Great read/watch: Dan Pfaff and Brian McCormick

I recently saw the seminar videos by Dan Pfaff mentioned at Brian McCormick blog (if you are a basketball coach, or any other coach Brian’s blog is a must read/follow). Although I was familiar with Dan Pfaff before through some free available PDFs online, I never saw him lecturing. That was a damn mistake.

Although T&F coach, Dan goes into a lot of problems/phenomena when training power athletes, with some team sport mentioning. The most interesting concepts he covers is the distinction between (event) endurance and work capacity with some examples from team sports (you can check Brian’s blog for more info on this). Also, one VERY interesting thing I tried to conceptualize for a long time Dan very neatly explains by using what he calls chronic load syndrome and acute relieving syndrome and how they influence 4 phases of adaptation/motor learning:  stimulate, adapt, stabilize, and actualize. This is very clear example that human body is complex system and it doesn’t behave in linear/mechanical way we would expect to behave (as explained with some great examples of Olympic champions by Dan).

I highly suggest checking the videos and then proceeding to Brian’s blog. Here are all the parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

The Ultimate Guide to HRV Training – Joel Jamieson

 

The Ultimate Guide to HRV Training

By Joel Jamieson

This was a long awaited book from Joel, especially if you have already purchased BioForce HRV, since this is the manual that accompany the system and it was slightly delayed because Joel was improving and extending its content. Luckily for us, because the book is much more than the simple user guidefor BioForce HRV.  The wait is justified.

The binding of the book is very similar to his first book Ultimate MMA Conditioning.  This means it survived  twisting, bending and text underlying I usually do to the books and it will survive frequent referencing.  It has 130+ pages, with black-and-white graphics and big font for easy reading.  

The Ultimate Guide to HRV training starts with Quickstart User Guide section that allows you to jump start the whole process of monitoring and using  BioForce HRV, along with short FAQ.

The next section of the book – The Stress Of Training – deals with basic understanding of stress, homeostasis, allostasis, adapatation, training process and training continuum. Joel have unique skill to put complex issues from different research fields in a reader friendly way and holistic/unified way. I haven’t read something so concise, short and easy to read when it comes to very complex and crucial fundamentals of training theory.

The following section – Managing the Training Process – deals with how to use HRV along with other monitoring tools to optimize your training process and thus adaptations, avoid overtraining, stagnation and injuries.  Before reading this chapter (and whole book) I thought that the higher the HRV the better, but now I’ve learn that this is not the case and that different ‘reactions’ occur at different phases of the training continuum (according to Joel).  

In the chapter on management of the training week (microcycle), Joel discusses different models of weekly load distribution, starting with traditional, high/low, intensive, balanced and extensive. I have never before read this kind of information on one place, along with when to use certain models and why. Joel only forgot to include ‘block’ organization of the weekly load, where you have heavy days back-to-back. Also, you can find an easy way to utilize HRV to calculate weekly load.

In Managing the Training Block chapter, Joel provides GREAT summary of different (should I call it) periodization strategies, their usage, pros and cons and current misunderstandings.  It covers linear loading, undulating loading, concentrated loading, volume loading, and uniform loading. I really loved how he explained the confusion between ‘western periodization’ and linear loading. You can also find basic principles of block programming and how to create Macro Training Blocks.

The book finishes with Recovery and Regeneration chapter. Compared to other sources out there, this chapter actually explains why it is bad to use ‘shotgun’ approach to recovery and regeneration and why it is important to use the right tools for the job at the right time. After reading this chapter, and whole book, I can honestly say I finally understand the difference between sympathetic dominant and parasympathetic dominant over-reaching and which methods and tools to use to restore autonomic balance.

As I have stated in the beginning of this review, this book is a lot more than a manual how to use BioForce HRV. Joel has an outstanding ability to simplify and connect very difficult problems and put them into ready to use guidelines which can be very easily seen upon reading this book.

In my opinion, even if you never ever plan using HRV (bad for you) you should definitely check this book because it clarifies some of the very complex problems of training organization in simple and friendly language. I will definitely reference this book and re-read it numerous times as his Ultimate MMA Conditioning.

The only negative thing about the book is that it is not referenced with peer-reviewed research, but it was not intended to provide review of the literature in the first place. Anyway, having a reference to back-up some claims would improve the overall quality of this book.

Read More

Couple of insights from explosive lower body training with PowerTool/GymAware

As I have posted in the previous blog post I am currently playing with PowerTool/GymAware and aiming to increase my power output in squat jump, VJ and bench throw, along with trying to improve strength in squat and bench press using (a form of) dynamic effort method, during which I cut my set where my power drops below 90% of initial rep.  

Also, I am putting back Olympic lifts (clean, snatch and hang clean and hang snatch) into the program after a very long break. I am starting very conservatively and as you will notice my technique is not so ‘smooth’ and ‘quick’. 

On the bottom of the page you can find embed video. Please note that I am also starting video editing, so please bear with my crappy transitions between clips and no sound (at least no cheesy music background). 

I have started the training with the snatch. My technique (especially the catch) was ‘unconfident’ because I haven’t done snatches for a long time, even longer than I skipped cleans. On the second set on the video (actually a third or fourth in training) I kind of improved the catch (except the first rep where I sumo-ed it) and I finished with couple of overhead squats with a pause in the bottom. 

On the next clip I did some cleans just to finish up. Again, technique doesn’t look ‘snappy’ and I tend to ‘bounce it’ off my quads, as can be seen by the drift of the bar forward. I guess this will get a lot better with more practice and heavier weight. I have also finished with some front squat holds.

After the cleans, I wanted to test  my VJ using broomstick. The GymAware needs to be started from the set-up position (standing tall) so it can recognize this as the ‘zero position’ and calculate difference between this point and highest point. I have reached 49.1cm in later set (you need to trust me because I didn’t tape it). This is without arm swing so I guess it is a decent score. We have problems with the celling height and we don’t test tallest athletes because of the fear of hitting it, or at least fear influencing the score.

When it comes to countermovement jump with 20kg (empty barbell) I wanted to see how my depth will impact the power readings. Theoretically, going deeper will increase the work done (Force X distance) and if the time of movement is the same power will be higher. Unfortunately, it seems that going deeper affects eccentric-concentric transition (and ‘energy return’) and increase the movement time, thus decreasing power output. As can be seen on the video, on the 3^rd and 4^th rep and purposively went deeper in the squat and scored less on power output. On 5^th and 6^threp I went pretty ‘shallower’ which resulted in more ‘snappier’ lift and thus higher power output. 

In the following table you can find the analysis for the each rep (the full GymAware app with web based software does this automatically - I don't have that one so I copy-pasted the values manually) 

			External		Total system
Rep	Dip	Height	Mean Power	Peak Power	Mean Power	Peak Power	Mean Velocity	Peak Velocity	Concentric time
1	0,555	0,383	686	1048	3886	5934	1,97	3,13	0,52
2	0,493	0,372	628	996	3560	5640	1,91	2,99	0,5
3	0,539	0,363	592	960	3354	5436	1,78	2,89	0,54
4	0,56	0,338	563	895	3191	5070	1,77	2,89	0,54
5	0,319	0,375	700	1084	3963	6139	1,83	2,91	0,42
6	0,422	0,353	671	1043	3800	5908	1,82	2,99	0,44

As can be seen, I have changed the jumping style (dip) and scored different of the Height and Power measures. 

On the following table I did correlations for the variables:

If we take out fatigue out of equation, we can clearly see negative correlations between the DIP and the Power (both external, total mean and peak) and perfect correlation with CONCENTRIC TIME.

Height has pretty high correlation to power measures (0.70 - 0.72), and mean velocity (0,78). 

All power measures have almost the perfect correlation between themselves (as can be seen by gray area). BTW, Total system is when I take my BW into equation.

This creates some problems in measurement and evaluation of the players.

First, taller players will score higher on the power readings (anyone have correlates between height and VJ or power output?) since they do more work.

Second, it is hard to do inter-individual comparison without controlling the depth in some way. Depending on the individual style of jump, some players will produce more power than others. With the data I have at the moment, I don’t see any correlation between P20kg (external power and NOT total system power – which brings me to the topic of different power calculations) and VJ performance (and not even correlates with 10m, 505 or any other performance test; but let’s wait for more samples). This might mean that the individual might change the jumping style to reach highest VJ or to reach highest power output readings. Then it might be important to think what kind of feedback are we giving to the players – power readings or vertical height reached (it might be smart to tell them to jump highest without reporting power reading since this might influence the power score for the guys who have some physics background by adapting their jumping style:) )

It is probably ok to compare the intra-individual performance (for example changes in my power readings over time) because of the same jumping style, but I question its use to compare individuals (in terms of power) WITHOUT some way of controlling the depth (dip). I would really love to hear reader’s experience with this, along with possible studies on this (VJ and P20kg correlates). It might be interesting to see correlates between power output using different methods (external power, total power, relative external, relative total, etc) during free countermovement jump, regulated countermovement jump (certain depth/angle) to VJ (and 5-10m sprint as well),  and to power outputs within different ways of measurement. If someone know a study like this, or studies, please let me know. Dan Baker sent me his study on correlates between Power and 10m-40m sprints. I will try to find and read some studies on these issues.

When we did testing at the beginning of the pre-season we used Smith machine and the players jumped from pre-calculated height where they take 90 degrees in the knee. But that means concentric only. If I remember correctly the researchers used total body power (they used 90% of BW plus 100% BW on the bar) dived my body mass. Yes, power measurement is confusing (I suggest the readers to check the papers by Cormie et al.). So, I suggest when someone discuss power training, correlation or anything one needs to ask the following questions:

1. How was the power measured – using 1-LPT, 2-LPT, force plate, force plate and LPT(s), COM analysis using kinematic data 2. How was the power calculated – using external work only, or taking BW into account, was is it peak or mean 3. What type of jumping was done – static, countermovement, arm-swings, with regulated starting position, with unregulated starting position, what kind of feedback was given and what was the goal of the jump (height or power output) 4. How much resistance is used and how it is calculated (as % of 1RMs, as % of BW, etc)

For example, with total system power measurement, peak power is reached with 0% 1RM external resistance. With external power measurement, peak power is reached with 40-50% 1RM (if I remember correctly).  All these makes discussion on power confusing.

We tend to focus on numbers and forger to ask about how did we (or others) actually got them - what type of measures we did, how did we impact those measures with tasks, contexts, feedback and biases. Sport performance, be it power or anything else is not easily represented by number.

I am also posting with permission the email response by Dan Baker when we exchanged couple of emails on the topic of power measurement. I wish coaches can hear more real-life training wisdom from Dan and I wish one day he write down a very practical book. Whole this year I was bothering Dan with questions and advice requests and I must admit that I have learned more by reading his email responses than from the most books. I want to thank Dan one more time. 

The jump squat question has been raised and is raised all the time.  Technically you should add body mass  (or some portion of it, again another debate) to the equation and I used to, but I don't now as I will explain. Technically, yes body mass + jump squat mass.  I will attach some of Cormie's work with force plate + 2 LPT shows that peak power occurs with 0 extra load. during JS,  - but even she doesn't add all the body mass (minus 12% for weight of shins and lower body "not moving" when the calculation is made….so confusing! Also Peak power v Average (mean) power.  I always use mean power, peak power will always occur with the lowest resistance, even in upper body studies.  I used just 1 LPT in my studies, so in Pru's work you can see that she gets similar results when using only 1 LPT, but gets different results based on LPT + force plate etc. So I now just use the power generated externally, as the athlete always has to move his body anyway ~ thus I don't include body mass anymore for monitoring training and just use the 1 LPT. If we train athletes over time and their body mass changes, am I getting real changes in leg power or changes due to heavier athletes?  I was getting this problem a lot as some young players can change 10 kg of body mass in a year, from 17 to 18 or 19 yrs.   So now I just weekly monitor with 20 kg and train and test with 60 kg and 100 kg (but we train the whole spectrum, but mainly 60-100 kg).  But we don't add body mass to the calculations.   So I am looking at External Power output. I think of it like this, as a spectrum  VJ 20 kg JS 60 kg JS 100kg JS 1RM Power clean (hang) mean of 125 kg 1RM full squat mean 177 kg So by looking at these simple tests, I know about unloaded leg power (VJ),  and strength (1RM squat) and everything in between.  If someone has good VJ, but poor power with 60 kg and 100 kg JS, then they will be weak in the squat (and also in the PC) Conversely, strong in the squat and poor in the 60 and 100 kg JS power, they will be slow in VJ and 20 kg JS.  You can do the VJ as a CMJ with a broom handle and the GymAware so you take the confounding effect of arm swing out. By leaving body mass out of it, I take away that confounding variable in their JS power.  Just helps with truing and monitoring long-term effects, but for uni. studies, you may have to include the portion of body mass like Cormie did. For soccer, it may be CMJ, 20 kg, 40 and 60 kg.  Certainly the Aust. Instit. of Sport have found that JS with 40 kg most useful for basketball and volleyball players, but for rugby league, resistances that equal our opponents body mass (100kg) are a better indicator.  So just use absolute external loads for testing and monitoring and any loads for training.  You will work it out pretty quickly.   My general rule of thumb is use 40-60% of the weight you used for strength training that week.  So if your athlete used 80 kg x 5 reps for squat atg, then do jump squat with anywhere from 32 to 48 kg .  But if you have a group of players of similar strength, say squatting 80 to 100 kg x 5, then it is easier and more competitive to have them all do 45 kg for jump squats x 5.

Back to video – after countermovent jump with 20kg, I did planned squat jumps from static position. I have included the one with 40kg. As the last set I did continuous (rhythmical) jump squats with 30kg (to also utilize some PAP/contrast after jumps with 40). Interestingly, when I did static squat jumps with 30kg I created 686W (external), but when I did rhythmical ones I created 857W, or 24% more, which might be accounted to eccentric/elastic energy return. 

After all those jumps, I proceeded to do squats at 75%, 80%, and 85% of 1RM. I have repeated this twice, plus I did one more set with 75% for 4, equaling to 7 sets of squats. Theoretically, I tried to squat down slowly, hold the bottom position for a second and then try to lift it up as fast as possible. I think I lack the ‘groove’ at the moment and I cannot do it with the ‘snap’ (talking about doing nothing for a week or two). I wanted to do each set until my speed dropped below 90% of initial rep. The problem I had was that GymAware cannot set alarms and thresholds based on percentages (or at least I don’t know how to do it), but rather absolute numbers (for example, it warns me when my velocity drops below 0,5 m/s), so I was playing to see how much reps are actually above 90% and they are 3, 2, 1 for 75%, 80% and 85% (anyone see similarities with Prilepin chart? ). I guess I need bigger increments for squats compared to bench press (where I managed to do 4, 3, 2 with 75, 80 and 85%), something like (70, 77.5, 85). Trial and error people. You learn from the mistakes :).

Funny thing is that I felt more fresh with 7 fast sets than with 2-3 sets close to failure I usually do (my joints don’t seem to like ‘grinding’ sets, and all those incremental programs approaching failure  over weeks usually result in minor injury in my case). I hope those fast, large in number technical sets will yield dividends at the end in terms of improved power and strength.

 

I want to thank my friend Joel Grandell from Hammarby Boxning for helping me make these videos.


Hope this was insightful to you as it was to me. Thanks for reading.

Read More

Random thoughts

I am back from vacation to Zakynthos and I am pretty much recharged. The rest of the season is about to begin and what we did last week in terms of physical preparation was testing of the players and creating player profiles (strength~weaknesses based on team rankings). The newest video by Joel Jamieson was really helpful in this regard (I will do a full review soon) since one of the presentations by Joel goes into the topic of creating athlete profiles based on the test scores. 

Based on rankings (percentiles instead of Z-score since it is more easier to explain both to players and coaches and most of the time data is not normal), each player has spider diagram when we can clearly and quickly see their standing within the rest of the team, along with aerobic-anaerobic profile.  Also, each position has four composite scores (index scores) that include different tests with different weighting factors: speed, explosive power, endurance and strength. This way we can compare players on the same position to the physical demands of the same.   All of this can be found in great presentation by Joel Jamieson.

I am not going to describe our testing battery in great detail, but I will cover some interesting insights.

505 Agility test

When it comes to speed tests, we did 30m run with 10m split, which gives us 10m time, 30m time and 20m fly time. For the agility testing we decided to do 505 Agility test (click HERE and HERE for more info). You can see how it is done in the following video.

Basically, what 505 gives us is the ability to change direction from high speed run. 505 Agility test did not correlate with 10m (r=0,16), 30m (r=0,17) which means we are measuring distinct motor quality.

The trick with this test is to take full speed approach in the 10m. I wonder would the scores be any different if the run-up was sub-maximal, thus making the COD quicker. On the flip side, submaximal run-up may yield longer times to COD line, but more tough COD.

 I will try to find a reliability study for 505, but we are pretty sure the run-up must be controlled with achieving at least 90% of 10m sprint speed which might protects us from pacing of the athletes. If anyone has info on this or experience with this test please contact me or leave a comment.

30-15 Intermittent field test

For endurance testing we decided to do 30-15IFT and MAS test (1600m time trial; 4x400m). The correlation between the two is r=0,67. HRpeak in MAS test was 98% of HRpeak in 30-15IFT on average. 

The guys who sprinted the last lap during MAS test achieved closer HRpeak scores – compared to guys who slowed down at the end (as showed with higher SD of HRpeak as well). Thus, pacing is making conclusion on what is HRmax difficult and I suggest that to be really certain one need to use test specifically designed to elicit HRmax in running. Although 98% was pretty close.

One thing with 30-15IFT and with all other test that have discrete increments is that this might affect sensitivity and reliability of the tests (Martin Buchheit reported ICC r =0,96 which is high reliability. Check the study HERE). For example, we used as the score the stage (speed) at which the player quit/was disqualified (where Martin uses the last fully completed stage, which is basically our method minus 0,5km/h). 

Some of the players quit during the stage and some of them quit during the recovery. In Martin’s method, should there be a difference between a player who completed the stage and then quit, or the guy who completed the same stage, waited for 15sec recovery and started then next stage and quit during it? Their test score would be the same, yet I think they are slightly different (sensitivity of the test).

 Without having the strict protocol about this it might affect reliability of the tests and thus its sensitivity to evaluate training effects. I know Martin Buchheit reported high reliability, but I would love to see longitudinal study reporting ES and percent change compared to CV of the test, since I think lower sensitivity can artificially improve reliability score (do I need a reference for this, anyone?).

Still, if I would design a test  I would love it to start at higher speed, have more stages at certain speed (instead of only one) and provide a way to deal with the situation mentioned (maybe timing of the quitting?).   

Up to this point I find 30-15IFT the best test for creating individualize groups for intermittent conditioning.

We did both test since we plan using MAS for longer intervals (like 3x3min) and v30-15 for more intermittent intervals (like 15-15 or 30-30). As far as I remember the relation between v30-15 and vVO2max (assessed with incremental protocol on treadmill or on track) reported was around 80% of v30-15. If v30-15 is 20km/h, according to this formula MAS is about 16,6 km/h. In our case, MAS (average speed over 1600m time trial) was 75% (range: 68-81%).  

My training

Since writing on that bench study  I wanted to play with Power Tool / GymAware with my own training. So, I decided to give it a shot.

After couple of weeks of doing nothing, my lifts detrained a little bit, especially the bench press. I tested them using 1RM test with pause on the bottom of the lift and aiming to have perfect form.

My BW was 91.x kg in the morning, but during the testing was 93.3kg. I managed to do 100kg bench press (please don’t laugh – it was with 2 sec hold on the chest and no helper-spotter… don’t ask what happened when I tried 105kg), squat 155kg and pull-up with 45kg attached (which makes it 140kg total with BW). Everything was strict form with no psyching up, yelling and acting like a gorilla. Not too bad except the bench press.  

So, I am starting a training program where my aim is to improve my VJ, counter movement jump with 20kg and 40kg (mean power to the bar – which means that I don’t take into account system weight, or in other words BW – I went with this with Dan Baker over the email) and bench throw with 40kg. I didn’t do any specific/dedicated testing for them, so I will collect the data from the week #1.

Along with that, I will use Power Tool to stop my squat and bench press sets when my speed/power drops below 90%. Thus, I take the weight, lower it, make a pause and try to move it fast on the way up. Repeat until power drops to 90%. So, no failure and a lot of quality sets with pyramid progression (i.e. week 1 – 75%, 80%, 85% x 3, week 2 – 77,5%, 82,5%, 87,5%, week 3 – 80%, 85%, 90%, week 4 - unload). For easy days I will do 60-70% for 3 sets of 5.  

I have attached the week 1-2 program I created in Excel.  I basically used Joe Kenn template from Tier System and his percent based cycles for some of the lifts.

On the following video  you can see me performing bench throw with 40kg using Power Tool and newest version of GymAware iPhone app. It is AWESOME! I can take a real time video, then the app inserts power reading. This way I can see real time correlation of technique and power reading and then make correction, etc, etc.  Everything is so intuitive and quick and I am more than happy that we have Power Tool.

So, my power output (P40kg) is 354W which is 3,79 W/kg. I will see how is this going to improve over the weeks, along with 1RMs in bench, squat, pull-ups, VJ, and squat jump with 20 and 40kgs. Also, I will be doing running conditioning along the way. Will report back how this goes.

Till next time…

Read More