Abs Daily???

jphess2 · 04-27-2005, 09:25 PM

Yes with a swiss ball sitting and on a platform device that looks like a half beach ball that I have to balance on and either do free weights standing or sometimes cable work standing too.

Duncans Donuts · 04-27-2005, 09:32 PM

You can't train balance, it is an innate ability that can only be refined in specific situations (such as sport).

Here's a good example. Balance yourself on the edge of a sidewalk. After several attempts, you will be able to do it relatively well. If this generally made you better at balancing, there will be an immediate transference to walking on a tight-rope. Obviously this is not true.

If someone has inherently poor balance, though, they will never be able to walk a tight rope (or even a side walk) very well. Using a swiss ball will do nothing (absolutely nothing, except maybe play some indirect confidence factor) for "training" balance.

jphess2 · 04-27-2005, 09:39 PM

I have been practicing on the balancing aspect in between sessions, but it is very hard to maintain the proper form when you are also trying to keep your balance. I am not the most graceful dude and I have had a hard time with this. I am not sure if this is the best thing for me to be doing which is why I was seeking advice on pilates and the constant focus on abs everyday. I really want to hit the weight room with the free weights as I have been using machines for 2-3 years and feel they are not doing anything for me but managed to go from 260 to 225.

Duncans Donuts · 04-27-2005, 09:42 PM

Do not practice balance, unless you want to be good at what balancing exercises you are practicing. An innate ability cannot be generally improved by improving within a range of genetic CAPACITY under specific circumstances. Work your abs through any number of exercises incorporating the overload principle.

Machines are fine, especially Nautilus type machines, while most everything else is sub par compared to free weights. Free weights do have huge limitations, though.

jphess2 · 04-27-2005, 09:49 PM

The trainer dude keeps stressing that the balance improves "core", thus your center is stronger and this will lead to becoming stronger overall. I don't think I am really sold on this which is why I am asking. I have been practising the balancing with weights in the hope that I will become better at the exercises, both balance and correct form in using the free weights. I suppose I could keep a journal here (even with my doubts). Thank you for your advice as it has given me something to think over.

Duncans Donuts · 04-27-2005, 09:53 PM

Sure. Just about any progressive overload can increase the size of your muscles, so if these so called balance exercises incorporate that principle, they will get stronger. However, there are probably much better ways to do it..

jphess2 · 04-27-2005, 09:57 PM

Based on what I have been reading here, that is what I supected also. I am not trying to build crazy abs - to be in better shape is cool, but I have been hoping to develop the back, shoulders, legs and chest and this focus on abs with the selling of pilates as the way to go does not seem to be the answer.

ironman · 04-27-2005, 10:14 PM

anyone try those 8 minute abs videos? i checked out one of them and they said to do it everyday..... but i never did it i was wondering if it really worked?

btw, i too work out my abs twice a week, but i'm just curious about this 8 minute abs video.

devildog88 · 04-28-2005, 09:44 AM

Ok DD, I am back.......... I am convinced now that you are very knowledgable and give good advice even to an "old man that isn't in very good shape". Here is my question. I am closely tied to the airforce acadamy football program and all they preach is explosive exercises/lifts and core strength. This was the foundation of my argument before, even though I made a shambles of it. If you can't train or work you abs everyday why do they do execrcises to strengthen the "core" everyday. Many of the lifts they attemp are on the swiss balls or spheres. Now all of the schools in the Mountain West conference are following the same model. So is it a fad or is there something to it. They do produce some very strong athletes.

reg56 · 04-28-2005, 02:21 PM

Peter : I read it in a book somewhere.

Brian : Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING?

Peter : Oh yeah.

reg56 · 04-28-2005, 02:23 PM

Now that's random

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devildog88

Ok DD, I am back.......... I am convinced now that you are very knowledgable and give good advice even to an "old man that isn't in very good shape". Here is my question. I am closely tied to the airforce acadamy football program and all they preach is explosive exercises/lifts and core strength. This was the foundation of my argument before, even though I made a shambles of it. If you can't train or work you abs everyday why do they do execrcises to strengthen the "core" everyday. Many of the lifts they attemp are on the swiss balls or spheres. Now all of the schools in the Mountain West conference are following the same model. So is it a fad or is there something to it. They do produce some very strong athletes.

For an extensive discussion on such topics, reference this:
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=45174 (Football Training)
In terms of football programs doing so called core training everyday, I am well familiar with such techniques as they currently do this with the program I'm in. The logic behind it is faulty and wrong. If you are training your core in the way that they profess, in accordance with specific adaptation to the demands, you will lose force output potential by placing a higher demand on "endurance" for your abdominals. Not to say they won't be strong, but certainly not strong maximally, and certainly not strong in application other than catching a swiss ball and "exploding" up with it.

When I started football, I could sit-up with 145 pounds on my chest for 25-30 reps. After a few weeks of football training, including these marathon swiss ball exercises, I struggled getting 95 pounds for 26. It should be noted that this lapse in performance was SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO OVERUSE ATROPHY - I determined this because regular sit-ups were being performed during this phase and therfore my neurological attunement did not go down at all (perhaps there was a slight lapse in attunement, but not the degree of losing roughly 35 percent of my performance capacity). I literally lost huge amounts of my functional capability in the span of less than a month...

Such is the lnature of regression for those who don't ask "why" but simply follow dogmatic tradition..

devildog88 · 04-28-2005, 03:09 PM

Ok, but why? Why would a division one school do something that is going to retard the development of a muscle?

**Dale Mabry** · 04-28-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

You can't train balance, it is an innate ability that can only be refined in specific situations (such as sport).

Here's a good example. Balance yourself on the edge of a sidewalk. After several attempts, you will be able to do it relatively well. If this generally made you better at balancing, there will be an immediate transference to walking on a tight-rope. Obviously this is not true.

If someone has inherently poor balance, though, they will never be able to walk a tight rope (or even a side walk) very well. Using a swiss ball will do nothing (absolutely nothing, except maybe play some indirect confidence factor) for "training" balance.

I believe this to be patently false. For instance, there is at least some transfer from one-legged drops from a height to stopping ability. Both are eccentric in nature, and the increased load you would experience by dropping from a height would be a way to overload the muscle. You don't need 100% transfer for something to be effective at improving an ability. I would agree that the Bosu or swiss ball are not going to help you at all wrt balance.

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:17 PM

Why do current physicist believe the confounding, unsubstantiated, anti-scientific-method hokum of Einstein and other philosophically retarded theoretical physicsts?

Because the scientific community is, at large, a joke. Who wants to admit they are wrong after they've been doing something for years? Who wants to be innovative, if innovation is mocked? How long did it take people to believe the Earth was round? How long was it before people acknowledged that the continents of the world were likely, at one time, joined together?

A number of D1 schools perform things of this nature because they don't know how to ask why. I'm not implying all, but many of them do. These trainers typically look at the big boys and emulate - something that is devoid of intelligence. We train at our school in this fashion because "USC" does it (ignoring, presumably, the fact that USC athletes are so elite that they can do what they do despite their training). A large number of Division one schools do not perform core training in this way, though - namely Penn State, Michigan State, Michigan, and a number of others.

http://www.strongerathlete.com/teams.html

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I believe this to be patently false. For instance, there is at least some transfer from one-legged drops from a height to stopping ability. Both are eccentric in nature, and the increased load you would experience by dropping from a height would be a way to overload the muscle. You don't need 100% transfer for something to be effective at improving an ability. I would agree that the Bosu or swiss ball are not going to help you at all wrt balance.

Again, this improvement in "ability" would be general in nature (muscle overload) and not specific in nature. The question is, is there a better way (read: safer) to induce muscle overload than to do one-legged drops?

You can't train your balance to make it better generally. The example of the tight-rope and the sidewalk is a sufficient example of this. You can practice walking on a sidewalk until you can do it quickly and confidently; this won't make you better at walking on a tight rope in the slightest iota (well, I won't say that, there may be a very minimal transfer, but the point is it is so insignificant as to be useless). Some people have the capacity to improve their balance to enormous degrees in a specific situation (such as basketball, football) by practicing it specifically - this improvement is limited by genetic ability. Likewise, if you have shitty balance, you won't be able to improve this beyond what is genetically determined (innate) - swiss balls or not.

devildog88 · 04-28-2005, 03:21 PM

Just Curious because this is being passed on as the new and improved way to train athletes. So as A highschool football coach do you suggest I ignore what they are telling me? If so How do you think I should be training them?

**Dale Mabry** · 04-28-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Again, this improvement in "ability" would be general in nature (muscle overload) and not specific in nature.

You can't train your balance to make it better generally, however.

Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack. I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again. I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it. Balance is a function of Reactive ability. You can train to improve reactive ability, therefore, you can train balance.

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devildog88

Just Curious because this is being passed on as the new and improved way to train athletes. So as A highschool football coach do you suggest I ignore what they are telling me? If so How do you think I should be training them?

It isn't new, and likewise not improved. Such training was done for football teams before olympic lifts, therefore it is old and was (in my opinion) always better. A lot of people around here would disagree, people who I respect, but I am of a very oppositve view. One of the strongest power-cleaners on our team is a 285 pound Center who can throw up more than his bodyweight in the clean. He outdoes me by a substantial amount.

I can head up with him, despite my lower weight, and I am a pretty good bit faster than him, too. I also squat more than he does, deadlift independently (our coaches don't have us deadlift at school, sigh), and am stronger in every other exercise except the bench press.

So from my own anecdotal experience, I will say that slow-controlled exercises and training with the team has made me explosive, not power-cleans (which I manage to avoid doing every week because of an old tendon injury).

devildog88 · 04-28-2005, 03:40 PM

Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis. Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track.
Mon and Wed:
Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear)
Hang Cleans
SDLD
Ab/Core Work (weighted Situps and twists)

Tue Thurs:
Push Press (top end of the clean and jerk)
Bench Press
Latpull/Pullup
"Jammer" Machine (hammer strength)
Back Extentions

My goal is to make these kids stronger and to get them out of the weight room in less than an hour.

What do you think?

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack. I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again. I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it. Reactive ability is a function of balance. You can train to improve reactive ability, therefore, you can train balance.

Let me elaborate. From everything I've studied about the brain and neuro-control, balance is a range. Some people (as with intelligence range) have a high range, other people have a low range.

Now take a very specific open-skill that requires a number of things: specifically endurance, muscle contractions, balance, discrete and serial skills (and whatever else might be included). Lets say basketball.

A person with a high range of balance (Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett) can make the complex, intricate, multi-joint SKILLS look easy. Footwork, for example. Most of these skills require balance - this balance is improved SPECIFICALLY, although guys like Duncan obviously have high ranges of balance in the first place. Compare this to an average, akward seven footer (Greg Ostertag) who obviously has a lower range of such balance, but has still optimized it to a degree that he is able to compete.

Now have Tim Duncan walk a tight-rope or balance himself on a sidewalk curb, with no prior experience with it, as well as someone with less balance range who has been practicing such a performance.

Sure, old Timmy has good balance, sure he has perfected this balance in a specific endeavor, but this does not mean such refinement transfers over. The person who has practiced it with less innate balancing ability will likely perform the motion much more smoothly and less akward than the super-athlete.

Quote:

Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack. I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again. I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it.

This very much proves my point. You are "training" your balance in walking (this training is probably more related to accute awareness more than anything, since it's difficult to improve walking since it is a motor-function that is done daily and the old nervous system has likely perfected the gait) and subsequently you aren't likely to screw up in walking (i.e. tripping).

Reactive ability is based on ones reaction time, which is in fact a function of mental sharpness and attentiveness. How the body reacts to such a stimulus is very much related to balance (and many other things)

Duncans Donuts · 04-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devildog88

Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis. Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track.
Mon and Wed:
Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear)
Hang Cleans
SDLD
Ab/Core Work (weighted Situps and twists)

Tue Thurs:
Push Press (top end of the clean and jerk)
Bench Press
Latpull/Pullup
"Jammer" Machine (hammer strength)
Back Extentions

My goal is to make these kids stronger and to get them out of the weight room in less than an hour.

What do you think?

I will reference you to works by Ken Mannie, the strength & conditioning coach at Michigan State. Look him up on google and you'll find some excellent articles of work.

If you evaluate the link I gave above, you'll see a very good discussion on the physics of explosiveness, force output potential and it's relationship to speed via muscular contraction, and specificity. After reading that you may agree with me, or agree with people like P-Funk - it's a good discussion, in any case.

I did my own independent football training (as I hope to be a strength coach if I ever get my M.S. when I get to grad school) and designed a program similar to the ones of Ken Mannie. I worked very, very hard on sprinting / fieldwork / drills 2-3 days a week and did a program composed of multi-joint exercises modified every 4-5 weeks to increase muscle size and force output potential.

Typically:

Workout A:
Squat: 1 sets, 15-20 reps, failure
Three minutes
Bottom Squat: 1 set 10-12 reps (each rep paused in bottom position 2 secs)
No pause
Leg Extensions: 1 set 12-14 reps, 1.5 minute pause, 1 set 12-14 reps
Calf-Raises: 1 set, 12-14 reps, 1.5 minute pause, 1 set 12-14 reps

My last workout was this:
Squats: 375 x 15 (thre minute rest)
Bottom Squat: 285 x 12 (no pause)
Leg extensions: 200 x 11 (1.5 minute pause) 200 x 14
Calf Raises: 280 x 15 (1.5 minute pause) 280 x 13

I'll elaborate on my current training protocol when I get back, but I have a class right now and have to limit my explanation to that. I usually keep my volume enormously low on leg day, although this varies every 4 weeks (typically an increase in volume, decrease in reps, etc. - change all variables)

I had someone instruct me that this low volume would not allow me to be fast, but I've improved my 40 yard time to below 4.6 seconds by training ON THE FIELD and generally increasing my strength.

**Dale Mabry** · 04-28-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Let me elaborate. From everything I've studied about the brain and neuro-control, balance is a range. Some people (as with intelligence range) have a high range, other people have a low range.

Now take a very specific open-skill that requires a number of things: specifically endurance, muscle contractions, balance, discrete and serial skills (and whatever else might be included). Lets say basketball.

A person with a high range of balance (Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett) can make the complex, intricate, multi-joint SKILLS look easy. Footwork, for example. Most of these skills require balance - this balance is improved SPECIFICALLY, although guys like Duncan obviously have high ranges of balance in the first place. Compare this to an average, akward seven footer (Greg Ostertag) who obviously has a lower range of such balance, but has still optimized it to a degree that he is able to compete.

Now have Tim Duncan walk a tight-rope or balance himself on a sidewalk curb, with no prior experience with it, as well as someone with less balance range who has been practicing such a performance.

Sure, old Timmy has good balance, sure he has perfected this balance in a specific endeavor, but this does not mean such refinement transfers over. The person who has practiced it with less innate balancing ability will likely perform the motion much more smoothly and less akward than the super-athlete.

This very much proves my point. You are "training" your balance in walking (this training is probably more related to accute awareness more than anything, since it's difficult to improve walking since it is a motor-function that is done daily and the old nervous system has likely perfected the gait) and subsequently you aren't likely to screw up in walking (i.e. tripping).

Reactive ability is based on ones reaction time, which is in fact a function of mental sharpness and attentiveness. How the body reacts to such a stimulus is very much related to balance (and many other things)

I agree it is a range, and that all of us have a different high end. Some people will eventually reach their genetic potential before others. They are screwed with that. Much the same way some people plateau in strength before the others.

I don't understand your example, that proves MY point, that you can train balance. Sure someone who has been doing task A for years will outperform another who has been doing another task. And, as you said, if the second person practiced they could eventually good at task A. The only problem is that you are using 2 examples from complete opposite ends of the spectrum and uitilizing 2 different apparatus. You wouldn't train on a tight rope to learn how to keep your balance while bouncing off a tackle, etc. But, things such as one-legged squats, one-legged landings, and other things that you would do to train balance are effective at improving, at the very least, proper application of ground forces which is another variable in balance. Say you have 2 people, 1 who can stand on 1 leg for an unlimited time and one who falls as soon as they get touched when standing on one leg. Who do you think will be easier to push over when standing on 2 legs?

Stuff like the Bosu, and balancing on top of a Swiss ball are useless for the reasons you point out, but stuff you would do on a stable surface that you would use in competition is useful for improving balance.

EDIT: Just wanted to point out that the stuff I did to improve my balance was not just to walk and focus on walking, I did one-legged squats, plyos, agility stuff, which would prove my point. I didn't train specifically by walking, I used other means to get to that end.

View Poll Results: How often do you work your abs?
5 Times per week	8	6.40%
4 Times per week	15	12.00%
3 Times per week	37	29.60%
2 Times per week	34	27.20%
1 Time per week	20	16.00%
None	11	8.80%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

04-27-2005, 09:32 PM	#62
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	You can't train balance, it is an innate ability that can only be refined in specific situations (such as sport). Here's a good example. Balance yourself on the edge of a sidewalk. After several attempts, you will be able to do it relatively well. If this generally made you better at balancing, there will be an immediate transference to walking on a tight-rope. Obviously this is not true. If someone has inherently poor balance, though, they will never be able to walk a tight rope (or even a side walk) very well. Using a swiss ball will do nothing (absolutely nothing, except maybe play some indirect confidence factor) for "training" balance.
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

04-27-2005, 09:42 PM	#64
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	Do not practice balance, unless you want to be good at what balancing exercises you are practicing. An innate ability cannot be generally improved by improving within a range of genetic CAPACITY under specific circumstances. Work your abs through any number of exercises incorporating the overload principle. Machines are fine, especially Nautilus type machines, while most everything else is sub par compared to free weights. Free weights do have huge limitations, though.
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

04-27-2005, 09:53 PM	#66
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	Sure. Just about any progressive overload can increase the size of your muscles, so if these so called balance exercises incorporate that principle, they will get stronger. However, there are probably much better ways to do it..
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

04-27-2005, 10:14 PM	#68
ironman Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 13	anyone try those 8 minute abs videos? i checked out one of them and they said to do it everyday..... but i never did it i was wondering if it really worked? btw, i too work out my abs twice a week, but i'm just curious about this 8 minute abs video.
ironman Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 13

04-27-2005, 09:25 PM	#61
jphess2 Irish Lad Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 41	Yes with a swiss ball sitting and on a platform device that looks like a half beach ball that I have to balance on and either do free weights standing or sometimes cable work standing too.

04-27-2005, 09:39 PM	#63
jphess2 Irish Lad Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 41	I have been practicing on the balancing aspect in between sessions, but it is very hard to maintain the proper form when you are also trying to keep your balance. I am not the most graceful dude and I have had a hard time with this. I am not sure if this is the best thing for me to be doing which is why I was seeking advice on pilates and the constant focus on abs everyday. I really want to hit the weight room with the free weights as I have been using machines for 2-3 years and feel they are not doing anything for me but managed to go from 260 to 225.

04-27-2005, 09:49 PM	#65
jphess2 Irish Lad Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 41	The trainer dude keeps stressing that the balance improves "core", thus your center is stronger and this will lead to becoming stronger overall. I don't think I am really sold on this which is why I am asking. I have been practising the balancing with weights in the hope that I will become better at the exercises, both balance and correct form in using the free weights. I suppose I could keep a journal here (even with my doubts). Thank you for your advice as it has given me something to think over.

04-27-2005, 09:57 PM	#67
jphess2 Irish Lad Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 41	Based on what I have been reading here, that is what I supected also. I am not trying to build crazy abs - to be in better shape is cool, but I have been hoping to develop the back, shoulders, legs and chest and this focus on abs with the selling of pilates as the way to go does not seem to be the answer.

04-28-2005, 09:44 AM	#69
devildog88 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 795 Photos: 1	Ok DD, I am back.......... I am convinced now that you are very knowledgable and give good advice even to an "old man that isn't in very good shape". Here is my question. I am closely tied to the airforce acadamy football program and all they preach is explosive exercises/lifts and core strength. This was the foundation of my argument before, even though I made a shambles of it. If you can't train or work you abs everyday why do they do execrcises to strengthen the "core" everyday. Many of the lifts they attemp are on the swiss balls or spheres. Now all of the schools in the Mountain West conference are following the same model. So is it a fad or is there something to it. They do produce some very strong athletes.
	"Everyone wants to win but not everyone is willing to prepare to win" Bobby Knight

04-28-2005, 02:21 PM	#70
reg56 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Foxboro, MA Posts: 265 Photos: 3	Peter : I read it in a book somewhere. Brian : Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING? Peter : Oh yeah.

04-28-2005, 02:23 PM	#71
reg56 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Foxboro, MA Posts: 265 Photos: 3	Now that's random

04-28-2005, 03:09 PM	#73
devildog88 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 795 Photos: 1	Ok, but why? Why would a division one school do something that is going to retard the development of a muscle?
	"Everyone wants to win but not everyone is willing to prepare to win" Bobby Knight

04-28-2005, 03:17 PM	#75
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	Why do current physicist believe the confounding, unsubstantiated, anti-scientific-method hokum of Einstein and other philosophically retarded theoretical physicsts? Because the scientific community is, at large, a joke. Who wants to admit they are wrong after they've been doing something for years? Who wants to be innovative, if innovation is mocked? How long did it take people to believe the Earth was round? How long was it before people acknowledged that the continents of the world were likely, at one time, joined together? A number of D1 schools perform things of this nature because they don't know how to ask why. I'm not implying all, but many of them do. These trainers typically look at the big boys and emulate - something that is devoid of intelligence. We train at our school in this fashion because "USC" does it (ignoring, presumably, the fact that USC athletes are so elite that they can do what they do despite their training). A large number of Division one schools do not perform core training in this way, though - namely Penn State, Michigan State, Michigan, and a number of others. http://www.strongerathlete.com/teams.html
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

04-28-2005, 03:21 PM	#77
devildog88 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 795 Photos: 1	Just Curious because this is being passed on as the new and improved way to train athletes. So as A highschool football coach do you suggest I ignore what they are telling me? If so How do you think I should be training them?
	"Everyone wants to win but not everyone is willing to prepare to win" Bobby Knight

04-28-2005, 03:40 PM	#80
devildog88 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 795 Photos: 1	Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis. Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track. Mon and Wed: Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear) Hang Cleans SDLD Ab/Core Work (weighted Situps and twists) Tue Thurs: Push Press (top end of the clean and jerk) Bench Press Latpull/Pullup "Jammer" Machine (hammer strength) Back Extentions My goal is to make these kids stronger and to get them out of the weight room in less than an hour. What do you think?
	"Everyone wants to win but not everyone is willing to prepare to win" Bobby Knight