Power Athlete Academy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)

1 2 … 4 →

Author

Posts
April 27, 2016 at 8:40 am in reply to: Academy Class 001 Exit Interview Schedule #764

DavidMck
Participant

Monday at 12pm.
March 30, 2016 at 6:37 am in reply to: Week 9: Discussion B #731

DavidMck
Participant

When I look around me at other coaches one of the overarching themes I see all the time is a lack of knowledge, paired with a nasty ego. Too often “coaches” or “trainers” whatever you want to call them achieve some level of certification or accreditation and they are done, or maybe they supplement with some similar certifications but it seems as if there is this window of accreditation, where coaches will actively seek out “knowledge” and then they are done. I know so many coaches who receive their ACE and never move beyond it, or maybe they go back for their ACE health coach cert, or coaches who receive their Lvl 1. CF cert, maybe supplement with a kids, mobility or that other one that focuses on football( wtf is that all about?). Even Coaches who get their CSCS and nothing more. Actually, one of my worst (best) coaches stories is about a guy who owned and opperated a gym, had a degree in excercise science, his CSCS and he was and is by far the worst, most dangerous coach I have ever seen or met.

Bottom line coaches receive a BLoE (Base level of education) and their gigantic ego’s fueled by the success of their newly acquired clients and the novice effect puts them into a place where they feel they do not need to or their is nothing else for them to learn. I have actually had coaches tell me they wouldn’t get any other certification because they already know everything there is to know and everything beyond the ACE or CF lvl 1 is redundant. This is where ego comes into play, if you admit you have more to learn, if you admit you do not know everything people feel like this is a concession towards the idea of them being an inadequate coach, where I see the constant drive to learn more as a sign of a good coach, one who knows you can never know everything, or achieve an end point of growth, there is always room to grow, to gain knowledge, to be humbled, to learn. If you close those doors you’re basically just playing a part, a role, you’re a character of what a real coach is.

A limiting factor of Knowledge, paired with an inability to be truly reflective and honest with ones self due to ego is a deadly combination. Have you ever seen someone add bands to a leg press machine? I have. Ever seen someone pay $120/hr to do walking lunges for 45 minutes? I have. All done by coaches who believe they have reached the pinnacle of knowledge in their field. Its a fucked up thing.

For me personally, lack of knowledge and opportunity to coach are my two biggest factors. Due to my previous career as a chef educator I have a lot of experience being in front of large crowds, demonstrating skills, lecturing/talking, and years of teaching in high school/middle school, so speaking is not an issue, directing and coaching is not an issue, the issue for me comes in my inability to adequately articulate ideas simply due to a lack of knowledge outside of personal experience from 18 years of clanging and banging. The confidence is there, its just hindered from my own personal judgment of myself, and lack of opportunity to coach over the last few years. while I was writing this I was thinking back to what Tex said about FMS, and how if you have the opportunity you should go, while I have my issues about FMS I think its dead on, do not pass up any opportunity you have to learn more about what to do, or to learn what not to do, every opportunity you get to see someone else’s point of view, to learn something from someone else is an opportunity and should be approached as such.
March 28, 2016 at 7:51 am in reply to: Week 9: Discussion A #714

DavidMck
Participant

Our intensity levels in the BLoS development start with the Submaximal Effort Method. Zatsiorsky states, the Maximal Effort Method has limitations to beginners because of high risk of injury from lack of technique and lack of neuromuscular coordination (1995, p.81). Our use of the Submaximal Effort Method allows the athlete to develop the needed neuromuscular coordination and technical proficiency that will be needed once the weight gets heavy and the athlete begins to reach his rep max. The volume of our BLoS program is steady throughout each weak until the athlete begins to fail. When the athlete fails, volume self-adjusts based on the volume. Remember when Luke said “load must dictate reps”? This is what we are talking about for this program; the intensity (load) must dictate volume (reps) to drive the specific adaptation we are training for (The Amateur Program, 2016, Time hack 10:48).

I mentioned when an athlete fails earlier, now we will talk about the failure and reset. The program will self-regulate when failure occurs. We’ll see the athlete start to fail in the 1-3 rep range down the road in the program. This allows the athlete to get the majority of adaptation through the CNS rep range and well back off the weight to 3 weeks back. Intensity drops and volumes rises. This allows use to work on the athletes general speed and continue to get more and more reps under the bar to train towards the athlete’s unconscious-competence (automatic motor response) (Siff, 2004, p.24).

The volume and intensity in the BLoS program works like the ebb and flow of the tide in the ocean. At the beginning we have a constant flow inward (intensity increasing). The flow cannot go forever and will start to ebb back. This is indicative of our reset. We push the intensity until we can’t go any more and well reset (ebb) the athlete and they will flow back up the shore even more past the last weight they successfully completed. This is the proof of further adaptation for the athlete. This ebb and flow is the art and science the coach needs to manage through the program to accelerate the adaptation of establishing the BLoS.
March 27, 2016 at 12:41 pm in reply to: Week 8: Activity #689

DavidMck
Participant

Well, I always feel like a champ until I watch my video. I cant get my fucking hand out of my pocket.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/89rcV9XZgvY” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cqp3OBr_yVE” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
March 23, 2016 at 8:41 am in reply to: Week 8 Discussion #672

DavidMck
Participant

<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Problems with Periodization- 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>To be blunt, the depth of and involvement required for programming is a big deterrent to most people because it requires significant amounts of research, planning and execution. Most people simply do not have the patience, knowledge, or desire to invest this much time into training. Because of this issue, I personally see a lot of bastardization with bits and pieces of training theories pieced together, mainly following GAS and not adhering to the complexity of training or the SAID principle and people will refer to this as periodization. I constantly hear people refer to training in the classical periodization model when what they really mean is they are following a program of progressive overload, which is present in periodization, but neglecting the finer points and nuances of training, especially when training athletes for sport specific performance. We see a move away from SAID principle in favor of a very basic progressive overload model. Where volume and intensity are the only factors people rely on. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Periodization in the “western” world seems to be limited to the Matveyev model. Where we see a generalization of the periodization model, where volume and intensity become the only relevant factors. Siff notes that, too little is actual known to deduce any real results from this method outside of training “less qualified athletes” (Pg. 319) It doesn’t take into account the complexity of training for sport and the real effects of the SAID principle and GAS, especially in advanced athletes. There is a real lack of understanding as to what periodization really is, and in the “western world” it appears as if the general periodization model where volume increases as intensity decreases, culminating in a peaking moment before a single or season of competition seems to be the only one. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Too much emphasis is placed on the volume/intensity trade off and not enough is placed on the nuances of training, like neuromuscular efficiency, mobility, stability, etc. One example from the text being “work capacity is of little consequence to performance if changes in technical mastery are not constantly monitored….Excellent maximal strength, Vo2max, muscle endurance, reaction times and so forth, simply identify the potential offered by the athletes work capacity and not functional preparedness, which relies on the mastery of specific motor skills to produce top-level performance” (Siff, PG 318) Again, their are incredibly pertinent nuances to training athletes for sport and if these are not addressed we may see increases in strength but no real changes in performance which is our ultimate goal. The periodization model typically adhered to in the western world is lacking in its approach to this very important piece of training, technical mastery, and neuromuscular efficiency. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Other problems that arise in the general periodization model are WHICH exercises should follow a volume/intensity regime (pg 319), and again, “the nuances in training: maintenance of volume at a certain fixed value while the intensity is increased does not necessarily lead to overtraining or injury” (Siff 319) the opposite has been found to be true. This points to the inherent problem with adhering to a strict volume intensity scheme. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>It does not take into account the detrimental effects the training of one particular aspect of strength can have on another…”the stress imposed by distance work and sprints can seriously impair one’s capabilities in many strength exercises”(siff pg.319) . Ive personally experienced this when training for endurance events, as the volume of distance work increases it is not possible to keep up the intensity of the strength work. There is a diminishing return at a certain point. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Initially high volumes of training, even at low intensity…is likely to cause post-exercise soreness, impaired adaptation, and reduced motivation”(siff pg 320) because of this High volume low intensity is not always the best approach, especially in novice athletes. 

I think the overarching problem with periodization is it incorrect interpretation in western circles, it perceived simplicity and lack of specific adaptation, and the nuances that are actually present in periodization but completely ignored by most people. People believe that if they simply decrease volume and increase intensity they are following periodization, not taking into account the varying degrees of strength, SAID principle, the complexity of the in-season/off-season and the differences between novice and advanced athletes.
March 18, 2016 at 6:57 am in reply to: Week 8 Learning Objectives #652

DavidMck
Participant

Fraggin’ noobs always fucks up your squat…
March 14, 2016 at 8:54 am in reply to: Week 7: Discussion #647

DavidMck
Participant

Welp, havent been able to log in consistently for a few days… Lost my long ass post this morning…

I see all of the same issues as everyone else. Time, Knowledge, exposure, etc… Coming from a culinary background, And a food education background I tend to see the disconnect in the area of knowledge, which affects time, and exposure. People simply are not familiar enough with food to approach it, and with the unfamiliarity comes an increased amount of time for planning, shopping, and prep. A lot of times people believe that a meal cooked from scratch using quality ingredients has to look and sound like something that you can only get in a 5-star restaraunt. I prepare 90% of my meals at home for a family of 5 and almost all of them are simple iterations of sauteed, roasted or fresh vegetable, and meat. In my experience the biggest limiting factor is peoples inabiity to prepare food. I am not going to turn to a working class family of 5 and tell them they just need to suck it up and put in work to make it happen. Thats just not how it works. Our society does not promote healthy living or healthy eating, and if you are going to partake in it you are in for an uphill, upstream fight.

The best answer I can give to people is to start small, start somewhere. Pick one meal a day, prepare it at home using from scratch ingredients, make it a habit and go from their. I have so much I want to say on this topic but Its all been lost to the internet. There are so many factors when it comes to good diet that do not have to do with diet itself. I tend to think I live a pretty hectic lifestyle with three kids and dogs and two small business owners but even then, I still lead a relatively comfortable middle class life, which affords me the opportunity to dial in my diet in a way that other people just dont have the time or resources to do.
March 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm in reply to: Week 6: Discussion B #598

DavidMck
Participant

Speaking from personal experience, I tend to be pretty conservative with introducing stress and new movements to training simple because I know how easy it can be for someone to fuck themselves up doing the simplest of things, like rotating lunge jumps, or consecutive broad jumps because they have not developed sufficient intra/intermuscular coordination and strength. I try to put it into real simple terms, do no harm. your ego is not worth your athletes career. Asking athletes, especially kids, to perform movements like plyometrics, squatting with chains/bands, or going for 1rm when they have not first developed a base level of strength- Intra/inter, hypertrophy-, and sufficient coordination, mobility, etc is dangerous. Of course this all depends on what we are introducing and how, as Siff points out “any lack of safety in plyometrics training has more to do with inappropriate and ineffective prescription than this mode itself” (Siff, pg. 269) Are plyometrics bad for novice athletes, I would say no. Does it have to be implemented appropriately, absolutely. Is it typically, probably not.
March 30, 2016 at 6:41 am in reply to: Week 9: Discussion B #732

DavidMck
Participant

@Connor Ive found that simply by upping my own game, by actively trying to learn more and bring more to the table with my clients and athletes, the coaches around me are noticing, taking note, and upping their own game. I work in a independent contractor sort of situation, so the trainers and coaches around me know that if what Im doing is working better than what they are doing they lose clients. I think this is a great first step for all of us, lead by example and make the people around you just as accountable as you make yourself. This industry has been built on and exploded around coaches and trainers who have become wildly successful without really doing anything. Its time we start to raise the bar, and put those people on blast, whether in a friendly or unfriendly way.
March 28, 2016 at 5:52 am in reply to: Week 9: Discussion A #709

DavidMck
Participant

If Volume is reps and intensity is load we’re not necessarily increasing Volume when we add weight in the linear progression. Unless you mean that because Im now squatting 365 for 3×5 instead of 315x3x5 and my overall reps across the board has increased as I now am hitting more warm up sets as I work up to my working weight? Although, if your hitting 135, 185, 225, 275, 315x3x5 vs 135, 225, 315, 365x3x5 which is how It went for me, im actually getting less total reps. But, I also almost never pay attention to warm ups and only count working sets in my volume…? Is that what you were getting at? Its early…
March 28, 2016 at 5:46 am in reply to: Week 9: Discussion A #708

DavidMck
Participant

I think you’re right DD, but we are always sending the bar into orbit. So the intensity of lifting 135 slow vs lifting it as fast as fucking possible definitely changes the intensity and we Know from DR. Squat that by using compensatory acceleration training we are increasing the work of the muscle by recruiting and firing more motor units during the lift. Im not sure its the same as adding weight, although the muscle may disagree..? I suppose it is. Greater contractile response from the muscle = greater intensity.
March 21, 2016 at 6:19 am in reply to: Week 8 Learning Objectives #660

DavidMck
Participant

I hear he’s doing more independent stuff these days.
March 9, 2016 at 6:18 am in reply to: Week 6: Discussion B #608

DavidMck
Participant

“The discussion does not dismiss the risks posed by inappropriate or excessive use of plyometric training, but it stresses that it is not the inherent nature of plyometrics which may produce injury, but the manner in which it is used, as is the case with all forms of training.” (Siff, M. p.267) Exactly Chad. Like most things we do in the weight room, few of them post a risk if executed and implemented properly. I think an additional CON to plyometric training is that the proper implementation and execution of plyometrics relies heavily on coach- experience, communication, and ego…

Like DD said

 “It is all or nothing with plyometrics, you cannot bail out. When this happens the inherent risk skyrockets. At any point during any bar exercise, there is an out by dropping the bar or dumping the weight away from the body. When you leave the ground in any aspect of plyometrics you have no choice but to fininsh and therefore increase the possibility of injury due to internal and external forces that vary in control with the amateur athlete.” 

And because of this, proper implementation and execution is paramount, and unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your coach) relies solely on their knowledge and experience and whether or not they are willing to set their ego aside and acknowledge a lack of experience to save their athlete catastrophic injury either via training or competition.

(https://powerathletehq.com/2014/12/17/power-coach-experience/)
March 9, 2016 at 5:12 am in reply to: Week 6: Discussion B #607

DavidMck
Participant

WHY with those photos man, WHY?!?!?
March 8, 2016 at 2:08 pm in reply to: Week 6: Discussion B #597

DavidMck
Participant

I think one of the reasons why plyometrics has gotten a bad rap and been associated with injury is because of “overload” or the complexity of a particular movement, and its use with athletes who are not physically ready for such complex movement, especially when it comes to force reduction. Dipshit “coaches” think it looks cool and its something they can point to and show how smart they are, when in reality, there most likely causing harm, or lucking the fuck out because they aren’t injuring anyone.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)

1 2 … 4 →