Guest guest Posted January 2, 2002 Report Share Posted January 2, 2002 Given the recent interest in this group regarding Nebraska S/C, the following article may be of interest. <http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nebraska31dec31.story> ------------ Raising The Bar .......Epley takes particular pride in the giant machine to the left. " This is our newest toy, " he says. " This is our Husker Power Transformer. " This beast combines two of Epley's preferred exercises at one station. In the squat, the athlete starts with the weight bar across his shoulders, bends his knees, then returns to the standing position. In the hang clean, the athlete lifts the bar from the top of the knees by shrugging the shoulders, drops below the bar by squatting, then stands up, keeping the bar just below the neck. By stepping on a pedal, the lifter can raise or lower the platform to the appropriate level to begin the exercise. Or he can press another button to move the bar to the correct position for squats. Even if you wanted to spend the $20,000 it takes to buy one of these machines, you couldn't. Epley has an agreement with the manufacturer to build them exclusively for Nebraska. There are other unique machines in the room, including a group that looks like red oil derricks swinging back and forth during a workout. " These are machines that work both sides of the body in a unique way, " Epley says. " It's called reciprocal training. " [This sounds suspiciously like ' " Hammer Machines " - the son and rival of his dad, Arthur . Nothing new about this at all. Mel Siff] You push with one arm while pulling with the other, which forces the torso to stabilize the body and uses more muscles. He has two similar machines for the legs; one side works the hamstring while the other works the quadriceps. [Quite a few concentric-eccentric isokinetic machines have been offering this sort of training and testing for many years now. Mel Siff] One thing is conspicuously absent as your eyes scan the room: the good, old bench press. " The upper body is very overrated, " Epley says. " Very much so. " He concentrates more on the torso, and exercises that involve multiple joints in muscles, with routines that replicate moves made during competition. [boyd surely must recall the limitations of simulation training which attempts to use exercises to imitate exactly every sporting movement. The most specific exercise for a given sporting movement is that movement itself, not some machine imitation which produces different motor patterns. Really, Boyd! Anyway, why so much emphasis on machines which remove a great deal of the stabilisation and overflow processes involved with free weights? After all, Boyd started the NSCA with a huge emphasis on free weights. However, he soon discovered the commercial aspects of machines, on which you can make far more profit than free weights that the Chinese are now making more cheaply than America can extract iron from iron ore. Anyway, it is far easier to live on profit than on philosophy! Mel Siff] Later, up in his office, Epley uses his laptop to make a PowerPoint demonstration of the workouts and their applications. It shows clips of players using the " jammer " machines, which have the players extend from their hands to their toes with their body at a 45-degree angle. Then it shows that same motion in action: an offensive lineman blasting an opponent five yards down the field, a baseball outfielder diving for a catch, a volleyball player spiking the ball...... ---------------- Iain Styles Birmingham, UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2002 Report Share Posted January 3, 2002 Ben Freeman <benfreeman@a...> wrote: > Todd: > > <As for being a great lifter " not hurting " one's chances of being a > great football player. Yes it can. If one spends too much time working > on lifts and not enough on on-field skill work, their play will > suffer. Likewise, if they develop strength deficits too great in a > certain area of strength (i.e., spped strength, absolute strength, > strength endurance, etc.) as a result of overemphasis of a specific > lift, or " weightroom " goal, then that again can hamper on field play. > And this is one of the areas that the poor strength coaches I > mentioned earlier have no clue about.> > **** Todd - would you mind discussing any other 'areas that the poor > strength coaches I mentioned earlier have no clue about' ? ### Well Ben, First let me clarify that when I say " Poor strength coaches " I mean " poor " in their execution of their job, at least in my opinion. There are many fine strength coaches out there, but there are just as many if not more bad ones. Again, this is strictly my opinion. I feel that coaches today (primarily talking about American college and university strength coaches) are too ignorant about what they should be trying to do. Most base their too heavily on either bodybuilding, powerlifting, or weightlifting. Now there is a time and place for all three " types " of lifitng within most athletes training cycles throughout a year. But working almost exclusively on 3 lifts or working almost exclusively trying to get bigger is detrimental to athletic success. Case in point, many too many football coaches and strength coaches are obsessed with the bench press. First, I have never seen a player bench press on the field. Second, I feel to many injuries come from it as a result of poor prgram design. Players literally " bench press their brains out " (forgive my little saying) to the point of shortening the internal rotators of the humerus, as a result of not performing enough work for the antagonist such as the external rotators, scapula retractors, or the extensors of the humerus with movements such as various types of chin-ups and rowing movements. Now, there is nothing wrong with the bench press (i.e., it alone is not a dangerous movement), but even if it was not overused, I personally feel that more players would benefit from varying the inclination (and even the declination) of the bench to work the shoulder joint in many different angles of motion as it is used on the football field. The shoulder flexes at over 180 degrees; everything from overhead presses, incline, flat, and decline presses, to dips. Why not work it in all ranges of movement? Is the bench press the " optimal positoin of shoulder flexion? I feel that many coaches do not pay nearly enough attention to acute exercise variables such as rest periods between sets, frequency, workout duration, precise loading for a given exercise. Very few take into account what the athlete is doing with their sport coaches and how this affects the athlete metabolically. Spring training could potentially be more physically demanding than the in-season portion of the schedule for a football player in the Southern United States as a result of high heat and humidity. This is when so many coaches start their " periodized " program, with set/rep/routine protocols designed for building hypertrophy. Why, when the athlete will spend 2 hours in 80+ degree heat running, jumping, etc.? I've seen many coaches allow athletes to execute movements with poor form, or even instruct athletes improperly. I know of one school where the " power clean " is nothing more than a dynamic reverse grip barbell curl from the floor. In the last 5-30 years, agility, plyometric training, stability training, etc. have all at various times gained popularity within various circles. And all perhaps have their proper time and place, but again, I feel that most coaches use various methods without any real understanding of how to properly implement them. A great example is the growing popularity of " Dinosaur " or " strongman " training today. It is an absolutely fabulous way to train, but not if the acute exercise variables are adhered to. Maybe I'm a weak athlete, but pushing a car for for sets of 1/4 mile at a time around a track between squat days is not my idea of active rest. I know of a school that does this. I suppose my thesis is that coaches implement potentially good training methods, but are ignorant on their proper implementation. Because Louie produces impressive powerlifters, does not mean that box squatting will improve a volleyball players jumping ability as a result of improved leg strength. It may, or it may not, there are many factors to consider. I also feel that few coaches proper asses their athletes needs (i.e., the needs analysis) nor do they properly work on their weaknesses. Also, I feel that few can show measurable results. I have known too many athletes who have gone through college strength programs and made little to no significant gains in size, strength, speed, jumping ability, etc. Even though they had never trained seriously with weights, and were in their late teens to early twenties, a time for most people, of significant strength and athletic development. And I won't get into assesment and measurement too much, but just to give you an example........I know of a coach (a strength coach for a basketball team) who after a " conditioning session " of approximately 20 line drills (a.k.a. suicides, 4-liners) tested his players squat 1RM, vertical jump, and bench press 1 RM. Can anyone explain the logic behind that to me? And these are RMs used to calculate training pecentages for their " periodized program " which uses linear periodization which I am a staunch opponent of as I feel it is not very beneficial for virtually any athlete. Sorry, for my longwindedness Ben, but after having played and coached on the college level and seeing strength programs and talking with coaches (both strength and sport coaches) from around the country, I just personally feel that most schools leave a lot to be desired. And that the level of athleticism displayed by athletes throughout the country may be attributed to genetics and the marvelous human body. Todd Hattiesburg, MS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.