A few weeks ago I wrote an article titled Training Means & Training Methods. The basic premise of the article was to discuss the importance of selecting training methods in order to achieve some sort of specific physiological outcome while adjusting the training means – the tools that you use (IE, run, bike, BB, KB, DB, MB, etc) – based on a number of factors:

• Logistics of the situation/training environment
• What equipment you have avaliable
• Sports needs
• Athlete needs and movement limitations

The last point, regarding movement limitations, is a key piece to the puzzle and I believe this is where a lot of strength coaches and trainers go wrong as they feel that a movement limitation automatically leads to a “soft” training program or a program dictated by a number of physical therapy exercises rather than “real training”.

Last week, Charlie Weingroff released his DVD Lateralizations & Regressions, the follow up to his DVD from a few years ago, Training = Rehab. When it comes to dealing with movement limitations and training as hard as possible I don’t think there is anyone better than Charlie. His approach to using the FMS within the context of a serious training environment has been highly influential on me and I truly believe that if you can grasp what Charlie is saying with regard to lateralizing your best training program and then properly select the training methods to influence the physiological system you are looking to target, you can truly create a monster.

What is a Lateralization?

To lateralize basically means you side-step but you are still on the same level whereas a regression is not a side step, but more a step back (going back a level) in order to then go forward in the future once things are normalized.

In this DVD Charlie does a great job setting up his approach and philosophy to movement, which is a blending of many different movement teachers and at the top of the list is FMS/Gray Cook and DNS/Pavel Kolar. Charlie’s approach is to show you that even when there is movement limitation training can still be intense if one choose the proper lateralizations and the appropriate exercises/drills to concurrently address the limitation while training hard.

An example would be an athlete who lacks ankle dorsiflexion. Perhaps the training program calls for:

1) Power Clean 5×3
2) Squat 4×53) Bench Press 4×5
4) 1-arm Row 4×5

For the athlete who lacks ankle dorsiflexion it probably isn’t wise to challenge that limitation with heavy loads on the spine or while trying to catch a clean. Thus, you may choose to lateralize the movement to something like a KB swing in place for the power clean and a rack pull or high handle trap bar DL for the squat. Now the athlete is able to train hard and while they train hard we are concurrently working with the medical professional on staff (or who we refer out to) to address the ankle dorsiflexion limitation with manual therapy as well as specific movement drills (which can also be used within the warm up and between exercises to further address the limitation).

In this way, everyone – strength and conditioning and sports medicine – are working together to do their part to ensure that the athlete gets what they need. Additionally, if we apply a test – train/treat – re-test approach then we are always re-testing the athlete to ensure we are making progress and once the limitation is cleaned up the athlete can begin to integrate back into the other movements (cleans, squats, etc) in a logical and progressive manner. In this way, we can begin with some regression of cleans (IE, clean pulls or 1-arm DB snatch where the athlete wont drop as low into the squat) and squats (KB goblet squat, DB KB Front Squat, etc).

The goal is to choose the correct exercise for the athlete and understand the continuum along which to train. Know when to lateralize, know when to regress, and know when to call in the manual therapist to help address limitations more specifically.

Putting it together with training methods

As I stated in the previous article and as I always mention in my lectures, after doing our full assessment I always start by first asking myself, “What sort of fitness changes do I need to bring about in this individual (IE, strength, conditioning, power, speed, etc) and what training methods will allow me to do this?” Once I have selected our fitness goals and the training method(s) that we will use in a given training block I then select my exercises. As Charlie would say, “Just lateralize your best training program”. Thus, whatever training methods I use I can simply alter the exercises based on the individual’s movement needs and work to gain fitness while we also work to improve their limitation(s), all the while re-testing to ensure we are getting what we want and making progress.

Lateralizations & Regressions is a must have for any strength coach, athletic trainer, physical therapist, chiropractor, etc. The DVD presents the logic and thoughts inside of Charlie’s head and will help you begin to understand multiple components of the training process and how what you do (whatever your skill set is) blends in with the other professionals on the team so that we can all work together to help develop athletes.

Click HERE to check out the DVD.
patrick

Selecting exercises when writing a training program can be a challenging topic for some. Most get bogged down with trying to figure out which day to put which exercises or how to fit everything in:

• “We have to have kettlebell work!”
• “Olympic lifting is a must!”
• “When should we do our conditioning?”
• “What day should we squat and which day should we deadlift?”

I used to constantly obsess about exercise selection and where to put my vertical push and my horizontal pull and my single leg knee dominant and double leg hip dominant exercise, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I think balancing joint movements is critical and thinking about exercise selection in this fashion is certainly important, but I think we need to first ask ourselves, “What is it we are trying to achieve with this training program?” Once we establish this we can begin to select the training methods which reflect out physiological goal and then finally we can plug in whatever exercises make sense for that person (based on their movement profile, their needs, their sport, or their orthopedic considerations).

Training Means & Training Methods

Training means are the types of exercises/activities that we can perform in our workout. We can think of these as the tools that we have available to us:

• Barbells
• Kettlebells
• Dumbells
• Medicine Balls
• Run
• Bike
• Row
• Plyometrics
• etc…

Training methods are the parameters that we can apply to our exercises in order to achieve some sort of physiological outcome. There are a number of parameters that we may choose to manipulate:

• Rep tempo
• Rest interval
• Training session duration
• Training volume
• Exercise pairings (super sets, complex training, etc)
• Intensity (as it applies to weight on the bar, HR, and/or running pace or WATTS)
• Rep duration (particularly as it applies to varied intervals within energy system training)

The cool thing is that we don’t need a ton of different exercises! All we really need is the ability to teach the individual to do a few exercises well and then from there we can begin to adjust certain parameters in order to achieve different fitness outcomes. Here are a few examples:

• Oxidative Squats 3 series x [4x10reps (2-0-2-0 tempo) ; Rest = 60sec] Rest = 5min between series >> Squats 5 sets x 2 reps @ 90%; Rest = 2-3min >> Jump Squats 20%/10 sets x 5 reps ; Rest = 90sec
• Tempo Run 20x70yrds @ 75% intensity ; Rest = 60sec >> Hill Sprint 20x5sec ; Rest = 45sec ; Short Shuttle 4 series x [5x20yrds (10yrds down and back); Rest = 45sec] Rest = 2min between series

In both examples the exercise did not change. All that changed was the parameters I applied to that exercise and ultimately the fitness outcome.

In the first example, if the goal were to improve tissue specific metabolic adaptations in the lower extremity, the oxidative squat (sometimes called the stato-dynamic squat) may be one way to achieve this. Similarly, if I was trying to improve strength I might choose the second option and if power output were the goal the third option would be one way to target that. In thinking about it like this, it would be totally possible for me to be training three different people at the same time, all with individual needs (determined via assessment and understanding of their sport) and all of them doing squats just with different parameters set to target their goals.

In the second example, the training means of running did not change. The first option is more general in nature and may be used to initially improve the individuals fitness. Option two would allow the athlete to begin sprinting and the hill (or a light sled) would help to slow them down and reduce potential risk of injury that might be there if they were sprinting over flat ground. Finally, option 3 would reflect something more specific to what a field or court athlete may require in their sport. Again, all that was changed were the parameters set to the exercise (the training means) in order to achieve a certain goal.

With this in mind the options for training really become endless and the idea that we can train anywhere, and with minimal equipment, becomes apparent. Here are some examples of what I mean:

• The training goal is power output. The training method would be 3-5sec of max effort work followed by 60sec rest (I classify this as being alactic capacity in my system, but of course these classifications are not so black and white and there is crossover with all of this stuff). Knowing the goal and the methods I can now select a training means based on whatever I have available. Some options might include – sprints, hill sprints, bike sprints, airdyne sprints, plyometrics (bounding, multiple jumps, etc), Olympic lift variations, dynamic effort lifting against accommodating resistance, medicine ball throws, kettlebell swings, and the list goes on and on.
• The training goal is aerobic power. The training method would be 4 reps x 4min @ > 87% maxHR ; Rest = 3min. Now that we know the goal and the training method we can select whatever training means make sense for that person. Some options might include – running, biking, rowing, a circuit of 30yrd run, 10 jump squats, 30yrd run, 15 push ups and repeat for 4min, airdyne, and the list goes on and on.

Hopefully this provides some ideas about program design to get people thinking outside of the box and freeing them up to construct workouts that reflect specific training targets first and then select exercises second.

It seems like energy system training is a hot topic these days and one of the debates currently undertaking the profession is centered around the idea of programming workouts based on internal or external training factors.

For those that are unfamiliar with those terms, for the most part, external training loads are things that the athlete does in training (running/cycling pace, loads/intensities, sets, reps, GPS Data, etc) while internal training loads are the athletes response to training (HR response, session Rating of Perceived Exertion, subjective reporting of how they feel, etc).

The Argument

The argument stems from people basically taking sides as to which is more important when it comes to programming training:

• Internal Monitoring – Programming based off of HR response or HR zones as a means of prescribing intensity.
• External Monitoring – Programming based off of pace/velocity/Watts as a means prescribing intensity.

I believe there is value in both arguments.

On the one hand, prescribing based on pace/velocity/Watts is helpful because it is specific to a percentage of the athlete’s max output during the race/test they are being asked to perform. To improve that output it makes sense to train at certain percentages and slowly build up the capacity to set a new PR. This is similar to lifting weights based on a percentage of your 1RM as a means of attempting to increase your capacity to handle greater loads.

On the other hand, prescribing based on HR response can be helpful because it allows you to understand how that athlete is tolerating training “under the hood”. There is always a cost of doing business when we train. Some athletes can pay back that cost and recover faster than others. One thing internal training monitoring, in this case HR response, does is help us understand what that potential cost is and dial down the workout (or dial it up) based on how the individual is responding.

Why Not Both?

Why does it have to be an either or discussion? Like most disagreements in our profession topics tend to get polarized very fast and people chose sides. I think the true answer probably lies somewhere in the middle – most of the time.

I try and think about energy system training from both sides of the equation as both can be informative. I find great value in programming running or cycling workouts based on velocity or Watts as it is very specific to what the athlete is supposed to accomplish for a given time frame or workload. However, I find a huge benefit in also evaluating the internal response the athlete has to that training session.

For example, prescribing interval runs at 85% allows me to dictate the intensity of the session from an output side of things. Evaluating HR response lets me know a few things:

1. The individuals response to the workout – 85% may produce very different HR responses from different athletes.
2. Any atypical response the athlete may have – If I start to understand what a normal response is for that athlete to certain workouts I can then begin to understand (a) how much to load the athlete to get a certain result and (b) when the athlete may be fatigued or producing an atypical HR response to an intensity that should not be as challenging to them.
3. Potential Aerobic Improvements – Sort of piggybacking off of point 2, if the athlete begins to have a favorable physiological response to the prescribed intensity (IE, it is less difficult or the cost of performing that given workout is decreased while performance has increased) this may signal time for a change or perhaps a re-test of the athletes fitness level.

Final Thoughts

There are many ways to monitor an athlete’s training session. While people tend to chose sides I believe their is a benefit to looking at both external and internal variables when prescribing energy system training. As technology begins to offer us the ability to capture just about anything and everything I still contend that a good, detailed training log is one of the most valuable things an athlete can keep (it is also relatively free save for the cost of a pen and notebook). Charting simple things like training intensity and physiological response overtime can provide the coach with a quick understanding of how the athlete is tolerating the stress of training and whether or not changes to the program need to be made.

This past weekend I had the pleasure of heading up to Vancouver, Canada to lecture at the NSCA Vancouver Seminar with a great group of presenters. On Sunday, my friend and colleague, Nick Winkelman, and I stayed an extra day to do a few lectures to a group of University students up there who are all aspiring strength coaches, physical therapists, personal trainers, etc. Both days were great and it is always good to be a part of an event where other greater presenters are talking about things they are passionate about.

In lecturing to the students on Day 2 one of the main things I wanted to convey to them, before getting into my topic, was the importance of going on the journey of finding what they are passionate about. Nick discussed similar things and we actually talked about this over dinner one night with another friend/colleague, Dr. Greg DuManoir, professor of Exercise Physiology and University of British Columbia – Kelowna. Nick and I started in the field around the same time and I lived in Phoenix while he was developing his approach to training at, what was then, called Athletes’ Performance now called Exos. He said over dinner that he thought it was interesting to see the paths that both of us took from trying to start out as strength coaches and figure what is important in the field and in our respective systems to ultimately finding the topic(s) we are most passionate about and then doing a deep dive into those topic. I couldn’t agree more. Nick’s comment was, “In this field, I believe it is important that people go through the process of obtaining knowledge and being generalists in all things general – exercise physiology, biomechanics, coaching, nutrition, etc – and then, as they grow, find out what they are most interested in and become specifically focused on that.”

I got many questions from students that weekend centered around, “What should I do when I graduate?” Most were unsure if they wanted to go to more school, go to physiotherapy school, try and be a strength coach, go to massage school, etc. My answer is always the same, “I don’t know what you want to do or what you love to do so I can’t answer that for you.”

The statement I always make is:

1. Know what you know.
2. Be great at what you know.
3. Know what you don’t know.
4. Know enough about what you don’t know that you can surround yourself with people that can help you fill in the blanks.

Find that thing you are passionate about and be great at it. Know about all the other stuff (be a generalist) and then get people in the room and form a team that can help each other out and fill in the blanks. As my friend Charlie Weingroff recently wrote, “A legitimate High Performance Staff. Everybody can be the Head at one point, but everybody is always everybody’s assistant.”

It isn’t about trying to master everything under the sun. It is about trying to be great at whatever you are passionate about. What do you want your legacy to be? How would you like people to remember you? Whatever it is, if you want to be a great strength coach, researcher, physical therapist, chiropractor, doctor, nutritionist, massage therapist, etc. It doesn’t matter! Find that thing that wakes you up in the morning and spend your life trying to get better at that. Chances are you will have a lot more fun that way.

This morning I read a nice article, 5 Ways to Use Data to Recover From Injury, which did a great job taking the reader through some simple applications of data we may collect as coaches, strength coaches, or rehabilitation professionals.

In today’s sports world of data collection and player monitoring it seems like many coaches in North America are chasing technology and trying to monitor everything without having a good system for making sense of it all. Which leads me to the title of today’s article, “Doing Simple Things Well.”

Like training, it is typically more effective to do a few simple things really well than try and do a number of things poorly (or mediocre).  I always say, in training, try and pick just a few exercises that you want your athletes to get good at and hammer those. Really learn to do them well before you start adding more exercises and making things more complex. With data collection it is the same thing. Do a few things really well before adding more things to collect and potentially overwhelming yourself with more information and excel spreadsheets that you can’t seem to make sense of.

One of the easiest things to collect is questionnaire data. Questionnaire data has been found to be a valid marker of internal training load, it costs pretty much nothing, and it is easy to set up and create a process around.

The questionnaire that we use comes from the research of McClean & Coutts (Int J Sports Phys Perf 2010):

The athlete will take the questionnaire in the morning upon waking (typically after taking their Omegawave reading if they are doing that as well) and the information comes back to me in a spreadsheet that allows me to make adjustments, if needed, to training on that day. The sheet looks something like this:

The color coding allows us to quickly evaluate how the athlete is doing and offer the athlete immediate feedback or ask more questions and dig a little deeper into what may be going on. This sheet extends to the right for several columns and includes many of the factors we frequently track. By centralizing the data in one sheet it allows us to evaluate the different parameters against each other and be more descriptive with the athlete or coach regarding what is going on.

Additionally, following training/practice we use a BORG-CR10 Scale to determine how difficult the athlete rated the session (session Rating of Perceived Exertion or sRPE, for short). We take this sRPE number and multiply it by the session duration, in minutes, to achieve a simple training load (in arbitrary units) for that session.

While it may not sound like much and certainly isn’t as exciting as GPS read outs and things like that (we get those as well) this simple approach can be very meaningful and impactful to the athlete, coach, and the training program. Best of all, it costs nothing to implement so there really shouldn’t be an excuse of, “Our team doesn’t have the money to monitor players”.

We need to do the simple things first and we need to do the simple things well.