RSA is overrated? Part 1

RSA is overrated? Part 1

This is going to be an article/research review (rant?)  that could be seen as an addendum to my Troubles with RSA I wrote last year. I suggest you check that one first before proceeding with this one. 

Checked it? Already? Ok, let’s clear some terminology first before we proceed. 

RSS – Repeat Sprint Sequence; a minimum of three consecutive high-intensity actions with a mean recovery duration equal to or less than 20s between efforts. HIA - High-Intensity Action; runs performed at velocities >19.8 kmh-1 over a minimum duration of 1s. This is a ’tricky’ definition and I will come back to it. HIB – High-Intensity Bout; same thing as RSS RSA – Repeat Sprint Ability; The ability to recover and reproduce performance in subsequent sprints. There are different ways to quantify the RSA (mean time, fatigue index, decrement score) and there are a lot of controversies involved (which I covered in Troubles with RSA) along with ecological validity issues with most of the RSA tests. RST – Repeat Sprint Training; training activity aimed at improving RSA

The questions to be asked are the following:

1.       What kind of RSS and HIA are happening during the game (frequency, duration, number of sprint, duration and activity during the rest, etc) and how important are they to the overall game performance taking into account position played

2.       To what physical qualities are those pattern CORRELATED(there are a lot of cross studies explaining this and I will not go in deep analysis of it)

3.       Do these patterns CHANGE over time under the influence of training and CHANGEin physical qualities we identified to be significantly correlated with them? This is the most important question that might give us some ideas about CAUSALITY between these two things. I am only familiar with Martin Buchheit et al. study that actually motivated me to write this blog entry. 

Let’s deal with question #1. What kind of patterns actually occurs during the game at the current level of understanding, measurement and analysis? 

There are a LOT of studies dealing with time-motion analysis, time spent and distance covered in different zones and I don’t want to repeat them here. What I do want to express here is that although there is a common belief that better (and/or more fit) teams (and players) will cover more ground during the game and spend more time in high-intensity zone. But actually, that is not true. Yes, you read it correctly – THAT IS NOT TRUE. Take a look at the study done by Di Salvo et al. which showed that better teams actually did LESS high-intensity running and sprinting during the game. 

Di Salvo V, Gregson W, Atkinson G, Tordoff P, Drust B.  Analysis of high intensity activity in Premier League soccer. Int J Sports Med. 2009 Mar;30(3):205-12. The aim of the present investigation was to provide a detailed analysis of the high intensity running activity completed by elite soccer players during match-play. A further aim of the study was to evaluate the importance of high intensity running activity to overall team success. Observations on individual match performance measures were undertaken on 563 outfield players (median of 8 games per player; range=1-57) competing in the English Premier League from 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 using a computerised tracking system (Prozone, Leeds, England). High intensity activities selected for analysis included total high intensity running distance (THIR), total sprint distance (TSD) and the number and type of sprints undertaken. Total high intensity running distance in possession and without possession of the ball was also analysed. The THIR was dependant upon playing position with wide midfield (1,049+/-106 m) and central defenders (681+/-128 m) completing the highest and lowest distance respectively (p<0.001). High intensity activity was also related to team success with teams finishing in the bottom five (919+/-128 m) and middle ten (917+/-143 m) league positions completing significantly more THIR compared with teams in the top five (885+/-113 m) (p=0.003). The THIR and TSD also significantly declined during the 2nd half with the greatest decrements observed in wide midfield and attacking players (p<0.05). Both positional differences in high intensity activity and the observed change in activity throughout the game were also influenced by team success (p<0.05). The results of the present study indicate that high intensity activity in elite soccer match-play is influenced by both playing position and previous activity in the game. These activity patterns are also dependant upon success of the team. This may indicate that overall technical and tactical effectiveness of the team rather than high levels of physical performance per se are more important in determining success in soccer.

What we might miss with total and average scores and data are critical periods in the game and performance during them. For example, with total and average data measured we don’t see any fluctuations and variations/variability that might be more important than total and average scores.

For example, during the last 15-20 minutes of each half of the soccer game (especially in the last 15-20minutes) there is highest frequency of goals scored (click HERE and HERE). Accidentally or not, during that time there is the most decrease in high-intensity activity, whether due fatigue, pacing or strategy (we still don’t know – sad but true).

Edwards and Noakes

Well, we can’t see that from total and mean data analysis and that’s why I have issues with them. What if better teams showed less decrease in HIA during the last minutes compared to worse teams, besides having less HIA on average?  

Besides, we physical preparation coaches are more interested in EXTREMESof that distribution. We want to prepare our players for the most intense parts of the game, not for a game on average. F*ck the average scores. What we need are ranges and relative frequencies to identify most strenuous parts of the game. There is a great statistical saying that goes: if my head is in the oven and my feet in the freezer, on average I am fine. Yet there are still retarded coaches giving players 14km runs because players cover around 14km during the game. I am talking about that level of stupidity when using total and mean scores to created (cough-cough) sport specific practices/conditioning.   

Another problem is the method of how we get those numbers in the first place. Was it hand notation, Amisco, GPS,  Prozone? Another issue I have is with velocity based classification. For example, if HIA is defined as runs above 19.8 kmh^-1 then time spent at high effort to accelerate to that velocity will not be classified as HIA. In other ways if you explode from standing to tackle an opponent for 5m you are out of luck – that will not count as HIA even if you POWER output was tremendous. I covered acceleration-power based time-motion analysis in THISand THIS post and I will come back to it later. We just need to think twice before we apply results of the studies in out training programs. Skepticism is good. 

 The problems with it is that stupid people are very confident in their opinions and smart ones are always in freakin’ doubt – that’s why people listen to stupid ones. Don’t be that guy – be confident with the players, skeptic with fellow coaches/scientist on the symposiums not in the locker room.

One more interesting thing which I will come back to as well is why HIA zone (or any other zones) set at absolute velocity (above 19.8 kmh^-1) instead of relative one (for example above v30-15 for each player)? 

 Both option have pro’s and con’s and I think we need more time-motion analysis reporting both absolute and relative data. 

Stay tuned for part two…

Read More

Research Review – Effects of different pushing speeds on bench press

Research Review – Effects of different pushing speeds on bench press

Rob Shugg from Kinetic Performance brought this very interesting study to my attention in the latest newsletter. 

Padulo J, Mignogna P, Mignardi S, Tonni F, D'Ottavio S. Effect of different pushing speeds on bench press. Int J Sports Med. 2012 May;33(5):376-80. Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect on muscular strength after a 3-week training with the bench-press at a fixed pushing of 80-100% maximal speed (FPS) and self-selected pushing speed (SPS). 20 resistance-trained subjects were divided at random in 2 groups differing only regarding the pushing speed: in the FPS group (n=10) it was equal to 80-100% of the maximal speed while in the SPS group (n=10) the pushing speed was self-selected. Both groups were trained twice a week for 3 weeks with a load equal to 85% of 1RM and monitored with the encoder. Before and after the training we measured pushing speed and maximum load. Significant differences between and within the 2 groups were pointed out using a 2-way ANOVA for repeated measures. After 3 weeks a significant improvement was shown especially in the FPS group: the maximum load improved by 10.20% and the maximal speed by 2.22%, while in the SPS group the effect was <1%. This study shows that a high velocity training is required to increase the muscle strength further in subjects with a long training experience and this is possible by measuring the individual performance speed for each load.

You can read Robb’s summary HERE, as well as John Cissik’s summary HERE.  I am reposting my modified comment at John’s blog (awaiting moderation) here.  In my opinion this study is “fishy” and let me explain why.

GymAware is great tool to measure real-time power, speed and a bunch of other important data

Even if it is VERY interesting, this study is fishy in my opinion.

Padulo et al. reported that FPS group (speed group) have improved from 7(0.08) sets of 2.33(0.52) reps to 9 sets of 3.17(0.75) reps at 85% 1RM bench press.

The SPS group (self-selected; to exhaustion group) improved from 7.98(0.04) sets of 7(0.42) reps to 9 sets of 8.33(1.03) reps with 85% 1RM bench press.

Baselines for both groups were around 100kg (1RM) at BW of 75-77kg. Their relative strength is about 130% BW.

According to THIS table, that performance is not so ‘advanced’. One would expect 42 year old guys with 18 year training experience to bench press more than 130% BW.  My bench press sucks (around 120kg at 92kg BW, which is also 130%), but I am not training for 18 years now as those subjects.  (Note to myself – don’t report your BP performance publicly until 150% BW reached)  

Anyway, my point is that with 85% (in this case 85kg) advanced lifters are hardly able to do 7sets of 7 reps with 2min rest in between. Take a look at Dan Baker’s table for calculating 1RMs based on reps-to-failure HERE. 

If we calculate 1RM from 7 reps with 85kg for experienced lifters we get 85kg × 1,23 = 104,5kg.

After 3 weeks, they proceeded to 7 sets of 9 reps.  Let’s assume that if they really push the first set (only one set) they could get 10reps. Recalculating improvement we get 85kg x 1,33 = 113kg.

Note: Factors are taken from Dan Baker’s table for experienced lifters

The study reported 0,17% percent change (improvement), but from these two predictions we get (113-104,5)/104,5 * 100 = 8%. 

When it comes to FPS group, they improved over 10%. And all of this in 3 weeks. Please note that Dan Baker reported 11% increase ( 128kg to 142kg at about 100kg BW) in 1RM in bench press in 6 YEARS time span with elite rugby players and those are young studs (20.3 years old on average). (see Baker, D. Six-Year Changes in Upper-Body Maximum Strength and Power in Experienced Strength-Power Athletes. J. Aust. Strength Cond. 16(3)4-10. 2008).

To quote Dan Baker (Strength & Conditioning Coach. 5(4):2-8. 1998.):

By reviewing the normative data for different ages and training stages, a
generalized picture of the strength improvements can be gained. From experience
beginners make between a 1.5-2% increase per week in upper body strength for 6-12
weeks. Intermediates increase by about 1% per week for 8-12 weeks, a finding that is
also reported in numerous studies (Berger, 1962; Hakkinen & Komi, 1981; Stowers et al.,
1983; Hakkinen, 1985; Gater et al., 1992; Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al., 1994; Baker,
1995b).

The lower body strength changes are much larger, circa 4% per week for
beginners and about 1.5-2% per week for intermediates over 6-10 weeks (see also the
references listed above).


Improvement of 10% in 3 weeks with advanced lifters is red-flag in my opinion.

In most (percent based) strength training programs (i.e. TIER System by Joe Kenn), training cycles with 85% call for 3-4 reps). And as Poliquin reported years ago, as you become more advanced you tend to lift LESS reps at same percentage of 1RM. For example real beginner can get 8 reps at 85%, while advanced can get 4-5 reps at 85%. This is also showed in Dan Baker’s table. And here we are talking about ONE all-out set. The study report 7 sets with average 7 reps. 

I would love to contact author and ask him these same questions and maybe post his response here aw well with permission.

Anyway, this study is very interesting and show how the training with C.A.T (Compensatory Acceleration Training) without failure yields better result than training to exhaustion at slow velocities. We recently got GymAware which we use to measure ‘freshness’ of the players, so I plan playing with Dynamic Effort a little bit.

There are some other’s studies I wanted to comment about (one regarding RSA patterns  in soccer game by Carling et al. ), but that would need to wait for some other time. 

Read More

[Guest Article] Take care of you, to fight against cancer

Take care of you, to fight against cancer

By David Haas

The last thing anyone wants to think about with busy schedules is fitting in some type of exercise, especially those diagnosed with cancer.   Physical fitness is important for well-being and improving the quality of life.  Several studies have shown that exercise is now encouraged for cancer patients, whether they are just diagnosed, going through treatment, or in remission.  

While it may be difficult to include fitness in your day, it is also essential.  According to the American Cancer Society, adults that have been diagnosed with cancer should get at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity activity each week (or a combination of these), preferably spread throughout the week. While teens and children should get at least 60 minutes of moderate or vigorous intensity activity each day, with vigorous activity on at least 3 days each week. As mentioned earlier, there are several benefits to physical fitness.  Maintaining any form of movement each day can make a positive impact on how you feel and your overall outlook.  Exercise has been proven to improve moods, self esteem, flexibility, endurance, and increase the ability to perform daily living activities.  Exercising may also help to reduce the severity of cancer side effects, prevent unwanted weight changes, improve energy levels, and build muscle mass and strength.  

Those diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer have decreased lung function, which may impair a person’s ability to engage in daily exercise.  According to www.MesotheliomaPrognosis.org, says that most oncologists agree that mesothelioma patients should partake in some sort of physical activity.   They suggest light activities such as walking, yoga, and light weights for building strength.  

Individuals diagnosed or going through treatment for mesothelioma cancer should begin slowly and listen to your body should you need to rest.  Be sure to consult your physician regarding your current and future fitness goals.   Also, choose an activity that you enjoy and that is easily accessible so you stick with your regimen and maintain an exercise schedule.

Several studies and research have been done on the benefits of exercise.  Research has suggested that physical fitness improve your mood and psychological outlook.  In addition, physical activity can improve self esteem, body image, improve tone and prevent unwanted weight changes. Symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and loss of appetite can all be improved with regular physical fitness.    

Over 11 million Americans have cancer in the United States; physical fitness is encouraged to improve treatment outcomes in patients’ diagnosed cancer. Being diagnosed with cancer can be difficult, so it is important you take care of yourself to fight against cancer.  

 

Read More

Interview with Joe Kenn

Coach Kenn was one of my first influences on strength training planning and programming and still continues to be of huge influence. Coach Kenn’s book on Tier System (The Coach’s Strength Training Playbook) is always with me and I have been using its tables extensively in the last couple of months. In my opinion, and in opinion of many other fellow coaches, this book is a must have in your library. I re-read it every couple of years and I always learn something new.  Hell, I might re-read it after this interview and hopefully will motivate you to read (or re-read) it as well.  Ok, enough of my ranting – let’s pick coach Kenn’s brain a little bit.

Mladen: Coach Kenn I am really glad you find time to do this interview.  I have been planning contacting you and thanking you for the great influence you and your book had on my strength training philosophy, so I will you this opportunity to thank you for writing it. As with all interviews I do, I would love you share some fact about who you are, what you do and what are your plans for the future.

Joe: Mladen, 1^st I want to thank you for being such a strong supporter of our System of training. I never thought that this project would have generated such a positive response in our field.  2^nd, please don’t cut yourself short.  I have read everything I have seen on the internet that you have written and appreciate you “absorbing”, “modifying”, and “applying” the things you have learned and developing your own path.

I have lived a blessed life having never truly “worked” a single day.  It is the ultimate feeling.  I wake up and get to do what my passion and love is everyday with some of the finest athletes in the world.  I am currently the strength and conditioning coach for a NFL team.  This to me is the ultimate opportunity and the pinnacle of my career.

My future plans are simple.  1 – To work hard at being the best husband I can be to my wife and a better father to my sons.   2 – To provide a system that “Protects and Produces” for the athletes.  My goal is to develop programs and relationships with my athletes that protects their “body armor” and reduces the chance of injury as well as produces positive physiological and psychological improvements in their athletic abilities.  And yes, I have I outlines, notebooks, and presentations just waiting to be put into a new book.

Mladen: What motivated you to create The Tier System and write a book about it? When did everything start and where is the system evolving at the moment? What did you change over time and what do you use now? Do you plan writing updated version?

Joe:  The motivation was simple, to develop a plan based on training athletes.  Everything I was exposed to at the onset of my career were programs that were swayed by the strength disciplines of weightlifting, powerlifting, and bodybuilding.  I wasn’t training those athletes.  I was training American football players, basketball players, tennis players etc.  I felt there was a need to evaluate what the strength disciplines brought to athletic based strength training and to devise a program that would possibly better serve the athletes I trained.  I did not believe in training a sport with another sports protocol.

The program was developed in 1992 while I was a graduate assistant at Boise State University.  There are many things that have changed based on the practical research done in my labs [4 universities, 1 private performance center and 1 NFL team].  The integrity of the program is the structured rotation of the individual training sessions.  This is what I refer to as the “Template”.  The training session order of movements will not be sacrificed.  With that said we are experimenting right now with a slightly different rotation of the Tier structure that can help in overall duration of the training session and stay within the means and order of movements.

The biggest changes are coming in the lower tiers, tiers 4 and 5 as well as the addition of a neck tier, and the posterior chain and posterior shoulder tiers.  These are all done in what I call a medley fashion.   The definition of a medley is a mixture of various types of elements.  I liked this term instead of calling it a circuit.  We are experimenting right now with great success the medley starting the session as Pre Activity Preparation if the athlete is beginning the training session without a running component preceding it. 

We also do multiple movements within Tiers 1-3.  Upper Body Tiers primarily will always be Pull/Push supersets, Lower Body Tiers could include a prehab/mobility movement and now include a Stabilization movement for the Power Zone (core), and the Total Body Tiers could include a jump and now include a Rotational movement for the Power Zone.

Our biggest emphasis is on density.  The amount of work we can get done efficiently in the least amount of time.  We have recorded our athletes completing over 60 sets of work in less than 60 minutes.  Just this week on a Session L workout our athletes completed 47 sets of work between 43-52 minutes.

I have planned for some time now to right an updated addition to the Coach’s Strength Training Playbook and I am always glad I didn’t because I always like the new stuff we were doing. I feel now may be the time to start getting this material in order.

Mladen:  Since Tier System is percent based training system, how do you assess maximum strengths (1RM) and how often? What do you do after each cycle with 1RM scores – do you re-test them or increase them ala Wendler in his 5/3/1? How do you plan maximums for assistance lifts like lunges or DB Bench Presses?

Joe: We determine training maximums every cycle in which we have 3 or 4 weeks of work.  The movements that are trained for a “maximum” are usually Tier 1 movements and possibly some supplemental Tier 2 movements.  We rotate several movements and utilize the data for each cycle that pertains to the specific movement.  I am not familiar with the 5/3/1 progressions so I cannot answer if what we do is similar.

Generally, for strength mobility movements similar to the ones you mentioned we will set ranges for workloads and utilize my new Volume Accumulation Training cycles for our progressive overload.

Mladen: There is a big debate about percent based vs. auto-regulatory training and their effectiveness in both biological and behavioral way. What are your thoughts about it? How do you implement flexibility (day-to-day fluctuation in readiness of the athletes) and how do you adjust the percentages and programs overall to suit different level of the lifters (i.e. beginners, intermediate and advanced)?

Joe:  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I always reserve the right to be wrong.  I like using percentages because it gives us a guide, but I am not afraid to go “OTS” [off the script].  I watch my athletes very carefully and more importantly I speak to them and ask pertinent questions that can help me determine what type of day it may be.  If we have to shut it down, then we shut it down.

Using Prilipen’s Chart is the simplest way for me to adjust for level of lifters.  I have formulated my own rules based on this chart that allows me to manipulate training volumes as athletes progress through our quadrennial plan while I was working in the college setting.

Mladen: When it comes to in-season lifting, how do you modify the programs? What happens with percentages, volume and frequencies of the lifts? How do you avoid soreness and heavy legs with the athletes? 

Joe: The main modifications come in overall training volume.  The weight room is secondary to the sport they play so; I always have that in the back of my mind.  Football is first, and I need them to have a pretty full gas tank for competitions.  Percentages are swayed based on the athletes playing time.  We train primarily for dynamic effort for the lower and total body during the season, so soreness from weight workouts in almost nonexistent.  Our athletes do a tremendous job with the various restoration means we have available to them.

In-season strength training is tricky, but very important

Mladen: I see most coaches fall in love with complex approach (or contrast) where one combines strength work with explosive and unloaded movements to utilize PAP (post-activation potentiation) phenomena. In your opinion, is this approach better than “traditional” one, where one address speed/power away from strength training in short and long term?

Joe: Better, who knows, but I love doing Total Body movements complexing with Jumping in our program as well as substituting traditional total body movements, variations of the Olympic lifts with jumping movements.

Mladen: When it comes to Olympic lifting what are your thought on them for the athletes? Does the time to learn/teach them justify their training potential effect? Could this time be better used for something else? 

Joe: I believe you must ask yourself if the movement is applicable to your situation.  If it is, then implement it, if it’s not, don’t.  It’s that simple.  You are a coach, which means you are a teacher, so teach them how to perform the movement correctly.  I am sorry but it takes time to learn how to squat and bench press properly too!  Or run, or jump, or land, or throw etc., etc., etc.

Mladen:  Over the years, how much did the athletes improve in strength performances and how much does this correlate with speed/power performance and injury occurrence? What lift did you find most correlates (transfers) with these aspects?

Joe: Overall Maximum Strength will lead to explosive strength and lean body mass gains.  The leaner an athlete is the more efficient in movement he is.  The more explosive an athlete is the better chance they have to be able to improve starting and reactive strength abilities.  You must get them stronger first.  That is my opinion, and that all starts with relative strength, the ability to handle you own load before adding external loading.

We have had tremendous success where ever we have been implementing our program and seeing tremendous athletic measurable improvements in our athletes’ overall athleticism.  It is not my role to prepare them for the specifics of their sport.  That is where the problem lies.  We may do are jobs but if the athlete does not improve his specific skills with his sport coach, we may never see the overall transfer to the field of play.

I do not believe there is a specific lift.  You want to be a great squatter, squat.  You want to get better shooting free throws, shoot free throws.  It is a synergistic relationship between GPP and SPP coaches that will allow for individual athlete success.

I believe transfer starts with intent.  What is your intent?  Our intent is to train every movement with maximum concentric acceleration regardless.   On movements that have an eccentric component, we want athletes to show us how strong they are by controlling the load.  This will help improve eccentric strength that is imperative to developing the stabilizers of the movement as well and helping in the deceleration of movement that is pertinent to their sport actions.

Mladen: Thank you very much for the insights coach Kenn. I am looking forward to more info from you and I wish you all the best.

Joe: Thank you and the very best to all.  WORDS WIN!

Read More