Phil Pfister- 2006 World Strongman....Functional Training [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Phil Pfister- 2006 World Strongman....Functional Training

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: P-funk

A link to his functional strength DVD

A video clip of him performing the training.

Posted by: BoneCrusher

His win ... by a partial second ... over Pudsianowsky. Ouststanding bent over cable pulls while standing on a ball. I will give that a shot this week. Killer post P-funk

Posted by: P-funk

still not sold on standing on the ball stuff.

I would like to see the video though.

One thing I think about this is that a lot of these guys train balls to the wall all the time and end up hurt or injured. I think that doing other things (besides always lifting heavy and doing the events) helps to give their bodies a break from those movement patterns and decreases the potential for overload and tissue trauma. I think there are some good things to take away from this video.....one of them being the idea of some sort of periodization and cycling your training and having phases.

Posted by: BoneCrusher

Specificity of training showed his advantage and the techniques he used shows me something more than just throwing steel. This little post of yours P-func did more than you think. I've been looking for something a little different than what I've been doing with traditional training techniques and MMA.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Specificity of training showed his advantage and the techniques he used shows me something more than just throwing steel. This little post of yours P-func did more than you think. I've been looking for something a little different than what I've been doing with traditional training techniques and MMA.

re-evaluation of your training is critical!

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

yea, I am not down with the stability ball horse shit.

I wonder what the rest of the DVD looks like and what he did for the intensive training though. I wonder if they just put this shit into a little promo video as a way to intrigue people into purchasing it.

Posted by: bigss75

never been a fan of the bosu balls. My little brother's football coach had them doing like every other lift on them, overkill if you ask me.

Posted by: P-funk

bosu balls are dumb as shit if you ask me.

Posted by: BoneCrusher

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

bosu balls are dumb as shit if you ask me.

Why is that? Never messed with them and what I see in the gym has no appeal to me but he did things a little dif'.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Why is that?

I don't see the point in standing on them.

The place the foot in an overly supinated position. They make the knees go bow legged. Neither of these positions are beneficial. You can only use so much intensity on them as well.

If you want to challenge your balance and still work intenstly try unilateral work....single leg RDL, single leg squat, lunges, 1-arm presses, 1-arm rows, etc..

Posted by: BoneCrusher

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

If I understand you correctly ... I saw the balancing act as training the muscles to keep his balance while he lifts as a kind of double benefit ... you see the poor posture needed to get that done as not worth it. The idea is a good one but not the method?

Posted by: Bakerboy

I like the way the guy from ross training lifts. I know a lot of his stuff is geared towards boxers- like his band punches- but a lot of stuff he does is so bare bones- like DB snatches with unilateral DB bench presses- not to mention combos like jumps with rope pullups and the one arm standing roll outs- so awesome. I'm trying to get strong enough to do those...

Posted by: Witchblade

How did that fat fucker with his cheesy amateuristic promo site beat good ol' Pudzianowski?

Posted by: BoneCrusher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witchblade

How did that fat fucker with his cheesy amateuristic promo site beat good ol' Pudzianowski?

By about one half a second. He was taller and had a better roll on the last stone ball.

***Edit ... he did have to win other events and score well overall to position himself so he could take advantage of that .5 second though

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

For the sport he is training for, I realy do like some of this workout.

I wouldn't do a workout like that, though. Not for optimal muscle type of results at least. And yeah, some of that medicine ball shit is pretty silly.

Posted by: slip

medicine ball = small heavy basketball sized balls
fit/swiss/whatever ball = the big inflated ones you do crazy things on

I've gotta say, I think there is some merit in swiss ball stuff for sport specific training. One of the most famous/feared NZ rugby players, just an unstoppable machine, used to do squats on a swiss ball (not all the time obviously)

Posted by: Adamjs

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip

I've gotta say, I think there is some merit in swiss ball stuff for sport specific training. One of the most famous/feared NZ rugby players, just an unstoppable machine, used to do squats on a swiss ball (not all the time obviously)

And he got kidney problems requiring a transplant...i think the anecdotal evidence is fairly surmountable that swiss balls cause kidney failure.

Posted by: Witchblade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamjs

And he got kidney problems requiring a transplant...i think the anecdotal evidence is fairly surmountable that swiss balls cause kidney failure.

I'm not fond of them either.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

I think there is 0 merit in sports specific swiss ball training

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I think there is 0 merit in sports specific swiss ball training

agree.

Posted by: CowPimp

I'm surprised to see how doing some of the unstable training there, but he looks like he works out with a lot of intensity and does a good mix of classical lifts as well.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I'm surprised to see how doing some of the unstable training there, but he looks like he works out with a lot of intensity and does a good mix of classical lifts as well.

i read that the little clip is just the tip of the ice berg. It made up part of his training. The other stuff is intense heavy lifting.

The DVD is suppose to go into how his trainer set up his program and stuff like that.

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

Well, whatever he does has to be working. Beating Pudz is no easy task regardless of juice or genetics.

Posted by: slip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I think there is 0 merit in sports specific swiss ball training

what about for a surfer/skateboarder?

definately more than 0 merit.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip

what about for a surfer/skateboarder?

definately more than 0 merit.

what relationship exists for a surfer/skateboarder and swiss ball training? elaborate what you mean.

Posted by: slip

Balance. Im not talking about doing DB chest press with skating/surfing, but something specific and relevant that mimics these sports - standing on an unstable surface.

Being able to perform body movements while balancing on something less than stable. Skateboards rotate side to side and the world isnt perfectly flat, surfing is on water. Standing on a fit ball while performing pretty much anything will give you better balance on unstable surfaces and also increase your perception/feel.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

This topic has been abused by me at some high level in this forum, but it's always fun to resurface some interesting material open to study.

"An example of irrational transference of skills and reflex reactions was recommended by one exercise authority, who suggested that if a motocross racer has difficulty sliding through corners, but can handle straight away riding and jumping, he can correct this through a specific exercise. The motocross racer would emphasize "the tilting aspect of an equilibrium response" by kneeling upon and balancing himself on a Swiss ball (his feet would not be touching the ground). This person would then catch a medicine ball and being tossed from the side would have to twist at the torso in order to catch the medicine ball. Apparently, "this would aid in improving the rider's ability to respond more quickly to the motorcycle when sliding through corners." Strangely, practicing sliding through corners was not considered.

If it is true that such an exercise could assist a motocross racer, the opposite should be true; that an individual who can easily slide through corners should be able to automatically kneel on a Swiss ball and laterally catch a medicine ball with little difficulty. However, such is not the case because of varying skills. Moreover, reflexes involved in everyday activities and sports are irrelevant to those involved in specific exercises. The feedback and strain placed on the body within each specific task is unique unto itself. The nature of how reflexes act, and the extent in which they do act, differ from one task to another. Hence, the experience of running in football (re: balance, agility, and force output, for example) is much different from the experience of standing on a wobble board or performing balancing exercises on a Swiss ball. The manner in which the body reacts, as well as decision making skills, and the skills involved in the action, are specific to the sensory information obtained at the time.

Even adding weight to a sport specific movement, such as shot putting a heavier than usual shot, alters perception and information feedback to the brain, and, consequently alters skill (biomechanics) requirements and responses to the stimulus. It alters skill requirements since the stimulus is different and no longer specific to what was practiced or that to be demonstrated in competition. Hence, that which is different affects perception and motor requirements differently, and the manner in which a person produces movement can and will affect perception and requirement for skill correction, if need be."

A great deal of this material deals specifically with understanding motor learning. For a great resource on this fascinating topic, reference:

Lee, Timothy D. Motor Control and Learning: Third Edition. IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

Schmidt, Richard A. and Wrisberg, Craig A. Motor Learning and Performance: Third Edition. IL: Human Kinetics, 2006.

Being able to differentiate skills and general ability is relevant to this discussion, so I've scanned the following pages.

General Abilities
Skill Factors (toward bottom)
Skill Factors

"Further, gross body equilibrium and the capacity to maintain balance are innate abilities. This ability cannot be improved upon, but can enhance specific skills involved in balancing during a specific task. For example, most people can walk easily, run or do other normal activities without losing balance – unless an outside force knocks a person off his or her center of gravity. Conversely, standing on one foot, bending forward with hands behind the back, then hopping backward is a specific and unusual task requiring specific skills. And the quality of general balance ability a person possesses will determine how proficient a person will become at that particular task.

Some exercise specialists believe that complex Swiss ball exercises increase ability to integrate muscle groups involved in righting and tilting responses, i.e., reflexes to maintain equilibrium and balance. However, balance under normal circumstance, is mastered during the first few years of life, with the limit of ability being innate and genetically predetermined. Claude Bouchard, one of the leading exercise geneticists, had the following to say:
Earliest movement occurs about the seventh to eight week post fertilization, that is, toward the end of the embryonic period. On average, mature patterns of most of the fundamental motor skills are developed by 6 to 7 years of age. Subsequently, they are refined through practice and perhaps instruction and integrated into more complex movement sequences such as those required for specific games and sports. The quality and quantity of performance thus improve.

Moreover, psychomotor skills such as “speed of arm and leg tapping show moderate to moderately high heritability” and that genetics also largely determine “corresponding estimates for speed and accuracy of arm movements and manipulative dexterity.” Also, “individual differences in perceptual-motor characteristics, such as spatial abilities, perceptual speed, perception of direction, intersensory integration and so on, have a significant unspecified genetic component.” (Bouchard, Claude. 326-329)

Finally, Bouchard stated that “estimates of the genetic contribution to the learning of motor skills vary from task to task, emphasizing the specificity of motor learning.”(Bouchard, Claude. 338). In other words, the extent to which genetics are responsible for learning a specified task – over and above environmental conditions, such as the type of training employed - varies. Regardless as to what extent genetics play, however, specificity is still vital."

Bouchard, Claude, et. al. Genetics of Fitness and Physical Performance. IL: Human Kinetics, 1997. 299-300.

All scanned pages from: Johnson, Brian D, et al. Exercise Science: Theory & Practice. Motor Learning & Skill Acquisition (Page 183-204)

Summarily, based on my limited knowledge, I think swiss ball exercises are a big farce for sport specific skills. As always, the best way to become SKILLED in skateboarding is to SKATEBOARD.

Posted by: CowPimp

Good excerpts from those texts DD. I'm definitely not a big fan of the swissball for most things. I would say that primarily what I use them for is movements where an object that is capable of moving like a swissball is needed. For example, a supine leg curl or a pikeup on a stability ball.

Posted by: slip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

"An example of irrational transference of skills and reflex reactions was recommended by one exercise authority, who suggested that if a motocross racer has difficulty sliding through corners, but can handle straight away riding and jumping, he can correct this through a specific exercise. The motocross racer would emphasize "the tilting aspect of an equilibrium response" by kneeling upon and balancing himself on a Swiss ball (his feet would not be touching the ground). This person would then catch a medicine ball and being tossed from the side would have to twist at the torso in order to catch the medicine ball. Apparently, "this would aid in improving the rider's ability to respond more quickly to the motorcycle when sliding through corners." Strangely, practicing sliding through corners was not considered.

and

Summarily, based on my limited knowledge, I think swiss ball exercises are a big farce for sport specific skills. As always, the best way to become SKILLED in skateboarding is to SKATEBOARD.

Point 1 - totally agree, but having raced with current MotoGP rider Chris Vermulen years ago, I have some experience, and its a stupid example of something completely unrelated, totally dissimilar to riding a corner and to me is obviously included to discredit the fit ball. Anyone with half a brain writing an unbiased article would not use that example, its utter shit.

Point 2 - Best way to learn to skateboard is to skateboard. Guess what, top level athletes use a number of different things to improve performance. They do NOT just sprint, or just ride, or just whatever, they use any and every outside technique to improve their performance every bit they can. But yes, the best way to learn something is to do it, but to IMPROVE your learned skills, other things come into play.

Please show me how balancing and mimicing relevant movements/motions on a fit ball would NOT help a surfer/skateboarder?

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip

Specific means specific. Not "close" or "similar". Reference motor learning literature listed above if you don't get the example.

Balance is an INNATE ability. As has been demonstrated relatively thoroughly in the literature, balance and gross body equilibrium cannot be improved "generally" - but it can be improved "specifically" within the boundary of a skill, withing a range genetic capacity. Using balance exercises with a Swiss ball will improve your balance in the exercise using a Swiss ball. It will not transfer over to say, general ability to balance while walking (or any other task).

So if you have problems balancing on a skateboard, practice balancing on a skateboard. This is not only obvious, but it is obviously the BEST way to go about things. Even if it were possible to improve balance on a skateboard with a Swissball mimicking motions on a skateboard (it isn't), doing so outside of the sport would be a far inferior method.

Why? Because of specificity. There are around 20 interdependent variables regarding the motor functions of our body that change from task to task, calling the central nervous system to specifically "program" a set of instructions to efficiently generate a result. Practice is a honing of this program - the bodies "adaptation" by learning to generate a result more efficiently, adjusting any of many variables including the firing rate of neurons, the positioning of the body, the positioning of joints, the speed of contracting muscles, the desired force being generated, action of ancillary muscles, the order of muscular contraction...and so forth.

To illustrate my point of skill specificity, I will use an example of difference between throwing a football and throwing a baseball. I can throw a football roughly 45 yards. My baseball pitch is trash. My practicing throwing a football has had absolutely no benefit on my baseball pitch, despite how proficient I have become at it. Just because there is similar action (throw) and similar muscles being worked, the limb position, joint angles, acceleration of the muscular contractions, position of center of gravity, position of base of support (etc) make both motions dramatically dissimilar. You will have a different program instruction in your nervous system for throwing a baseball and throwing a football, despite what appears to be obvious similarities.

I use this example only to point out that some things that seem similar are, on the level of biomechanics, nothing close.

Anyone who has tried to build a humanoid robot can attest to the mind-numbing complexity of movement. If you were to program a function of walking and running for a robot, the instructions would be dramatically different.

Reference the link in my previous post for the difference between abilities and specific skills.

You are entitled to believe what you want, but Swiss ball training for a skateboarder is silly. Better time is spent on the skateboard (and there are a thousand techniques for improving skateboarding on a skateboard), or working the muscles involved in skateboarding, than on a Swiss ball.

Posted by: slip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Balance is an INNATE ability. As has been demonstrated relatively thoroughly in the literature, balance and gross body equilibrium cannot be improved "generally" - but it can be improved "specifically" within the boundary of a skill, withing a range genetic capacity. Using balance exercises with a Swiss ball will improve your balance in the exercise using a Swiss ball. It will not transfer over to say, general ability to balance while walking (or any other task).

I do agree that the best way to improve at something is to do it repeatedly.

Someone learning to surf. They have 0 experienc surfing/skating/fit ball standing etc. Take them out, they have trouble balancing when they first stand up. Spend 1 day working them up to bodyweight squats confidently and comfortably on a fit ball. Get them used to standing on an unstable surface, which is quite specific. They will do better day 2.

Have you gone snowboarding with first timers, who are good at skateboarding? Guess what, they go pretty well! Oh but its not exactly the same thing so it can't help..........

How specific is specific? Motorbike road racers use Motocross to train. Different surface, dynamics, body position, totally different bike, gear, everything is different, but its still riding a bike...... Same as surfing/standing on a fit ball are quite different, but they both involve balancing on an unstable surface.

Posted by: P-funk

squatting on a ball makes you better at squatting on a ball.

It has never been proven or shown that using an unstable object can improve your ability to complete a real world task where your balance is challenged.

The only time that unstable training seems to pan out for the ankle complex is when someone is coming back from an injury and need to regain joint proprioception which has been lost.

You can't take research done on sick or injured people and apply it to the healthy. Things don't work that way.

Posted by: fufu

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

squatting on a ball makes you better at squatting on a ball.

It has never been proven or shown that using an unstable object can improve your ability to complete a real world task where your balance is challenged.

The only time that unstable training seems to pan out for the ankle complex is when someone is coming back from an injury and need to regain joint proprioception which has been lost.

You can't take research done on sick or injured people and apply it to the healthy. Things don't work that way.

You don't agree with Boyle's teachings of things like pistols on 1/2 foam rollers/spongey benches?

That would seem to make sense, you know. Playing a grass field has some give, and training unilaterally like that would be pretty darn specific for strength training wouldn't it?

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by fufu

You don't agree with Boyle's teachings of things like pistols on 1/2 foam rollers/spongey benches?

I do my pistols of a bench. The bench is spongy. there is nothing i can do about it though. i don't do it for the purpose that i think i am getting more ankle work.

No, I don't like the squats on the 1/2 foam roller or the airex pad.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by fufu

you edited and added.....to your second part....

In the gym we do what? We gain strength and we work pretty generally as far as improving our strength, power, anaerobic capacity. When we go out to the field to practice we work specific to our sport. If I have someone in the gym, I want to squat. If I want to work specific, I don't waste time squatting on a wobble board....we go outside and do agility drills on the field and work on deceleration. Slow down the tempo, work up to game speed, and teach proper joint angles. Can't get much more specific than that.

Posted by: fufu

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

Well I wasn't referring to wobble boards...but things like Boyle suggested seem to make sense.

But to the question - "in the gym we do what?"

I'm not sure. Alot of things, I think there could be a few tools in there to train for sports specificity.

I guess I'm just not sure where the line is drawn between training general strength and training for sports...can the line really be drawn?

Posted by: WantItBad

cosgrove has this in his blog........just a side note

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by fufu

Things that are more specific would be single leg or unilateral exercises. things that engage your entire body. Things that are velocity specific...med. balls, plyos, etc....There are lots of things that are more specific. But nothing is as specific as getting out on the field and practicing or playing. Everythign in the gym is done to enhance your structure so that when you go to the field you have good carry over and can prevent injury and enhance your game.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by WantItBad

cosgrove has this in his blog........just a side note

Posted by: WantItBad

alwyn cosgrove has this video in his blog today

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by WantItBad

alwyn cosgrove has this video in his blog today

yea, I just saw what you were talking about.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

AMEN.

Quote:

That would seem to make sense, you know. Playing a grass field has some give, and training unilaterally like that would be pretty darn specific for strength training wouldn't it?

Let's go with an assumption that "similar" movements transfer to "specific" skills (they don't, but just for the sake of argument go with it). What on Earth would convince someone to do this kind of "pretty darn specific" training over SPECIFIC training on the field? Why practice subtraction when you are going to take a test on addition?

Quote:

Someone learning to surf. They have 0 experienc surfing/skating/fit ball standing etc. Take them out, they have trouble balancing when they first stand up. Spend 1 day working them up to bodyweight squats confidently and comfortably on a fit ball. Get them used to standing on an unstable surface, which is quite specific. They will do better day 2.

Have you gone snowboarding with first timers, who are good at skateboarding? Guess what, they go pretty well! Oh but its not exactly the same thing so it can't help..........

How specific is specific? Motorbike road racers use Motocross to train. Different surface, dynamics, body position, totally different bike, gear, everything is different, but its still riding a bike...... Same as surfing/standing on a fit ball are quite different, but they both involve balancing on an unstable surface.

With all due respect, you need to read more about the difference between general abilities and skills.

Your anecdotal "points" are completely swamped by the actual published research done on this topic. And just to make a point, a person who is naturally good at balancing on a skateboard would naturally be good at balancing on a surf-board, too, because they have a high genetic range for gross body equilibrium. This is the "innate" ability referenced in my previous points.

Why do two people who practice equally not always have equal skill levels? Here ability becomes the issue, as they are practicing the same movements but still not equals.

"Abiliites are stable characteristics or traits, genetically defined and unchangeable through practice or experience that underlie the various specific skills we learn throughout our lives. Abilities are prestructured commands acting as an "executive" motor program within the spinal cord, resulting in fundamental actions (muscular movement ability) that take place automatically without direct conscious control.

Abilities continue to develop through maturation, but within genetic constraints. They determine how well motor tasks can be performed but do not provide the patterns of specific skills - only general movement."

A skill refers to the ability to achieve an end result with maximum certainty - independent of luck or much luck - and minimal expenditure in energy, i.e. unwanted body movement or time. Everyday tasks involving specific skills, including those in the weight room or in athletics, involve specific movements that are integrated within general movements.

Skills can be added or modified throgh practice or experience./ In fact, skills are characterized as movements that are dependent on practice and exper5ience for their execution, as opposed to being genetically defined, i.e., abilities. For example, normal people have the natural ability to tap a foot or their fingers, but no one has the natural ability to play the drums. Those skills must be acquired through practice, integrating different patterns and movement combinations for varying beats and rhythms."

Posted by: fufu

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

Things that are more specific would be single leg or unilateral exercises. things that engage your entire body. Things that are velocity specific...med. balls, plyos, etc....There are lots of things that are more specific. But nothing is as specific as getting out on the field and practicing or playing. Everythign in the gym is done to enhance your structure so that when you go to the field you have good carry over and can prevent injury and enhance your game.

Well, that is what I was saying my previous post, sans the unstable surface.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

"..the available evidence suggests that exercises such as these do little more than improve individual perfromance of the drills themselves. Thus, if practicioners want to promote learning, they should encourage learners to spend the bulk of their time practicing the skills specific to the goal achievement.." - Dr. Richard Schmidt

Posted by: fufu

[quote=Duncans Donuts;1576758]Let's go with an assumption that "similar" movements transfer to "specific" skills (they don't, but just for the sake of argument go with it). What on Earth would convince someone to do this kind of "pretty darn specific" training over SPECIFIC training on the field? Why practice subtraction when you are going to take a test on addition?QUOTE]

Not sure I follow here. Now you are saying that similar movements don't transfer to speficic skills...but do you also mean similar movements can't contribute to the developement of speficic skills?

Posted by: fufu

btw, I am not disagreeing that the best way to get better at something is actually do that thing. I am just trying to understand your guys views of how to train in the gym in an auxiliary fashion to better develop yourself in a specific setting.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by fufu

btw, I am not disagreeing that the best way to get better at something is actually do that thing. I am just trying to understand your guys views of how to train in the gym in an auxiliary fashion to better develop yourself in a specific setting.

move from general to specific. Squatting = general. Lunging = more specific. Form sprints = most specific.

does that make sense?

Posted by: fufu

Yes.

Posted by: fufu

Alot of this stuff is opinionated too I guess. From what I gather, the line between general strength training and training of little sports value(which would be time better spent training the sport) can jump all over the place from person to person. A kind of a gray area.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

General abilities like power, speed, and strength can be increased generally and integrated into specific skills by practicing the skills. For example, sprinting and squatting together can work synergistically. However, squatting good will not immediately transfer to sprinting faster, and vice versa. Together, however, they work to create a fast and forceful athlete.

BALANCE and GROSS EQUILIBRIUM need to be trained outside of a weight room in the specifics of a sport, however. So does agility and coordination. These are innate and cannot be improved generally, but specifically in the context of a skill.

Posted by: slip

Lets use an elite level surfer as an example. He keeps coming 3rd. He wants to win. He needs that extra 1-5% performance. What are you going to do with him? Tell him to surf more?

Or a beginner surfer with poor balance as previously mentioned. And I repeat - standing on a fit ball will increase their ability to balance on an unstable surface, wether it be a surfboard, wobble board, fit ball, or even a medicine ball. Especially the med ball/wobble board/fit ball, they are similar enough that one will help the other.

How specific is specific? Increasing your ability to balance on an unstable surface seems pretty specific to me.

You agree that someone good at surfing will generally skate/snowbard well, but only due to a generally good equilibrium, so you are saying that the ability to surf will help with the ability to snowboard? But they aren't the same thing.....

I do understand what you mean about gridiron throw vs baseball, and non transference of seeminly similar skillsets, and general vs specific skills.
But take someone completely unco in day to day life. Teach them martial arts, and get them to black belt level, very coordinated. You say that coordination cannot be improved generally, so a black belt will still be totally unco in day to day life?

I think you look at everything too closely, and in black and white studies, without looking at elite, or even base level athletes training and things they have/currently use to improve performance in the real world.

Posted by: P-funk

Interview with Phil about the training.

here it is.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip

Lets use an elite level surfer as an example. He keeps coming 3rd. He wants to win. He needs that extra 1-5% performance. What are you going to do with him? Tell him to surf more?

Or a beginner surfer with poor balance as previously mentioned. And I repeat - standing on a fit ball will increase their ability to balance on an unstable surface, wether it be a surfboard, wobble board, fit ball, or even a medicine ball. Especially the med ball/wobble board/fit ball, they are similar enough that one will help the other.

How specific is specific? Increasing your ability to balance on an unstable surface seems pretty specific to me.

You agree that someone good at surfing will generally skate/snowbard well, but only due to a generally good equilibrium, so you are saying that the ability to surf will help with the ability to snowboard? But they aren't the same thing.....

I do understand what you mean about gridiron throw vs baseball, and non transference of seeminly similar skillsets, and general vs specific skills.
But take someone completely unco in day to day life. Teach them martial arts, and get them to black belt level, very coordinated. You say that coordination cannot be improved generally, so a black belt will still be totally unco in day to day life?

I think you look at everything too closely, and in black and white studies, without looking at elite, or even base level athletes training and things they have/currently use to improve performance in the real world.

I don't think we're going to agree.

I have a friend who has a black belt who has cerebal palsey. He is a functional man, he can walk (half of his body is atrophied), he can talk, his social skills are a bit undeveloped, but I can tell you he is not coordinated in real life. He is not the best karate master, either. Having a black belt defitently did not coordinate him better generally.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but when I train athletes who are high caliber I instruct them the "field" (or court or whatever) and in the weight room. I think this is the most productive form, and I'd take 45 minutes of Swiss ball training and move them to the field and see better results. I feel that there is 0 validity in the type of training you're suggesting, both in studies and in real world results. Clearly you are drawing on your own experience in the training field to conclude what you have, so I can respect your position.

Posted by: CowPimp

I wanted to make a comment on training balance. I tend to agree than the equilibrium mechanism that helps maintain balance is basically genetically determined. However, I think the entire picture is being missed here.

Balance has to do with more than just that mechanism which senses equilibrium. I have seen clients' balance improve (During a unilateral movement like a split squat or a lunge) because of decreased or cured movement dysfunction. It doesn't matter if your body senses that you are losing balance if you can't properly fire the muscles needed to adjust your position and maintain that balance. If you have any level of movement dysfunction that can be corrected, then I argue balance will improve because you will be able to better utilize the proper muscles for the task at hand as opposed to trying to compensate for one reason or another.

In fact, I will argue that stretching and mobility work to restore the proper resting length of muscles may be one of the most important factors in creating more efficient and healthy motor patterns, and subsequently allowing you to balance better. Activation work is great too, but I feel like it plays second fiddle to restoring normal tissue lengths and mobility. You can activate a muscle much better if you don't have a tight antagonist causing reciprocal inhibition to occur.

So, DD, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely here, I do believe that current literature supports your statement about balance. However, the second part of the equation, activating the muscles necessary to respond to the feedback from the mechanism sensing equilibrium, is still part of balancing and shouldn't be overlooked.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Balance has to do with more than just that mechanism which senses equilibrium. I have seen clients' balance improve (During a unilateral movement like a split squat or a lunge) because of decreased or cured movement dysfunction. It doesn't matter if your body senses that you are losing balance if you can't properly fire the muscles needed to adjust your position and maintain that balance. If you have any level of movement dysfunction that can be corrected, then I argue balance will improve because you will be able to better utilize the proper muscles for the task at hand as opposed to trying to compensate for one reason or another.

So, DD, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely here, I do believe that current literature supports your statement about balance. However, the second part of the equation, activating the muscles necessary to respond to the feedback from the mechanism sensing equilibrium, is still part of balancing and shouldn't be overlooked.

I agree. If the actual loss of balance is based on some kind of posture distortion or muscle imbalance, then the loss of balance isn't proprioceptive but because of some failure in muscle mechanics.

You may sense a need to activate a muscle, but if something interrupts that activation, it is a moot point. I don't feel this hinders my argument, because as soon as corrections are made, there will be no further improvements in general balance.

The kinetic chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. You may have the necessary motor-control to balance in a certain position, but if you don't have the level of flexibility to accomplish it, you won't. It's important to look at human kinetics both individually and as an integrated unit.

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Okay, we have an understanding then. I still think standing on an upside down BOSU ball is pretty much a waste of time.

If anything, I think doing reactive training, such as plyometrics, would be more beneficial at improving balance than unstable surface training. This will allow for an improved rate of force generation, and therefore may theoretically allow you to counter unwanted forces with less delay than without such training. This is not necessarily something that has been verified by studies and literature, but something that I feel has merit based on my mediocre understanding of exercise physiology, heh.

Posted by: slip

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

However, the second part of the equation, activating the muscles necessary to respond to the feedback from the mechanism sensing equilibrium, is still part of balancing and shouldn't be overlooked.

DD - Agree to disagree is fine, but you still have not addressed the point of unstable surface balance.

When balancing on a stationary unstable surface : How different or similar do unstable surfaces have to be before they do/don't influence each other? Where is the line?

I have no doubt studies have shown this and that, and I quite agree with you on many points, but this seems to be avoided by you every time?

And the karate thing - Using someone with cerbal palsy isnt a very good example, they are always going to be affected by that.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip

I don't understand your point or what exactly you are asking. I have already addressed the terms specificity and non specific.

Surfing and skateboarding are different actions requiring dozens of differences in biomechanics. Therefore there is no transference. I have addressed this already.

What I said earlier is that a person who is naturally inclined to be good at skateboarding (after practice) would likely be inclined to be good at surfing as a result of good INNATE BODY EQUILIBRIUM AND BALANCE. I think of certain abilites as a range, to which specific skills are built under and limited by. A person who can become a professional skateboarder will have a high level of balance and equilibrium. A person with those qualities will also have a tendencey to balance well in other skills requiring balance; after practicing them to a degree.

Posted by: slip

Well we can agree on that.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

I love dialogue like this. Civil debate is always fun and enlightening and encourages people (me paticularly) to research and inform themselves further. The reason I left this forum for so long was because discussions like this were becoming less common and personal attacks were becoming popular. It's good to see a topic like this come up. Thanks for the informative discussion everyone.

Posted by: slip

Very true, so many internet warriors around.

One day, when I am wrong, I will enjoy it as I'll learn something. Can't be far off now.

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Surfing and skateboarding are different actions requiring dozens of differences in biomechanics. Therefore there is no transference. I have addressed this already.

I don't know if I agree with you there. There aren't an infinite number of neural pathways. A huge, maybe even largely unfathomable number, perhaps, but not infinite. Therefore, some skills are going to use at least some of the same motor programs.

I don't think there is an all or none transference of training effects. That is, sometimes a fraction of the gains accumulated in one activity can be transferred to another activity based on the muscles used, the motor programs used, the various biomotor abilities necessary to perform the activity, the center of gravity that one holds throughout the movement, etc.

I can tell you right now there is some transference of effects from experience, even if we're only talking general neural adaptations. For example, I was briefly training a friend of mine for two weeks who is a competitive dancer. She had some pretty serious movement dysfunction, though she was very good at compensating. Beyond trying to correct these things, I tried to get her stronger with things like squats, overhead pressing, etc. She told me that not only did she feel more in control, stronger (Holding her partner or herself in various positions), and confident on the dance floor, but those who practiced with her actually complimented her on drastic improvements in technique during the few months she trained with me.

Posted by: NordicNacho

I wish my name was PFISTER.

Posted by: PWGriffin

Threads like this are why I like IronMagazine so damn much.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36