Showing posts with label conditioning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conditioning. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

No-Holds-Barred Interview with Dan Baker 2013

No-Holds-Barred Interview with Dan Baker 2013 



It has been more than two years since I have interviewed Dan Baker (click HERE for the interview). That interview was one of my favorite interviews I have done and read if not the very best, mainly due honest, extensive and personal answers by Dan Baker. I have said back then that Dan is my role model and he still is – even more now then ever.

I decided to interview Dan again and I hope this to be practice in the future as well (every 2-3 years J). I am more than thankful to Dan for his time and good will to answer all of my questions extensively, honestly, personally and insightfully like he always does.

The goal of this interview was to cut the crap with all that monitoring mumbo-jumbo and get back to the reality ~ to the building of the performance culture, winning habits and hard/smart work.  I hope that both me and Dan managed to convey this message. 

Enjoy this very insightful interview from one of the leaders in strength and conditioning.


The man...the legend... Dan Baker



Mladen: It has been awhile since the last interview we did and I am sure a lot of things changed. There is not need to introduce yourself, because I am pretty sure all of my readers know very well who you are. What did change in the last two years – give us an update Dan

Dan:  Hi Mladen, thanks for the opportunity again.  The biggest change I suppose it is the fact that I no longer work for the Brisbane Broncos NRL club.  I worked for them from Sept. 1995 to November 2013.  It is pretty full-on life at elite pro level, there is continual stress and performance scrutiny.  Now I can relax a little more and focus on coach education with ASCA courses and workshops, some occasional lecturing at Edith Cowan University and other private things that I do and plan to do.  So anything I talk about below is what took place in the last few years or from other times when I was there or from my other coaching experiences before the Broncos ~ it may not be happening at the Broncos now or in the future.


Mladen: My questions in this interview will not involve much “set & reps” questions, but rather some other profound things that needs to be addressed, but are always lacking focus. In my opinion I think that's the team/club CULTURE and everything that goes with it and surrounds it (goal setting, communication, trust, responsibility, commitment, accountability, motivation and conflict management). What are your thoughts about it?

Dan:  Culture is set by previous traditions and practices at a club and how the current coach (& staff) and senior players see those traditions and practices in relation to the present.  If there has been a culture of winning by training hard, not complaining, doing what needs to be done etc, then generally new, younger players will buy into it.  If a previous culture was not to train too hard, lack discipline, aim for the occasional good performance, then will it (this culture) take you to the big games? 

If your senior players set the tone, then who are the younger, less accomplished players to reject it?  So the senior players and coach need to come up with what they want from the team, then have overall meetings so that the larger playing group feel included about what the team culture is in regards to all these things. 

From my experience, me complaining to a player about his non-adherence to anything (eg. diet, hydration, fitness levels, adherence to rehab protocols etc) is much less effective than if a senior player says to him  ”Can you get your act together over this.  We need you in good shape but you are not displaying to us that you are as committed to the rest of us.  It is like you are saying that your comfort levels are my important than the teams success”.  This has a huge effect.

At the Broncos, we always had good senior players who set good examples with regards to training and discipline.  I believe the problem for all sports/teams now is “Do archetypal Gen Y want to give up something (effort/comfort) for the good of the team?” Many people from many sports are questioning whether they do, so that will be the problem facing coaches in the immediate future, with regards to adherence to team culture.  A sense of entitlement exists with many younger athletes.  But yet again, some younger athletes are magnificent. 
So culture is sometimes “Monkey see, monkey do”.  

Despite all of the above, we still had financial fines at the Broncos for small breaches of discipline (being 1-minute late for training, not taking your protein or vitamins etc) but only young players ever fell foul.  But we should not have needed them, if younger players understood that PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ABOUT A PAY PACKET, IT IS ABOUT A STATE OF MIND. 

Shannon Turley described it at the NSCA 2013 conference as the difference between a professional (does things necessary to do the basics of their job) and a technician (does things to do their job as perfectly as possible).

I am not sure if financial fines allows us to see if a player is technician, professional, semi-pro or amateur in their mindset.  I never gave a player a fine.

Motivation is easy in one sense, it is about goal setting and reinforcement, but it is also difficult.  It is really behaviour modification we are often concerned with ~ modifying the behavior of amateurs into semi-pros into professionals and then into technicians.  Making behaviours equate to the goals is difficult.  Everyone has the goal of winning the championship but are their behaviours (eg. eating junk food every day) going to get them there?


The Professional vs The Technician. See more by Coach Turley HERE



Mladen: It seems that monitoring and technology is on the raise lately.  What are your thoughts on monitoring sRPE (Session Rate of Perceived Exertion) and other subjective indicators, like Wellness Questionnaire, POMS and others? How can one use them in real life? How can you modify training loads, without being manipulated by the players who are lacking commitment? How to avoid boredom and lack of thrust in those? What should happen if an athlete report feeling tired? What is the right message to send to the players?

Dan:  Subjective measures like RPE, Wellness etc rely on trust and education. I have seen RPE’s abused by athletes who gave false scores, looking to get an unload session or unload week.  I think all monitoring need to take into account some objective data (total meters, GPS, pitches thrown, contacts in jumps, HR impulse data etc ~ whatever is appropriate to the sport/athlete) and some subjective data (RPE, feeling).  Take a look at the photo of the poster that used to hang in our training center.  It gives a pretty clear message – you have a certain responsibility to do things to aid your recovery.  If you are not doing them why would we change our program to offset your lack of being a Technician, your lack of respect to the efforts of your team-mates.  But if you are doing everything right and are not recovering, then we will do something (unload you etc).

Boredom?  I have squatted just about every week of my life for 30+ years and I am not bored with it.  Training is always a challenge.  In saying that, sure things are manipulated to avoid early adaptation.  Subtle changes, dramatic changes, loading weeks, unloading weeks, strain, monotony etc.  But the reality is, athletes still need to train hard and get uncomfortable on a regular basis.  If they don’t want to do that, they need to take a big long hard look in the mirror ~ they no longer possess what is necessary to improve.


Figure 1. So the message is DO YOUR JOB AS A TECHNICIAN ATHLETE FIRST!! 



Mladen:  How do you juggle with different “functional” groups in the squad? By functional I refer to starting line-up, traveling guys, reserves and injured guys. Do injured guys train harder than the rest? How do you deal with reserves – do they train harder/more than starting guys and how do you keep up their motivation to do so? Are there used to be any squad rotation rules, so the reserves know they have a chance to start if they work hard(er)?

Dan:  I will talk about in-season stuff here, as that is what I think you are alluding to.  The NRL is different to soccer in that all clubs must name their teams by 12 pm Wednesday each week for the weekends games, there is no cat-and-mouse about the starting line-up till 2-hrs beforehand like in soccer.  We would typically play on a Friday night, so we would know most of our team by Tuesday even (sure sometimes you waiting on blokes injuries to heal or not, but the majority of the team is known).  So those not in the NRL team play State League, on a Saturday or Sunday.  So we would have three groups – NRL players, State League players and injured players for that week.  The injured players follow the same schedule as the NRL players, the difference being on game day, they had their hardest energy system training session of the week (typically a cross-training session if they are injured and incapable of running).  Injured players don’t travel, they stay home and train with me.  The State League players schedule is typically 1 or 2 days off-set from NRL.  So if NRL lift on Monday and Wednesday, the SRL lift on Tuesday and Thursday.  So players follow the schedule based upon where they played the previous weekend (NRL or SRL) to start the week and by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest they follow the schedule for their group for the following weekend.  Pretty straight-forward, the only glitch is when we are waiting on an NRL player to recover from injury, if he doesn’t make it, the SRL player gets called up to NRL late, he usually misses one lifting session.

Injured blokes get trained brutally hard.  It is an opportunity to improve energy system fitness without having to save their bodies for the intense blunt force trauma that rugby league contains.  We call the injured players “Rehab” and we would often play or sing the song “Rehab” ~ “they are trying to make me go to rehab, I say No, No, No”.  No one ever faked an injury because the option was, for example, light skill and tactical session with the team under the head coach or get mercilessly trained by myself and the other S & C staff in our cross-training shed (the Shed of Dread) looking at the rest of the team having fun doing ball-work. 


Figure 2.  The Shed of Dread for the cross-training of injured players who can’t run, tackle or wrestle.  Contains Concept 2 rowers, Concept wall mounted ski ergos, Watt bikes, spin bikes, boxing gear, battling ropes and more.  The poster on the wall, partially obscured by the glare, says “We are only as strong as our weakest”  You can’t escape from energy system conditioning, even if injured!



If anything players try to fake recovery from injury to stop being in Rehab!

So Rehab group did their strength work the same (as best they could, depending on their injury) but every time the team did skill/tactics, they would do cross-training for energy system fitness (http://www.danbakerstrength.com/free-articles/some-cross-training-workouts-to-enhance-your-energy-system-fitness/).  They knew that by doing this they will easily be able to fulfill the game fitness requirements once they return from injury.  Also reserves/bench players with limited game time get a top-up to their fitness (say 1-2 sets of 4-8 mins) of some of the drills I detailed here (http://www.danbakerstrength.com/free-articles/recent-trends-in-high-intensity-aerobic-training/), typically at the completion of the training sessions on a Monday and/or Tuesday.


"If anything players try to fake recovery from injury to stop being in Rehab!" ... With "Rehab" like this players might think twice before lying on being tired. Interesting strategy!


Mladen: How is training adapted to older players? What do they do more and what do they do less? How is this coordinated with the head coach? When the new guys arrive, how do you introduce them to the training system?

Dan:  Most of our older blokes don’t want to do anything different to the rest of the team.  We have tried in the past to protect some older players from high training loads, but the NRL is super-tough and the blokes playing it are mentally tough as well.  They don’t want easy or soft options “Soft options make you soft” or “Easy options makes you easy to beat” are two mottos bandied around. 

If we see an older bloke is close to breaking down, we order him down, don’t let it appear he is being given an option, otherwise he loses respect from the other tough blokes.  So if they were close to breaking down, they might be ordered to do the skill/tactical session with the team on the field and resort to the Shed of Dread for off-feet conditioning.  This may deload their running volume by 10-20% for the week, not huge but maybe enough to prevent something bad.  Again, they normally didn’t want to do this, they would see it as a sign of weakness, of softness.  But we would make them.  It was pretty rare anyway, once or twice per season for 1-4 players at most during in-season but a bit more during pre-season when loads are double or more.

We also try and protect the younger blokes from the greater total training load and contact.  Same thing, substitute some off-feet cross-training for some of their running conditioning and/or defensive tackling work.  It is hard, head coaches want them toughened up and team-mates want to see them doing the same intense training as they are and so on.  This is very difficult to manage, just as I explain in the HRV section ~ how do you keep a key player out of important tactical training sessions and how often?  How does a younger player win respect from experienced players when he is doing modified training loads? 

New blokes to the club, they get about a two-minute introduction and induction and away we go~ obviously they would have a physio/medical screening before hand and their problems discussed, but apart from that, full steam ahead!!  No need to explain too much except to say “See that cone 75 m away – run there in 15 s!”  But I would typically put news guys in a small training group with players experienced at our club, to help guide them through.  And our senior players would help guide them through – that is leadership.




Mladen: How do you keep player accountable using GPS? Do they have to fill certain norm during practices and how does this affect tactical behavior on the field – do rules like these affect running on practices/games in the bad way? How do you know the necessary dose that needs to be fulfilled by players and/or position?

Dan:  Playing small-sided games, each game would have a running demand, say “x” m’s in 5-mins for “soccer rugby”, which is the rules of soccer but passing the ball with the hands ~ a conditioning game designed for more running content and no contact. Failure to attain your meters meant extra penalty conditioning drills at the end of the session.  For skill and tactical sessions, it would depend on the nature of the session.  If it was a light skills (learning) session, then there would be no real intensity to be met.  If it was intense skills session, then a certain % of the session should have been above “x” m/s (I can’t reveal those figures).  Not always penalties, more education, because sometimes the flow of the game/session results in you not achieving those scores.  But if one player in a similar position did the prescribed intensities during skills training and another didn’t, we would point out that fact. 

But certain intense skill sessions may also include the alternating of traditional conditioning sets with small-sided game sets with intense tactical sets, so the intensity of the dose is typically fulfilled, because we plan it in detail.  If a player does not make their intensities and everyone else does, sometimes penalties at the end.  Do the intensity or do extras!  Another motto.



Mladen: What are your thoughts on HRV technology? Also, which one do you prefer – objective or subjective monitoring and why?

Dan:  I have not used HRV.  It would be very difficult in a team environment.  For example, if a star player in a key role has a young baby keeping him up at night, destroying his sleep and recovery and he shows up less than optimal, do we rest him and the whole team cannot train properly tactically?  This scenario goes on for weeks and months in some occasions.  What about for big games, championships, there is a lot of stress – performance anxiety, media stress, travel stress, stress from family and friends ringing up and looking for free tickets and autographed memorabilia (you would not believe how much this happens and stresses players).  If a player was not used to training under some stresses, how do we know if they can compete and win under such stressful situations.  I am not discounting HRV, I need to see how it could be implemented in a large team environment.  I can see its benefits to an individual athlete, especially a technician with a propensity for over-training (save them from themselves), but I can see many more problems with a team with varied personalities and with a coach who wants everyone training, all the time.

So I can see its value but I can see implementation problems, especially in team sports.  Also there are times when we want players over-reached, so that they rebound in a few weeks time ~ what does HRV do about that?  As MMA female champion Rhonda Rouseys mother said “I wasn’t training you to win the world championship on the day you were feeling good, I was training you to make you good enough to win on your worst day, with injuries and feeling bad”.  I just need to see it in use, how a winning team uses it.  Anyone, including perpetual losers, can use HRV and claim stuff and I don’t discount those experiences, but how are winners using it?  How did it change their management of training?  That is what I need to see, a teams use of it or a rowing “Eight”, the data they got back, how they managed the team training and how it changed the teams performance.  So far I have only seen individual athletes (runners, MMA etc) claiming stuff.


Time to slow down with all that "monitoring" in team sports....



Mladen: I believe most of the physical tests you use are rather prescriptive than descriptive/benchmark (e.g. MAS, 1RMs). In the case of benchmark, how often do you test/monitor players and how do you modify the program based on the score? Are there any incentives/punishments for lousy scores, especially after the off-season? 

Dan:  Firstly on return to training after off-season.  Typically we would allow for a certain % decline in MAS scores for every week of off-season.  So with a typical 7-wk off-season a player would have to return with a MAS score within certain % of his previous season best.  So if the previous PB was 1200m in 5-mins, then report back to training and run a time within that certain pre-determined % decline.  Simple.  Only lazy or dumb fuckers can’t do that, come back at a known % decline of their best.  By that I mean once per week for 2-wks before returning you could do a 5-min run, see where you are at in preparation for the return to training test, take some action if needed.  Then we would aim to get everyone back to 100% of the MAS in a progressive fashion within 4-or so weeks (Gen Prep).  Players who fail the return test are given an extra session of cross-training on Saturday morning (typically a day off).  This is the punishment, but it is also because we need them to improve.  At times during that 4-wks, if they feel they could retest and escape Saturday morning, they can try.  We don’t want them in on Saturday, they put themselves in by being lazy or dumb fuckers!  We know that the MAS score correlates with meters covered in small-sided games and competition games. 

I don’t test strength on return to training.  I assume every male would do some upper body training, lighter hypertrophy-oriented sets and reps (and they do), so generally that is maintained pretty close to before, again within a certain %.  Squats and lower body are trained lighter in an off-season, if at all and I am ok with that, the legs cop a pounding and need a rest.  So leg training starts off with much lower training %1RM than upper body.  

Again we build up so that by wk 4-7, they should be hitting their previous PB for squats (whether judged as 1 or 3 or 5RM) and equaling or beating their PB’s for upper body. 
So using this first 4-7 wks to reclaim everything and then using the next block (3-6 wks) to build new capacity levels.

I keep detailed records of each players 1, 3 and 5 RM under different conditions in the key exercises.  For example, 3RM normal, with bands, with chains. So we are regularly working up to these capacities (as a 3 or 5RM), after we are “in shape.”  They key thing is, once a player “is in shape” and technically stable, he can really only miss equaling or beating their previous PB due to 1.  A niggling or major injury  2.  Under-recovering/fatigue  3.  Lack of desire.  Either way we know something is wrong.  From regular “testing” (ie. Analyzing the training Max Effort sets, not every week, but about half of the weeks during the in-season) we have a monitoring system.  Any negative changes, we assume 1 (injury) or 2 (fatigue) from above, work out which one, determine what we need to do (or what they need to do).
.

Mladen: How do you deal with certain player wanting to do training outside of club – e.g. hire a personal strength or speed coach?

Dan:  It is not allowed or doesn’t happen in our situation, for the following reasons.  1.  If that outside trainer was any good, they would be working for a pro team or government institute of sport, because they pay the best for the best people.  So he is most likely a bum or charlatan  2. Outside trainers, having no responsibility to the team, what are they doing to that player, how is it going to affect the team?  If there is someone that is independent that a player wants (and I have never seen it), then see the next point 3. Most importantly, all people having contact/training players must be signed by the club and be cleared by the Integrity Unit for that pro sport.  This is to stop drug peddler trainers, “supplement gurus”, match-fixer trainers, charlatans, the whole gamut of shady characters on the periphery of pro sports who are trying to get in but are not good enough or have no integrity, weaning themselves into a players life and causing irreparable damage to the sport.  So even if a player wanted “their own” trainer, they would still have to be hired by the club and be cleared by the integrity unit.  So saying you wanted “your own trainer”, it wouldn’t work in my sport anyway, as saying you wanted your own trainer is to say “I am a prima donna, I have special needs beyond the team” ~ the other tough blokes in the NRL squad would beat the shit out of you (in contact sessions) and verbally mock you for thinking you are better than them, that you need separate special training/mollycoddling. 

I would bet that those athletes who want their trainer would use one who trained them less volume and/or less intensity.  Are these athletes coming up to you and saying ”I need my own trainer because we as a team are not training hard enough, intense enough, we are not doing the compound exercises, we are not supra-max MAS running and I feel I could play better by training so much harder”, I bet not.  They are looking for easy options, soft options, (see my mottos above) mollycoddling.  “Mate you are not special, despite what your parents told you” So this is not an Australian problem, but I know it exists in Europe and the USA, but they have different systems.



Unfortunately, excluding NRL sport is full of Prima donnas ... 


Mladen: I would like to see a study where they compare the group that believes that concurrent training is the best way to train and the group that believes that concurrent training is the worst thing one can do, along with neutral/control group. It seems that belief influence things a lot. How do you get players to buy-in into the program and do you believe that with concurrent/mixed approach one needs to develop work capacity first to sustain mixed and increased loads? How does one achieve that and what are your thoughts now on concurrent/mixed vs. block/sequential approaches compared to two years ago?

Dan:  I don’t know where this belief that you can’t concurrent train at all came from.  We are in a sport (rugby league, the NRL) that requires strength/power and energy system fitness as well as brutal unpadded collisions, so concurrent training is the norm and has been for >100 yrs, since the sport existed.  It is the norm since kids are 7 years old, we deal with it easy, mentally, it just has to be done.  When I was 7-years old, we ran, wrestled, did situps, pushups, jumps and so on as well as the skills of the game and that was 41-years ago (yes that’s right, Crossfit didn’t invent concurrent training).  And we could go back to the Ancient Greek Olympics, to the Pankration fighters and their 4-day training cycle called the tetrad, mixing technique days, conditioning days, full contact sparring days and so on.  Concurrent training has always existed, but due to the time-out system in US sports, some people have lost sight of this and the fact that we can easily do it if we train appropriately.

Will NRL players and other concurrent trainers be as strong as lifters, NO, will they be as aerobically fit as triathletes, NO, will they be as fast as sprinters, NO, but they need to be reasonably good at all those things.  So they need to train all things.  I can’t think of a time when any NRL athlete trained just one quality. 

So we train conjugate/concurrent within a week, but in a sequential block manner, with one block building upon another and leading to the overload that we want. Not much or anything has changed in my beliefs compared to 2-years ago.  We believe in concurrent training for these types of mixed sports, but it does not mean I used it when I coached powerlifters or divers!  Every sport has their specific demands as well.



Mladen: And now couple of more practical questions. Can you briefly describe your in-season approach to training (e.g. strength, power, speed, conditioning)? How do you avoid boredom in the long in-season? How do you avoid soreness with too much drill/exercise rotations and variety?

Dan:  Briefly? No, I could write books on it, so I can’t go into detail here.  Details will be revealed when I do seminars, lectures and workshops. 

But in saying that, we always train hard but in a cycle with different objectives, in the strength work for example, some weeks are max effort, some are hard effort, some are medium or medium-hard to unload the neural and adrenal systems.  Some days are strength and muscle training days, some days are power/dynamic effort days.  In-season, the soreness does not come from exercises, it comes from the brutal contact in the game.  So soreness is normal, just a case of managing the week as best we can.

Boredom?  What do athletes want, to be entertained or to win?  Do they want jugglers and clowns at training (work) to be entertained?  When I worked construction, I didn’t say to the boss “This is boring, can you change my work to entertain me”.   Sense of entitlement shit!!!  I vary training to avoid adaptation, to keep progression in training happening, not to entertain blokes with short attention spans and a lack of desire to work hard.



Athletes are here to TRAIN, to get better and to win, not to have fun activity. Coaches are not here to be liked by players, but to make players better. (Although these concepts are not mutually exclusive, there is a sweet spot IMHO)


Mladen: What is the role of combat training for rugby players (e.g. wrestling, BJJ, boxing)? How is that implemented into rugby training. What about various strongman implements like sandbags (or boxing bags), sleds (prowlers), farmers walk, tires, etc?

Dan:  NRL is combat, the structure of the game is based upon warfare.  So almost all forms of combat have some application.  Every team does some form of grappling because it was always how we put someone on the ground and controlled them.  Every team uses boxing drills as well.  I don’t really like strongman for a team due to its imprecise overload when you have large numbers of athletes with disparate body sizes and strengths (see this article,  Baker, D.  Strongman training for large groups of athletes.  Journal of Australian Strength & Conditioning. 16(1):33-34.  2008.).  One-on-one or for a very small group some strongman stuff is OK, especially during late rehab when a player is close to resuming playing.  I would rather players wrestle rather than do strongman, but sometimes a player can’t do wrestling, so that is where we would use modified strongman stuff (more controlled environment).


Do more wrestling.... less tire flipping 



Mladen: Thanks for the insights Dan. What are you plans for the future? When can we expect the Dan Baker Training system book?

Dan:  There will be no book.  I will do lectures, symposiums, conference presentations, consulting, whatever, but no book.  I am a people person, better to hear and see me talk if you want to learn more.




Sunday, September 1, 2013

Random thoughts on GPS: Using absolute vs. relative velocity zones

Random thoughts on GPS: Using absolute vs. relative velocity zones


Suppose you are coaching two distance runners, one with MAS (Maximum Aerobic Speed) of 18km/h and one with MAS of 21 km/h. The former is definitely more aerobically fit and would crush the latter in most middle to long distances (taking into account that threshold is proportional to MAS).

How would you approach their training and analysis of training loads? Would you prescribe threshold pace (tempo runs) of the same speed and distance to both, or would you take into account their individual differences (MAS level)? In other words, would you say do 2x10min @80% MAS or would you say 2x3000m @80% MAS? Or even worse say run for 2x10min at 16km/h to both of them?

In the case where distance is prescribed the slower runner will experience significantly higher workload. (Tip: This is why it is retarded for up and coming runners to copy weekly mileages of high level runners – might be more injury-proof to copy their time spent running although this might also be too strenuous)

Taking this discussion a bit further – would you say they were running at same intensity if they were running at 15km/h for certain time? Of course not – intensity in this case have to be expressed relatively to their abilities. In strength training world we use %1RM to solve this dilemma.

Unfortunately, gold medals are not given to those who express highest effort to their ability (“I got 11th place, but I was running at 95% of my VO2max, while the guy that won  run at 93% of his VO2max – that’s not fair!”) – They are given to those who express highest effort absolutely. In endurance world, races are not 10min time trials, but rather distances, like 5k, 10k and so forth. The winner is the one that covers those distances in least time, not someone that run them at higher %MAS.

What this all mean? It means that athletes and coaches should juggle both individual characteristics and distance demands (in this case distance, terrain, etc). They should plan their training taking into account both, but mostly leaning more toward individual characteristics at least in running world. This is the dilemma that bother a lot of coaches in team sports as I have alluded HERE.  

Long story short – we prescribe training loads and analyze those loads for a single-subject based on relative indicators and compare individuals (give medals) based on absolute indicators. We need to take into account both (again complementarity).

With the recent advances and spread of GPS tracking technologies in team sports one stumbles on the same dilemma. The velocity bands are prescribed absolutely and training/game[1] effort is sometimes judged by distance/time covered at certain absolute zone. As Martin would say “things are simply more complex”.

What I would love is to express some of my random thoughts on this topic.

When it comes to training, coaches[2] would love to know who really gave an effort and who was slacking. Some of them would also love to know if the training stimuli is enough to stimulate adaptation response in, for example, aerobic capacities. Some coaches prescribe extra activities for certain players who didn’t spend certain time in certain [ABSOLUTE] zone during team session [because they believe these were not pushing hard].

This might work as a motivator to the players, but it might be short sighted. First of all, one needs to take positional demands for the activity (in the match for example, position played affect physical aspects more than individual characteristic) and one needs to take individual characteristics. In other words taking into account law of demand and supply (individual characteristics~positional demands).

Using absolute zones we ASSUME that demands were the same for every player, we ASSUME that every player has the same needs for training workload (e.g. time spend at certain zone to yield adaptation), we ASSUME that every player can give the same amount of effort regardless of their individual qualities. In my mind this is a lot of assumptions.

Prescribing time/distance spent in certain absolute velocity bands as a training stimuli or quality/effort control is like saying to a certain lifter that he needs to have 10 total reps over 160kg during a strength workout, without noticing that his 1RM is actually 160kg. In squat. But today he did bench press. But I digress.

So I believe that FOR THIS PURPOSE (workload analysis, quality/effort control) one should use RELATIVE zones. But this is not without problems. It is important to realize to there is no best way –  don’t fall into the saying “if the only tool you have is the hammer, everything starts to look like a nail”. Pick the right analysis for the right job. In this case the task of analysis of individual workloads might demands relative approach.

What should be those zones based on? One could use MAS and MSS (Maximum Sprinting Speed) and ANR (Anaerobic Reserve; MSS – MAS). Or one could use CV (Critical Velocity) and MSS. Or v3mmol (velocity at 3  mmol/L LA) or LT or whatever. I suggest using one you could actually retest easily every once in a while. I like the approach used by Buchheit et al. where they used (Z1) <60% MAS, (Z2) 60-80% MAS, (Z3) 80-100% MAS, (Z4) 100% MAS to 30% ASR, and (Z5) above 30% ASR.

In the study I quoted in footnotes they showed that players with higher MAS covered LOWER distance at zones over MAS during a game. Were they slacking? No. They were fulfilling the absolute positional demands by stressing themselves less in relative terms. There is NO direct causality link between being more aerobically fit and running more in a game. Being more aerobically fit might mean that you are stressing yourself less and this might yield less fatigue related errors in technique, etc. One thing to remember is that regardless of MAS levels, distances below MAS were decreased in the second half. So, even if one might increase his MAS, there still might be decrease in distance covered over duration of the game. Again, simply very complex things. We are still clueless what causes this – fatigue or tactical demands, or both.

When it comes to SSGs there might be a ceiling effect [absolute indicators] or even a drop [relative], which mean that players with higher MAS might spend less time/distance[3] in higher intensity zones. We would need both cross and longitudinal studies to confirm this idea.  



What this might mean is that SSG might not be enough to provide an overload for players with higher MAS. On the flip side it might also mean that further increase in MAS might not yield any benefit in distance covered during  SSG/practices/games, so there is no point in increasing it from that aspect. Simply more complex

Speaking of relative zones there also might be a question of their practical use. For example, the MAS and ANR levels might not vary much between players for a given team compared to Typical Error of GPS estimates. So this comes to signal vs noise problem. We might utilize relative velocity zones between players that vary around 0.5km/h, but typical error for GPS velocity estimates might be around that value which questionable practical usability of relative zones approach. It is beyond my statistical knowledge how to evaluate this. We need more research on this and the recent paper by Martin Buchheit is a move to a right direction.

Hope that this post got you thinking because things are simply more complex. Use your brain and use the right analysis to get the job done. IMHO, we need both relative and absolute approach for different purposes.










[1] It is beyond the topic of this blog entry to discuss further implications of individual characteristics (e.g. MAS) to game related performance (expressed in both absolute and relative terms) so I am directing you to the papers by Martin Buchheit et al., like Mendez-Villanueva, A., Buchheit, M., Simpson, B. M., & Bourdon, P. C. (2013). Match play intensity distribution in youth soccer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 101– 110.
[2] Coaches in team sports should stop worrying too much on the physical aspect of the performance and training loads and worry more about skill acquisition IMHO. A lot of them are pursuing blindly certain drills because players tend to spend X amount of time in this/or that HR/Velocity zone, instead of worrying on what are they trying to coach/teach group or individual (what technical/tactical/team play aspect). In team sports SKILL and team effort kills, especially in more skill related sports like soccer (this might be a discussion on itself regarding the differences between sports when it comes to worrying on physical performance aspects compared to skill acquisition aspects)
[3] I believe this should be expressed as time instead of distance for the same reasons outlined with two runners at the beginning of this blog post. 

Friday, August 23, 2013

Optimizing groups for Small Sided Games (SSGs)

Optimizing groups for Small Sided Games (SSGs)


In the following video I will show you how to

  • Calculate normal scores for any test/statistic (percentiles & z-scores) and the difference between them
  • Calculate composite scores using weighting factors and normal scores
  • Use one great Excel tool – SOLVER to provide optimized solution for groups

The rationale behind this approach is that we want groups of players that are balanced in some way (we decide based on what parameters). In the video below I have used skill rating and MAS score, but you can easily expand that to include daily wellness or some fatigue score, or anything else you want.

The idea is that having a balanced groups might produce higher level of competition and on a same quality level. This might be interesting research project to see if balanced vs. unbalanced groups show different performance readings (GPS, iTRIMP, etc) and what option might be better for certain goals.



You can download the workbook HERE (I have updated it a bit compared to the one in the video)





Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Individual Qualities vs Positional Demands

Individual Qualities vs Positional Demands


One frequent question I get from coaches and try to resolve myself is whether the conditioning should be based on individual characteristics (MAS, YOYO, VMAX, etc) OR based on position demands?

Regarding the position demands: how do we quantify them and what is the worthwhile difference (SWC) between positions that warrants different training prescription? Most of the studies focused on p values instead of SWC and TE. Speaking of TE (Typical Error) there is a huge %CV (coefficient of variation) in game-related data (which means that distances covered vary as much as 30% from game to game). This further complicated applicable positional differences from practical and physical preparation standpoint.

Ok, suppose we know the positional demands for our level of playing - should we focus on where we are in these demands or where we want to be (play)?

Suppose that we don't take individual qualities into consideration and we impose positional demands based on where we want to be on the players. How are we certain they are not being loaded too much or too little?

In ideal world player physical qualities should coincide with his positional demands. Look at this as the law of supply and demand (supply~demand) or potential~expression. Sometimes this might not be the case because players don't play certain position solely on their physical qualities, but also technical, decision making, mental and so forth.

I believe in complementary approach. I also love the approach by Carlo Buzzichelli -

INTENSITY: Individual Quality
VOLUME: Position Demands
ORGANIZATION: Positional Demands
WORK:REST: Positional Demands and Individual Quality
SITUATION/POSITON: Positional Demand

Again certain drills might be more 'suited' for certain positions, but in short if FB are running longer distances (see GPS data on duration and length of efforts in certain velocity zones) than FW, then FW might perform conditioning in shuttles and FBs in straight line [for example]. Another might be the volume - all positions run at certain %MAS, but MFs might do some extra set.

Again, this is not static picture - the emphasis might shift over time and over pre-season/season.

When it comes to blending technique with conditioning [e.g. doing conditioning with finishing for FWs, conditioning with heading the ball out for CDs, etc] I believe positional demands will dominate [and not his technical/tactical qualities, yet again it depends]

Another way to look at this [dichotomist] problem is to use SSGs and games overall to put certain individual into the most position specific context. Thus, if this is solved with practices, is there a need to do it with conditioning too? And why are we splitting these two anyway? [see my presentation on Periodization Confusion].

How much specific work is too much? When does the specific work fails to provide overload and adaptation? When does the adaptation/overload fails to bring transfer to specific work?

Unfortunately I don't have THE answer, except stating that coaches should learn to reconcile and juggle with these two dichotomies [I solved it by using Squiggle Sense] and not to lean too much on pre-made solutions and philosophies. What I mean by the latter is that one needs to take complexity of biological adaptation and skill acquisition of each individual into consideration instead of pursuing certain rigid approach. The solution is smart monitoring and predictive analytics for each individual. This is the work in progress - take the empiricist/experimental stance and test your hypothesis for each individual, instead of rationalizing things based on who said what.

Unfortunately again, taking a stance of empiricist is not easy - it demand knowing what to measure, how to analyze it, how to compare it to other measures and how to make reliable action steps.



Naming the HIT drills


Naming the HIT drills


I love the idea of naming certain drills/workouts (like Crossfit does using female names) because it is easier for the athlete to ‘personalize’ them and remember them. So, instead of saying we are going to do 30:30 intervals at 100:70% MAS, it might be easier to say “Boys, get ready for Bloody Mary”. 

In the table below I have presented couple of HIT variations, including SIT (Sprint Interval Training, a.k.a Anaerobic Power/Capacity) and RST (Repeat Sprint Training). Think of those at tools in your toolbox – Long HIT, Short HIT, SIT, RST. 

One interesting ‘finding’ is that ‘playing’ with work:rest and active:passive we are able to come up with different variations. This might be important boredom wise, if nothing else.

What I was thinking to do is to name these drills/exercises using (a) girl names, (b) cocktail/spirit names, (c) work tools, (d) guns or (e) anything else manly. If you have some ideas be free to put it down in comments.


MAS stands for Maximum Aerobic Speed

Mean %MAS is average/mean intensity of the drill taking duration and intensity of both rest and work periods

For passive rest I have took walking and approximated it to 30% MAS (which is later used in Mean %MAS calculus)

Also, make sure to read the best review paper on HIT by Martin Buchheit and Paul Laursen 

Friday, August 2, 2013

Measuring external workload in Boxing using accelerometers



For the last month we are having a pleasure of using MiniMax GPS devices (two of them) which we got for three months testing by courtesy of Catapult. I am short of amazed by the simplicity of it’s use and great software that comes with it – Sprint. 



I have been playing with normal features and uses of Catapult GPS, but my wild (or weird?) spirit won’t let me alone so I wanted to experiment a bit with the units and software while we have them and try something unorthodox to GPS devices.

Actually, the GPS devices by Catapult are equipped with accelerometers (among other great sensors) which are used to get Player Load statistic. Player Load is used to estimate non-running based loads using change in acceleration (three axes). It is very usable in quantifying changes of direction, hits, feints, jumps, etc. So I decided to put the devices in indoor mode and use Player Load feature to try to quantify boxing load.

Disclaimer: Accumulated Player Load also depends on something that is called ‘dwell time’ (someone correct me if I am wrong and if this is only applied to efforts analysis) and various filters, that are used to smooth out curves and get rid of errors (like knocking the unit, or dropping it). I have decrease ‘dwell time’ for Player Load to 0,2s compared to usual 1,0s. This is used because units are meant to be wore in a ‘bra’ between shoulder blades to represent whole-body movement. Playing with these parameters might affect the analysis. This is important since the units are not meant to be used for hitting the heavy bag. It would be also more valid to have couple more units that could be wore on ankles, head gear and between shoulder blades to get the full body movement (or head pounding in sparring). Maybe next time. 



Quantifying external work in boxing was always been difficult, so the coaches relied on notational analysis, HR data (internal work), bLA (internal work) and RPE (subjective indicator). Using small accelerometers one could quantify load. This was I tried to do (as a beta self-experiment)

So I have put two devices (named LEFT and RIGHT) on my wrists and put a bandage over:








I decided to do 9 ‘rounds’ of 2minute duration and 1 minute rest. I have done the following activities just to see the possible differences:

  1. Run on treadmill at 8km/h at incline 1%
  2. Run on treadmill at 12km/h at incline 1%
  3. Jump Rope (easy)
  4. Jump Rope (hard; every now and then 10 faster high knees)
  5. Shadow Boxing (two round)
  6. Heavy Bag (three rounds)


I have put 14oz glove for heavy bag work. First heavy bag round was light contact, 4-6 hits, nothing hard – just warming up. Second round were 1-2 very hard strikes with a nice reset and pause in between. Third round I have tried to throw hard punches in combinations and just move around like in a real sparring (at least as my shape allowed me). 

Here is the picture of Player Load and HR for different rounds for LEFT arm.



On this one you can see one heavy bag period in higher zoom:

As you have guessed correctly each spike is a hit to the heavy bag. 


Here is the table with some numbers pulled out (for LEFT and RIGHT arm)

This is also an example of CRT (Customized Team Report) provided by Sprint software. I have used this Excel to graph some data further.  


I have summarized load for LEFT and RIGHT to get TOTAL and I did some simple descriptive statistics. 

On the following picture you can see relationship between Mean HR and Player load for different rounds. Please make sure that correlation might be wrong because I have put running and jump rope as rounds and that might affect the relationship. 



Same as in the picture above there is relationship (but lower) between Player Load and HR Exertion Index (something like TRIMP score). Again each dot represent one 2min round. 



On the following pictures we can see different rounds and the HRmax, Mean HR and Player Load

Max HR



Mean HR



Player Load


There are couple of interesting insights. For Player Load, Jump Ropes get a bit lower position compared to HR mainly because the arms are almost stationary to the side of the body. Same thing for Running at 12 km/h. Again Player Load in this example represent the movement of the hands. 

Compare to HR data, Heavy Bag 1-2 (hard punches in 1-2 with longer reset and rest in between) get lower score in Player Load for couple of reasons: the short re-set time decrease the score, or because of dwell time and filters hard hits are not taken into account. As all the researchers admit - we need more data. 

On the following graph I have created the ratio between Player Load and Mean HR


The idea for this type of analysis comes from cycling world (see blog entry by Joe Friel on this). By dividing Player Load with Mean HR we get some idea of efficiency and cost (short term; between activities comparison) or how the athletes are adapting/improving (long term, time series; within activity comparison). 

Since the accelerometers are on hands, the activities that create lot more arm movement per internal load (penalty; mean HR) get better score.  We can use this between activities comparison to give us some insights into the differences in external work and internal penalty for that work. We might be able to compare individuals and see who might be more efficient (if mean HR are expressed at %HRmax) as a boxer (if we compare sparring or heavy bag data).

In the case we keep tracking extrenal/internal data for one activity, we could see how the athlete is adapting (as Joe Friel did) and when is he starting to plateau (or start showing some possible drop due overtraining or detraining). This might aid in the design of the training block. Again more research is needed.

I hope that this article gave Boxing, MMA, Karate, KickBox, Tae-Kwon Do coaches and researchers some ideas that they might try expanding upon, start using or start experimenting. 





Friday, June 21, 2013

MMA training classification using Bondarchuk system


I decided to publish the following tables that I have created to guide my planning/programming for one  friend of mine and MMA athlete that asked for my advice last year.

I have utilized Bondarchuk approach in classifying the drills for each training component (and goal) as I did in my Physical Preparation for Soccer manual and Periodization Confusion article.

I honestly believe that this is the most comprehensive approach for classifying the training modalities/methods/means for each training component/goals within your training system. This is my work-in-progress table, so don't take it to your heart: if you have any comments, critiques, suggestions please be free to post in comments.

Anyway, I hope that coaches working in MMA might find this useful and modify it to suit their needs.


Classification of the training means/methods


Name of exercise/method
Description
Competitive (CE)
Exercises that are identical or almost identical to competition event
Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Exercise that repeat the competitive event in training but in its separate parts
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event, but train the major muscle groups and physiological systems
General
preparatory (GPE)
Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event and do not train the specific systems.
Exercise classification based on work of Dr Anatoly Bondarchuk and UKA Exercise Classification Hierarchy

Name of exercise/method
Description
Content
Competitive (CE)
Exercises that are identical or almost identical to competition event
MMA match; MMA sparring with competition intensity & duration; strategy/tactics development
Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Exercise that repeat the competitive event in training but in its separate parts
Skill: Sparring in individual components (stand-up, wresting, ground, cage);
Sparring like drills
Physical: Specific conditioning (sparring – MMA, parts); partner drills
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event, but train the major muscle groups and physiological systems
Skill: Technique drills (drilling); Mitt-work; bag-work;
Physical: Special conditioning (mitt, bag, dummy); Explosive strength; Reactive strength; Maximum Strength; Power Endurance; Complexes/minute drills
General
preparatory (GPE)
Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event and do not train the specific systems.
General strength & aerobic capacity; general conditioning; muscle endurance;  warm-up; flexibility; core; recovery procedures; pool; bike…


Skill training

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)
MMA match; Full MMA sparring with competition intensity & duration; strategy/tactics development
Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Sparring in individual components (stand-up, wresting, ground, cage); Sparring like drills (aliveness)

Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Technique drills (drilling); Mitt-work; bag-work;  No ‘live’ resistance

General
preparatory (GPE)
Footwork; flow drills (w/ & w/o partner); warm-up movements

Strength training

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)

Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Partner carries & drills (wrestling, ground); Unstable objects lifting (heavy sandbag)
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Heavy sled push/pull; basic barbell, dumbbell and kettle bell exercises
General
preparatory (GPE)
BW drills; corrective exercises (prehab, rehab); DB/MB circuits

Explosive and Reactive Power (alactic power & capacity)

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)

Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Conjugate exercises (technical moves loaded and unloaded)
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
KB, DB & BB Explosive training; Explosive jumping; Explosive MB throws; Sled pushes; Hurdles; Hammer Swings; Weight vest; mitts; bag
General
preparatory (GPE)
Hill sprints; Flat sprints

Muscle-Endurance & Explosive endurance (lactic power & capacity)

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)

Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Mitt work; bag intervals (punch-out drills); Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises; strength circuits/exercises endurance (tempo method); explosive repeats/throws; rope drills; prowler/sled; alactic-aerobic exercises (intensive)
General
preparatory (GPE)
Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines

Aerobic Power

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)

Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined; extensive & intensive technique work
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Intermittent & interval. Mitt work; bag intervals (punch-out drills); Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises (minute drills); strength circuits/exercises; explosive repeats/throws; rope drills; prowler/sled; Alactic-aerobic exercises (extensive)
General
preparatory (GPE)
Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines; intermittent & interval

Aerobic Capacity

Name of exercise/method
Content
Competitive (CE)

Specialized
developmental (SDE)
Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined; extensive technique work
Specialized
preparatory (SPE)
Continuous & Interval. Mitt work; bag intervals; Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises; strength circuits/exercises; rope drills; prowler/sled;
General
preparatory (GPE)
Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines; combinations w/general strength; continuous & interval