Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It sais I’m not allowed to open the document…. 🙁
-
The main limitation of the Anatomical Movement Analysis is at the same time its biggest advantage: simplicity.
Through this kind of kinetic analysis, we can reduce biomechanics to something as simple as muscles and bones, and their function around a joint when the latter is moving, stabilizing or doing both of those things simultaneously.
Even though this could be helpful when trying to study single joint movements or simple movement patterns, it may fall short when trying to analyze complex movement patterns as the one we find on any sport field. Having a the mobility and stability on any given joint may not be enough when extrapolating to a specific sport movement in which that joint is involved.
-
Deadbug.
1. Setting up (From top-down):
a. Back of the neck pressed into the ground.
b. Palms facing one another.
c. Posterior rotation of the pelvis –> Pressing lower back against the floor.
d. Slight internal rotation of the femur.
e. Feet in dorsiflexion. Heels towards the sky.
f. Rise the legs until hamstrings flexibility is taxed but not compromised.
2. Testing:
a. Hold position. MAX time.
b. Add external stresses. A) Arms. B) Legs (Move legs separately, look for imbalances. If femur ext. rotates on the way down -> tight hips. If ext. rotates on the way up -> Weaknesses.
Spider-Man.
1. Setting up:
a. Push up position. (Wider stance of the feet in comparison w/ a regular squat).
b. Set a given leg on the outside of its same side arm.
c. Knee in the instep.
d. Opposite leg fully extended.
e. Keep deadbug P.O.P.
2. Testing:
a. Trunk rotation. A)Same side of the leg. B) Opposite side.
b. Exchange sides and repeat.
Seesaw.
1. Setting up (From top-down):
a. Long posture
b. “Hugh the world” posture.
c. Short rib-cage.
2. Testing:
a. Balance on one foot.
b. Internal rotation of the opposite leg.
c. Pulled opposite leg heel backwards while keeping P.O.P (“Chest gets as low as heel gets high”)
d. Grab the ground with the foot in contact with it.
-
I remembered been taught at College that the most important, useful and objective tool to asses the fitness level of any potential client was the ACSM’s Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire or simply known as the famous “Par-Q” https://www.acgov.org/wellness/documents/parQandSafety.pdf
It goes without saying, of course, that I never considered it as a realistic tool to asses any athlete but just merely regular under fitted population…
-
Ok, guys, I’ll break the ice this time with my video.
This one is also in Spanish, but this time I’m adding subtitles, something I’ve already donde to the first part and will keep on doing to the whole of it (it takes so much time…). Anyway, I think you guys will have to activate them somewhere on the video options.
Any comment would be welcome.
-
I’m afraid I won’t provide any new point of view on this subject, but I think the most important characteristic that may help us identify Amateurs vs Trained athletes has been mention already by all my fellow comrades; and that is the stage of functional development they show.
As Siff and Verkhoshansky assert, improvements during the earlier stages of an athlete development are principally motivated by firstly functional factors (neuromuscular adaptations) “…it´s important to remember that improvements in strength among novice athletes are primarily produced thanks to a learning process which would be neuromuscular in nature” ( Siff and Verkhoshansky 2011), so by being specifically aware on the physical manifestations of that development, call it coordination, call it under the bar solvency or just as John does, “grinding” capacity we might get a good diagnostic regarding our athlete development level.
-
Roughly speaking, I see here two different approaches to today’s discussion and the main difference between them it’s not a different list of limiting factors but the meaning their proponents are giving to the concept of “limiting factors” itself.
If I’m not mistaken, I understand some of you as @menacedolan are considering the limiting factors as obstacles which might prevent the amateur success on his sport field while others as @chobbs see them as the specific biological or psychological limitations athlete show in this category (compared with later categories).
My personal understanding of the “limiting factors” concept is closer to the latter, so from my point of view, @train608 nails it with his exposition.
We know the amount of force produced by individual athletes when performing similar motions mainly depends on two factors:
“The maximal force capabilities of individual muscles or peripheral factors, and the coordination of muscle activity by the central nervous system, or central factors.” (Zatsiorsky, 1995).
The same author mentions that “Without adequate concentrations of circulating growth factors … to stimulate increases in muscle size, prepubescents appear to experience more difficulty increasing their muscle mass…” (Zatskiorsky, 1995) and therefore “Neural mechanisms appear to be the primary mechanism that mediates strength improvement in prepubescents.” (Zatskiorsky, 1995).
With all that said, if we assume that natural biological development of the prepubescent delimits the area in which we as coaches may produces significant improvements to those in relation with neurological factors, we also have to assume that any limiting factor to the athlete development will have to be found there.
-
Athletic Position in Spanish.
-
I beg your pardon, the one I posted before was the activity B.
This is the good one.
-
I´m afraid Nat has been traveling this weekend so I’ve been forced to film this one in Spanish. Truth be said, I felt much more comfortable though… I hope you guys may get the whole idea… Maybe adding English and subtitles in case I have to do this again may work…
-
This Supertraining translation to Spanish (Super-Entrenamiento), which I think it was done by Google translator instead a profesional interpreter with some kind of knowledge about the subject, is driving me crazy. I guess I’ll have to get the original version eventually if I don’t want my head to explode.
Anyway, after reading through everyone’s comments a few times, I think I’ve started getting the idea and feel ready to add something to the discussion.
I’ll assume @carlcase, @chobbs, @denny… are right when they say taking care of SPP is the specific given sport coach job, and ours, as S&C coaches, is to develop/improve the athlete’s physical capacities required for the practice and success in the field of that sport.
@benkuch mentioned the two opposed approaches to complementary strength training in sports analyzed by Siff and Verkhoshansky on Supertraining, the first being the practice of the specific sport movement patterns or skills with added resistance and the second, working those as clearly “bounded plots”; a strength part with the goal of developing the required modal domains of strength for that given sport in one hand and the mere skill practice on the other.
As Siff and Verkhoshansky already stand up for the superiority of the second arguing that performing any specific sport movement or skill with an added load to it may provoke that movement to get corrupted due to the changes on the leverages, inertia and other variables and therefore decreasing it’s effectiveness on the field; we don’t have much space left to bridge the gap.
At the end, I’d say the only way to bridge it is having the responsibility and knowledge to determine whatever the physical demands of the athletes on their sport field are and addressing those properly.
-
I really like what you all guys say, and as some of you have already said, arguing about this subject is almost impossible, but if trying to be Devil’s advocate (I think that would be the expression), I’d ask you guys about the nonparametric relations between maximal force (developed through lifting weights) and maximum velocity, being the latter the ultimate sign of athleticism.
Anyway, I’d like to start by quoting Zatsiorsky when he says “The carryover from the exercises used in the weight room to the sport skills is relevant to the concept of task-specific strength”.
From my point of view @tonyfu nailed it mentioning the two possible ways to increase the force output on explosive movements, either increasing maximal force or decreasing the explosive-strength deficit. (Difference between maximal maximorum and maximal force).
As training against resistance as in lifting weights has been shown to be the way to improve that maximal force capacity (strength), lifting weights proves to be the best way to improve sport and/or daily performance.
-
Good point @menacedolan.
I’d say facing any medical condition as those you mentioned is the only situation in which Anatomical Movement Analysis may be superior to other approaches thanks to its isolative scope.
-
However I’ve got to say, I disagree with your first one; as being an asshole is not a specific trait of Amateur athletes.
-
