I just got back from an enjoyable visit with my mom and sister.  During these times I spend very little time on my phone because I'm outside doing stuff.  However, this time I got myself caught up in the Twitter a little bit.  I came across a few Tweets that drove me nuts and a few that really hit me the right way.  Pair this with time spent operating a chainsaw and my mind got to rolling.

I can't really remember the exact Tweets that got me going, but they were basically some strength coach "complaining" about how complicated S&C is getting.  Now, I don't know the Tweeter so I don't actually know that he/she was actually complaining or merely making a statement.  I responded to the Tweet and simply added my opinion.  I will also add that the Tweet I'm referring to was a great post, so as not to offend.

And the mental ball really started rolling...

S&C IS WAY TOO Complicated 

I'll start this off by saying that I made it through Division 1 college athletics (2 sports) without mobility work, without a foam roller, without single-leg work, without corrective exercises, without prehab exercises, without rubber bands, without anti-rotation exercises...  If you look at the history of S&C there are A LOT more athletes that went through it the way I did than there are athletes that go through it the way we know it today.  There are A LOT of people in Hall of Fames that just did organized bodybuilding that was called strength and conditioning.  I think that is lost in today's industry.

Training athletes is REALLY EASY.  Every athlete needs the exact same thing.  This drives sport coaches crazy because they think they're special.  They are, but in a different way.

I've said this before and it bares repeating.

  1. Every athlete needs strong legs, hips, mid-section, back and shoulders.
  2. Strength is built on TWO (2) feet (2 arms) and fine tuned on one.

So, EVERY athlete needs to Squat, Deadlift, Press (with a BB in some fashion) and Row.  They also need to do basic bodyweight movements (Squat, Push-ups, Pull-ups, Inverted Rows, Sit-ups, GHR or Back Extensions).  Regardless of sport, these basic movements NEED to happen.  When and if they ever master these there is room for single-leg/arm work to fine tune the stuff that really works.

Depending on sport you'll need to handle a few things differently (sport-specific, if you will).  I don't treat a Baseball player's shoulder like I treat a football player's shoulder.  Basic stuff like that SHOULD be common sense so I won't go further into that.

There is a place for single-leg work, prehab, mobility, etc...  Obviously all of these things are tools that have made S&C a better, more thorough discipline.  But be wary of replacing the movements that really work with too much nonsense designed to target specific, perceived weaknesses.

If you get a kid that has lifted for 4 years in high school they are beginners.  They may be some kind of athletic savant (seriously doubtful), but they are not good lifters.  After 4 years with you at the collegiate level (8 years of training, maybe) they MIGHT be transitioning towards being intermediates, but that is doubtful, as well.

One thing we need to do a better job of as S&C coaches is explaining lifting to our sport coaches.  Just because the NFL, MLB, NBA... does it doesn't mean it's good and it certainly doesn't mean that 18-22 year old kids should do it.  We also need to do a better job of explaining that training age isn't the same as being good at a sport.  A great pitcher (insert any sport position) doesn't make a great lifter.

As S&C coaches we need to understand this as much as the sport coaches need to understand this.  We're working with beginners.  Period.  Coach them accordingly.

Sport Coaches and the Lunacy in S&C

This is where the "fun" really begins.  I'll start this by making a few very simple, truthful statements after asking a few pointed questions.

  1. What generally qualifies a sport coach to coach their sport?  Dig deep into this and the answer is VERY CLEAR.  They played their sport in college (in the case of Bill Belichick, he played lacrosse, not football, in college - but he's the EXCEPTION to the rule).  So the qualification for a sport coach to "know" and coach their sport is that they probably played it in college, at the very least.
  2. If sport coaches can coach their sport because they played it then strength coaches should be able to coach because they lifted.  Obviously, this isn't an entirely intelligent statement, but anyone with an IQ over 9 can figure out what I mean.  I'll take myself as an example: I played 2 sports in college, was trained by professional strength coaches at both schools, I competed in powerlifting for 15 years, I've coached in S&C for a decade - clearly, I'm qualified if we're matching up qualifications needed to coach a sport.  Now add in the formal education that is required (and should be) to be a professional strength coach.  That little piece of paper that I paid for that "tells" me I know what I'm talking about - the CSCS (or whichever piece of paper you paid for).

I'm dangerously close to going off on a tangent.

My point?  If anyone at the university level is qualified to coach it's the strength coach.  Presumably they lift (if they don't they're not worth a damn) and they have some type of formal education that isn't just experience to do their job.

Again, there are a lot of strength coaches who workout, but don't train and haven't played a sport at the collegiate level so their experience is lacking.  Some will say this doesn't matter.  I disagree.  However, there are a few Bill Belichick-types that just "get it" but they are the exception, not the rule.

Another tangent coming and thwarted...

Anyone who coaches at the collegiate level has had interference from sport coaches who think they know how to do our job.  Why?  I have my theories and they hold water.

Let's delve into S&C and the culture a bit.  One horrible creation in S&C is the Hype Coach - the "high energy guy" or as I like to call them, the strength cheerleader.  These guys aren't coaches at all.  They're cheerleaders.  They run around the weight room yelling stupid catchphrases.  They don't really coach anything.  They just yell.  Unfortunately, this is now being considered a good coach????????????  The evolution of this nutjob are the ones who wear t-shirts that are too small in an attempt to look big.  Couple the tight t-shirts with the guys who break 2x4's across each other's backs pre-game (football in notorious for idiocy like this).  Fill in the blank with other such nonsense you've seen and now you should be able to understand why sport coaches and administrators don't take us seriously.  Unfortunately, it's these strength cheerleaders who get noticed, not the quiet professionals (stole that from Special Forces) who simply go about their business training, not cheering, athletes.

The Answer?

I have the answer, but not the solution.  As we go through the rest of this semester we should all take a look at ourselves and our style.  There is NOTHING wrong with a high energy coach who COACHES his/her athletes.  They teach proper form, know what to look for, make corrections when necessary.  Their goal is to put together a sound program that includes balance.  Balance is not equal time/focus spent on each discipline.  It simply means checking off the boxes (find Jim Wendler's explanation of this).

What are the boxes?

  1. Strength (simply, the barbell)
  2. Injury prevention (single-leg/arm and all the fancy corrective and/or prehab exercises)
  3. Mobility (joints)/Flexibility (muscles)
  4. Conditioning (general - practice takes care of specific)

Again, this doesn't mean that equal attention or focus is placed on each of these.  It simply means they are all hit in some fashion in every workout.  At different times of year 2, 3 and 4 may have different levels of attention, but no matter the training period, they all need to be addressed - balance.

Strength

ALWAYS #1.  In-season its importance may drop a bit, but it is ALWAYS the main focus.  Strength (general strength) cures most issues and will leave you with a better idea of what an individual may actually need.  Get them stronger first.  Weaknesses will disappear.  What's left can be addressed with some specialty exercises.

Injury Prevention 

Early in a training cycle there's not much need for this.  Take 2-3 weeks and recondition athletes after a long layoff (more than a week or coming off of the competitive season.

After 2-3 weeks add in some big single-leg movements that will develop general strength as well as address some injury prevention (BB Lunges, Step-ups, etc...)

The closer you get to competition you add in some more of the little stuff.  In-season, this might take a higher focus, but will still never outweigh the importance of general strength

Mobility/Flexibility

ALWAYS IMPORTANT, but shouldn't take much time.  Mobility should be part of your general dynamic warm-up every workout.  Much more than that is a waste of precious time.  That's not to say that you don't spend a little bit of extra time on specific areas, but "a little" is the operative phrase.  Don't be redundant in one workout.  Be redundant in a micro-cycle.  The accumulation of 5 measly reps of hurdle-unders 3x a week, over the span of 4-5 years does wonders.  Don't beat it to death in one workout.

Conditioning

Don't run kids into the ground.  When they come off of the competitive season they're not in lifting shape, they-re in game shape.  Recondition them in the weight room.  Don't neglect running, but understand that you can be in great shape to play and terrible shape to lift.  Conditioning changes as the competitive season approaches.

All need to be addressed all the time, but learn when and where they fall AFTER strength.

Another tangent...Back on track... Look at ourselves and ask the hard questions.

  1. Does the way I view myself align with how I present myself to sport coaches and administration?  If it doesn't, change it.
  2. Do I coach or am I cheerleader?  Yelling phrases like, "Grind", or "Gainz" is cheerleading, not coaching.
  3. Can I communicate?  This is a separate topic to be discussed, now.

Communication

I get asked the question a lot...  What's the best book(s) I can read about training?  "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" and your own training log (hopefully, you keep a detailed one).

Men are from... is one of the best books I've read on the basic understanding of how to communicate with the opposite sex.  I deal with men and women, just like every other coach.  Learn how to communicate with the kid.

Read anything on public speaking and teaching.  That's what we really do.  You can know everything about training, but if you can't command a room and explain what you want done your knowledge is useless.  Stop worrying about programming because it doesn't matter.

And finally, you'r detailed training log.  Everything I run with my athletes, I've done.  The progression they use is one I've used (and still use).  How in the hell can you truly learn how to program for an athlete if you don't still suffer with them?  That doesn't mean train with them.  It means putting yourself through similar workouts so that you can understand the progression and how to adjust it.  If it works for you it'll work for them.  Seriously, it's that simple.  And, if you make yourself suffer a bit you can have some empathy and understanding of what they go through.

Start learning how to present yourself to your sport coaches and administration.  Start learning how to communicate effectively with your athletes.  Start learning that you and your program aren't nearly as important as you think you are.  Start showing your sport coaches and administrators that, although you (we) are easily replaceable, we are still more important than they realize.  And if you're not training using the basic template that you use for your athletes, change that.

If we, as a strength community, present ourselves better we may eventually be treated as equals and not support staff.  But, if we keep acting like single-digit neanderthals we'll continue to be treated as such.

Not sure how well this flows, but I'm done.