Re: Track athletes' malpractices?

July 21, 2010

Hello Doug.

I will take an early bite of this cherry.

Firstly, I think you may have (indavertently) answered some of your own

questions.

Yet, your email does bring up a number of interesting points of or for

discussion.

You mentioned that " it is hard to give more specifics " . Of course, without

context it is often challenging to see, appreciate or understand where things

fit in a bigger picture or scheme of things. I offer my comments with the same

provision.

Given that you have seen a number of sessions, are you aware of the bigger

picture/s? A training session is not necessarily representative of a training

program in it's entirity. It is simply a snap-shot, a single step in a journey,

a link between the common elements of program that should be set, planned and

implemented with given outcomes and objectives in mind.

Oh, and a good program is not simply the same workout, exercises or movments

completed with different loading.

A session simply represents an acute manifestation of the application of various

" tools " (methods) to achieve given objectives (or outcomes).

Perhaps discuss the entirity of the program with the relevant coaches, or

head-coach. That may assist your interpretation in terms of what is really going

on and what you (think you) have seen.

It's not that " vertimax training " nor " sled-pulling with heavy resistance " are

good or bad, or right or wrong, or specific or non-specific (or general) in

their own right. Any activity, exercise or movement (combination) can be

specific in TWO senses. In the first sense, it can be specific to 'serving a

purpose', aimed to improve or stabilise something for a given period of time

before progressing. In the second sense, it can be specific in terms of

'imitating' a sport-related movement aimed to improve performance over time.

Although I am not a fan of " vertiamx training " at all, it COULD be used to meet

the objectives of teaching/coaching the athletes along the lines of

'force-reception' (ie. how to land) and 'force-production' (ie. to generate

force). Both these are components are jumping, hopping, bounding, leaping and

running (and, of course, kicking, striking, catching, and throwing).

I personally would use various combinations of inclined and flat jumps,

landings, hops and strides, and some games/competitions -emphaisisng different

components (landing,sticking, take-off, height, distance, leg action, arm

action, body position, whole movment etc) of them at different phases of the

training or annual plan (see comment above) to achieve the FR and FP outcomes,

particulalry for much of the age-group/s you mention (see below).

Weighted sled pulling CAN be a great activity too, particularly if

taught/coached properly. It can help reinforce body position/lean (I prefer the

harness attached around the pelvis rather than around the waist, to both

emphasise hip-drive/externsion and to minimise the likelihood of leaning forward

[bending] from the waist). It can also help emphasise arm-action and lower-limb

triple-extension [there was a disucussion on this a while back]. The weight

pulled, and whether they're performed from standing/static or running/moving

conditions, obviously, has an impact on the related strength-qualities sought.

Secondly, without knowing any of the specifics of the " group of 11-20 year

olds " , you mention, there MAY be some other factors at play.

Although a sweeping generalisation, many of today's Western teenagers are not

the most motivated bunch (or gang). Many of them often do not have a broad

movement, or wide athletic-related or activity (let alone strength-related)

base from which to work either.

Sometimes, using games, competitions and equipment (like Vertimax and sleds) can

be good ways in which to enourage, motivate and challenge young athletes. Over

time, I'd like to think, once the youth-athlete has been sold on the benefits of

S & C training and/or are attending training more often, the such " tools " would

not be the major focus.

You mention working in a " facility " rather, than an orgnaisation. I thereby

assume you mean a " gymnasium " or the like.

Working with athletes from 11-20 means working with athletes that are more less

children, adolescents/teenagers and young adults. Obviously, it also means some

of them won't even know how to spell puberty let alone have been through it,

some witll be going throught it, and some will be well past it.

In such a " facility " I'd like to think that there is some kind of " Athletic "

Long Term Development Program is in place. Such a program would outlines, for

example, year or two-year based training outcomes and objectives, with relevant

activities, exercise, loading ( " methods " ), variations and progressions to meet

these.

Such a program would/should be all of common sense, and professionally and

developmentally (and legally) sound.

Thirdly, any great " variation " (or did you mean " very " ) different training

methods demonstrated by the coaches of this " facility " should then not appear.

That said, not all coaches should be robots sticking to a program outlined or

prescribed by 'Big Brother'. That would really take us back to 1984! Variety

should be a necessary component for the younger athletes LTD program, in terms

of establishing a broad base of movement and 'condition' related development.

Like you, I'd be a tad concerned if the 11year olds, 15year olds and 20 year

olds were doing the same activities (obviously, they can't do the same loads)

too regularly in any given phase of the program.

Interestingly, you mention about " weight training " being performed before doing

vertimax and sled type training. " Weight training " , in the cntext of barbells,

dumbells, machines, pulley, kettlebells) doesn't HAVE to be performed, as

preparation for these type of activities. Body weight related activities (which,

from one perspective at least, includes jumps/landings and plyometric related

training) and logs, sacks, tyres etc can also be used to achieve the same

objectives. " Weights " are simply a form of external resistance that magnify or

attentuate accleration caused by gravity.

In summary Doug, aim to find out what the bigger picture is. This will help you

place the Vertimax and sled training in a clearer and broader perspective.

Perhaps talk to the coaches, and aim to appreciate where they're coming from.

Even if we don't agree, or our gut/instinct tells us differently, there are a

number of ways to skin a cat... there are different methods to achieve the same

outcomes over time.

At the very worst Doug, go with your gut and move on.

Ford

RunJumpKick

Melbourne, Australia

Dear Ken and other list members:

I am working in a facility with a few strength coaches that have vary

different training methods. I see sled pulling with heavy restistance being

utilized as well as vertimax training very regularly with all athletes. 90% of

these atheletes are between the ages of 11-20 yrs of age and have less than 6

months of any basic weight training experience. I guess my question is if any

track coaches or coaches working with track athletes age group would use those

tools and if so how. My gut is telling me that it is way to advanced and

specific for that population and that the resistance used with those tools is

detrimental, any thoughts would be great. It is hard to give more specifics as

this is just what I am viewing on a daily basis and getting desturbed by what I

see as a lack of training knowledge and application.

Doug Fairbanks

Boston, MA

July 22, 2010

Hi Doug!

's insights were excellent. I hope you found his analysis as

enjoyable as I did!

I'll offer a " big picture " view from the perspective of someone who works

with younger kids who come out for a sport like track and field with

various levels of skill, focus, and attitude. When our district brings in top

experts in educational practices to offer insights on our current curriculum

and to make suggestions regarding 'best practices " for improvement in math,

science, or reading, their analysis of what we do has been consistent:

we're trying to do too much.

Part of our " mission " as coaches is to first understand the competitors we

coach, the environment in which our athletes train, and the time available

for training based upon the realities of the season or " cycling model "

within which we are confined. And for younger athletes, this can be vastly

different from what others would expect.

With this in mind, there are many things coaches and athletes can do, and

it is not to denigrate these many things that I often refer to these

conventional holistic approaches as " cafeteria style " training. It is to

establish that there is so much to choose from in the training world. The best

coaches certainly know how to best navigate through the selections, and often,

as with most foods in a cafeteria, choices come down to a simple matter of

taste--and sometimes expediency.

When faced with the dilemma of sorting out what works best, it's often

easier--and maybe more sensible--to do it all so that we're never blamed for

missing something that others believe is critical for success based upon

what they know about " mission building. "

When coaches point out things that they believe are necessary, whether it

be eccentrics, ballistics, core strength, etc.--or creative, like

parachutes, resistance harnesses, sled pulling, etc., my philosophy comes down

to

" load six " -- a reference to Wayne's great observation about gunfighters

from his film The Shootist. That philosophy is simple: do what you

believe is necessary based upon how you feel about what needs to be done. This

" load six " approach comes from an observation a young Ronnie makes

to Wayne during a " shootin' lesson. " observes that Wayne (legendary

gunfighter JB Books) doesn't load all six chambers in his Colt. Wayne

puts only five beans in the wheelhouse because he likes to keep the hammer on

an open chamber for safety...and because he knows doesn't need all six.

Wyatt Earp apparently did the same thing, and maybe that's why the scene was

in the film. points out that other great gunfighters do load all

six. Rather than argue, Wayne simply tells to " load six if your

insides tells ya' to. "

Coaches and athletes who respond positively to wielding Occam's Razor when

it comes to various protocols are those who may simply have a different

understanding of their " mission. "

In a nutshell, I spent the first twenty-five years of my high school

coaching career investing and experimenting with all kinds of things, like

parachutes and surgical tubing and cabling and weighted thigh cuffs, as well as

various harnesses and sleds for resistance training. I've been spending the

last ten investing in assessment equipment to help me determine exactly

what those protocols were doing relative to the nuances of my mission. As a

result, I've applied Occam's Razor to a lot of this stuff. Why? It goes

back to Wayne's basic considerations. 1) safety in terms of weighing

risk vs. reward, and 2) practicality in terms of whether those things

necessary relative to what I do and how I need to go about doing it.

In the final analysis, I think I'm saying exactly what said in his

conclusion: go with your gut and move on, but always base your gut reaction on

your understanding of your specific mission.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

July 24, 2010

Thank you and Ken very much for your advice I am grateful. I realized

after reading your posts that I need to bridge the gap of communication between

this head coach and myself. I agree like you both said that all training has

its benefits and reasons behind it, but this coach who heads up the training

center is very quite and has not brought the staff into the same room to discuss

methods, but is upset that me and some other trainers are doing more weight

training than he is. Basically, I started analyzing his methods as a result of

those comments. Thanks for steering me straight and maybe I can get him to

share some insight and we all learn a bit. It has been difficult as this is my

first position that I am not in charge of the athletic development system.

Doug Fairbanks