Saturday, August 14, 2010
A Model of an Athlete, of Athletecisim: z-health's 9s - also a model of coaching
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Here's a question that seems to be poking me on from the earlier "do we enjoy all our workouts/practices/training sessions?" And it's: What is our model of performance? what are the qualities to which we aspire in terms of living what i'm increasingly seeing as "embodied" lives - where we get that we're not just brains with bodies, but that our bodies are life enhancing? Before answering this, one might wonder why do we need a model? Why not just you know, keep moving? Eat well, rest well, move well.
Yup. That's great. For a certain quality of well. But what makes up that "wellness"? How do we understand that wellness so we can make decisions about what to include in our practice and what to discard; what's useful and what's for later, or not at all? Frameworks, models of a system, an organism can help. Indeed, these kinds of templates are usually more effective than specific programs. They usually relate to principles from which skills and pragmatics can be derived, progress or just needs assessed. And if we're actually in a place to coach someone, the value of such frameworks becomes even greater.
Let's consider what we mean by principle centered frameworks, consider the athlete in this, and take a look at the benefit of such an approach as a coaching model, too.
Principle Informed Frameworks - Models in Other Domains
We have examples of such adaptable models in other aspects of our way of being in the world. Steven Covey, author of the ubiquitously cited 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
demonstrates why
having a framework informing what we do is part of being truly effective. For instance, he's well known for his expression rather than prioritise your schedule "schedule your priorities." In other words, make deliberate time for what is important. That's a principle. He calls it "put first things first" or suggests that "the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." To figure out what comes first, he has strategies to align with one's "true north" - one's principles. Come from principles first, not strategies like to-do lists or calendars. Those are tools; they are just the implementation details.
In another now-foundational text about business success, Jim Collins and his team in Good to Great 
attempt to reverse engineer a set of principles that are in common with companies that made the leap from being Good companies to Great companies - companies that have beaten the market repeatedly for a particular period, by a particular percentage consecutively.
Themes recur from attitudes of leaders to the way organizational management works. One of my favorite principles from the book is Get the Right People on the Bus. With the right folks, one can do almost anything, and thrive in any climate.
What's also interesting about the book is how many times Collins finds himself asking participants in the interviews about what their company's mission or vision is - and how this wasn't necessarily ever an explicit thing for people. The actions they took were not necesarily part of a pre-fabricated plan. It was just the right thing to do.
The role of folks like Covey and Collins is to analyse the seeming instinctive behaviours of the Great
and translate them into principles first and, following this, skills that can be practiced in line with these principles. For Covey, i'd suggest that the book First Things First 
is very much the workbook for the temporal organization part of the Seven Habits.
By developing skills practice, as in anything, skills are first paths towards accessing an action we want to accomplish - from a better tennis swing to a better email response practice (which may mean less email). Second, the repeated practice of a skill makes it a kind of habit or even reflex. That is we do it without having to think about it. It becomes engrained. For folks who constantly practice their skills, they become not just reflexive habits but stronger patterns. Talking with Steve Cotter the other day about a really nice GS snatch tutorial video he did, he was saying he had to do a new one because he was finding his technique was refining much faster now - months rather than years. Steve has been so focussed on his snatch technique and on teaching that technique in his IKFF for GS practice and competition, no kidding he's finding new performance refinements fast. It's amazing what having to teach does to thinking about breaking something into the most teachable units.
Model of the Athlete means Focus for Skills Development
Which brings us back to athletics from a principle driven model. So what is an athlete? or what are the attributes of athleticism? That's almost as bad as asking "what is motivation?" It's a skill too.
SO here's a model of an athlete that Eric Cobb put together and around which Z-Health (overview and index of related articles) is based.
Strength, sustenance, skill, suppleness, stamina, structure, spirit, style and speed. All *equal sized* nodes on this graph. We all need strength: what kind of strength do we need in particular for what we do? Likewise suppleness. We all need to eat and recover. How tune that? How might one's structure be utilized or tuned to better support one's athletic goals? What about sports skills? How's one's physiological stamina mapped to one's ability to endure, to support, to be? to one's spirit? And what about one's own way of doing things, one's style? How support that to enhance rather than break one?
In graphing terms, this equal-node model is also a hub and spoke diagram where "the athlete is at the center" (the phrase you will here Cobb and Co. repeat often) and where everything is mediated through that center. This paradigm of the athlete as the mediating center of some core attributes takes coaching in an interesting direction, and situates Z-Health as a robust approach to training longevity that goes way beyond the foundation of movement drills.
I've written quite a bit about the principles from neuroscience that Z-Health translates as a kind of engineering of movement science or neuroscience into training practice. We've looked at Z-Health from dynamic joint mobility, to pain models, to threat modulation to CNS testing. the focus has been to improve movement quality and thereby to improve movement performance. These are the fundamental components of Z-Health. Moving limbs well, threat modulation for effective adapatation, these are the primary building blocks of the Z-Health approach as taught in the R,I,S and T certifications. But these fundamentals are themselves motivated by this overall model of the athlete, where the goal is how best support the athlete.
In other words, the goal of Z-Health as an approach is actually to use this model of the athlete (and in Z the starting point is "everyone is an athlete") as a principle-oriented, skills-based guide to coaching> The goal, as a coach, is to learn the skills - driven by the best practical, clinical and science lead research out there - to guide an athlete's performance on each of these parameters. Cobb talks about the best coaching is knowing when to emphasize which of these compnents in training, which then means knowing how emphasize the component, and within that, what content specifically to offer the athlete. That's non-trivial. That's serious stuff. Principles are serious. And the expectation is rather that as coaches we walk the walk not just talk the talk. I've said it before: everyone needs a coach. Do you have a coach who can talk with you about your speed and your swing and your sustenance? Why not? Here's a list of master trainers who really walk the walk.
Great Coaching - Practical Principled Coaching
for Deliverable, Repeatable, Skills-based Athleticism
We are wired to learn and to adapt - it's part of our survival mechanism.
Part of the approach of the 9S model is to break down components of practice into learnable skills. All of the movements in the basic drills of R and I phase are based on athletic movements (this is particularly apparent in I-Phase).
In the 9S courses, the emphasis is on getting at these larger components of athleticism and focusing on usable knowledge and practical skills, from nutrition to strength to speed to style, to make us better coaches, so that we have the depth and breadth to provide the right knowledge, the right tools, at the right time, within a pretty broad, holistic view of an athlete fundamentally as a person. As an example, last year in Sustenance and Spirit, we spent considerable time practicing coaching skills as drills. Active Listening anyone? This was really challenging work for a lot of us: how to listen and respond rather than just program and push. That was aside from the depth of detail we got into on basic nutrition, inflammation processes, supplement studies and related. Not just knowledge; not just tools but how to engage, when to deliver the right ones and the right time.
The cool thing i think is that stuff when we see someone great do it, we often take the approach of "wow, that person is really gifted - they just have that talent. what a gift" But a lot of that stuff can be taught. And practiced. With intent. We can develop skills. We can learn not only the tools to have to be a great coach, but how to BE a great coach.
And sure there may be folks who are naturally gifted. But as Geoff Colvin notes in Talent is Overrated
, and as Gladwell notes in Outliers
, putting in the time to practice a skill is what separates the best from the rest. We need our ten thousand reps. But knowing the skills to rep, when, for how long - that's what makes a great coach, and how to be a great coach is no small thing. But a lot of it is skills too, and skills can be (a) taught and (b) practiced.
There's an elegance to Cobb's model that i suspect as it becomes better known will end up plastered over strength coaches' walls. Sports programs will teach the 9S's as a way of communicating training goals and measurements. And what a day that will be.
It takes a certain kind of genius to ask the obvious questions and then find not only the non-trivial answers but the solutions that make them tractable, teachable, learnable while letting them still be wonderful. I think that likely Eric Cobb has done this with this approach to coaching, with the athlete-centred model of athleticism. Why? because it is principle centered, science based and skills-oriented. Each course, each cert is always geared to "what can you do with this monday morning when you're back with your athletes?"
Taking It Home.
This post started with a question about how do we guide our pursuit of embodied happiness, embodied well being? Having a model of what makes up success in a given domain seems to be a pretty good approach. Covey has such a model for engaging with others. Collins has a model for corporate progress. And i'd suggest Cobb (wow, another C) has a model for athletic well being. And since we all have bodies and move, well, everyone is an athlete.
So if you've been riffing on Z-Health as a great approach to movement, and feeling better, maybe moving out of pain or into better performance having seen a Z-Health coach, that's great. It is super fantastic for this. If you're interested in getting started with Z-Health, here's a big fat Z-Health overview.
If you're thinking about an approach to training, about learning skills to train better, and about getting at the science of movement and these 9S's in an intelligent, useful and usable way, Z-Health is really reaching to get folks there. And that's kind of a new paradigm too for fitness, strength and conditioning, and sports-oriented training. Kinda makes me go hmm. This is an interesting place to be, and i'm inclined to watch this space. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Yup. That's great. For a certain quality of well. But what makes up that "wellness"? How do we understand that wellness so we can make decisions about what to include in our practice and what to discard; what's useful and what's for later, or not at all? Frameworks, models of a system, an organism can help. Indeed, these kinds of templates are usually more effective than specific programs. They usually relate to principles from which skills and pragmatics can be derived, progress or just needs assessed. And if we're actually in a place to coach someone, the value of such frameworks becomes even greater.
Let's consider what we mean by principle centered frameworks, consider the athlete in this, and take a look at the benefit of such an approach as a coaching model, too.
Principle Informed Frameworks - Models in Other Domains
We have examples of such adaptable models in other aspects of our way of being in the world. Steven Covey, author of the ubiquitously cited 7 Habits of Highly Effective People demonstrates why having a framework informing what we do is part of being truly effective. For instance, he's well known for his expression rather than prioritise your schedule "schedule your priorities." In other words, make deliberate time for what is important. That's a principle. He calls it "put first things first" or suggests that "the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." To figure out what comes first, he has strategies to align with one's "true north" - one's principles. Come from principles first, not strategies like to-do lists or calendars. Those are tools; they are just the implementation details. In another now-foundational text about business success, Jim Collins and his team in Good to Great attempt to reverse engineer a set of principles that are in common with companies that made the leap from being Good companies to Great companies - companies that have beaten the market repeatedly for a particular period, by a particular percentage consecutively. Themes recur from attitudes of leaders to the way organizational management works. One of my favorite principles from the book is Get the Right People on the Bus. With the right folks, one can do almost anything, and thrive in any climate.
What's also interesting about the book is how many times Collins finds himself asking participants in the interviews about what their company's mission or vision is - and how this wasn't necessarily ever an explicit thing for people. The actions they took were not necesarily part of a pre-fabricated plan. It was just the right thing to do.The role of folks like Covey and Collins is to analyse the seeming instinctive behaviours of the Great
and translate them into principles first and, following this, skills that can be practiced in line with these principles. For Covey, i'd suggest that the book First Things First is very much the workbook for the temporal organization part of the Seven Habits.By developing skills practice, as in anything, skills are first paths towards accessing an action we want to accomplish - from a better tennis swing to a better email response practice (which may mean less email). Second, the repeated practice of a skill makes it a kind of habit or even reflex. That is we do it without having to think about it. It becomes engrained. For folks who constantly practice their skills, they become not just reflexive habits but stronger patterns. Talking with Steve Cotter the other day about a really nice GS snatch tutorial video he did, he was saying he had to do a new one because he was finding his technique was refining much faster now - months rather than years. Steve has been so focussed on his snatch technique and on teaching that technique in his IKFF for GS practice and competition, no kidding he's finding new performance refinements fast. It's amazing what having to teach does to thinking about breaking something into the most teachable units.
Model of the Athlete means Focus for Skills Development
Which brings us back to athletics from a principle driven model. So what is an athlete? or what are the attributes of athleticism? That's almost as bad as asking "what is motivation?" It's a skill too.
SO here's a model of an athlete that Eric Cobb put together and around which Z-Health (overview and index of related articles) is based.
 |
| The Z-Health 9S model of the Athlete |
Strength, sustenance, skill, suppleness, stamina, structure, spirit, style and speed. All *equal sized* nodes on this graph. We all need strength: what kind of strength do we need in particular for what we do? Likewise suppleness. We all need to eat and recover. How tune that? How might one's structure be utilized or tuned to better support one's athletic goals? What about sports skills? How's one's physiological stamina mapped to one's ability to endure, to support, to be? to one's spirit? And what about one's own way of doing things, one's style? How support that to enhance rather than break one?
In graphing terms, this equal-node model is also a hub and spoke diagram where "the athlete is at the center" (the phrase you will here Cobb and Co. repeat often) and where everything is mediated through that center. This paradigm of the athlete as the mediating center of some core attributes takes coaching in an interesting direction, and situates Z-Health as a robust approach to training longevity that goes way beyond the foundation of movement drills.
I've written quite a bit about the principles from neuroscience that Z-Health translates as a kind of engineering of movement science or neuroscience into training practice. We've looked at Z-Health from dynamic joint mobility, to pain models, to threat modulation to CNS testing. the focus has been to improve movement quality and thereby to improve movement performance. These are the fundamental components of Z-Health. Moving limbs well, threat modulation for effective adapatation, these are the primary building blocks of the Z-Health approach as taught in the R,I,S and T certifications. But these fundamentals are themselves motivated by this overall model of the athlete, where the goal is how best support the athlete.
In other words, the goal of Z-Health as an approach is actually to use this model of the athlete (and in Z the starting point is "everyone is an athlete") as a principle-oriented, skills-based guide to coaching> The goal, as a coach, is to learn the skills - driven by the best practical, clinical and science lead research out there - to guide an athlete's performance on each of these parameters. Cobb talks about the best coaching is knowing when to emphasize which of these compnents in training, which then means knowing how emphasize the component, and within that, what content specifically to offer the athlete. That's non-trivial. That's serious stuff. Principles are serious. And the expectation is rather that as coaches we walk the walk not just talk the talk. I've said it before: everyone needs a coach. Do you have a coach who can talk with you about your speed and your swing and your sustenance? Why not? Here's a list of master trainers who really walk the walk.
Great Coaching - Practical Principled Coaching
for Deliverable, Repeatable, Skills-based Athleticism
We are wired to learn and to adapt - it's part of our survival mechanism.
Part of the approach of the 9S model is to break down components of practice into learnable skills. All of the movements in the basic drills of R and I phase are based on athletic movements (this is particularly apparent in I-Phase).
In the 9S courses, the emphasis is on getting at these larger components of athleticism and focusing on usable knowledge and practical skills, from nutrition to strength to speed to style, to make us better coaches, so that we have the depth and breadth to provide the right knowledge, the right tools, at the right time, within a pretty broad, holistic view of an athlete fundamentally as a person. As an example, last year in Sustenance and Spirit, we spent considerable time practicing coaching skills as drills. Active Listening anyone? This was really challenging work for a lot of us: how to listen and respond rather than just program and push. That was aside from the depth of detail we got into on basic nutrition, inflammation processes, supplement studies and related. Not just knowledge; not just tools but how to engage, when to deliver the right ones and the right time.
The cool thing i think is that stuff when we see someone great do it, we often take the approach of "wow, that person is really gifted - they just have that talent. what a gift" But a lot of that stuff can be taught. And practiced. With intent. We can develop skills. We can learn not only the tools to have to be a great coach, but how to BE a great coach.And sure there may be folks who are naturally gifted. But as Geoff Colvin notes in Talent is Overrated
, and as Gladwell notes in Outliers, putting in the time to practice a skill is what separates the best from the rest. We need our ten thousand reps. But knowing the skills to rep, when, for how long - that's what makes a great coach, and how to be a great coach is no small thing. But a lot of it is skills too, and skills can be (a) taught and (b) practiced.There's an elegance to Cobb's model that i suspect as it becomes better known will end up plastered over strength coaches' walls. Sports programs will teach the 9S's as a way of communicating training goals and measurements. And what a day that will be.
It takes a certain kind of genius to ask the obvious questions and then find not only the non-trivial answers but the solutions that make them tractable, teachable, learnable while letting them still be wonderful. I think that likely Eric Cobb has done this with this approach to coaching, with the athlete-centred model of athleticism. Why? because it is principle centered, science based and skills-oriented. Each course, each cert is always geared to "what can you do with this monday morning when you're back with your athletes?"
Taking It Home.
So if you've been riffing on Z-Health as a great approach to movement, and feeling better, maybe moving out of pain or into better performance having seen a Z-Health coach, that's great. It is super fantastic for this. If you're interested in getting started with Z-Health, here's a big fat Z-Health overview.
If you're thinking about an approach to training, about learning skills to train better, and about getting at the science of movement and these 9S's in an intelligent, useful and usable way, Z-Health is really reaching to get folks there. And that's kind of a new paradigm too for fitness, strength and conditioning, and sports-oriented training. Kinda makes me go hmm. This is an interesting place to be, and i'm inclined to watch this space. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Eyes Have It - sometimes: using eye position to enhance strength
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
I was fascinated by Geoff Neupert's article in the latest Power by Pavel Newsletter (issue 209, 08/09/10) about his experience using eye position in the press. Geoff is the author of Kettlebell Muscle. Absolutely awesome to see eye position highlighted in relation to how that action can support movement practice. That support is rather dependent on where and how in a compound move it's being used, and also what else may be happening in our somato-sensory systems. So let's look at eye position and postural reflexes and how they support muscle action a little more.
Geoff writes:
Geoff reports that this didn't work for him. When we understand the roll of vision in position, that result is not surprising, so we'll come onto why. He then proposes a revised move with a different head, jaw and eye position: the neck back a bit, chin up a bit and eyes slightly up.
Geoff says of this approach:
Test Early; Test Often The key thing to me in this article is that Geoff did "test" his new approach: did it improve his press? he says so an i believe him. Yet while he proposes a new technique for his press, and has some interesting theory to support it, whether or not that approach will be universally successful may be as likely as eyes down through the lift was successful for Geoff. May be. Dunno, maybe.
The take away from this story, at least for me, is less about a new technique that will work for everyone and more about: test it, because what works for you mayn't work for me, or for you later today, no matter how well we hypothesize why something works after the fact.
Let me step back a bit and say here's why i'm not surprised by GN reporting that eyes looking down *through the whole press* would likely/potentially not be a good idea: there's more going on than shoulder flexion in the press.
Eye Position and Reflexes when Reflexes work. Let me back up even further and say that the eyes are tied to reflexes that support extension, flexion, adduction, abduction, rotation. By reflex we mean involuntary automatic and near immediate response to a stimulus. Intriguingly, sometimes these reflexive responses can get buggered up, (and with the eyes, have particular effects on posture, among other things) but more on that anon.
When things are working right, we see looking down triggers flexion, looking up triggers extension looking in one direction triggers complementary adduction/abduction/rotation in the direction viewed.
Eye position is then used to complement/strengthen what can most benefit from that reflex. That may change throughout a lift. And what if while one thing is extending something else is flexing? What do we need help with the most? We'll look at an example to try in a sec.
Strengthening what needs to be strengthened throughout a lift
As an example of how eye position might change in a lift, let's take a look at the example from Geoff's article, the kettlebell press. The press is a rich movement: one may need eyes down to support shoulder flexion at the beginning of the lift coming out of the rack, then eyes towards the horizon and looking at the bell when the delts are at the weakest point, so strengthening rotator cuff movements, and post sticking point, eyes up to support the triceps extending (thanks to conversations last year with Zachariah Salazar Z-Health Master Trainer and RKC on these multiple positions in the press). In Pavel's pressing, as RKC Ken Froese pointed out to me, his eyes seem to follow the bell throughout, which may be great for someone with even strength, but not for someone with say a shoulder issue.
So keeping eyes down throughout the movement may be less productive for some people if where the weak link in the move shifts, and changing eye position will enhance that.
Try this at Home: A chin up (hands supinated) uses extension of the shoulder/lats firing, but it also uses elbow flexion (biceps coming into a curl). So what needs more help for you in a chin? Best way to find out: test either/or positions, depending if one's weaker link is shoulder extension/lats (eyes up) or biceps flexing (eyes down). Try both: what works better for you -when? Which is which may change as training progresses, or for just about any other reason, as we'll see below.
When reflexes seemingly aren't firing normally
Why would a doctor whack a knee if a reflex always fired as it was supposed to? We wouldn't need to test something that always works one way. Same thing with eye responses as demonstrated in what are referred to as postural reflexes, richly informed by the visual (and vestibular and proprioceptive) system(s):
Sometimes due to trauma or sometimes a long flight and jet lag, one's postural reflexes get really muted or actually cause the inverse effect reflexively in the body. There are tests for this (if you visit with a z-health certified coach who's done i-phase, for instance, they'll know these position/vision tests). The important thing to get is that our muscular responses - things as seemingly simple and immutable as flexion and extension - are intertwined with the somato-sensory system (visual, vestibular and proprioceptive function), and that these intertwined systems are constantly dealing with various stimuli. As Reiman and Lephart found in 2002:
Obviously, if one's visual responses to a direction are screwed up (say looking down doesn't strengthen your bicep curl, or cue an appropriate postural reflex), then using your eyes in a movement in that direction is also likely not going to help - in some cases it may seem to work against you if your body doesn't like that eye position, performance is going to suffer - until the thing gets fixed. And it is addressable.
Repetez après la model: Test It. So rather than getting super prescriptive about what will achieve what, great to have some heuristics about reflexes and eye position and of course form. But great too (a) to be sure to be able to refine application - like multiple eyes positions may be needed throughout a move and (b) to know that those reflexes are working as designed and (c) just test it.
If an eye position doesn't work - doesn't provide a performance boost or takes away from one - try something else. And if in a simple move like a biceps curl where eyes down should make that curl stronger and it doesn't work, maybe check with that qualified coach who knows how to work with these positions in case it's either a technique thing or something else that may need a bit of work.
We are Complex Integrated Systems There are 11 systems in the human being. They all interact with one another, from our skin to our reproductive system. There's no way we're going to be able know, a priori, what will unequicoably work for ourselves, little own everyone at all times. only salespeople seem to make such unequivocable claims about their products - it slices; it dices. always for everything. Really? What other domain is so certain?
In my main domain of human factors, this is why we can't make claims about the effectiveness of an interface based on how it works for ourselves alone, but have to test it rigerously so that we can say with some statistical power that it is effective to some degree, and even that is constrained like: for people aged x-y with these particular skill sets, they were able to use this tool to complete this task A% better than the previous tool design. Without that - even though we've developed that design with the best models of human performance from motor control to cognition available to us - the best we can say in our domain is "we liked it; why don't you give it a try and let us know if it worked for you."
Broken Record: Test it. Frequently, regularly. Vision is a potent system - the top of the somato sensory hierarchy. Makes sense that when it's firing well, it can help our other systems respond well. To use eye position to enhance a lift, therefore, means testing the eye position to see what action in a lift may need that enhancement - presuming that our visual reflexes are working as they're supposed to work. So again, if eyes down doesn't enhance that biceps curl, may be time to check vision, too. If it is, check eye position with the move. Test various positions through the move.
It's a really simple principle. It means having strategies to deal with a weak result to help make improvements. but at the very least it gives us information about tuning what we're doing.
Citation
Related Posts
I was fascinated by Geoff Neupert's article in the latest Power by Pavel Newsletter (issue 209, 08/09/10) about his experience using eye position in the press. Geoff is the author of Kettlebell Muscle. Absolutely awesome to see eye position highlighted in relation to how that action can support movement practice. That support is rather dependent on where and how in a compound move it's being used, and also what else may be happening in our somato-sensory systems. So let's look at eye position and postural reflexes and how they support muscle action a little more.Geoff writes:
For the last four years, until recently, I promoted a neutral head, eyes down posture for presses and jerks, thinking that this would increase flexion at the shoulder and therefore increase shoulder mobility and allow for the weight to go up easier.
Geoff reports that this didn't work for him. When we understand the roll of vision in position, that result is not surprising, so we'll come onto why. He then proposes a revised move with a different head, jaw and eye position: the neck back a bit, chin up a bit and eyes slightly up.
Geoff says of this approach:
This is excellent: Geoff tested the move to see if it worked better for him, today. Testing a technique is critical as adaptation is pretty individual; testing that neutral head / eyes down thing sooner might have been a good idea too for addressing four years of press frustration.I then corroborated my findings with what the absolute best in the world do, confirmed my position, applied my "new" techniques, and started making progress once again.
 | |
| For more ideas on how to train these eye muscles, see Eye Heatlh: How Fast can you switch focus? |
Test Early; Test Often The key thing to me in this article is that Geoff did "test" his new approach: did it improve his press? he says so an i believe him. Yet while he proposes a new technique for his press, and has some interesting theory to support it, whether or not that approach will be universally successful may be as likely as eyes down through the lift was successful for Geoff. May be. Dunno, maybe.
The take away from this story, at least for me, is less about a new technique that will work for everyone and more about: test it, because what works for you mayn't work for me, or for you later today, no matter how well we hypothesize why something works after the fact.
Let me step back a bit and say here's why i'm not surprised by GN reporting that eyes looking down *through the whole press* would likely/potentially not be a good idea: there's more going on than shoulder flexion in the press.
Eye Position and Reflexes when Reflexes work. Let me back up even further and say that the eyes are tied to reflexes that support extension, flexion, adduction, abduction, rotation. By reflex we mean involuntary automatic and near immediate response to a stimulus. Intriguingly, sometimes these reflexive responses can get buggered up, (and with the eyes, have particular effects on posture, among other things) but more on that anon.
When things are working right, we see looking down triggers flexion, looking up triggers extension looking in one direction triggers complementary adduction/abduction/rotation in the direction viewed.
Eye position is then used to complement/strengthen what can most benefit from that reflex. That may change throughout a lift. And what if while one thing is extending something else is flexing? What do we need help with the most? We'll look at an example to try in a sec.
Strengthening what needs to be strengthened throughout a lift
As an example of how eye position might change in a lift, let's take a look at the example from Geoff's article, the kettlebell press. The press is a rich movement: one may need eyes down to support shoulder flexion at the beginning of the lift coming out of the rack, then eyes towards the horizon and looking at the bell when the delts are at the weakest point, so strengthening rotator cuff movements, and post sticking point, eyes up to support the triceps extending (thanks to conversations last year with Zachariah Salazar Z-Health Master Trainer and RKC on these multiple positions in the press). In Pavel's pressing, as RKC Ken Froese pointed out to me, his eyes seem to follow the bell throughout, which may be great for someone with even strength, but not for someone with say a shoulder issue.
So keeping eyes down throughout the movement may be less productive for some people if where the weak link in the move shifts, and changing eye position will enhance that.
Try this at Home: A chin up (hands supinated) uses extension of the shoulder/lats firing, but it also uses elbow flexion (biceps coming into a curl). So what needs more help for you in a chin? Best way to find out: test either/or positions, depending if one's weaker link is shoulder extension/lats (eyes up) or biceps flexing (eyes down). Try both: what works better for you -when? Which is which may change as training progresses, or for just about any other reason, as we'll see below.
When reflexes seemingly aren't firing normally
Why would a doctor whack a knee if a reflex always fired as it was supposed to? We wouldn't need to test something that always works one way. Same thing with eye responses as demonstrated in what are referred to as postural reflexes, richly informed by the visual (and vestibular and proprioceptive) system(s):
Visual and vestibular input, as well as joint and soft tissue mechanoreceptors, are major players in the regulation of static upright posture. Each of these input sources detects and responds to specific types of postural stimulus and perturbations, and each region has specific pathways by which it communicates with other postural reflexes, as well as higher central nervous system structures.There's even work to suggest that blinking or performing visual sacades may improve postural stability.
Sometimes due to trauma or sometimes a long flight and jet lag, one's postural reflexes get really muted or actually cause the inverse effect reflexively in the body. There are tests for this (if you visit with a z-health certified coach who's done i-phase, for instance, they'll know these position/vision tests). The important thing to get is that our muscular responses - things as seemingly simple and immutable as flexion and extension - are intertwined with the somato-sensory system (visual, vestibular and proprioceptive function), and that these intertwined systems are constantly dealing with various stimuli. As Reiman and Lephart found in 2002:
Motor control for even simple tasks is a plastic process that undergoes constant review and modification based upon the integration and analysis of sensory input, efferent motorWe occaisionally really get how intertwined these actions are if we ever have an inner ear infection, or find ourselves experiencing sea sickness or dizziness.
commands, and resultant movements.
Obviously, if one's visual responses to a direction are screwed up (say looking down doesn't strengthen your bicep curl, or cue an appropriate postural reflex), then using your eyes in a movement in that direction is also likely not going to help - in some cases it may seem to work against you if your body doesn't like that eye position, performance is going to suffer - until the thing gets fixed. And it is addressable.
Repetez après la model: Test It. So rather than getting super prescriptive about what will achieve what, great to have some heuristics about reflexes and eye position and of course form. But great too (a) to be sure to be able to refine application - like multiple eyes positions may be needed throughout a move and (b) to know that those reflexes are working as designed and (c) just test it.
If an eye position doesn't work - doesn't provide a performance boost or takes away from one - try something else. And if in a simple move like a biceps curl where eyes down should make that curl stronger and it doesn't work, maybe check with that qualified coach who knows how to work with these positions in case it's either a technique thing or something else that may need a bit of work.
We are Complex Integrated Systems There are 11 systems in the human being. They all interact with one another, from our skin to our reproductive system. There's no way we're going to be able know, a priori, what will unequicoably work for ourselves, little own everyone at all times. only salespeople seem to make such unequivocable claims about their products - it slices; it dices. always for everything. Really? What other domain is so certain?
In my main domain of human factors, this is why we can't make claims about the effectiveness of an interface based on how it works for ourselves alone, but have to test it rigerously so that we can say with some statistical power that it is effective to some degree, and even that is constrained like: for people aged x-y with these particular skill sets, they were able to use this tool to complete this task A% better than the previous tool design. Without that - even though we've developed that design with the best models of human performance from motor control to cognition available to us - the best we can say in our domain is "we liked it; why don't you give it a try and let us know if it worked for you."
Broken Record: Test it. Frequently, regularly. Vision is a potent system - the top of the somato sensory hierarchy. Makes sense that when it's firing well, it can help our other systems respond well. To use eye position to enhance a lift, therefore, means testing the eye position to see what action in a lift may need that enhancement - presuming that our visual reflexes are working as they're supposed to work. So again, if eyes down doesn't enhance that biceps curl, may be time to check vision, too. If it is, check eye position with the move. Test various positions through the move.
It's a really simple principle. It means having strategies to deal with a weak result to help make improvements. but at the very least it gives us information about tuning what we're doing.
Citation
Morningstar, M., Pettibon, B., Schlappi, H., Schlappi, M., & Ireland, T. (2005). Reflex control of the spine and posture: a review of the literature from a chiropractic perspective Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 13 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1746-1340-13-16
Riemann BL, & Lephart SM (2002). The Sensorimotor System, Part II: The Role of Proprioception in Motor Control and Functional Joint Stability. Journal of athletic training, 37 (1), 80-4 PMID: 16558671
Rougier P, Garin M (2007). Performing saccadic eye movements or blinking improves postural control. Motor control, 11 (3), 213-23 PMID: 17715456
Related Posts
- Why I - train for the sprain
- THe other side of the gym - training the somato-sensory system
- more stuff about integration of systems: z-health overviews.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Do we enjoy *all* our workouts? Why not?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Have you noticed that once we get into working out - way to go developing that habit - we can get pretty intrigued about what amounts to minutia relative to the rest of our daily minutes? That that intrigue can actually stop us from action, or take the joy out of our movement because it didn't match the plan? Maybe it's just me, but it seems the detail can get in the way of the Big Joyful Picture of I can move and ain't that grand.
You know the questions i mean, don't you? Should we eat BCAA's or Whey protein for post recovery? do i have a shake before or after a workout or both? Do i take the creatine before or after the workout? Do i rest for 30secs or 2mins between sets? Should i work out in the morning or the evening? Is it ok to run if i'm lifting weights and trying to mass up? I am totally THERE. oh yes.
While these things are all very interesting, for sure, and can be fun to think about, and play with, and all be part of the learning experience of getting keener about our practice, they can also be pretty intrigued, eh? I mean, how many of us workout to the degree that we really notice a difference if we do a recovery shake before or after each workout, each and every workout?
Does this give us joy? Is this what keeps us working out, or does it block us? I wonder if we mayn't be concerned that if we're not "serious" - if we're not gritting our teeth in every session, or falling over dead - that we haven't worked. The number of folks i hear just getting back into fitness doing something like p90x, celebrating on twitter that they "made it" through another workout -i've been there, the: unless we beat ourselves up, we're not working/getting better. I drove my family crazy with "must do my session whatever" - at all costs.
Is it maybe more important to stay well nourished all of the time, well rested all of the time - know how to check if our workouts are taxing us overly or just right - while we're doing them - and stay moving well and out of pain, all the time? Rather than intrigue over rep counts, powders, and nth degree data to get the perfect routine? How and where do we learn this?
That's sort of a related thought. This doesn't mean goals for our health and fitness can't be valuable, and i've enjoyed re-certifying for previous skills/strengths or getting cleared by qualified coaches to teach new ones, in the "do i know what i'm doing and can i help others achieve these things?" space. And going up for competitions to reality check oneself can be cool too. Dandy. Work hard; train for that goal. Super. Does my identity in some small (or not so large) depend on making that goal?
Another related thought: Do we put the same care and attention into the rest of our lives that we put into these workouts? Now wouldn't that be amazing. Or do we need to get back to the big picture in both? After all, we know so little about the minutia of tuning ourselves. The only constant seems to be, we need to keep doing it - something, anything - consistently, with good food and good recovery. Most after that are strategies to Know Ourselves within those general principles, but are still approximations.
Fun, pleasure, joy. Things we do need to add to this, right, not take away from it? I know a trainer, Kira Clarke, who says every workout is a joy, and i believe him (and he gets to punch people and be punched. And he's smiling). He even has a humour section on his site. Then there's Shannon Mauck, long distance runner, triathlete. Joy exudes from his pours. It's a little freaky.
Then for cutting to the chase, there's Rannoch Donald, Monk of the North of Simple Strength with his 100 Rep Challenge and Sunday Service: Let us Play.
I'll even suggest getting some frisbees and a field even make geeks happy. Finding ways to move more, not just restricted to what we usually consider "working out."
There are so many things we can do to move, feel well, do better that help us feel better all the time that seem to intrigue less and joy more. Who knows, we might even get well-er, fitter, stronger, faster at the same time.
This rich variety is a surprise to me. It's something i learned about on a course recently about Strength and Suppleness. We were shown how doing these itty bitty gestures with a stretch band adding just a wee bit of resistance brought most of us to our knees in effortful work. And then there was the post-work daily play. I watched Z-Health Master Trainer Freddys X Garcia - who is v.muscular - do dips and then duck walk across the floor as his workout with Trainer John Mendes. This is Mr. Hypertrophy's workout? Dips and Ducks?
A few of us thought that looked like fun, and started doing the duck walks beside Freddys - it was work - but at least two of us were laughing while our legs started to burn. This actually turned into a bit of a Systema ground work session with Leah Davison on how to move fast and low. Total surprise to get new knowledge within the context of these wee moves.
That we have so many choices - not just about the workout reps we do, but what we do any day. That too is a kind of quality.
The Perfect Rep. Pavel Tsatsouline talks not about workouts or training but about Practice. We practice our perfect reps.
Perfection requires a certain quality. I've thought of that qualtiy as being perfect form. But we are more than muscle and bone; we have more qualties and we bring these to everything we do.
Do i honour the perfection i seek to bring that lifeful of joy to every practice i undertake. I used to joke, "to press the kettle, we must love the kettle" - but i think that may be truer than i knew: whether that's to throw a frisbee, or press a kettlebell (i'm still reaching for that 24) or deadlift twice my bodyweight, or run faster the next time i do that hill. Or just promise to enjoy each step up the hill. That is also practicing perfect QUALITY in a new way. If that full on qualtiy of rep is just as important as its form, i may have to listen to myself more closely. Ensure that when working hard i'm pushing just right not too far. It's a discipline in itself. Am i strong enough not to rush but to be perfect?
Hard to describe, you know? We can choose to do a few fewer reps; we can choose to do isometrics instead of lifting heavy. We can choose to go for a run or pull a sled. As Threat Modulation coach Kenneth Jay said to me recently "Do you smell smoke? That's my brain"
Meditatus Radix. This may not be how many people want to practice. We are impatient and want to get there. I'm not sure how well i'll do at it either. But i do know that all the folks whose council i respect, with the possible exception of one person, are also really jacked up or recovering from same. So maybe something else needs to come into the mix too?
Life's rich pageant. Perhaps going for delight, for joy, for full QUALITY of perfection in our strength we will arrive stronger, more resilient and happier? Dunno. I'm still kinda stunned by the possibilities there. But they seem promising.
Related Posts:
You know the questions i mean, don't you? Should we eat BCAA's or Whey protein for post recovery? do i have a shake before or after a workout or both? Do i take the creatine before or after the workout? Do i rest for 30secs or 2mins between sets? Should i work out in the morning or the evening? Is it ok to run if i'm lifting weights and trying to mass up? I am totally THERE. oh yes.
While these things are all very interesting, for sure, and can be fun to think about, and play with, and all be part of the learning experience of getting keener about our practice, they can also be pretty intrigued, eh? I mean, how many of us workout to the degree that we really notice a difference if we do a recovery shake before or after each workout, each and every workout?
Does this give us joy? Is this what keeps us working out, or does it block us? I wonder if we mayn't be concerned that if we're not "serious" - if we're not gritting our teeth in every session, or falling over dead - that we haven't worked. The number of folks i hear just getting back into fitness doing something like p90x, celebrating on twitter that they "made it" through another workout -i've been there, the: unless we beat ourselves up, we're not working/getting better. I drove my family crazy with "must do my session whatever" - at all costs.
Is it maybe more important to stay well nourished all of the time, well rested all of the time - know how to check if our workouts are taxing us overly or just right - while we're doing them - and stay moving well and out of pain, all the time? Rather than intrigue over rep counts, powders, and nth degree data to get the perfect routine? How and where do we learn this?
That's sort of a related thought. This doesn't mean goals for our health and fitness can't be valuable, and i've enjoyed re-certifying for previous skills/strengths or getting cleared by qualified coaches to teach new ones, in the "do i know what i'm doing and can i help others achieve these things?" space. And going up for competitions to reality check oneself can be cool too. Dandy. Work hard; train for that goal. Super. Does my identity in some small (or not so large) depend on making that goal?
Another related thought: Do we put the same care and attention into the rest of our lives that we put into these workouts? Now wouldn't that be amazing. Or do we need to get back to the big picture in both? After all, we know so little about the minutia of tuning ourselves. The only constant seems to be, we need to keep doing it - something, anything - consistently, with good food and good recovery. Most after that are strategies to Know Ourselves within those general principles, but are still approximations.
Fun, pleasure, joy. Things we do need to add to this, right, not take away from it? I know a trainer, Kira Clarke, who says every workout is a joy, and i believe him (and he gets to punch people and be punched. And he's smiling). He even has a humour section on his site. Then there's Shannon Mauck, long distance runner, triathlete. Joy exudes from his pours. It's a little freaky.Then for cutting to the chase, there's Rannoch Donald, Monk of the North of Simple Strength with his 100 Rep Challenge and Sunday Service: Let us Play.
I'll even suggest getting some frisbees and a field even make geeks happy. Finding ways to move more, not just restricted to what we usually consider "working out."
There are so many things we can do to move, feel well, do better that help us feel better all the time that seem to intrigue less and joy more. Who knows, we might even get well-er, fitter, stronger, faster at the same time.
A few of us thought that looked like fun, and started doing the duck walks beside Freddys - it was work - but at least two of us were laughing while our legs started to burn. This actually turned into a bit of a Systema ground work session with Leah Davison on how to move fast and low. Total surprise to get new knowledge within the context of these wee moves.
That we have so many choices - not just about the workout reps we do, but what we do any day. That too is a kind of quality.
The Perfect Rep. Pavel Tsatsouline talks not about workouts or training but about Practice. We practice our perfect reps.
Perfection requires a certain quality. I've thought of that qualtiy as being perfect form. But we are more than muscle and bone; we have more qualties and we bring these to everything we do.
Do i honour the perfection i seek to bring that lifeful of joy to every practice i undertake. I used to joke, "to press the kettle, we must love the kettle" - but i think that may be truer than i knew: whether that's to throw a frisbee, or press a kettlebell (i'm still reaching for that 24) or deadlift twice my bodyweight, or run faster the next time i do that hill. Or just promise to enjoy each step up the hill. That is also practicing perfect QUALITY in a new way. If that full on qualtiy of rep is just as important as its form, i may have to listen to myself more closely. Ensure that when working hard i'm pushing just right not too far. It's a discipline in itself. Am i strong enough not to rush but to be perfect?
Hard to describe, you know? We can choose to do a few fewer reps; we can choose to do isometrics instead of lifting heavy. We can choose to go for a run or pull a sled. As Threat Modulation coach Kenneth Jay said to me recently "Do you smell smoke? That's my brain"
Meditatus Radix. This may not be how many people want to practice. We are impatient and want to get there. I'm not sure how well i'll do at it either. But i do know that all the folks whose council i respect, with the possible exception of one person, are also really jacked up or recovering from same. So maybe something else needs to come into the mix too?
Life's rich pageant. Perhaps going for delight, for joy, for full QUALITY of perfection in our strength we will arrive stronger, more resilient and happier? Dunno. I'm still kinda stunned by the possibilities there. But they seem promising.
Related Posts:
- workout recovery window? minute with Mike
- protein blends for vegans and omnivores
- learning to let go.
- motivation: it's a skill
- movement: all about z-health
Thursday, August 5, 2010
More Beautiful Swing(s): Franz's Picks of Exemplary Beautiful HardStyle Kettlebell Swings
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
The kettlebell swing is a foundational movement to work with a kettlebell. Despite it's status as the basic kb move, it's also a whole lot more: it's a potent full body movement that can be used for work from strength/hypertrophy (a la Geoff Neupert's latest "kettlebell muscle" DVD and program) to lactate threshold work (like Kenneth Jay's Viking Warrior Conditioning) to endurance (my own humble running the bells as one of multiple variations). As a dynamic movement, it taps both coordination and these various kinds of strength in motion. It is a foundational move, but it is a powerhouse. Put together with the Turkish Get Up, it is a complete health program (as described in Enter the Kettlebell). Practiced well, it is also a beautiful, elegant movement.
A couple posts ago, i did an interview with Franz Snideman about the hardstyle kettlebell swing (the version taught in the RKC) as something worthy of practice towards achieving that Beautiful Swing. I asked him for examples of other Beautiful Swings. He named RKC TL's Delaine Ross, Keira Newton, Dennis Frisch, Dustin Rippetoe, Jason Marshall and Master Trainer Brett Jones.
These folks have kindly agreed to contribute a vid of their swings, and a few notes on their Swing perspective and offer some of their fave tips coaching clients. I'd like to thank Franz again, and each of the RKC's in this post for offering these resources so freely. Here we go
Beatutiful Swings in Motion
(geek note: sorry this is such a FLASH based post. When HTML 5 takes over, all browsers should be able to see vids without plugins)
Dennis Frisch, RKC TL, Denmark.
Micro Interview: At the time of the interviews, Dennis was on a well-deserved break. As soon as he's back, i'll slot in his thoughts on the swing.
Keira Newton, RKC TL of Dynamic Strength Kettlebells
Micro Interview with Keira on the Swing:
1. where or when does the swing fit into your own practice?
Jason Marshall of LoneStar Kettlebells (a real Texas Marshall)
2. what is the most common thing you would say your clients need guidance on with their swings?
1. where or when does the swing fit into your own practice?
Dustin Rippetoe, RKC TL, from wayofstrength.
2 &3 Usual Pitfalls & Favorite Tips
Brett Jones, Master RKC, author, start of multiple kettlebell and now Indian Club swinging videos.
Brett has been on the road of late like mad, and sent these through while making a home touch down. Thanks Brett.
First, two hands, then single hand to hand
Summary:
From these examples we have many heights, body sizes and limb lengths, but lots in common.
A beautiful swing is a move that lets the hips drive, for forward move and pull back; that gets the butt back to feel the hamstrings load, keeps the back flat, the neck in neutral. The knees do not move too much ahead of the ankles, the bell floats a bit at the top and drives back fast in the last part of the swing and then forward with power from the loaded hips.
Also, from looking at these, it might be more possible to get a sense of why a good coach, particularly one trained to work with whole body movement, may be able to help you unlock your swing, and thereby help all your movement. Love yourself: see a ck-fms or z-health certified RKC.
With practice and good coaching, you can tune your kettlebell technique to rock. With a clean swing, the foundation is there for an infinite variety of training options.
Thanks to all the folks who contributed.
Related Posts
 |
| Franz Snieman, RKC TL, one hand swing set up |
These folks have kindly agreed to contribute a vid of their swings, and a few notes on their Swing perspective and offer some of their fave tips coaching clients. I'd like to thank Franz again, and each of the RKC's in this post for offering these resources so freely. Here we go
Beatutiful Swings in Motion
(geek note: sorry this is such a FLASH based post. When HTML 5 takes over, all browsers should be able to see vids without plugins)
Dennis Frisch, RKC TL, Denmark.
Micro Interview: At the time of the interviews, Dennis was on a well-deserved break. As soon as he's back, i'll slot in his thoughts on the swing.
Keira Newton, RKC TL of Dynamic Strength Kettlebells
Micro Interview with Keira on the Swing:
1. where or when does the swing fit into your own practice?
When does the swing NOT fit into my practice, may be the question. I use the swing in almost every training session that I do. It is fundamental to kettlebell training for me.2. what is the most common thing you would say your clients need guidance on with their swings?
I am not sure that I can say there is one common thing. There are often a variety of things that I see people do, and to take it further, a varitey of combinations. Some of the most common are:3. and what's the tip you find helps them tweak their swing best?
- Squatting too much, not hinging at the hip
- Not finishing with a strong hip snap, and, or not engaging the glutes at the top.
- Timing! usually, a new person will think that they need to pull the kettlebell with with their hands, forgetting the essential hip snap. They also tend to forget that everything needs to lock into place at the top of the movement. On the flip side, they will pull away from the top of the swing too soon and lose the lat tension.
- Rounding the spine.
One of my favorites is that the swing is not an up and down (vertical) movement, it is a back and forth movement (referring to the hing at the hip). As a side note, I use a lot of different tips, because people learn in different ways and do well with hearing things in a variety of ways.
Jason Marshall of LoneStar Kettlebells (a real Texas Marshall)
1. where or when does the swing fit into your own practice?
For me, swings are used as a warm up tool, assessment tool, and conditioning tool. I'm not accustom to cranking out a ton of swings since it would be counterproductive to powerlifting, but I do like getting the occasional ETK set. I mainly use them as a warm up exercise to get the blood going and that allows me to assess how I'm feeling before my workout. I also use them on my GPP days.
For clients, it's a different story. The swing is everything...next to the get up.
2. what is the most common thing you would say your clients need guidance on with their swings?
I have to remind them to stay tall in their posture at the top and not to jut their chin forward. A tap with my finger on the crown of the head or a visual cue usually does the trick, as well as saying "tall posture". Also, getting the bell out of "the hole" or the hike position....keeping that transition quick is key to the explode/relax balance of the HS swing.
3. and what's the tip you find helps them tweak their swing best?
Wall squats and stick deadlifts for most, but it really depends on the mistake and who's swinging.bonus - any other wee note about the HS swing you'd like to share?
I've battled it out with the CF'ers on the "American Swing" and once they see the reasoning behind HS and feel the power and balance of it, it makes a lot more sense to start and master HS. There could be a place for AS, but it's a small window of practicality and too much risk for the reward. Start with HS, progress to snatches...THEN you might try some American Swings for some ballistic work. HS swings taught through the RKC are by far one of the most effective exercises for any application across the board. I can't really think of anything or anyone who wouldn't benefit from some form or version of it.Delaine Ross, RKC TL, of Condition, Inc.
1. where or when does the swing fit into your own practice?
Right now, I’m following Neupert’s Kettlebell Muscle and incorporate double swings twice a week. Before, when I wasn’t following a “book” protocol I would do Whitley’s “The Furnace” workout at least once a week – it’s basically dissected get-ups with swings in between.2. what is the most common thing you would say your clients need guidance on with their swings?
Hmm. In the intro class we cover a good many:
- -Not being explosive – trying to do it slowly to try to do it correctly when that’s pretty much impossible (then go over biomechanical breathing)
- -pulling with their arms (towel swings)
- -letting the bell fall too close to the ground (center hiking to the quarterback analogy)
- -squatting instead of hinging (box squat)
The best overall teaching cue I have used I stole from Doc Cheng: Imagine that you’re punching a heavy punching bag with your butt then jumping without leaving the ground.
3. In your swing one might say, from the side, that you're cranking your neck back but that just can't be. What's happening with your head in your swing.
I use the “look on the horizon” head position instead of exactly neutral. And it’s mainly because when people see my “neutral” and they dot have body awareness (when they begin) then they exaggerate the neutral and end up with a rounded back.
Dustin Rippetoe, RKC TL, from wayofstrength.
1.Where does the Swing fit into your practice?
My Swing practice has be interesting this year. I have pursed it in a more GTG fashion 10-20 heavy reps here and there as the opportunity presents itself. I have been experimenting with stance, forward knee allowance, head position, and letting the 'bell float a bit more (hence the higher "top"). The swing has become this year what the TGU was last year...a lab.
2 &3 Usual Pitfalls & Favorite Tips
Depends on client of course. Beginners tend to have little root and we work on getting them the desired heaviness. With that said, the static stomp deadlift with an emphasis on the lockout. Define the end point and the middle tends to take care of itself. My other favorite drill is letting victims swing three times and release on the fourth swing. If done well all the energy should go into the forward trajectory of kettlebell not knock them off balance.
I train a lot of RKC's and RKC hopefuls. These same folk tend to overemphasize the tension at the top and lose the ballistic aspect of the swing. What Brett Jones calls "Ugly style" The biggest tip I have been sharing with them is to "let the 'bell swing you" or Jeff O'Connor's tip "let it float."
Brett Jones, Master RKC, author, start of multiple kettlebell and now Indian Club swinging videos.
Brett has been on the road of late like mad, and sent these through while making a home touch down. Thanks Brett.
First, two hands, then single hand to hand
Summary:
From these examples we have many heights, body sizes and limb lengths, but lots in common.
A beautiful swing is a move that lets the hips drive, for forward move and pull back; that gets the butt back to feel the hamstrings load, keeps the back flat, the neck in neutral. The knees do not move too much ahead of the ankles, the bell floats a bit at the top and drives back fast in the last part of the swing and then forward with power from the loaded hips.
Also, from looking at these, it might be more possible to get a sense of why a good coach, particularly one trained to work with whole body movement, may be able to help you unlock your swing, and thereby help all your movement. Love yourself: see a ck-fms or z-health certified RKC.
With practice and good coaching, you can tune your kettlebell technique to rock. With a clean swing, the foundation is there for an infinite variety of training options.
Thanks to all the folks who contributed.
begin2dig (b2d) on Facebook
Related Posts
- Franz Snideman, the Making of a Beautiful Swing
- Andrea Du Cane on Kettlebell Training
- Kenneth Jay on Viking Warrior Conditioning
- Dan John on the KB Press
- b2d KB Article Index
- Perfect Rep Quest series
- Full Muscle Firing for better strength and form.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Bendy bits should bend in full range of motion, speed and control, right? So what's this mobility/stability dichotomy?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Mobility/Stability. I confess i don't get what's meant or how this increasingly popular distinction between mobility and stability came to be seen as useful. I'm prepared to believe it's my problem, and sometimes as writing helps me work out such issues, forgive me while i lay out where the gaps seem to be in my understanding of the framing of movement as mobility/stability rather than simply a notion of movement, and ability to control ranges of motion at ranges of speed.
Here we go: Of late i've seen a number of intelligent people assert with what seems like good reasons that some joints are seemingly a priori meant to be "stable" while others are meant to be "mobile." Consider the fist article in this set kicked off by Mike Boyle, a well respected and established trainer, called A Joint by Joint Approach to Training. In this pieces, and many related articles, work by Stuart McGill on the low back is cited: in particular, McGill's findings that flexion is the root of most low back evils, and that sitting is the worst place to be of all. This is pretty compelling stuff. Seems to make sense.
But then there are seeming contradictions within this: in his discussion of the knees, not the back, Boyle sites McGill's reason for low back pain that it isn't perhaps so *much* flexion, but overuse. When other stuff - like the hips - get stuck, the back pays. So in that sense - the lumbar spine and knees should be stable, but the hips should be mobile?
The problem i find in this is that the arguments seem to suggest that pretty much all the time the lower spine should be stiffened up and the thoracic spine and hips loosened up - for instance. Mike Boyle goes so far as to ask "is spinal rotation even a good idea" He quotes a lot of work by a physical therapist name of Shirely Sharman who in her view suggests that the abs are there to stop so much rotation of the lumbar spine then that's what they should be doing. Boyle's issue seems to be that too many trainers concentrate on lumbar stretching when, citing Sharman "rotation is even dangerous" at the lower spine. He points to sprinter coach Bob Ross who did isometric work with his spinters in the abs, abandoning other forms of spinal movement work and how that was a positive thing for results.
Ok, but what do most sprinters do? Run. In pretty much straight lines. So maybe holding the spine in line and upright for 10-30secs is a good idea. In that case. That particular sport-specific constraint doesn't come up.
Rather, Boyle says he's chucked a lot of exercises designed to extend trunk range and seems to find less complaints of low back pain in clients since doing so. And that's cool. I'm not sure, however, that that means that that work has made his client's backs more stable - it just may mean that stretching a body part beyond its comfortable range of motion is painful or causes neuroligical shut down by pushing inappropriately, and that stopping doing something that hurts will reduce pain?
In other words, i'm just not sure that eliminating a set of kind of questionable stretches is therefore "decreasing mobility" or "increasing stability" - it may just be avoiding inducing threat.
And as for rotational work, surely the lack of it is one of the greatest weakness of most of us who train especially or exclusively at lifting heavy things? We tend to stick to pretty a given plane of motion for a movement, and forget about diagonal and especially rotational movements.
One of the funest ab exercises is surely the russian twist (seated) or the Full Contact Twist with the bar stuck in the corner on the floor and the other end in the athlete's hands, arms extended, arc'ing back and forth?
Pavel Tsatsouline writes of the FCT in Bullet Proof Abs:
So for truly "functional" movement, isn't it better to train strength in rotation, as well as across a range of movement planes? In other words, why not focus on building strength across the entire range of motion of the joints so that we can be - as pavel puts it - bulletproof? And that bulletproofness seems to mean being able to rotate, bend and recover as needed - and as the joints give us the degrees of freedom to accomplish that movement?
The Kneee/ACL injury- not about stability or mobility? The ACL (and MCL) are the ligaments most often torn (or pop) in knee injuries. One might say that that's because the knees are not stable enough. Indeed, again Mike Boyle tends to make this case in his Joint by Joint article. But he also seems to move away from actually saying the knee needs stability by deeking out to say the problem is that the knees pay for lack of hip mobility. I'm not sure what the bottom line is here? He digresses into back pain rather than a discussion of the knee.
Gray Cook comes in to help in his Expanding on the Joint-by-Joint approach saying,
I'm not making a joke here or being sarcastic. I'm really not sure what "the knees have a tendency towards slopiness" means in terms of real movement. All those ligaments are actually loose? Or does that mean one's leg muscles in say a squat aren't firing so the knee comes in (the Valgus knee). That's not really a knee issue though, is it? That's poor form such that the person hasn't been taught to work a better squat pattern, or hasn't worked on what may be inhibiting a good squat movement? And so they're putting strain on their knees by failing to keep good position. Too much load, and absolutely perhaps issues in the ankle and hip and upper back that need to be addressed.
But i'm not really thinking about such a static movement as the squat. Really I'm thinking of the mighty number of girls who have ACL injuries in sports in the states these days. One theory (gathering momentum) has it that the girls who have ACL injuries showing up in basketball don't have a way to balance their increasingly higher (as going through puberty) center of balance. Intriguingly, the comments from the researchers is not to increase strength training (for more core or knee stability) but to increase their prorioceptive (body awareness) training.
The suggestion is not unlike studies on sensory-motor balance training with athletes to see if progressive balance work could help reduce ankle injury - another common problem for field and track athletes. They found that, effectively, progressively training for the sprain through this program helped the nervous system not go into panic, and predicted injuries would be less.
To take a lessen from martial arts as well where one practices for the fall pretty regularly, how much attention is given to working with an athlete on end range of motion work - not just balance work but what might be loaded balance work at the place where we rarely go in our training - that end range where recovery from a sudden lapse or accident is hard and where injuries occur? Is that augmenting mobility, stability or does it matter?
I go back to Boyle and Cook on the knees and back to their facesaying that these joints tend towards slopiness, and yet McGill (quoted by Boyle) saying no no, the low back in people with pain have stronger extensors than those without. So there's a lot of muscular strength around the low back already. The spine is *not* weak here (and by extension, one would say not sloppy if so much strength can be turned on?)
What's Going On? Where is this taking me? I'm hoping that Gray Cook's new book Movement will anser a lot of these queries. I'm looking forward to getting it, because right now the mobility/stability dialectic seems more problematic than helpful - at least to me. Here's why - and here's where i struggle with this as a model.
All the joints in the body have a pretty much well-scoped ranges of motion, right down to what the usual degres of movement are in each one. So why not simply be able to move all of these joints in these ranges of motion with strength and control as demanded by whatever that movement is - especially at the most vulnerable end ranges of motion?
Movement vs Mobility/Stability? Why not talk, therefore, just about "movement" (as Cook's book title suggests) rather than "mobility/stability." Is the question not really can one, for instance, hold a position for one particular movement or relax it for another? The knee needs not only to support the hinge with strength and power in say a basketball jump shot, but also needs to support the roll in with equal aplomb from standing to the ground - either when making a lunging tennis shot, or losing one's footing on a football pitch or simply getting pushed or in a fight getting from standing to knees to grapple quickly?
Perhaps there's an historical context i'm missing - Boyle talks alot about the "last decade" with too much stretching going on in the trunk and so life got too caught up on flexibility? Dunno, as i own i missed that part of the discussion not being in the space at that time. But maybe that's not it, either, as Paul Chek's Movement that Matters
and his "primal patterns" seems to have been in play since at least 1999 (ie the last decade, plus), and that is likewise focused i think on movements?
Mobile when? Stable when? But again, i'm not claiming expertise of that period - it's a genuine question - it's just that i can't find the value add in framing our bodies as there's supposed to be stability here and mobility there, and if we get this thing more stable and that thing more mobile (implicit seems to be "all the time") then everything is Functional. Mobile when? Stable when? Are we talking averages? That on average of all possible movements, these joints are more often than not needing to be stable rather than mobile? And so we need to train for the average use case, rather than the range of uses?
Can you see why i'm a wee bit flustered? It's not a dichotomy that helps me when i'm working with clients to talk about stability or mobility because i guess i'm not sure what they really mean when put in operation. Our model reflects our practice, i guess, and i'm struggling with the mobility/flexibility as a model.
For me, mobility seems pretty good on it's own: mobility is the ability to voluntarily and actively control a given range of motion. For me, in my practice, it seems pretty important simply that we be able to control that movement through all ranges of motion, and all speeds, equally. If folks have restricted ankle mobility, not only does that potentially need to be opened up but strengthened as well. Strength and ROM seem to work together.
It then seems pretty important that if there's a gap somewhere we have the tools to be able to help find a way to address that weakness. And as Cook also notes, since the site of an issue is not necessarily the source of the issue, the source of a weakness may be, as we've seen above, proprioceptive rather than musclo-skeletal, too. In other words, mobility and enhancing control of mobility seems sufficiently descriptive of the kinesthetic. And beyond this, if we do accept the site is not the source of an issue necessarily, it seems we need to take into account whatever other systems may be operating on us. From somato-sensory, to affect, to nutrition to, anything that plays on the 11 organ systems in our body.
For a bit of context, beyond the CSCS, RKC and Z-Health Certifications, i hold both the FMS qualification and the CK-FMS certification. One has to pass the FMS exam before getting to the CK-FMS quals. It's a fascinating course, and i'm looking forward to doing it again this fall because Gray Cook is teaching it with Brett Jones, and i'm sure two years after taking it initially, it will have evolved, and i certainly know a bit more than i did then, and Gray Cook has a lot of cool things to say. I am keen to learn more about this physiological piece. I confess anatomy is, to use Cook's phrasing again, the weaker link in my chain.
So i recognize i would benefit by being more au fait with kinesiology/physiology (hence more recent posts exploring things like the amazing shoulder, and kinesiology books used to assist practice with willing folk).
This article is not meant as a criticism of Boyle or Cook. I'm just saying, right now, i'm not grokking the mob/stab distinction. It seems to me both too extreme - these joints need to be mobile; these stable - and too unspecific - generally? specifically? Now maybe we're both saying the same things: have full range of motion and be strong in all ranges of motion and so be able to control all ranges of motion at all speeds. That would be cool. Then again, i'd say why not just say that? Since mob/stab can start to be heard as prescriptions: the thoracic spine MUST be mobile the lumbar spine MUST be stable.
I'm also saying that i agree with neurologists who talk about the somato-sensory system, and how that's just as improtant to be integrated into any discussion of movement, too.
So, as said, i'm perfectly prepared at this point to believe that the misapprehension is mine. That we are all on the same page. Just putting out there where i'm struggling. Perhaps some of y'all can relate, or have passed through this vale and come to a conclusion on the other side with more knowledge and insight. Look forward to meeting you there.
Best,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Here we go: Of late i've seen a number of intelligent people assert with what seems like good reasons that some joints are seemingly a priori meant to be "stable" while others are meant to be "mobile." Consider the fist article in this set kicked off by Mike Boyle, a well respected and established trainer, called A Joint by Joint Approach to Training. In this pieces, and many related articles, work by Stuart McGill on the low back is cited: in particular, McGill's findings that flexion is the root of most low back evils, and that sitting is the worst place to be of all. This is pretty compelling stuff. Seems to make sense.
But then there are seeming contradictions within this: in his discussion of the knees, not the back, Boyle sites McGill's reason for low back pain that it isn't perhaps so *much* flexion, but overuse. When other stuff - like the hips - get stuck, the back pays. So in that sense - the lumbar spine and knees should be stable, but the hips should be mobile?
The problem i find in this is that the arguments seem to suggest that pretty much all the time the lower spine should be stiffened up and the thoracic spine and hips loosened up - for instance. Mike Boyle goes so far as to ask "is spinal rotation even a good idea" He quotes a lot of work by a physical therapist name of Shirely Sharman who in her view suggests that the abs are there to stop so much rotation of the lumbar spine then that's what they should be doing. Boyle's issue seems to be that too many trainers concentrate on lumbar stretching when, citing Sharman "rotation is even dangerous" at the lower spine. He points to sprinter coach Bob Ross who did isometric work with his spinters in the abs, abandoning other forms of spinal movement work and how that was a positive thing for results.
Ok, but what do most sprinters do? Run. In pretty much straight lines. So maybe holding the spine in line and upright for 10-30secs is a good idea. In that case. That particular sport-specific constraint doesn't come up.
Rather, Boyle says he's chucked a lot of exercises designed to extend trunk range and seems to find less complaints of low back pain in clients since doing so. And that's cool. I'm not sure, however, that that means that that work has made his client's backs more stable - it just may mean that stretching a body part beyond its comfortable range of motion is painful or causes neuroligical shut down by pushing inappropriately, and that stopping doing something that hurts will reduce pain?
In other words, i'm just not sure that eliminating a set of kind of questionable stretches is therefore "decreasing mobility" or "increasing stability" - it may just be avoiding inducing threat.
And as for rotational work, surely the lack of it is one of the greatest weakness of most of us who train especially or exclusively at lifting heavy things? We tend to stick to pretty a given plane of motion for a movement, and forget about diagonal and especially rotational movements.
 |
| Pavel Tsatsouline demonstrating the Full Contact Twist in Bullet Proof Abs |
Pavel Tsatsouline writes of the FCT in Bullet Proof Abs:
The best exercise for transferring the hip power into the shoulder, with a high interest yield, is the Full Contact Twist. This exercise was originally developed in the Soviet Union for shot put conditioning.
The then-nameless twist came to kickboxers' attention when a famous Russian shot putter failed to talk his way out of a mugging. This mild mannered man got annoyed when one of the attackers cut him with a blade. He ruptured the punk's spleen with a single punch.
Igor Sukhotsky, M.Sc., formerly a nationally ranked weightlifter and an eccentric sports scientist who took up full contact karate at the age of fort-five, popularized the twist among Russian fighters. This renaissance man noticed that the twist not only had increased his striking power, but also had toughened his midsection against blows by toning it up. Sukhotsky was so impressed with the Full Contact Twist, that he added it to his super abbreviated strength trainingIt's interesting that Sukhotsky came to the value of rotation - moving across planes of motion - in moving from a more linear sport of weighlifting to the more richly plane-crossing Karate. It's also intriguing that it is a life event - a mugging - that fostered interest in this movement.
routine which consisted of only four exercises: squats, bench presses, deadlifts,
and good mornings.
So for truly "functional" movement, isn't it better to train strength in rotation, as well as across a range of movement planes? In other words, why not focus on building strength across the entire range of motion of the joints so that we can be - as pavel puts it - bulletproof? And that bulletproofness seems to mean being able to rotate, bend and recover as needed - and as the joints give us the degrees of freedom to accomplish that movement?
The Kneee/ACL injury- not about stability or mobility? The ACL (and MCL) are the ligaments most often torn (or pop) in knee injuries. One might say that that's because the knees are not stable enough. Indeed, again Mike Boyle tends to make this case in his Joint by Joint article. But he also seems to move away from actually saying the knee needs stability by deeking out to say the problem is that the knees pay for lack of hip mobility. I'm not sure what the bottom line is here? He digresses into back pain rather than a discussion of the knee.
Gray Cook comes in to help in his Expanding on the Joint-by-Joint approach saying,
"The knee has a tendency toward sloppiness and therefore could benefit from greater amounts of stability and motor control. This tendency usually predates knee injuries and degeneration that actually make it become stiff."He also states
Knees are simple hinge joints. They’re supposed to flex and extend, and when they rotate too much or move valgus or varus too much, we start seeing problems with the knee. Does the knee need to be mobile? Yes, but once it’s mobile, it needs to be stable enough to stay inside the proper plane of movement where its functional attributes are possible and practical.Now Gray Cook is a knowledable phyiscal therapist who knows a lot about movement and how joints operate. He's also worked with a ton o' athletes and helped them restore function when others were ready to cut them open and write them off. So it's with respect that i wonder what's meant by 'mobility" with a "simple hinge joint"? What does a stable knee joint mean? That the femur stays attached to the tib/fib bones on the minisci? That it doesn't slide off to one side when it goes to bend? What?
I'm not making a joke here or being sarcastic. I'm really not sure what "the knees have a tendency towards slopiness" means in terms of real movement. All those ligaments are actually loose? Or does that mean one's leg muscles in say a squat aren't firing so the knee comes in (the Valgus knee). That's not really a knee issue though, is it? That's poor form such that the person hasn't been taught to work a better squat pattern, or hasn't worked on what may be inhibiting a good squat movement? And so they're putting strain on their knees by failing to keep good position. Too much load, and absolutely perhaps issues in the ankle and hip and upper back that need to be addressed.
To take a lessen from martial arts as well where one practices for the fall pretty regularly, how much attention is given to working with an athlete on end range of motion work - not just balance work but what might be loaded balance work at the place where we rarely go in our training - that end range where recovery from a sudden lapse or accident is hard and where injuries occur? Is that augmenting mobility, stability or does it matter?
I go back to Boyle and Cook on the knees and back to their facesaying that these joints tend towards slopiness, and yet McGill (quoted by Boyle) saying no no, the low back in people with pain have stronger extensors than those without. So there's a lot of muscular strength around the low back already. The spine is *not* weak here (and by extension, one would say not sloppy if so much strength can be turned on?)
What's Going On? Where is this taking me? I'm hoping that Gray Cook's new book Movement will anser a lot of these queries. I'm looking forward to getting it, because right now the mobility/stability dialectic seems more problematic than helpful - at least to me. Here's why - and here's where i struggle with this as a model.
All the joints in the body have a pretty much well-scoped ranges of motion, right down to what the usual degres of movement are in each one. So why not simply be able to move all of these joints in these ranges of motion with strength and control as demanded by whatever that movement is - especially at the most vulnerable end ranges of motion?
Movement vs Mobility/Stability? Why not talk, therefore, just about "movement" (as Cook's book title suggests) rather than "mobility/stability." Is the question not really can one, for instance, hold a position for one particular movement or relax it for another? The knee needs not only to support the hinge with strength and power in say a basketball jump shot, but also needs to support the roll in with equal aplomb from standing to the ground - either when making a lunging tennis shot, or losing one's footing on a football pitch or simply getting pushed or in a fight getting from standing to knees to grapple quickly?
Perhaps there's an historical context i'm missing - Boyle talks alot about the "last decade" with too much stretching going on in the trunk and so life got too caught up on flexibility? Dunno, as i own i missed that part of the discussion not being in the space at that time. But maybe that's not it, either, as Paul Chek's Movement that Matters
and his "primal patterns" seems to have been in play since at least 1999 (ie the last decade, plus), and that is likewise focused i think on movements?Mobile when? Stable when? But again, i'm not claiming expertise of that period - it's a genuine question - it's just that i can't find the value add in framing our bodies as there's supposed to be stability here and mobility there, and if we get this thing more stable and that thing more mobile (implicit seems to be "all the time") then everything is Functional. Mobile when? Stable when? Are we talking averages? That on average of all possible movements, these joints are more often than not needing to be stable rather than mobile? And so we need to train for the average use case, rather than the range of uses?
Can you see why i'm a wee bit flustered? It's not a dichotomy that helps me when i'm working with clients to talk about stability or mobility because i guess i'm not sure what they really mean when put in operation. Our model reflects our practice, i guess, and i'm struggling with the mobility/flexibility as a model.
For me, mobility seems pretty good on it's own: mobility is the ability to voluntarily and actively control a given range of motion. For me, in my practice, it seems pretty important simply that we be able to control that movement through all ranges of motion, and all speeds, equally. If folks have restricted ankle mobility, not only does that potentially need to be opened up but strengthened as well. Strength and ROM seem to work together.
It then seems pretty important that if there's a gap somewhere we have the tools to be able to help find a way to address that weakness. And as Cook also notes, since the site of an issue is not necessarily the source of the issue, the source of a weakness may be, as we've seen above, proprioceptive rather than musclo-skeletal, too. In other words, mobility and enhancing control of mobility seems sufficiently descriptive of the kinesthetic. And beyond this, if we do accept the site is not the source of an issue necessarily, it seems we need to take into account whatever other systems may be operating on us. From somato-sensory, to affect, to nutrition to, anything that plays on the 11 organ systems in our body.
For a bit of context, beyond the CSCS, RKC and Z-Health Certifications, i hold both the FMS qualification and the CK-FMS certification. One has to pass the FMS exam before getting to the CK-FMS quals. It's a fascinating course, and i'm looking forward to doing it again this fall because Gray Cook is teaching it with Brett Jones, and i'm sure two years after taking it initially, it will have evolved, and i certainly know a bit more than i did then, and Gray Cook has a lot of cool things to say. I am keen to learn more about this physiological piece. I confess anatomy is, to use Cook's phrasing again, the weaker link in my chain.
So i recognize i would benefit by being more au fait with kinesiology/physiology (hence more recent posts exploring things like the amazing shoulder, and kinesiology books used to assist practice with willing folk).
This article is not meant as a criticism of Boyle or Cook. I'm just saying, right now, i'm not grokking the mob/stab distinction. It seems to me both too extreme - these joints need to be mobile; these stable - and too unspecific - generally? specifically? Now maybe we're both saying the same things: have full range of motion and be strong in all ranges of motion and so be able to control all ranges of motion at all speeds. That would be cool. Then again, i'd say why not just say that? Since mob/stab can start to be heard as prescriptions: the thoracic spine MUST be mobile the lumbar spine MUST be stable.
I'm also saying that i agree with neurologists who talk about the somato-sensory system, and how that's just as improtant to be integrated into any discussion of movement, too.
So, as said, i'm perfectly prepared at this point to believe that the misapprehension is mine. That we are all on the same page. Just putting out there where i'm struggling. Perhaps some of y'all can relate, or have passed through this vale and come to a conclusion on the other side with more knowledge and insight. Look forward to meeting you there.
Best,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
