease the tester….after all, you asked them to roll over!  Basically, they are going to try and get there anyway they can.

What About Exercise?

Our training progressions should represent these motor milestones, as people need to master the more primitive positions before moving on to more coordinated/skilled movements.  Essentially, we want to “fill in the blanks” so that our brain can give our body good feedback about how to appropriately move – you did it once before as a developing infant, and you just need to remember how to do it again!

The goal of correcting movements from the screen should take a similar approach to our motor milestones.  Before trying to correct the squat, you would want to first correct the things that came before it, as they would be considered “more primitive”. 

The exercises that we prescribe to clients can follow a similar sequence of regression and progression.  Here is an example of this sequence for a chop:

• Tall kneeling would be more primitive than half kneeling, so we could start there.
• Half kneeling would come next as this would alter the clients base of support and make them feel less stable.
• A half kneeling chop would be followed by a parallel stance standing chop.
• Parallel stance standing would be followed by an inline stance standing chop.
• Finally we could progress to a single leg chop.

Conclusion

All of a sudden, training clients looks a lot different!

It isn’t about what exercises we do but what we are actually getting when we perform them that is important.  Having progressions and regressions of exercises that follow the motor developmental sequence can be an effective way to help your clients get the most out of their training.

*Special thanks to Charlie Weingroff for his editing of this article*

Lets face it, golf can be a pretty stressful game.  It is a game of both patience and skill, and demands an increased ability to focus and concentrate.

On top of the game itself, professional golfers have several other stressors with (besides the obvious stressors – family, social, financial):

• A long competitive season
• Weekly travel (which has them traveling all over the world through the year)
• Long practice hours
• Several rounds of competitive play (typically 4-round for PGA tour events, although some LPGA events are 3-rounds)
• The stress of worrying about ‘making the cut’ during the early rounds of competition
• Nutritional needs that have to be met on a busy travel, practice, and competition schedule
• Hydration needs that have to be met during long hours of practice and competition (with 18-holes of golf lasting anywhere from 3-4 hours in time)

An interesting study recently looked at both the stress response and immune response of elite level golfers (both male and female) to both practice and competition.

Stress response was measured by salivary cortisol levels, while immune function was measured by salivary immunoglobulin A during four periods of time for either a round of competition or practice:

• At rest
• Before the round
• During the round
• After the round

Cortisol, a hormone in our body which, when released in excess – due to high amount of stress or anxiety – can have some negative affects, has been shown to be elevated before and during competition because of the both the anticipation of competition and physical exertion.  In this study, it was found that males had higher levels of cortisol before the round or practice/competition, with higher levels of cortisol being measured prior to competition compared to practice.  In contrast women had their highest levels of cortisol measured during their round of practice/competition.  It is hypothesized that men could stabilize their anticipatory response, where as woman may get more anxious or stressed as the round of golf goes on.

Salivary Immunoglobulin A, an antibody contained in our mucous which, acts as a defense mechanism against pathogens, has been known to drop temporarily following intense exercise, causing some athletes to become susceptible to upper respiratory tract infections.  In the elite male golfers, salivary immunoglobulin A tended to be decreased when cortisol levels were increased (which was before the round of practice/competition); however, during and after the round, salivary immunoglobulin A tended to be increased.  In female athletes, the opposite was true, with salivary immunoglobulin A being elevated during the round of golf, at a time when cortisol levels were actually higher!  It is hypothesized that salivary immunoglobulin may be elevated during and after the rounds of golf, as the bodies way of coping with the physiological and psychological stress placed on it (more on this later).

What does this all mean?

The first thing that stands out is that there appears to be a different affect with regard to stress and immune function in the game of golf (psychological and physical stress) between men and women.

The second thing that stands out is that there are more questions that need to be asked.  For example, this is just a look at one day of either practice or competition.  As stated earlier, professional golfers will play/practice many days in a row (competitions usually lasting four days), and have the added stress of travel.  It would be interesting to see the results during several weeks, or an entire season, for a professional golfer.  It was hypothesized that the body increased salivary immunoglobulin A, as a way of attempting to handle the physical and psychological stress placed on it.  How long can the body do this for?  Obviously we adapt to our demands, but eventually there is going to be a period where the body begins to break down and can no longer adapt to what we throw at it.  One would have to think that the travel, practice and competition schedule of a professional golfer would eventually take its tole on their immune function.

Finally, what stands out is that given the high amounts of stress that professional golfers are placed under, recovery strategies are essential to both high performance, and overall health and wellness (a chronically sick or injured golfer is not one that is typically successful).  Aside from offseason preparation – which should help the athlete develop the needed work capacity, strength, and power to withstand the daily grind of being on the professional circuit – professional golfers need to be proactive about their rest and recovery program following both competition and practice.

In a nutshell, this paper is a step towards helping us understand what the body goes through when having to perform at an elite level.  All athletes are susceptible to overtraining syndrome, and understanding the demands of the sport and how each individual athlete is able to deal with these demands is an essential component in developing both a training and recovery program to improve performance and maintain optimal health.

Reference

Kim KJ, Park S, Jim KH, Jun TW, Park DH, Kim KB. Salivary Cortisol and Immunoglobulin A Responses During Golf Competition vs. Practice in Elite Male and Female Junior Golfers. J Strength Cond Res 24(3):852-858, 2010.

While the benefits of an appropriate resistance training program for high school athletes are well documented, two common excuses made for not implementing a training program is that there is not enough time to add it into the already busy practice schedule, or the school/club does not have a weightroom to train in (IE, lack of equipment).

A simple solution to remedy both of these problems is to incorporate a strength and power training program right there on the practice field!  A program like this requires little equipment, and can be performed as part of the normal practice, in order to not waste time having athletes go from the gym to the field, or to have to ask the athletes to show up at a different time of the day in order to get their resistance training in (IE, lift in the morning before class and practice in the evening after class).

A recently published study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research looked the potential benefits a program like this would have on a high level under-14 soccer team.  The program was conducted for 12-weeks in the preason phase of training, during which the experimental group performed a strength and power workout on the field twice a week along with (on the same day as) their normal twice-weekly soccer training practice.  The control group only performed the twice-weekly soccer practices.

The athletes were measured both pre- and post-training in the following tests:

• Maximum Vertical Jump
• Ball-shooting speed (measured with a radar gun)
• 30m sprint
• Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance Run
• Vo2max

The training program was a 12-week program broken down into three phases:

• Week 1-4 = General Adaptation
• Week 5-8 = Strength
• Week 9-12 = Power

The general adaptation phase consisted of higher repetitions per set, and was performed in a circuit fashion with short rest intervals.  The strength phase had the athletes performing lower repetitions and the rest intervals were increased to meet the demands of the higher intensity load.  The power phase consisted of plyometric activities as well as power cleans and high pulls, in order to stimulate the stretch reflex and improve the athletes’ ability to develop force rapidly.

The equipment used was minimal:

• Medicine balls from 1-3kg
• Commercial weight bags with a weight of 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, and 25kg (I am guessing these are like sandbags, but I am not entirely sure about that)
• 30cm mini hurdles

Upon completion of the 12-week program, those in the strength and power training group saw significant improvements in vertical jump, ball-shooting speed, Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance run, and they improved upon their 30m sprint time compared to the non-training group.

Conclusions and Practical Applications

The athletes in this study were between the ages of 13 and 14 (they had no prior resistance training background), and were playing at the highest level of soccer competition for their age group in Hong Kong.  One thing noted in the paper that I found interesting was that it stated, “The season lasts for 28-weeks, during which the formal match was played once a week…During the preseason, they performed soccer training twice a week, with each session lasting for approximately 2-hours.”

That’s it!  They play one game per week.  Only ONE!  In the preseason they only practice twice a week!  Compare that to our youth programs over here where athletes practice several times a week, and then attend a tournament on Saturday’s were they may play anywhere from 3 to 5 matches throughout the day.  Obviously the concept of developing athletes is a much higher priority in this program than it is in the United States, where beating the kids into the ground has become more of a common occurrence.

But I digress….back to the paper….

This paper just goes to show you how simple it can be to implement a strength and power training program with your athletes.  Obviously they used soccer in this study, but this would work for any sport really – lacrosse, basketball, baseball, etc.  The researchers in this study used minimal equipment, but focused quality movement and exercise technique (which was emphasized in the paper itself), and set up a program that had phases of training, which built upon the previous phases, leading up to the competitive season.

This study added the strength and power training program on top of the normal soccer training, which is a bit different than a previous paper I talked about, where the athletes in the training group actually replaced part of their soccer training with an on field power training program.

Either way you set it up, the results seem to come out the same – when athletes are trained properly, they tend to perform better.  The training should not only focus on sports-specific skills, but also on developing aspects of strength and power with a properly designed training program.  The program does not have to be elaborate, and does not require large time commitments or high priced equipment.

Don’t make excuses!

Today I was reading Vern Gambetta’s blog, and he had a nice piece on the Stimulus Threshold:

Stimulus threshold is the optimum training load required to elicit an adaptive response. There is a different stimulus threshold for each capacity, in the same manner there is a different time to adaptation for each capacity. There is an art and science to this. But the simple rule of thumb is that it is optimum not maximum that we are seeking.

At some point in time, most coaches make the mistake of pushing their athletes too far.  They get over ambitious with their exercise precription and blow the athlete up – usually resulting in a lot of soreness, a few much needed days of rest, an increased amount of fatigue or potentially a regression in performance.

We have all done it at some point.  I’ll admit that I have blown some athletes up because I tried to push them too hard at a time when I maybe should have been trying to hold them back.

Knowing your athletes, the amount of volume/intensity they can tolerate, and knowing when to progress a workout forward, and when to “shut it down for the day”, are critical components to being a good coach.

Don’t get caught up in trying to do a maximum amount of work every session.  More is not better.  Better is better! 

Non-linear periodization is a topic I have covered many of times in past blog articles.  I have looked at research and given some practical applications of how to use this sort of periodization structure.  Just to review, linear periodization begins with low-intensity/high volume lifting and progresses to high-intensity/low volume lifting over the course of many weeks.  For example:

• Week 1-3: 3×10
• Week 4-6: 3×8
• Week 8-10: 4×5
• Week 11-12: 6×3

While non-linear periodization allows for weekly or daily fluctuations of training volume and intensity.

A weekly non-linear periodization example:

• Week 1-2: 3×10
• Week 3-4: 4×5
• Week 6-8: 3×8
• Week 9-10: 6×3

A daily non-linear periodization model example:

• Day 1: 4×4
• Day 2: 3×8
• Day 3: 3×10

Flexible Non-Linear Periodization

A recent study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research actually looked at the concept of flexible non-linear periodization.

What this basically means is that you have the freedom to alter the workout based on how the athlete (or yourself) is feeling on any given day.  There are various ways to determine when to change the workout, and I will address some of these below.  But in a nutshell, this concept allows you to take into consideration the individual and make the program more specific to them.

Training programs are really nothing more than a shell or outline of what needs to take place.  The program should, however, be plastic and allow for changes depending on the individuals progress (progressing quicker or slower than expected), competition schedule (a competition may come up in the middle of a training cycle, or the athlete may decide to jump into a competition at the last second that was not on their original competition schedule), or based on how the athlete feels (tired, beat down, getting over being sick, etc.).

The study conducted by McNamara and Stearne sought out to determine the effectiveness of flexible non-linear periodization when compared to regular non-linear periodization.

The subjects were placed into two training groups for the entire 16-week cycle:

• A non-linear periodization group who alternated workouts between 10-reps per set, 15-reps per set and 20-reps per set.
• A flexible non-linear periodization group who used the same repetition numbers; however, this group was allowed to pick between which repetition number they performed for a given workout.  This choice was based on the subjects rating their energy levels (a scale of 0 to 10, which 0 being “no energy” and 10 being “extremely motivated and full of energy”).  In order to ensure that the subjects in both groups performed the same total volume for the entire study, the subjects in this group were allowed to choose their rep number, however they had to choose one of the other two rep numbers in the next workout, so that one rep number was not prioritized over another.  Because of this, towards the end of each 4-week mesocycle, it was possible that the subjects were not given a choice of which rep range to choose, in order to keep total volume between groups similar.

The subjects trained twice a week for 30min. each session.

Pre and post tests consisted of leg press, chest press and standing long jump.

Results

The flexible non-linear periodization group improved significantly in the leg press, while changes in the standing long jump and chest press were not significant between the two groups.

The researchers stated that the superior improvements in leg press by the flexible non-linear group may be attributed to the subjects having the ability to choose between rep numbers for each workout, allowing them greater recovery between sessions, and thus greater improvements in strength.

The insignificant improvements in long jump may be attributed to the fact that the subjects performed no power training during the 16-week training program, and the training program in this study consisted of repetitions that were low in velocity.  Thus there was no stimulus to adequately improve this quality.  The lack of significant difference between the two groups in the chest press may be due to the fact that the upper body received more overall training volume, a greater number of exercises, than the lower body, leading the researchers to believe that the upper body may have been overtrained.

The researchers concluded that, “A flexible non-linear periodization program may be a highly effective method of training for improving leg strength.  Coaches can immediately implement a flexible non-linear program by evaluating the readiness of an athlete immediately before his or her training session, then adjusting the assigned exercise intensity accordingly.”

My thoughts on using this practically

While a flexible approach to periodization is certainly nothing new, this is the first study (that I am aware 0f) that actually looked at the difference between a non-linear and a flexible non-linear training program.

In Supertraining, Mel Siff, actually talks about the concept of cybernetic periodization, which he discusses in regards to the training of the Bulgarian Weightlifting Team.  Basically, instead of being stuck in a very rigid periodization program, where you are forced to stay true to whatever lifting percentage is prescribed for the day, Mel advocates adjusting the daily lifting percentage based on subjective and objective feedback obtained by the lifters performance.  From there, the lifter trains on a rate of precieved exertion.  If things feel heavy that day or the athlete does not feel strong, then the training load is lighter, and vice versa.

This concept is not a bad idea, as it allows you to ensure that the athlete is fully recovered before performing high quality work.  The 0 to 10 scale in the study should not be the only way to obtain information on the athlete.  Obviously lazy athletes or athletes who like to go out and party and drink at night, will constantly be reporting low numbers so that they can slide by with easier workouts (but, you should really talk to the athletes about their all nighters and party habits, as this can be a real problem with their preparation).  On the flip side of that, highly motivated athletes that never want to give in to having a light workout will always report high numbers so that they can always train harder.

In Optimizing Strength Training: Designing Nonlinear Periodization Workouts Kraemer and Fleck advocate testing the athlete with a power exercise – like a vertical jump – to determine if the athlete is prepared for intense training (either power or intense strength work) that day.  If the power exercise is near their normal pre-training numbers (within 10%) then they are cleared to go, if it is outside of that 10%, then you need to divert to a less intense, more recovery focused workout.

Obviously other tests could be performed in a addition to or instead of the power exercise, to gain more feedback on the athlete.  Some coaches may use things like blood pressure, resting/waking heart rate, and others have talked about using Heart-Rate Variability as measures of an athlete’s preparedness to train.

One of the issues with the study above is that it was conducted on subjects who were new to resistance training, so it is difficult to tell whether or not this type of flexibility will be successful in elite athletes.

Conclusions

It appears that flexible non-linear periodization may be helpful in the preparation of athletes, as it allows for individual variability in recovery from training and competition.  No two athletes are alike, and one may have better recovery from a training program than another.  Because of this, coaches need to monitor their athletes to ensure that they are getting the most out of their training program and recovering adequately, to prevent overtraining and decreased performance.

References

McNamara JM, Stearne DJ. Flexible Nonlinear Periodization In A Begginer College Weight Training Class. J Strength Cond Res2010;24(1):17-22.

Siff M. Supertraining. Supertraining Institute; 6th ed. 2003. pgs. 326-327.

Kraemer WJ, Fleck SJ. Optimizing Strength Training: Designing Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. Human Kinetics. 2007.