Perturbation work is making a comeback! It seems like my biggest fan Jim Reeves, the go to guy in the Toronto area, is sharing his insight to how to train the anterior core with his collection of bosu and Swiss ball exercises! While I have not read his article, it is likely to be prone exercises like bridges or the typical swiss or medball slaps kneeling or standing.The question is what is perturb
Perverted Perturbations
-
-
Participant -
Participant
Anybody check out the latest installment of mythbusters on t-nation?
Once again Mike Boyle states that heavy squats and deadlifts alone aren’t enough for building core strength. Who is he speaking to? He also mentions transfer of training. Will someone please tell me how light weight, half kneel exercises are going to help me run 11-12 meters per second? Perhaps they’ll come in handy when a 245 lb linebacker wants to take my head off?
-
Participant
Maximum contraction “anti flexion/extension/rotation” activites such as entry level classic gymnastics skills offer more than gentle proprioceptive core activites do in terms of creating useful core stiffness. In the case of movement preparation or recovering from acute injury, some proprioceptive bantamweight “core” activities may prove useful. Eventually, one needs to raise the bar and get into more significantly challenging exercises with manipulation of their own lever system. This needs to be coached and/or researched carefully, and put into the long term plan logically.
-
Member
How can you comment on an article that you didn’t read. You are such a tool.
-
Participant
Lyle,
I don’t need to read the script of a Van Damme Movie to know that it’s going to be a typical action movie with a lame plot….and guess what? After a few phone calls inquiring about the anterior core article I was right!
-
Member
You’re so wonderful!
-
KeymasterLyle McDonald? (if I’m to assume that’s who you are?)-
After looking at your anonymous whodoescarltrain site and your first 3 posts on elitetrack, I’d say you are more guilty of the very things you accuse Carl of than he is.Self-loathing?
If you want to stick around please contribute something of value to the community.
For what it’s worth I (and many others on the site) enjoy Carl’s writing style and the fact that he confronts people and issues that many others can not or will not. The best and most thought-provoking writing is often not what we agree with but the things we disagree with and makes us evaluate.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
I actually played around with the perturbation stuff last year with some of my athletes at USMA. We did it during a transition period as a change of pace. I’m certain it was a new training stimulus that brought training adaptations but I can’t say I’d ever make it a staple of my core training protocols.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Lyle McDonald? (if I’m to assume that’s who you are?)-
After looking at your anonymous whodoescarltrain site and your first 3 posts on elitetrack, I’d say you are more guilty of the very things you accuse Carl of than he is.Self-loathing?
If you want to stick around please contribute something of value to the community.
For what it’s worth I (and many others on the site) enjoy Carl’s writing style and the fact that he confronts people and issues that many others can not or will not. The best and most thought-provoking writing is often not what we agree with but the things we disagree with and makes us evaluate.
The Lyle McDonald of “Body Recomposition” fame??? I for one disagree with everything on the principle we are always wrong all the time and of course I am wrong about this which makes it right.
I highly doubt Mr. Mickey D’s will stick around on the forum long enough to have his views bashed by anyone as that will not sell his books. As an example I would suggest taking route of a certain Dr. Yessis of totally avoiding answering any questions directly and asking the same questions over and over in response to those questions while trying to sell your books and your new fabulous website of whodoescarltrain. On the Supertraining Group Forum on Yahoo, Dr. Yessis is at least still posting and promoting his explosive running book at every chance by belittling a commonly attacked group on this site, Barry Ross’s BearPowered following. As much as I disagree with Barry and Ken Jakalski on certain items their minimalist program has certain merits and can be applied to larger groups than most traditional coaching methods regarding speed development. Dr. Yessis is still trying get picture perfect form/angles using isolation drills. In fact, Dr. Yessis still advocates a specific set of drills in sequence to setup proper sequencing, which flies in the face of how motor control is developed through motor learning. As the saying goes any kind of publicity is good publicity and I am certain to be wrong about all this.
BTW Mr. McDonald, I totally recomposed my body with fat by sitting/lying/sleeping on the couch for the past 18 months of my life. I should right a book on how I gained 30 pounds watching a child run around like an animal escaped from the zoo and I have never felt happier in my life.
-
Participant
BTW Mr. McDonald, I totally recomposed my body with fat by sitting/lying/sleeping on the couch for the past 18 months of my life. I should right a book on how I gained 30 pounds watching a child run around like an animal escaped from the zoo and I have never felt happier in my life.
CFKA re compost-ed his body doing the same thing…
-
Participant
As for the true “King Carl” I have always found him to be thought provoking.
I still have reams of stuff from his old website / pre-spell check : ) days.Tortured Genius but genius none the less.
-
Keymaster
CFKA-
3:30 am….WAAAAAY past your bed time. You’re starting to sound rational.ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Perturbation work is making a comeback! It seems like my biggest fan Jim Reeves, the go to guy in the Toronto area, is sharing his insight to how to train the anterior core with his collection of bosu and Swiss ball exercises! While I have not read his article, it is likely to be prone exercises like bridges or the typical swiss or medball slaps kneeling or standing.
…I was watching my friend Matt Delaney coach an olympic lifter and he was working on core strength with various skill work with the olympic lifts. The work was skilled, specific, and used forces that will transfer. This is the basic fundamental argument with the chops is that they don’t use forces that will handle 3200 watts of hip power of a running back and only work by making them skilled choppers. While I think the exercises can be placed in a program, their lack of quantification is another testament of marketing gone wild.
Man do I grow tired of seeing this type of hype marketing madness. I live in a world of BOSU’s and Swiss balls and pertubations. So we’re training sprinters to react…except there is not enough time to react as sprint running involves ground contact times that are too short to rely on reaction. May be alright for a rugby/football/soccer (football to you Europeans)player of sub-elite ability although they would still be better advised to invest most of their training time to being proactive about generating force/impulse in the legs or core or head or arms or fingers or toes etc.
However, a bit of pertubations work including “jump and stick” may enhance short term neural sensitivity and therefore could be ideally placed close to competition or somewhere in a program before maximal output work (recent anecdotal evidence 2009).
-
Participant
Before this gets out of hand, WhoDoesCarlTrain? is not Lyle.
-
Keymaster
Before this gets out of hand, WhoDoesCarlTrain? is not Lyle.
Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps I had been told wrong. Since WhoDoesCarlTrain opened this up I’d appreciate it if he shared his true identity. Disagree with their postings or not, Carl and Vern may criticize others but they don’t hide behind an anonymous website or screen name.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Sorry, my mistake. It’s not who I thought it was. Carry on.
-
Participant
Hey! I thought I was the only one who could post divisive comments anonymously as a new member. It looks like whodoescarltrain has outdown my debut (which I learned my lesson from).
On a more serious tip, who are we to see whether Mr Valle was correct or not without seeing the article itself? Where does the article come from?
-
Participant
article is on Strengthcoach.com which is members only
-
Participant
I have done a little of the pulsating actions in the past but in reality the measures have not been proven to transfer to more demanding athletic motions.
Have not proven to transfer how or when? Was this not proven through research or empirical evidence?
Because what I was thinking was that if this (core/trunk development) was a fundamental part of development and would be in place in “healthy” individuals (whoever the hell that actually is) then just because someone was healthy that certainly doesn’t mean they are prepared for high performance. If there are coaches that believe that’s true I would like to discuss that with them because I disagree as well. I don’t think that’s what Jim or Gray are saying though.
Just like the chops and lifts from cook proven to only be good for chopping and lifting low loads, core strength is not developed through these means.
So low intensity means have no support function for high intensity means? Is your training program only wattage based?
I don’t think the ankle and foot strength activities you have posted to your youtube page produce any power so they are therefore, by this logic, a waste of time?
Strength is a contractile force quality that can be measured and coordination is specific to the demands need on the field.
Sounds like the HIT argument to me. Are you in favor of HIT as a training methodology? Sorry if I’m dense but I need specifics. What definition of strength are we operating on? Because as a generalization, no, these activities are not demonstrating any significant strength. If your comment was just a generalization then yes, you are correct, but if you were hoping to bring a core training conspiracy to light I think you are reaching. If you do any core training that lacks high intensity in its concentration, whether it’s in the warm-up or elsewhere, I can very well accuse you of being non-specific. Would that be fair or would that be a generalization?
Better options are squat style snatches coupled with partner medicine ball work as the small variations of the throws and even tiny imperfections of the catches in the snatch will act as new sub-routines to the body.
Have you done this type of programming? Any video (perhaps this would be a good time to unveil your “average joe” project on the Olympic lifts that, according to your timeline would be completed by the end of last month)? Were you pissin’ on my leg again? Did that project never happen? Because it was my understanding that it was happening.
Research on the spine shows that perturbations will increase stiffness but [b]so will external forces in locomotion and projectiles[/b].
Was this proven in research or is this your opinion? It’s murky water here so I’m having a difficult time keeping up.
Nobody wants to get stronger with proper technique of classic methods.
So you evaluated Jim’s entire program? Did you analyze said program for the inclusion of classic methods? I had assumed that since you didn’t bother to read the article that you didn’t bother to communicate with Coach Reeves on any other part of his program either? I’m in the process of making some generalizations on your coaching abilities right now so I can understand how this can be confusing.
Coaching is fatiguing as it’s hard work and nobody wants to get their hands dirty.
Would that include the work involved in actually educating yourself by reading the articles we are criticizing another coach over or can we just skip that part, make generalizations, and hope that something sticks with blog readers? I must have this whole professional responsibility thing backwards. If I continue with the generalizations I’m making on your coaching, or at least writing, abilities I am going to have a hard time providing a fair and accurate criticism.
Watch people walk back on a platform when front squatting (yes we do both), watch a dryland program with divers, watch a good MMA circuit, watch a good GPP for throwers. Core work done specifically.
So walking backwards on a platform is good core work. Interesting. How about walking backwards without the bar? So core training is both general and specific? Interesting how that works here.
I was watching my friend Matt Delaney coach an olympic lifter and he was working on core strength with various skill work with the olympic lifts. The work was skilled, specific, and used forces that will transfer.
Was it core work, skill work, or Olympic lifts? All of the above? Interesting. So what you’re saying is that on top of what “specific” core work is performed, including methodology that you and I may not agree with, the athlete will still benefit from the different components of the program because they actively engage the core in dynamic movement (especially activities that are kinetically and/or kinematically more specific)?
This is the basic fundamental argument with the chops is that they don’t use forces that will handle 3200 watts of hip power of a running back and only work by making them skilled choppers.
I’m really confused now. So I’m to believe that Gray Cook believes that chops and lifts are supposed to be specific to 3200 watts of hip power? That was not my understanding of it at all. My tendo unit certainly disagrees, and hell, I think Gray disagrees. Let me actually reread what Gray has written or, better yet, I will ask him. Will get back to you on that though because I’m hella confused now. As of right now, if that is your basic, fundamental, argument then I think you are going to be disappointed.
While I think the exercises can be placed in a program, their lack of quantification is another testament of marketing gone wild.
This statement makes no sense. So you can use the exercises or you can’t? If they lack quantification why would you place them in a program at all? I certainly wouldn’t. Then again, if I could find exercises that offered similar benefits with a slightly different and specific point of concentration I think I could find some good reasons to include them.
Weak sauce, Senor Valle.
-
Participant
I’m sure Carl will come here and respond, but there are some points here you misread completely:
1. Walking backwards
-Carl was referring to people walking the weight to and from the rack as an example of a core work that has what he believes has more specificity. He is not simply talking about walking backwards and it was an example of an activity that he believes is specific to a certain activity.2. The increased stiffness in the spine that Carl referenced has been supported in a number of research papers. I think even one of Dan Pfaff’s analysis videos, where he goes over Donovan’s ’96 100m Olympic final run, shows it happening visually and gives a reasoning for how/why it’s happening and explains some other issues specific to the athlete.
3. The transfer to hip power that Carl was discussing is about exercises translating to the core strength needed in different activities. He can clarify, but I think this would be similar to using bridges to activate glutes when you are warming up to sprint a 100m final.
4. Please explain how perturbations are being quantified by any of the coaches who are promoting such ideologies. Are they quantifying and recording:
-frequency of perturbations
-amount of force in each perturbation(and sequence and directions)
-total number of perturbations in each “rep” and “set”I don’t believe I have seen any of those addressed, so I would imagine most people have a problem quantifying perturbations.
5. I do not understand how “Strength as a contractile force quality and coordination as specific” can be an argument for HIT? Even if one were to take the statements completely separate, it would still not be an argument for HIT as it empirically does not produce the most force absolutely or in to an optimal degree. I don’t know if this was an attempt to make a red herring or a genuine misunderstanding of the sentence, but I don’t understand how a rational person could even have that thought pop-up from that statement.
Okay, carry on….
-
Participant
I’m sure Carl will come here and respond, but there are some points here you misread completely:
1. Walking backwards
-Carl was referring to people walking the weight to and from the rack as an example of a core work that has what he believes is more specificity. He is not simply talking about walking backwards and it was an example of an activity that he believes is specific to a certain activity.Yeah, so when I said walking backward “on a platform” that’s what I was referring to. Sorry for not elaborating but thought that was clear. Didn’t misread that completely, though, but thanks for always being there to help. I know Carl appreciates it.
2. The increased stiffness in the spine that Carl referenced has been supported in a number of research papers. I think even one of Dan Pfaff’s analysis videos, where he goes over Donovan’s ’96 100m Olympic final run, shows it happening visually and gives a reasoning for how/why it’s happening and explains some other issues specific to the athlete.
Glad to hear it. I had no doubt of that actually but it still does not explain high/low differences in training methodology. They are different. I did not say they were the same thing so don’t assume this is all my argument and please don’t put words in my mouth. Did you skip over all of my points with any validity (I understand some of my argument is pulled from thin air but I did that with good reason) to nitpick at an argument I am not actually making?
3. The transfer to hip power that Carl was discussing is about exercises translating to the core strength needed in different activities. He can clarify, but I think this would be similar to using bridges to activate glutes when you are warming up to sprint a 100m final.
Yeah, but again, they’re different. I think I have a pretty good grasp of health activities versus high performance activities so if you can please move past that. Nobody asked for someone to do bridges “before a dunk contest”. It’s all petty bull you and Carl can’t seem to get past.
4. Please explain how perturbations are being quantified by any of the coaches who are promoting such ideologies. Are they quantifying and recording:
-frequency of perturbations
-amount of force in each perturbation(and sequence and directions)
-total number of perturbations in each “rep” and “set”I don’t believe I have seen any of those addressed, so I would imagine most people have a problem quantifying perturbations.
As do I. Again, not my argument. My point is that Carl is making generalizations. Some of those generalizations you are making good points for and some I can make a good argument against. That’s what we call specifics.
5. I do not understand how “Strength as a contractile force quality and coordination as specific” can be an argument for HIT? Even if one were to take the statements completely separate, it would still not be an argument for HIT as it empirically does not produce the most force absolutely or in to an optimal degree. I don’t know if this was an attempt to make a red herring or a genuine misunderstanding of the sentence, but I don’t understand how a rational person could even have that thought pop-up from that statement.
Again, I’m making a generalization. Not a great way to get things done is it?
To be specific, my point was that in HIT the specific stimulus is dealt with specifically and there is a very clear distinction between training elements.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1237096683"]I’m sure Carl will come here and respond, but there are some points here you misread completely:
1. Walking backwards
-Carl was referring to people walking the weight to and from the rack as an example of a core work that has what he believes is more specificity. He is not simply talking about walking backwards and it was an example of an activity that he believes is specific to a certain activity.Yeah, so when I said walking backward “on a platform” that’s what I was referring to. Sorry for not elaborating but thought that was clear. Didn’t misread that completely, though, but thanks for always being there to help. I know Carl appreciates it. [/quote] It seems like you misread it because you conveniently ignored the other examples in the list that are to show how he believes core work should be done in an optimal situation. The point is that even in “general” work, there must be a development toward the specific qualities needed. What are perturbations developing? What skills and qualities are they developing? You include general activities that are going to influence specific skills and qualities. The fact you need that clarified is astounding.
[quote author="davan" date="1237096683"]
2. The increased stiffness in the spine that Carl referenced has been supported in a number of research papers. I think even one of Dan Pfaff’s analysis videos, where he goes over Donovan’s ’96 100m Olympic final run, shows it happening visually and gives a reasoning for how/why it’s happening and explains some other issues specific to the athlete.Glad to hear it. I had no doubt of that actually but it still does not explain high/low differences in training methodology. They are different. I did not say they were the same thing so don’t assume this is all my argument and please don’t put words in my mouth. Did you skip over all of my points with any validity (I understand some of my argument is pulled from thin air but I did that with good reason) to nitpick at an argument I am not actually making? [/quote]
You specifically said:
“Was this proven in research or is this your opinion? It’s murky water here so I’m having a difficult time keeping up.”Now, if you had no doubt about it, how is it murky water and why do you need to know if it is from his opinion or research? I’m not sure why you are badgering about the high/low issue when I wasn’t even talking about that.
[quote author="davan" date="1237096683"]3. The transfer to hip power that Carl was discussing is about exercises translating to the core strength needed in different activities. He can clarify, but I think this would be similar to using bridges to activate glutes when you are warming up to sprint a 100m final.
Yeah, but again, they’re different. I think I have a pretty good grasp of health activities versus high performance activities so if you can please move past that. Nobody asked for someone to do bridges “before a dunk contest”. It’s all petty bull you and Carl can’t seem to get past.[/quote] And Carl is talking about athletic training. His belief is that they do not translate over to the activities he is looking for and, therefore, does not find them useful. That isn’t to say there is never a circumstance in the world where they cannot be used, but that they aren’t useful for what he is targeting. If that is “petty bull”, so be it.
[quote author="davan" date="1237096683"]4. Please explain how perturbations are being quantified by any of the coaches who are promoting such ideologies. Are they quantifying and recording:
-frequency of perturbations
-amount of force in each perturbation(and sequence and directions)
-total number of perturbations in each “rep” and “set”I don’t believe I have seen any of those addressed, so I would imagine most people have a problem quantifying perturbations.
As do I. Again, not my argument. My point is that Carl is making generalizations. Some of those generalizations you are making good points for and some I can make a good argument against. That’s what we call specifics.[/quote] Carl wrote a short blog about perturbations in general. He referenced one guy writing an article about it and then addressed the topic as a whole, rather than addressing solely the article.
If nobody has addressed this and it is probably nearly impossible to do logistically, how can you criticize him for stating that they cannot be quantified? He has also said glute bridges can be part of a program, the point is about the role. The majority of the coaches advocating such exercises are not using them in minor circumstances to make up less than 1% of their program, but as one of the primary ways to develop “core strength and conditioning.”
[quote author="davan" date="1237096683"]5. I do not understand how “Strength as a contractile force quality and coordination as specific” can be an argument for HIT? Even if one were to take the statements completely separate, it would still not be an argument for HIT as it empirically does not produce the most force absolutely or in to an optimal degree. I don’t know if this was an attempt to make a red herring or a genuine misunderstanding of the sentence, but I don’t understand how a rational person could even have that thought pop-up from that statement.
Again, I’m making a generalization. Not a great way to get things done is it?
To be specific, my point was that in HIT the specific stimulus is dealt with specifically and there is a very clear distinction between training elements.[/quote]
That was your point and you decided to label his comment as an argument for HIT? Besides being completely dishonest here, you comments on generalizations show your lack of reading comprehension. If one has to clarify every single exception or extenuating circumstance in an informal post about their views on perturbation work FOR TRAINING HEALTHY ATHLETES, then why bother posting anything, anywhere? That isn’t a generalization, it is simply not wasting your time.
-
Participant
I believe what Carl and Davan are referring to is what I call “Core Misconception” and Carl was poking fun of gimmicky training, perturbations, which are about altering functionality when what is really needed is to optimize functionality.
-
Participant
Now, if you had no doubt about it, how is it murky water and why do you need to know if it is from his opinion or research? I’m not sure why you are badgering about the high/low issue when I wasn’t even talking about that.
It’s not about what you were talking about so get over yourself. I was referring to Carl then and am now. You are involving yourself in the discussion and that is fine but my points were directed towards Carl. I hope he still addresses my post because you are completely neglecting much of what was written chasing an argument that was not there.
Since your reading comprehension (or conveniently ignored because you are as much a hypocrite as I apparently am) is equally poor can you please look back through my post and show me where I argued for the use of perturbation or swiss balls? Where I argued against general and specific skill development for “core” or otherwise?
-
Participant
DMartinez if you aren’t arguing against it, you aren’t arguing for it, you don’t have any position on the subject, you are unable to understand very simple sentences from the “simple minded” Carl Valle, and pull out ideas like HIT from nowhere, then what is your point in this thread?
-
Participant
DMartinez and those reading this post,
Clearly Daniel wants to drink the Boyle Berry Kool-Aid and the Gray Grape Kool-Aid to the point that he has to resort to desperate rhetoric.I will expand on his questions when I want to if I have the time but let’s make this simple.
https://functionalmovement.com/SITE/publications/index.php
Go to Chop (Part IV)
Note the fact that Cook writes:
Once you get good with the medicine ball workout you will only need 1 session a week to maintain your power. As you get better let air out of the ball. It is human nature to want to exercise with a heavier ball but remember that when force goes up speed goes down. Resist the urge to get a bigger ball and let more air out of the ball you have. You will quickly realize that you need to throw harder and faster to get the same bounce and result. This will force you to reach for more power, and if you have done your work, you will find it. This will improve your acceleration and deceleration abilities. You will learn to start your body and quickly stop your body and put all your energy into the ball. The medicine ball will teach you crispness and efficiency of movement. These exercises look nothing like other exercises or sports moves but realize they’re utilized to; strengthen, test,tune and power up the same engine.Now a 12 pound ball doing 3-5 reps of chop throws will improve what again? Power up what engine? A Vespa?
Feel free to address this one question and we can move on to other points in your debate.
-
Participant
12 pound medicine ball chop throwing! Am I right did I win the million?
-
Participant
Note: The exercise photo is taken from his site. Now let’s all ask who will use this with their athletes Monday.
-
Participant
Now a 12 pound ball doing 3-5 reps of chop throws will improve what again? Power up what engine? A Vespa?
From your Speed Demons article, Carl:
I have seen (8) some activation methods used at Boston University Hockey with success but not everyone has
an environment like Mike Boyle. I find that most “activation” methods are rarely effective for sprinting, but work great with strength training and should be used to maximize traditional lifts.(8) One of the most bizarre visits was to Boston University this past February because for the first time in years I was
actually invited to watch a coaches program in action. I was so use to spying on programs (I do get permission but it’s
nice to see what really goes on after NSCA presentations) I wasn’t comfortable observing “in the open”. It was a great
learning experience to see a D1 program use both classical programming (Olympic and barbell lifts) and progressive
training methods.So what’s the truth? Was it successful or was it not? Care to explain?
My questions came first so you don’t get to change the order of who answers first if you want to do this right. I will respond to your questions directly after you answer mine.
Also, what happened to your swim program/coaching job (since we clearly don’t mind going off topic)?
-
Participant
So low intensity means have no support function for high intensity means? Is your training program only wattage based?
I don’t think the ankle and foot strength activities you have posted to your youtube page produce any power so they are therefore, by this logic, a waste of time?
If you do [i]any[/i] core training that lacks high intensity in its concentration, whether it’s in the warm-up or elsewhere, I can very well accuse you of being non-specific. Would that be fair or would that be a generalization?
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1236968943"]Better options are squat style snatches coupled with partner medicine ball work as the small variations of the throws and even tiny imperfections of the catches in the snatch will act as new sub-routines to the body.
Have you done this type of programming? Any video (perhaps this would be a good time to unveil your “average joe” project on the Olympic lifts that, according to your timeline would be completed by the end of last month)? Were you pissin’ on my leg again? Did that project never happen? Because it was my understanding that it was happening.
Nobody wants to get stronger with proper technique of classic methods.
So you evaluated Jim’s entire program? Did you analyze said program for the inclusion of classic methods? I had assumed that since you didn’t bother to read the article that you didn’t bother to communicate with Coach Reeves on any other part of his program either?
Coaching is fatiguing as it’s hard work and nobody wants to get their hands dirty.
Would that include the work involved in actually educating yourself by reading the articles we are criticizing another coach over or can we just skip that part, make generalizations, and hope that something sticks with blog readers?
Watch people walk back on a platform when front squatting (yes we do both), watch a dryland program with divers, watch a good MMA circuit, watch a good GPP for throwers. Core work done specifically.
So walking backwards on a platform is good core work?
I was watching my friend Matt Delaney coach an olympic lifter and he was working on core strength with various skill work with the olympic lifts. The work was skilled, specific, and used forces that will transfer.
Was it core work, skill work, or Olympic lifts? All of the above? Interesting. So what you’re saying is that on top of what “specific” core work is performed, including methodology that you and I may not agree with, the athlete will still benefit from the different components of the program because they actively engage the core in dynamic movement (especially activities that are kinetically and/or kinematically more specific)?
This is the basic fundamental argument with the chops is that they don’t use forces that will handle 3200 watts of hip power of a running back and only work by making them skilled choppers.
So I’m to believe that Gray Cook believes that chops and lifts are supposed to be specific to 3200 watts of hip power?
While I think the exercises can be placed in a program, their lack of quantification is another testament of marketing gone wild.
This statement makes no sense. So you can use the exercises or you can’t? If they lack quantification why would you place them in a program at all? I certainly wouldn’t. Then again, if I could find exercises that offered similar benefits with a slightly different and specific point of concentration I think I could find some good reasons to include them.
Weak sauce, Senor Valle.[/quote]
-
Participant
-
Participant
-
Participant
No, my point was that the questions you highlighted are pretty much irrelevant to perturbations or his post at all and the questions you had that did relate, you are now ignoring (hence, you cannot keep your points focused). I am not sure why you highlighted hip power, perhaps one of the most obvious points made. If you have that hard of a time connecting the dots, then again, why bother posting?
-
Participant
I understand the relationship. If Gray believed that was what the chop was doing then I would call him on that as well. I don’t believe that is the case though, nor do I believe that the chops article Carl referenced proves anything more than that is a power exercise for that movement specifically (and that the position itself limits the expression of power so therefore the power generated will limit transfer). I’m following up with Gray on that and that will be included in my response when Carl answers my questions.
Keep acting like I’m defending the core people and you will keep misunderstanding and misreading what I am actually saying.
Why do you bother posting if you can’t bother to read?
-
Participant
since we clearly don’t mind going off topic
Power up what engine? A Vespa?
As a response blending those two quotes, why “hating” Vespa? ;-P
I have read the bulk of forums going quite a ways back, is there a particular reason at some point valid discussion deteriorates to squabbling and what amounts to name calling? Just asking…
-
Participant
The medicine ball will teach you crispness and efficiency of movement. These exercises look nothing like other exercises or sports moves but realize they’re utilized to; strengthen, test,tune and power up the same engine.
Perhaps I am misreading, but if he talks about how this exercise will develop power and goes on to justify why this exercise is useful to “strengthen, test, tune, and power-up” an athlete’s “engine”, then I don’t really see a way to interpret it that limits it to just a power exercise for a chop movement, specifically.
And I am not misreading or misunderstanding you at all. What you post, as dumb as it may be, is quite clear.
You are simply posting to attack Carl and have done a bad job at doing so (I mean, you may as well do it right, if that is your goal). The only way your arguments would work is if he is in fact wrong on those points, yet you agree with him! His response regarding Cook’s points address a few of your points already and the fact you seem to think it is off-topic or not a response is dumbfounding to me.
I already went over your shitty argument where you either purposely misread or misunderstood very clear points from Carl or simply tried to make baseless attacks against a position you agree with!
EDIT: typo
-
ParticipantNote: The exercise photo is taken from his site. Now let’s all ask who will use this with their athletes Monday.
I know all the Cal State Fullerton athletes will be using it on Monday. It’s a staple in their weight room.
-
Participant
How bout a trivia break?
Mike Mamula blew people away at the combine in his day.
Had a good career (college football at BC) then had a combine performance that was way beyond his college career accomplishments. Got him a big signing $$$ from Philly, then he went on to have a average to below average (subjective) NFL career, but certainly not one reflective of the promise his combine effort & resulting signing $$$ would indicate.Question:
Who trained Mamula?
Hint: He’s the godfather of specific combine prep
(which hopefully we can all agree does not acheive serious athletic improvement or target sports specific improvements) -
Participant
That would be Michael Boyle.
Here’s a better question (for the truly rational):
What would you have done?
Please don’t tell me you would neglect the training and preparation for the test because you are taking the intellectual high ground. Train him the way you want to train him and argue with scouts and coaches about why their tests don’t matter?
https://excelsiorsports.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-does-nfl-scouting-combine-tell-us.html
Better question still:
What training would have had a bigger impact on Mamula’s career? Considering the other athletes he is competing against was he competing without a full deck? What training adjustments, beyond competition prep, would have played a more significant role in Mike’s development? -
Participant
Mamula brings back feelings of anger and frustration as an avid Eagles fan . . . Mamula was just the first of the many mistakes of the Ray Rhodes era.
Reminds me of a saying to my grandfather would always say about basketball. . . “If I had the choice to pick the tall post player or the one who was short and could jump 50 inches, I would choose the tall player. Why? Because when the clock is winding down and both players legs are heavy, my tall player is still tall.”
-
Participant
[quote]since we clearly don’t mind going off topic
Power up what engine? A Vespa?
As a response blending those two quotes, why “hating” Vespa? ;-P
I have read the bulk of forums going quite a ways back, is there a particular reason at some point valid discussion deteriorates to squabbling and what amounts to name calling? Just asking…[/quote]
I was thinking of getting a Vespa.
-
Participant
-
Participant
Compare me in what sense? I am compared every single time I race. When somebody puts my training and success as an example of what to aim for and coaches publish articles describing what monumental things I have done, you’d be right.
My point is just a minor aside that Mamula is likely the first or one of the first guys to train specifically for the combine and skewing his test numbers towards the positive. If everyone was training for the combine at that time, there would be no Mamula legends.
-
Participant
I would agree.
Then there would be no point in going back and comparing numbers as the only thing Mamula did was prepare well for a test that no one else had the sense to prepare for? I don’t think that anyone else has claimed otherwise.
Despite whatever else may have occurred with Lance Armstrong apparently he was the first to go to France and actually train on the mountains from the Tour course (hope someone else can substantiate that but it’s what I remember reading).
-
Participant
How bout a trivia break?
Mike Mamula blew people away at the combine in his day.
Had a good career (college football at BC) then had a combine performance that was way beyond his college career accomplishments. Got him a big signing $$$ from Philly, then he went on to have a average to below average (subjective) NFL career, but certainly not one reflective of the promise his combine effort & resulting signing $$$ would indicate.Question:
Who trained Mamula?
Hint: He’s the godfather of specific combine prep
(which hopefully we can all agree does not acheive serious athletic improvement or target sports specific improvements)Let’s give credit where credit is due. Mike Mamula had a big payday because of the work he did with Mike Boyle in preparing for the combine. Oh, by the way, did they test for PED’s at that combine? I hope we’re not all that naive, are we?
-
Participant
Mr Glove’s “Let’s give credit where credit is due. Mike Mamula had a big payday because of the work he did with Mike Boyle in preparing for the combine. Oh, by the way, did they test for PED’s at that combine? I hope we’re not all that naive, are we?”
Your post calls out 1 or both Mikes?????
-
Participant
-
Keymaster
Please no more personal attacks or direct accusations of PED use or administration without evidence please. In any case, we are WAAAAAAY off-topic. I think some of the discussion is relevant and certainly worthwhile but let’s stick to the ideas of the original post.
For what it’s worth, I don’t care if the combine is worthless or not. If the NFL (and soon to be MLB) are insistent on using it as a tape measure and paying performance coaches, agents, and players for the numbers they put up I can’t blame anyone for gaming the system.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Mr Glove’s “Let’s give credit where credit is due. Mike Mamula had a big payday because of the work he did with Mike Boyle in preparing for the combine. Oh, by the way, did they test for PED’s at that combine? I hope we’re not all that naive, are we?”
Your post calls out 1 or both Mikes?????
I’m definitely giving Mike Boyle credit.
It’s been a long time since I took the SAT’s so I can’t remember my exact score. I do know that I didn’t crack 1000. What is an SAT prep course worth? I think it’s a safe bet that I wouldn’t vault to 1700-1800 and have a shot at an Ivy League school.
-
Member
I actually played around with the perturbation stuff last year with some of my athletes at USMA. We did it during a transition period as a change of pace. I’m certain it was a new training stimulus that brought training adaptations but I can’t say I’d ever make it a staple of my core training protocols.
Is that what hurricane ringo and ringo on a ball were?
-
Keymaster
Is that what hurricane ringo and ringo on a ball were?
I didn’t know it got nicknamed Hurricane Ringo (appropriate I guess) but yes…that was the idea.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
we all thought you just wanted us to beat each other up during an already miserable circuit but now we know the rest of the story.
-
Viewing 58 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.