Many of my readers know this, but once upon a time I was a high school mathematics teacher. Last year, while in Auckland, I instructed plenty of labs as well as a master’s level summer school course titled Enhancing Muscular Performance. Point being – I am a teacher at heart.

These days I’m attracting a ton of Exercise Science students to my blog. I’m much more interested in teaching my students how to fish, rather than feeding them a fish.

One vital skill that I would like for my blog readers to possess is the ability to think critically. You should absolutely question everything. Question what I tell you, question what you see in the research, question what you hear from blog writers and experts, question all of it! Here’s the late George Carlin on questioning everything:

I am very appreciative of the folks who dare to speak up in the name of science. One of the guys I admire most is Greg Lehman. In fact, if you recall, I linked to his blog a couple of weeks ago. He and I have been corresponding lately and I asked him to write a review of the recent foam rolling research for my blog. Here’s what Greg had to say:

Greg’s Critique of the Foam Rolling Article

I read the recent study by MacDonald et al (part of David Behm’s great research team in Canada and someone I have asked for research advice in the past a great deal) that Bret reviewed on his site.  I think the study is an excellent start into looking into the prevalent practice of foam rolling and I hope that it was spur a lot of other research.  But, I’m now going to give a mini critique.  I don’t want to be a contrary a-hole (although I know that’s how it looks) but I have always thought it was important to question everything we do.  I am even harder on myself.  I will readily admit that I don’t have a lot of definitive answers and this is why I am indebted to researchers that commit the time and effort into these works.

My Bias

Believe it or not I want foam rolling to be effective.  If proven effective, I think would then be a great tool that empowers patients and athletes to do something actively, that is self directed and that they would get benefits from without paying an arm and a leg.  You don’t have to rely on someone else with a foam roller.  I advocate this self reliance for my patients.  Further, the background behind foam rolling is founded on fascial adhesions, thixotropy and tissue health which as a manual therapist doing ART I would benefit from these theories being proven.  There is nothing like the relief you can feel after having resolving some cognitive dissonance.  But, I continue to question.  I want to be convinced soundly and for this I remain on the fence.

Limitations

Every study design makes choices and when we make choices those choices lead to some limitations.

The control group was not a true therapeutic control group.

Meaning there was no “sham” intervention given.  The participants all knew that they were being foam rolled and may have also likely known that it was expected that they would have changes in their function.  The control does not control for the fact that something was done to the subject’s limb.

The warm up was not consistent with standard practice

This unfortunately would not replicate what is typically done in usual sport.  If you took these athletes through a standard warm up, with dynamic activities and prepared them for sport would you not expect to have an increase in ROM from that?  Would foam rolling provide any greater benefit from what is considered best practice currently?  Again, this is not a knock on the study design; it helps simplify things for their research question.  But, it does limit its immediate relevance to usual practice

The experimenters were not blind to the interventions.

This is not very relevant for the strength testing but is quite relevant to the ROM assessment.  The ROM assessment used a goniometer that is often quite subjective.  When you use a goniometer you line up the ends on landmarks that you palpate and being off slightly can change the readings you get.  This is amplified when measuring larger limbs.  Further, the experimenters were the ones actively controlling the amount of knee flexion that the subject had.  The experimenters pulled the knee into flexion to the point of pain experienced by the subject.  This is hugely subjective and can be easily manipulated by the tester (consciously or subconsciously).  If you are the experimenter and you know that they just foam rolled, it would be easy to subconsciously coax a few more degrees out the subject.  The subject is also being handled by the experimenter and may feel that they can ‘give” more as well – subject knows they were just foam rolled and will let tester pull them a little more.  There is a huge interaction going on here between subject and tester.  I am suggesting that all of this is not at the conscious level of the experimenters.

The ROM testing was too subjective.

It is possible (although extremely difficult considering the joint that they chose to study) to create a rig that pulls the subject’s leg into flexion with the same force each time.  We could also measure ROM with reflective markers on three points (ankle, knee joint and greater trochanter) and measure this digitally.  Having this objectivity is important because there are too many errors that can occur with testing ROM and with such small changes (10 degrees). We want to make sure that there is really a true change not some study artefact.

Discussion regarding self myofascial release and fascial adhesions

Bret really seemed to like this part of the paper.  I thought it was a nice review of the theory but that it was presented like it was fact.  If you notice the references for this section they are all course notes or peer reviewed papers that actually did not study fascial adhesions, fascial properties or thixotropy etc.  For example:

“When fascia loses its elasticity and becomes dehydrated, fascia can bind around the traumatized areas, causing a fibrous adhesion to form. Fibrous adhesions are known to be painful, prevent normal muscle mechanics (i.e. joint range of motion, muscle length, neuromuscular hypertonicity, and decreased strength, endurance and motor coordination) and decrease soft-tissue extensibility (5, 15, 36).”

Again, I would love for this to be true but it is still a theory and not strongly supported. If anyone has any research that really looks at these beliefs I would love to read it.

An apology

You can certainly say to me “hey jackass, why don’t you do the research yourself?” Yup, this is a good point and it’s why I am not criticizing the researchers but rather just pointing out the normal gaps that occur when we conduct any experiment.  I know the huge amount of thought and work that went into this good study.  It is very easy to critique something and I don’t doubt that everything I have written above the researchers have also already thought about.  That is why we have follow up studies and multiple research teams.  The researchers made choices and this causes certain limitations.  If they made other choices than different limitations crop up.

Bottom Line – What does this mean for practice?

This paper certainly suggests that there is no decrement in performance variables studied (but who knows about dynamic tests or injury) so it is hard to argue against using foam rollers day to day.  However, you can look at this another way, since there was not change in force parameters and the ROM changes could have been an artefact of the experiment, perhaps foam rolling does nothing at all and there is something else out there that we should be spending our time doing before or after sport.  If we just settle on foam rolling are we missing out on something else?

So if you are already foam rolling you will probably continue and if you aren’t foam rolling your muscles maybe you should? I don’t know. How is that for certainty? I look forward to great research to follow.

Thanks for reading.

Greg

Thank You!

I want to issue a huge thanks to Greg and people like Greg who fight hard for scientific advancement. This is just the first small step along an undoubtedly long line of foam rolling and myofascial research and we’ve just skimmed the surface.

As an industry (Strength & Conditioning as well as Physical Therapy), we owe tons of gratitude for critical thinkers as they force us to expand our boundaries in the quest of knowledge and scientific advancement.

You should NEVER think of these folks as “contrarians.” They are CRITICAL to the evolution of our field. However, there are indeed many contrarians out there, and the trick is to be able to spot the critical thinkers in the midst of contrarians. Three such folks are Greg Lehman, Paul Ingraham, and Jason Sivernail.

Greg Lehman

I freakin’ love the way Greg thinks. I’m glad that certain guys care about the exact science and not just about popular theories, and Greg is one of these guys. You can trust his integrity. Here are some of his best articles:

Are the psoas and iliacus the only hip flexors above 90 degrees? Questioning this common belief.

Are you sure your hip flexors are tight? If so, why and who cares?

Stop foam rolling your IT Band. It can not lengthen and it is NOT tight.

Stretching Muscle: A brief summary on what it does.

Why do people feel stiff? Are your muscles really tight?

Plenty more good stuff to see on Greg’s site. He’s smart as a whip and you should definitely read his blog.

Paul Ingraham

Paul is a lot like Greg – an incredible scientist with a serious disdain for pseudoscience. It is very important to question everything and we’re incredibly luck to have folks like Greg and Paul who will buck trends in the name of scientific advancement. Here are some of Paul’s best articles:

“The fascia will make everything better”: a pattern of flawed clinical reasoning about fascia

Why “Science”-Based Instead of “Evidence”-Based?

Extraordinary Claims

Quite a Stretch

Does Massage Therapy Work?

Stand Up Straight

The Humble Therapist

Plenty more where this came from on Paul’s site. I highly recommend Paul’s blog.

Jason Silvernail

Unfortunately Jason doesn’t currently have a blog, but he frequently posts in the SomaSimple forums.

Click here to listen to a Recent Interview with Jason.

There are plenty more great critical thinkers out there but these links will get you started.

Today’s post is a guest-blog by one of my good friends – Jim Kielbaso. I really like the way Jim thinks and appreciate his insight.

Gaining Knowledge from Reflection
By Jim Kielbaso

Good coaches and trainers are constantly looking for ways to increase their knowledge base.  We spend a great deal of time reading books and articles, watching videos, attending clinics, and talking to other coaches.  Yet, there is another very simple practice that people often forget to use.  I was taught this concept a long time ago, but it took me years to actually put it into practice.  Another excellent way to learn is to simply take the time to thoroughly reflect on your own experiences.

For example, earlier this year the University of Kentucky brought me in to work on acceleration techniques with their Men’s Basketball Team.  The coaching staff recognized that there was an opportunity with their ultra-talented recruits, and they had a very clear picture of what they wanted.  I stayed in Lexington for three days with the specific purpose of getting each player to accelerate more efficiently and cover the court faster than ever.

I spent my time in Lexington doing a lot of teaching, individual evaluation and consultation with their staff on how to approach training.  Everyone I worked with – coaches and athletes – were very professional and 100% committed to improvement.  The training sessions were very successful, and I left feeling like I taught the team a lot.  It wasn’t until later – when I took the time to sit down and reflect on the experience – that I realized how many valuable lessons I learned from my time with the team.

None of these concepts were completely new to me, but they were all hammered home in a way that can only be done through experience.  Here are 8 valuable lessons I learned from my experience with the University of Kentucky basketball team:

1.  Skill is king in most sports. In most team sports, speed, strength, power and conditioning are all important, but great skills kill them all. You can be a physical specimen, but if you can’t play the game, your best sport option will be the CrossFit games (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  Watching the amazing skill level of these guys drove this point home.  Sure, helping them accelerate faster was helpful, but their ability to shoot, dribble, defend, etc. is hands-down what makes them so exceptional, and will ultimately be their ticket.

2.  Recruiting trumps training. Strength coaches can boast about their programs as much as they want, but the bottom line is that finding the right talent is the best way to make a training system look good.  There are some things that strength coaches don’t really teach, like being 6-foot-9, 250 pounds and moving like a cat.  Don’t get me wrong.  A great training program can elicit fantastic results, but we sure look a lot better when we have superior athletes to work with.

3.  Size matters. I was watching sophomore forward Terrence Jones play 2-on-2 with an incoming freshman trying to check him. Terrance has put in a lot of hard work in the weight room with strength and conditioning coach Mike Malone, and he has gotten a lot bigger and stronger. He was dominating the younger player, saying things like “you’re too little!” and flexing his muscles.  He told me later that because he’s bigger and stronger, he feels like he can do things he couldn’t do before.  What a confidence booster!  You can train an athlete however you want, but putting on some size and strength sure seems to make a difference.

4.  Fine tuning can make a big difference. Elite athletes already have most of the puzzle pieces in place.   Athletes at this level only need slight advantages, so making one small improvement has the potential to pay big dividends.  My only job was to get every player better at covering half the court. They already excel in most areas of game, are in great shape, can jump out of the gym and they work on fundamentals every day – that kind of stuff is in place for most elite level athletes.  Getting an elite basketball player one or two steps faster down the court could mean the difference between a breakaway and having to reset your offense.  It could mean running down an opponent’s fast-break to block a shot at a critical point in the game.  All of the players bought into this concept and recognized that it could give them a significant advantage.  When you get elite athletes looking for tiny advantages over their competition, exciting things can happen.

5.  Strengthen weak links. Most athletes have a lot of strengths and a few weaknesses.  Of course, you should always capitalize on your strengths, but finding an athlete’s weak link may prevent a lot of problems down the road. Maybe he has terrible foot or ankle flexibility, which is altering his running mechanics.  Maybe she lacks internal hip rotation which is making it difficult to perform certain movements.  Whatever it is, finding and improving it can make a huge difference to an athlete’s career.  It may improve his game or it may just keep him healthy.  Continue to capitalize on strengths, but attacking the weak link can be a difference-maker.

6.  The basics are not broken. Athletes in all sports and all levels often need similar training.  There are way more similarities than differences because the basics just plain work.  Sure, every athlete may need some individualization, but just about everyone can benefit from improvements in strength, speed, power, and conditioning. You may attack them differently for each sport or athlete, but the basics should be the foundation for most athletes.  Here I was teaching elite level athletes the same concepts we show middle school kids….and it was helping!  We don’t need to find revolutionary new methods.  The future of training more likely lies in figuring out better ways to apply what we already know works.

7.  There are no cushy jobs. The grass is always greener on the other side, and I hear coaches all the time saying things like “Man, I wish I had that situation.”  Well, watching Mike Malone bust his tail with these guys drove this point home.  A job like this sounds great (great athletes, great program, great facilities) but there’s a lot of pressure in situations like this. Expectations are high.  A lot of hard work is put in, and coaches get fired from great situations all the time for reasons completely out of their control.  Jobs like this don’t come easy, and you never get to sit back and enjoy the scenery while you’re there.  A lot of people think certain jobs would be great, but be careful what you wish for.  It’s tough being at the top.

8.  The “out-of-towner” theory is true. For credibility, there’s nothing like being an expert from out of town.  You can tell an athlete something a million times, but having an “expert” come in from out of town grabs their attention like nothing else.  It’s kind of funny, but everyone seems to respond to this.  The same holds true in parenting.  You can tell your kids that something is important, but when an influential coach or teacher says the same thing, it’s a total revelation.  I’m sure the coaches at Kentucky could have taught acceleration and speed training, but they also knew the value of having someone else say it.

I was only at UK for a few days, and while I taught a lot, I think I ended up learning even more.  Often, in situations like this, you never sit back afterward to reflect on the experience. You get wrapped up in what you’re doing and teaching, and it’s hard to turn it into a learning experience for yourself. I see this all the time with interns, grad assistants or volunteers who are working so hard they don’t take the time to reflect on their experiences.   I even see it with coaches and trainers who are so busy teaching, that they miss out on valuable lessons.  I’m absolutely guilty of this.

A lot can be learned when you’re open to it. It’s going to be difficult, but from now on, I’m going make an effort to spend a little more time reflecting on important experiences in my life.  This helped me gain more than I ever thought it would, and I don’t want to miss out on that in the future.

About the Author

Jim Kielbaso MS, CSCS is the Director of the Total Performance Training Centers in Wixom and Rochester Hills, MI.  He is a former college strength & conditioning coach and the co-founder of www.UltimateStrengthAndConditioning.com.  Jim has written three books, produced several training DVDs and speaks at conferences and clinics around the country.  You can follow him at http://JimKielbaso.com.

Today’s post is an excellent guestblog by Rob Panariello. I won’t introduce Rob as I’ve interviewed him in the past and posted a couple of guestblogs from him in the past year or two. This is an important topic for strength coaches, and I really love how Rob blends together science and anecdotes which demonstrates good critical thinking and decision making methodology.

Considerations in Athletic Performance Enhancement Training: How Much Strength Do Our Athletes Need?

Robert A. Panariello MS, PT, ATC, CSCS
Professional Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Professional Athletic Performance Center
New York, New York

Throughout my 30-year career in in the fields of Sports Rehabilitation and Athletic Performance Training, I have spent thousands of hours in conversation with many good friends and mentors in the Strength and Conditioning profession. In a specific conversation that occurred in 2009 with renowned NFL and Hall of Fame Strength Coach Johnny Parker, he expressed his concern upon reading a newspaper article reporting an 800-pound squat performance by a collegiate football player. Coach Parker’s concern was the necessity of such a high intensity squat lift as a strength requirement for the game of football and is the risk of such a high intensity squat performance worth the reward? Certainly extremely high intensity loads are necessary in the sports of Powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting, as the level of athletic achievement during these competitions is based upon the successful weightlifting performance of the heaviest loads possible. In regard to athletes who are not competitive weightlifters, but are utilizing weightlifting to enhance athleticism, is such a high intensity squat, as the previously mentioned 800-pound performance, necessary for an athlete such as a football, basketball, or baseball player?

Coach Parker and I then reminded each other of an incident that occurred during my years with working him at the old New York Giants stadium. At that time both he and I were also studying with a former Soviet Weightlifter and Soviet Coach, Gregorio Goldstein. On this particular day Coach Goldstein was also at Giants Stadium, where a Giant football player, David Meggett had just easily squatted 427 pounds at a body weight of 178 pounds. When asking Coach Goldstein how to make Megget stronger he replied, “You don’t have to make him any stronger, you have to make him faster”.  This comment had a profound effect on each of us to this day.

In a very recent discussion with another renowned Hall of Fame Strength Coach Al Vermeil, regarding a professional baseball player that I am presently training, I posed the question that I am often asked during the rehabilitation and/or performance training of an athlete,  “How much strength is enough?” How much strength does this professional athlete need to successfully play baseball at a consistent optimum level over a long season? This topic of conversation with these, and other legendary strength and conditioning professionals has enhanced my appreciation of this subject matter.

So the question is raised, how much strength is necessary for optimal athletic performance?

Strength

Strength may be defined as the ability of the neuromuscular system of the body to produce force as placing tension on skeletal muscles stimulates neuromuscular adaptations. Neuromuscular force generation may be either isometric or dynamic in nature, and has characteristics that would include a magnitude, a rate, and a direction.  It is this dynamic muscle force generation that results in movement.

Additional factors that will affect force production include the type of muscle contraction, as well as both the rate and degree of muscle activation. The significance of force production can be determined from Newton’s second law of motion:

Force = Mass X Acceleration (F= ma)

Therefore, the ability of an athlete to accelerate (a) one’s body mass (m) or an external object is highly dependent upon the musculature of the body to generate force (F). Additionally, power production is the product of force and velocity and, in the opinion of many researchers and strength coaches, the most important factor in determining athletic success in a majority of various types of sports of participation.

The neuromuscular strength characteristics to be considered for the achievement of optimal athletic performance include (a) maximal strength (MS), (b) explosive strength (ES), and (c) reactive strength (RS) qualities. The correct proportional development of these strength qualities during training is dependent upon the specific power type activity to be performed, i.e. football blocking, wrestling, running, jumping, track and field throwing events, sprinting, etc.… Athletic performance training programs that enhance MS, ES, and RS qualities will have an eventual transfer to the power activity (athletic) performance via the neuromuscular system of the body. MS training alone will improve neuromuscular force production, however, only through the combination of MS with either or ES and/or RS training, will ideal power type performances be achieved.

Strength and Power In Sports

From the perspective of athletic performance, many researchers and strength and conditioning professionals, are of the opinion that there are two particular variables of high significance to the contribution of optimal athletic performance. These two variables include the peak rate of force development (PRFD) or “explosive strength” and power output. The concept of explosive strength is directly related to the athlete’s ability to accelerate objects including body mass.

Work is the product of force and the distance that the object moves in the direction of the applied force (Work = Force X Distance). Power may be defined as the rate of doing work (P = force X distance/time). Power may also be conveyed as the product of force and speed (P = force X speed). Power may be evaluated as an average performed throughout an exercise range of motion or as an instantaneous value

occurring at a particular moment during the exercise range of motion or during the displacement of an object. Peak power (PP) may be defined as the highest instantaneous power value found over a range of motion while Maximum power (MP) is the highest peak power output an athlete is capable of generating under a specific set of conditions (i.e. type of exercise or skill performed).

The body’s neuromuscular contribution of a movement sequence that results in maximum achievable velocities primarily depends upon power production (i.e. a MS component in association with a velocity component).  Additionally, activities that require a display of “agility” i.e. change of direction and acceleration, are also dependent upon high “bursts” of power output.

Although it appears that the influence of power is critical for optimal athletic performance, it may be argued that maximum strength is the basic quality that affects power output. It may also be foreseeable, that MS would have a greater effect in sports of participation where the emphasis for the success of the sport is specifically to overcome maximal load intensities (i.e. Powerlifting, Olympic Lifting) followed by sports and activities requiring a high maximal strength component based on the nature of the sport as well as the position played (i.e. American football, rugby, track and field throwing events, sprinter’s starts, etc.…) However, it is important for a strength and conditioning professional to acknowledge that maximum strength appears to affect power in a hierarchical manner with a diminishing influence as the external load decreases to a point where other such physical qualities such as the rate of force development may become more important.

Muscle Stiffness and Elastic Strength

Lower extremity muscle stiffness is essential, as well as a prerequisite to ensure an optimal Stretch Shortening Cycle (SSC)/Plyometric type exercise performance. Plyometric (SSC) exercise performance improves RS qualities, as higher stiffness levels of the lower extremities during SSC exercise performance will result in an increase in the amount of stored (potential) and reused (kinetic) energy. There is a positive relationship between increased levels of leg and joint stiffness (the ability to resist flexion) and improvement in power, force output, rate of force production, and velocity parameters, as well as a very important decrease in amortization/ground contact times (GCT). A minimal GCT is essential for an ideal SSC resulting in optimal jumping, hopping, sprinting, and distance running (running economy) performance.

The stiffness of muscle is variable and is dependent upon the forces exerted. For example, a muscle is compliant when passive, yet stiff when active. Through various methods of training it is possible to maintain and/or enhance optimal levels of lower extremity muscle stiffness. Resistance training utilizing heavy load intensities (increasing MS levels) has been demonstrated to be a very effective way to enhance lower extremity and joint stiffness.

The “Strength Reserve”

During my recent conversation with Coach Vermeil he discussed an important phenomenon that he described as a “strength reserve”.  As an athlete participates in a long and grueling season, it is quite common for these athletes to lose their high initial levels of MS qualities that were present at the start of the season. Appropriate higher weight intensities in conjunction with specific and appropriate levels of exercise volume should be incorporated during the athlete’s off-season and in-season training in an effort to both increase (off-season) and maintain (in-season) athlete MS levels, as well as the benefits (force production) that are associated with high MS levels. Maintaining this important physical quality will assist to ensure repeated optimal performance over time. Coach Vermeil recommends an increase of maximal strength levels of 5% to 10% annually to establish and progress the athlete’s strength reserve during their playing season and career.

Coach Vermeil also explained how MS qualities are extremely important to the aging athlete. As the athlete ages MS strength levels play a more important role to ensure successful athletic performance. Athletes begin to lose their elastic strength qualities in their late twenties, thus the counter balance to the reduction of this elastic strength physical quality is the continued enhancement of MS values. The greater the amount of MS “banked” via years of strength training, the greater the athletes ability to maintain the “balance of the scales” so to speak, during the aging process where elastic abilities are lost and MS qualities are gained/stored.

In my discussions with Stan Bailey, a former Olympic Weightlifter who participated in two (2) Olympic games and is a coach at our Performance Center here in New York, he also spoke of the necessity of the development and maintenance of optimal MS levels. Coach Bailey is also of the opinion that as an athlete has an initial decline in their elastic strength qualities in their late twenties, they will also eventually begin to initially lose MS qualities slightly later in life. It is recognized that an athlete’s MS levels will begin to decline at approximately age 30. Coach Bailey’s opinion, based on his empirical experiences as both an Olympic Weightlifter and coach, is that MS levels are maintained slightly longer, until the age of 32. The consistent annual development or the “banking” so to speak of enhanced MS qualities over time, along with the associated benefits of MS qualities, will not only enhance an athlete’s performance during a long and physically demanding season, but perhaps also turn back the hands of time, providing an abbreviated “fountain of youth” so to speak, resulting in the fore mentioned offset of elastic strength loss resulting in a possible enhanced longevity of an athletes career.

The eventual loss of an athlete’s maximal and elastic strength qualities, as well as many other neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, and physiological qualities with age is inevitable. The initiation, timing, enhancement, and maintence of MS qualities may assist to delay this process.

The Relationship Between Strength and Sports Performance

It would make sense to derive that if athlete possesses greater levels of MS and/or power vs. their opponent, with all else being equal, the stronger athlete would have a distinct advantage over their opponent.  However, considerations for the necessary MS levels include but are not limited to the following:

Sport of Participation

Requirements of MS levels may differ depending upon the specific sport of participation. The physical requirements of each particular sport will assist to determine the various strength levels that are necessary for the participating athlete. For example, does a fencer need the same MS requirements as a football player?

Position of Sport Participation

As many athletes participate in the same sport of competition, the physical requirements based on their specific position or role of play may differ. Although an offensive lineman and wide receiver both participate in the same sport of American football, is the required proportion of physical qualities necessary for optimal athletic performance the same? Does the wide receiver need the same level of MS level as the offensive lineman?

Competitive Level of Sports Participation

Participation at various (and specific) levels of athletic competition may require advanced levels of MS parameters. An athlete’s MS requirement may considerably differ when comparing the demands of a professional athlete to that of an amateur athlete. The same may be said of the differences in the competitive “levels” of competition. For example, NCAA intercollegiate athletics are divided into three (3) divisions (levels) of competition, Division I, Division II and Division III. It could be derived that higher MS levels would be required for successful participation at the higher levels (i.e. Division I athletes vs. Division II athletes vs. Division III athletes) of athletic competition.  It has been documented that differences in the displayed MS and power levels do exist when comparing the strength and power characteristics of intercollegiate Division I, II, and III football players.

Standards of Competition

There are levels of strength that are necessary, not for guaranteed success, but as criteria to allow (qualify) an athlete to compete. This is certainly common in Powerlifting and Weightlifting, but is very important in other sports of participation as well. I recall a conversation with an Olympic Track and Field throws coach who stated that in the three previous Olympic games, all medaling shot-putters had bench pressed at least 440 pounds. If this statement is held true, then an athlete would have to enhance their MS in the bench press to at least 440 pounds to compete for a medal, not guarantee them a medal.

The same may be said of various professional sports annual combines. Based upon the participating athletes displayed levels of various strength qualities, they are evaluated against their peers based on a standardized level to predict performance and athletic success. The athletes competing at these combines must meet or surpass specific “physical” standards for consideration as not only a possible draft selection, but what specific level of draft selection by the professional teams of the league.

“Staying Fresh” vs. “Staying Strong”

There are often times during the competitive season where a Head Sport Coach or Strength and Conditioning Professional will make the statement “We need to keep our players fresh”. Frequently this means having the players rest, or perform workouts at low sub-maximal intensity levels as not to “wear the players out” so to speak. There are certainly times through a long and physically taxing season where such a thought process may be feasible under specific scenarios, however, to adhere to this philosophy for a significant extended period of time may prove costly.

For an athlete to avoid appropriately planned and timed periodic high intensity, low volume training in-season, will contribute to a deconditioning of the athlete and a forfeiture of the MS and power qualities processed at the initiation of the season.

Coach Parker in-season weight programs placed emphasis of not only maintaining MS and power qualities during the season, but also improving these physical qualities as the season progressed.  During one of his NFL Super Bowl bound team’s seasons, 35 of his players performed a PR in at least one lift during the same playoff game week. The in-season program design is beyond the scope of this writing, however, the lesson presented is that (a) there is a distinct difference between “staying fresh” and “staying strong, and (b) in-season MS and power quality enhancement can occur.  Maintaining and/or enhancing an athlete’s strength qualities in-season is what will keep the athlete “fresh”.

There are certainly a number of factors to consider during the instrumentation of an in-season training program. A sport such as football may present a more organized structure for training as only one competition is scheduled per week, vs. the multiple competition’s scheduled per week in sports such as baseball, basketball, and hockey. However, there are strength coaches in these for mentioned sports, such as Coach Vermeil, who programed appropriate high intensity exercises not only during the in-season, but prepared his athletes with appropriate intensity and low volume workouts on game day as well.

Maintaining, if not improving MS and power qualities during the in-season may be one of the few advantages that an athletic team may have over their opponent in the present era of advanced athletic performance enhancement training.

Training Time

Discussions with former NFL and Hall of Fame Strength Coach Al Miller and Strength Coach Derek Hansen brought to light the relationship of excessive MS training in regard to the time considerations available for the athlete’s training. In addition to the “risk vs. reward” contemplation during the application of increased high intensities for exercise performance, the time available for training is an additional factor that should not be ignored.  Organizations such as the NCAA place restricted time allotments for the training of an athlete. The athlete’s work capacity or their resistance to excessive fatigue is also a factor of suitable programming (training time). The question arises if additional training time is spent to increase MS qualities that may not be necessary or excessive, is there enough training time remaining to properly train the other important physical qualities necessary for the athlete to produce optimal and repeated athletic performance? Training time restrictions, in association with the athlete’s work capacity to performance train efficiently, are definitive considerations in the program design for the enhancement of multiple strength qualities that are necessary for high level athletic performance. Unnecessary emphasis of MS qualities may result in an absence of sufficient training of other important strength qualities.

Summary

Maximal Strength is a basic and important characteristic for improving athletic performance. However, MS qualities in association with power type qualities are essential for the achievement of optimal athletic performance. A MS strength reserve is a contributing factor to maintaining athletic performance throughout a long season, as well as enhancing the longevity of an athlete’s career. During the application of high intensity exercise the “risk vs. reward” must also be considered, as excessive high intensity loads may place the athlete at increased risk of injury. The appropriate and proportionate level of MS necessary for each individual athlete is contingent upon a multitude of factors, and includes the “eye of the coach”, likely the most essential factor in determining the MS level necessary for the athlete. It is the coach’s eye, which is the “talent” that separates the great coaches from the good ones.

Bibliography

1. Fry, AC and Kraemer WJ, Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football players. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research 5 (3): 126 – 138, 1991

2. Hansen, Derek personal communication

3. Komi, PV, Stretch-shortening cycle. In: Strength and Power in Sport (2^nd ed). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Science, pp. 184 – 202, 2003

4. Lyttle, AD, Wilson, GJ, and Ostrowski, KJ, Enhancing performance; maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 10(3): 173 – 179, 1996.

5. Miller, A., personal communication

6. Parker, J., personal communication

7. Stone, MH, “Explosive Exercise” National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 15 (4): 7 – 15, 1993

8. Vermeil, A., personal communication

9. Zatsiorsky, VM, and Kraemer, WJ, Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 33 – 39, 2006.