RSA is overrated? Part 2

RSA is overrated?

Part 2

Now when I cleared (or made you more  confused about) some things regarding time-motion analysis and total/mean scores (without ranges, frequencies and zones), let’s deal with those most strenuous parts of the game. 

Defining what is strenuous is also tricky. Sprints, 1500m run, marathon, long jump they are all different in duration but done at maximum ability. They are all strenuous, but differently. The point is that we cannot say what is strenuous based on speed/power alone. Worse yet, we cannot say what is strenuous based on HR or VO₂. Think about this like doing bench press for 5reps with 10RM weight and doing bench press for 9 reps with 10RM weight. In both cases we are using same intensity (10RM), yet the strenuousness (exertion would be better word) is way different. Besides, you would be able to do more sets with former example.

My point, if you are still following, is that exertion need to be defined by relative combination of both intensity and volume/duration. Lately, I was reading some papers on the Critical Power concept and it’s calculus for both continuous and intermittent activities (click HERE and HERE and if you have time also click HERE). I really like the concept of it because using simple formula you can predict time trials and average power/speed for activities of certain duration by knowing two factors – Critical Power and Anaerobic Capacity. I highly recommend checking the linked papers. 

Taken from Vanhatalo el atl. Application of Critical Power in Sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011 Mar;6(1):128-36

 

By knowing critical power (CP or CV) and anaerobic capacity (W' or D'), we can estimate how strenuous was certain activity based on its velocity/power and duration.  This is especially interesting for velocities/power above Critical Power, because they dig intro limited anaerobic capacities. After certain action, or burst of intermittent actions we can predict how much of this anaerobic capacity is depleted (or fatiguing factors accumulated) and how much time it takes for recovery. This way we might get some insights on how really strenuous some parts of the game really are for certain player or how much he exhausted himself. Having this data may yield better information for the coaches regarding the individual level of fatigue of certain players during the game. The coaches might use that data to substitute them at the right time. This is why it is important to do time-motion analysis that takes relativezones into account, not only absolute ones.

Anyway, this might give us new ideas for the research. We still need more data on Critical Power concept validity and reliability, especially in regards to intermittent sports, along with finding better time-motion analysis methods that take power and acceleration into account.

To cut the long story short, for the rest of this article I am (along with other researchers) going to assume that the most strenuous part of the game is RSS/HIB or high density of HIA. If we only look at the total and average data for HIA, we might get that players perform HIA every 140sec on average.  That doesn’t look that though on the average, but this is the situation where we have head in the oven and feet in the freezer. We need to take a look at the distribution in time of those HIA. 

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that report this kind of scores. Couple of them tend to find RSS (Repeat Sprint Sequences) in the game, their amount, durations, number, etc. One of the first studies I’ve read that actually reported this was by Gabbett and Mulvey. I am posting the abstract here. 

Gabbett TJ, Mulvey MJ. Time-motion analysis of small-sided training games and competition in elite women soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):543-52. We investigated the movement patterns of small-sided training games and compared these movement patterns with domestic, national, and international standard competition in elite women soccer players. In addition, we investigated the repeated-sprint demands of women's soccer with respect to the duration of sprints, number of sprint repetitions, recovery duration, and recovery intensity. Thirteen elite women soccer players [age (mean +/- SD) 21 +/- 2 years] participated in this study. Time-motion analysis was completed during training (n = 39) consisting of small-sided (i.e., three versus three and five versus five) training games, domestic matches against male youth teams (n = 10), Australian national-league matches (n = 9), and international matches (n = 12). A repeated-sprint bout was defined as a minimum of three sprints, with recovery of less than 21 seconds between sprints. The overall exercise to rest ratios for small-sided training games (1:13) were similar to or greater than domestic competition against male youth teams (1:15) and national-league (1:16) and international (1:12) competitions. During the international matches analyzed, 4.8 +/- 2.8 repeated-sprint bouts occurred per player, per match. The number of sprints within the repeated-sprint bouts was 3.4 +/- 0.8. The sprint duration was 2.1 +/- 0.7 seconds, and the recovery time between sprints was 5.8 +/- 4.0 seconds. Most recovery between sprints was active in nature (92.6%). In contrast to international competition, repeated-sprint bouts were uncommon in small-sided training games, domestic competition against male youth teams, and national-league competition. These findings demonstrate that small-sided training games simulate the overall movement patterns of women's soccer competition but offer an insufficient training stimulus to simulate the high-intensity, repeated-sprint demands of international competition.

What this paper shows, besides that you cannot solve all the physical preparation needs by playing only small sided games, is one of the first analysis of RSS during the games. It showed that we have 4.8 repeat sprint bouts per player per game on average. The number of the sprints in those RSS is 3.4 on average. This is a great starting point. 

I will leave you with this till next time, when I am going to write about the new study by Christopher Carling et al.

Read More

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