Sign Up for Updates

Home Training Downloads
Who Am I Speaking Schedule
Media Contact

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Inverse Relationships

Sunday, December 2nd, 2012
Some of my favorite aspects of being a strength & conditioning coach and instructor of Kinesiology is that I get to problem solve on a daily basis.  Because I work with people, the most constantly changing variable I can think of, I having to adapt, adjust, tinker and sometimes re-assess in order to meet my students and clients needs.Those of you who are practitioners reading this can certainly relate. Everyday presents new problems to solve and new avenues to explore, it can be both exciting and overwhelming at the same time.
Another aspect of my job that I love is the fact I get to evaluate.  To me, this is a privledge. Instead of taking this method or that drill at face value, I have the option whether to accept it, reject it, or file it away for further analysis or discussion.  Sometimes I think my students become frustrated with me as I can sit on the fence sometimes and will ponder a proposition or hypothesis for days (even weeks) and still not draw a conclusion I feel comfortable sticking to. I will preface this article with this statement:  I am not expert and I do not profess to be.  Even after 18 years of practice, I still have more questions and criticisms than I do answers.
This topic of inverse relationships evolved from times I have spent thinking about this revolution of advanced training protocols for the average person to help them reach their goals of fat loss, increased lean mass & increased relative and absolute strength and power. When I say there is a revolution going on, what I mean is that, in some cases, the average fitness client is being prescribed doses of physical activity that violate a hierarchy of physical development I think is paramount if that fitness client wants long-term sustainable adaptability.
Today, I am going to question the pyramid you see below and offer some rationale as to why this actually might be the worst fat-loss formula/hierarchy a practitioner could present to an average client.  The label I have come up to explain my viewpoint is called “The Inverse Relationship Theory” and it has nothing to do with MSK assessments / potential risk of injury, or acute program variables such as “sets and reps” and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking yoga, or cross-fit or any other method of physical activity.  It is based on this simple definition:  Inverse relationships are widely used in the physical sciences to describe the relationship between two variables in an equation. Essentially, when one variable increases in value, the other variable decreases in value. 
For the purpose of this discussion, the value I am speaking of is ’motor skills.’
  Fat Loss

If we look at this pyramid above and begin to list the motor skills required for each activity from yoga, all the way down to Cross-Fit/Circuit Training and then we classify those skills into continuums of: Discrete, continuous, simple and complex, loaded and unloaded, slow velocity to high velocity, we will begin to see this inverse relationship take shape.  As a method becomes more recommended for fat loss, so does its complexity.  In other words, methods low in motor skill complexity do not work as well for fat loss.

 

Sure, yoga does require skills, but they are slow, often static and also often guided by an instructor whereby each student is doing the same poses or breathing exercise.  Then, we have a host of cardiovascular (machine-based) activities like spinning, the elliptical, stairclimbing and jogging that most people can figure out within minutes and complete a session without too much nervous system overload.  Now, as we move down the pyramid, we have sprinting and circuit-training as the top 2 fat loss strategies.  Let me preface this by saying that I agree, these are the best methods of fat loss when it comes to physical activity.  It has been proven that EPOC is extended after finishing these types of training sessions and the number of active motor units are plenty which make these solutions powerful fat loss stimulators.  I will further my simple analysis and state that sprinting and cross-fit type training methods also require the most complex ‘motor skills’ of the entire list.

 

**They also require a huge list of physical pre-requisites I am not even going to touch on here for the purpose of brevity.**

 

So, back to the average client who has 20 pounds to lose, sits too much, is tight in the hips and the t-spine, has poor posture, a general lack of structural integrity AND motor skills that have been dormant for 25+ years (the last time they sprinted was when they were 11 yrs old).  Tops on their list of goals is FAT LOSS.

 

Is the best prescription for them to sprint and use load in complex/compound lifts under fatigue seriously the best solution we can, as practitioners come up with?  Do we really need to make a chart and dumb it all down so practitioners can just go on auto-pilot and follow blindly without considering the client’s current physical status and motor skill palette?

 

Too often, in this industry, we make assumptions and we take things for face value.  Too often we accept the status quo and follow the herd.  If you are going to be so bold as to post something like this on the internet, be prepared for scrutiny.  Scrutiny and criticism helps us grow and learn and learn to think.  Yes, learn-to-think.

 

Asking the right questions, in my opinion, takes a lot of critical thought.  Offering the ‘perfect recipe’ with the assumption that we humans are a constant does not.

 

Please consider not only your clients goals but also their current physical condition and their current repertoire of motor/movement skills.  If you deal with the average client, it is OK if they cannot do power cleans for time or sprint 100 meters in under 15 seconds.  Leave the advanced training protocols as methods to use once the client has earned the right to be there.

 

They are not building blocks to fat loss; they are earned rights. 

 

And those rights do not take weeks, or even months; they take years.

 

Be safe and go hard!

 

Happy Holidays to all of you,

 

Coach Bott

 

Muscle “activation” – The questions I have

Thursday, May 31st, 2012

I have been thinking about the whole notion of activating muscle groups prior to a strength or conditioning drill and its efficacy and validity of late.  To clarify, I am speaking of a drill done for the purpose of ‘bringing more motor units into play that are needed for the subsequent multi-joint task.’  It is often an isometric drill/action.

Now, when I say, “Of late” – I actually mean for about the past 5 years, since some well-known and respected practitioners began advocating the use of activation drills to prepare the body for movement and/or velocity and/or load.

I have experimented with it, tested it with different sample groups, tried it on myself, but I am still not buying it….well not 100%.  So, instead of throwing the notion out, I have decided to tackle it from a more clinical-research standpoint and ask some good questions.  I really want to know:  ”Is it really necessary, or WHEN is it necessary to perform an isometric type muscle action prior to a drill or lift for the purpose of performance enhancement on that drill?”

So, I began my formal enquiry today with an academic search, entering these key words: Muscle activation warm-up.  I found 2 articles. 2 articles!  I know I must not stop here and draw a conclusion.  I found a LOT on dynamic warm-up and its effect on muscle activation patterns, but this is not the same thing, or rather, what the well-known practitioners are saying.  So, I went to trusty google to find some sources and got over 140K hits, plus a whole bunch of you-tube university videos of how to activate muscle before your workout.  I am not happy with this gap between the real science and the blog-world; perhaps I am not searching appropriately.

But, my purpose for blogging/writing about this today is not to winge about my search or the lack of formal research done in this area, but rather to raise some more questions (that I personally have) about this whole notion of activating a muscle group prior to a strengthening drill or movement drill.

I would be very happy if we could all work together to draw some great scientific conclusions here.

Question 1:

Is it necessary for all athletes / fitness participants to do?

I will answer my own question here, which is full of anecdote: “No, I do not think so.”  I truly believe some athletes do well with a general warm-up to raise body temperature, some dynamic movements and mobility drills to increase pliability of tissue and lubricate joints and of course, warm-up sets with lighter loads and slower tempos to get going.  I have worked with some really powerful athletes who, as soon as you give them a mini-band and ask them to do a walk, their glutes are on fire within seconds.  These same athletes light up like a Xmas tree in a plank drill and this only makes them feel tight and fatigued prior to a lift.  I have seen written programs for hockey players (typically tight, powerful kids) with a list of activation drills a mile long.  By the time they get through them the only thing they might be prepared to do is crawl back into the womb because it literally makes them tighter.

I think, it is the hypermobile person that can really benefit from these isometric drills – it is almost like going in with a screwdriver to each articulation and tightening their bodies up to create tension, which is necessary for them to do so they do not load their bodies inappropriately.  These types of clients have a lesser ability to recruit, due to genetics and perhaps exposure (training history).  They may need the extra stimulation.

It is also those with a low exercise I.Q. (not much knowledge of their body or training) that may need the extra feedback to elicit the correct response, but to be honest, if you really know your motor learning research, you would know that the brain learns better from extrinsic cues than intrinsic cues (like body position and parts) anyways. So, perhaps they benefit from ‘activation drills.’

Question 2:

Does it improve strength? Does it improve performance?

From my quick search today, and from what I can see in the research a general warm-up (raise body temp) combined with a specific warm-up (do the intended movements) seems to be the best combo for performance in measurable performance parameters like vertical jump or squat strength.  I did not find anything on the use of an isometric drill to ‘activate’ a certain muscle group or awaken a movement pattern and its relationship to performance.  In fact, I would hypothesize that it is very dose – specific, meaning if you do too much activation, then it becomes ‘pre-exhaustion’ and thus would either decrease performance or change intermuscular recruitment patterns.

Question 3:

What precisely is the benefit?

For example – why do we need to do a single leg glute bridge prior to a linear strength day?  What exact effect does it have on the nervous system?  Please enlighten me!

Is it supposed to improve recruitment?

Question 4:

Why use the term: “Muscle Activation”

Why not stick with science and say motor unit recruitment?  Isn’t that what we are trying to do: Recruit more motor units for a given task in a specific sequence so we are stronger and more powerful and even more efficient?

 

I would love some input on this post – to me, my blog must be about asking more questions and giving everyone an opportunity to think twice about what they are doing. Please feel free to post on my Human Motion facebook page, or email me directly at carmen@carmenbott.com

Thanks for tuning in!

Yours in strength,

Coach Bott