American Muscle: What are your thoughts?

Submitted by Mercury Hayes on

I thought the pilot episode was pretty exciting. Was hoping to see Brock Mealer a bit more, but I'm sure they will save that for another episode. Looks like they led with Richard Sherman to drive ratings. 

I felt the show was pretty interesting despite not showing much. Tough to do when everything happens in a gym. But the bits with Mrs. Babcock were cool and it was also nice to see the former U-M players, Brandon Graham, David Molk, Vlad Emilien and Carson Butler who stole the show with his catch on Sherman.

What did everyone else think? Will you be watching again? Will you be making the trek to Plymouth to lift until you puke?

readyourguard

July 9th, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^

I'll always give props to people that make themselves successful through hard work. Barwis and all those players are putting in the work to better themselves. Bravo.

Coldwater

July 9th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

Loved it!!! That was an extremely cool show. I wish I was still a high school athlete, I'd be motivated as hell. It's now must see TV.

Frito Bandito

July 9th, 2014 at 10:18 PM ^

I'm upset that everyone knew the reputation / track record Barwis had and yet he wasn't retained when Hoke was hired. I can't bad mouth Wellman but I can say our big uglies look soft on both sides of the ball. Could be youth, could be the s&c program failing them. One thing's for sure.. Barwis can motivate players. 

 

Also, moar Brandon Graham, and Mike Martin please.

FreddieMercuryHayes

July 9th, 2014 at 10:27 PM ^

Wellman has a pretty good rep himself. And I don't think Wellman or Barwis had an appreciable impact on their teams' performances either greatly good or bad. Issues with the teams went far past the S&C staffs. Both are well versed in modern S&C techniques.



Besides, remember that the S&C coach is the only coach that has unlimited year round contact with the players. They are the right hand man of their HC. They need to be on the same page philosophically. It's not surprise Hoke took his S&C with him.

bluelaw2013

July 10th, 2014 at 7:25 AM ^

Having been a college football player myself (D2; nothing like Michigan), I feel qualified to say that the relatively overlooked and commoditized position of S&C coach actually has a tremendous impact on team performance. Just tremendous.

Rarely are they as scientifically- minded as they should be, but when they get the nutrition/exercise/rest balance right, AND can motivate, the results can be amazing. . Barwis was great (his prior efforts probably contributed more to 2011 than we recognize). Sanderson is great (he probably impacts Beilein's development success more than we recognize). Wellman seems , from a distance, to just be good to adequate. I believe the players that played under both Barwis and Wellman vouch for Barwis. And in football, everyone being just a little bit better can add up to a lot. Incremental individual advantages in strength, speed, and stamina, when added up across all 11 guys on the field, turn into a huge team advantage.

MGoStrength

July 10th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^

IMO D1 football S&C coaches seem to rely too much on being a cheerleader and not enough on sound training principles.  I realize they are a coach and they must be able to motivate and coach, but football culture specifically seems to like loud men that yell a lot and are often former football players and are not always as good of strength coaches as some of the other sports, they are just louder.

FreddieMercuryHayes

July 9th, 2014 at 10:21 PM ^

It feels like every other Discovery Channel/TLC/etc reality type TV series. Intense 'main' guy surrounded by buffoons providing comic relief and editing that makes it difficult to actually follow how it is in real life. I enjoyed it, but reminded me why I hate that type of TV show set up. Will definitely watch when they do an episode on Barwis' work with spinal injury people.

MGoStrength

July 9th, 2014 at 10:29 PM ^

Love the attitude, intensity, and obvious care for the athletes he works with.  I really liked seeing all the former UM football players.  And, I really liked seeing Sherman help a young player.  But, I seriously question his understanding of exercise science.  "Hypertrophy is all about high repetions with no rest."  I'm not sure the research would support that claim.  That style of training has value, especially with atheltes and in team environments, but it's not hypertrophy training.

MGoStrength

July 9th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^

They don't have to show the science.  That doesn't excuse Barwis not understanding it...he shouldn't have to have his knowledge edited...thats basic stuff.  I'm probably nit picking here, but I'v heard him say inaccurate things regarding science theories before.  As an exercise science guy that irks me a bit, but big picture, he seems like an awesome dude and great coach despite this.  Still seems like a cool show.  I'm definitely tuning in!

MGoStrength

July 10th, 2014 at 8:48 AM ^

That begs the question, what makes someone's knowledge of exercisce science credible?  Is it your job, your education, your certifications, your reputation, etc.?  IMO There are some great D1 football S&C coaches out there, but there are also some guys that rely way more on the volume of their voice than the soundness of their training principles.  If your business is training athletes and you're not investing time in research and continuing your education on a regular basis you're doing your athletes a dis-service (not saying Barwis isn't here).  

 

Lending to the thought that non-DI football S&C coaches are often more well versed in science...BTW in case anyone didn't know UM's Oly Sports S&C ( basically all sports but basketball and football) staff is doing some pretty good things and Mike Favre who coaches women's soccer, wrestling, and volleyball was the coach of the year.

Generic MGoBlogger

July 9th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^

It was meh... Nothing spectacular... Honestly, I really wish it would have been more aimed toward documentary style with a little comedy thrown in here and there.  It has the feel of a Pawn Stars, American Hoggers, etc. cheesy reality show.  However, I will watch simply because I like Barwis and to see former UM players.

UMgradMSUdad

July 10th, 2014 at 12:52 AM ^

I'm pretty sure I'm not the target audience for a show like this, so if there were no connection to Michigan, I almost certainly would not have watched in the first place, and if I did come across it, I wouldn't have watched the entire hour.  But, there is that connection, so I will tune in next week.  The one episode I don't want to miss is where he is working with people learning to walk again.  

gord

July 10th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

But without the experts coming in that do all of the work.  I love the show but find it funny that no one ever actually pawns anything.  They just sell their items.  Every episode is this...

Rick-Do you want to pawn it or sell it?

Customer-Sell it.

Rick-Well, I don't know anything about it so I'm going to call an expert who will come over and help me out for free because I'm such a cool guy.

Customer-Ok, that sounds good.

The items and experts are what makes the show good IMO.

543Church

July 10th, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^

I think it is hilarious they are showing repeated shots of the train tracks and trying to make the area look badass.  It is an office park in Plymouth Township, really on the edge of a wealthy suburb.  

I wish they showed more of the workouts to get an appreciation for what the approach is and really see how much harder the pros have to work compared to the average MGoBloggers down at Vic Tanny.

 

cobra14

July 10th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^

We miss Molk and Martin. Just bad MFers who work hard and don't take ish from anyone. Thankful Vlad went to Toledo. How did that guy ever get a scholarship to Michigan? Though they don't show a ton of the workouts you do get a sense how hard athletes have to work.

Also $400 an hour, no thanks.

UMgradMSUdad

July 10th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

I felt sad for Vlad in that episode.  I'm certainly not going to blame his attitude or inablitlity to latch onto an NFL team on Barwis, but it did not seem like Vlad was thriving in that environment--quite the opposite.  Also, the only online mention I can find of his 40 time at that NFL tryout in Toledo lists his 40 time as 4.73 (with a low of 4.63 and a high of 4.84), not exactly the 4.5 Barwis was claiming on the show.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=89555&draftyear=2014&genpos=SS

Space Coyote

July 10th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^

And in that way, yes, he is building muscles as any weight-lifting will tend to do. But it is more than simply increase reps and decrease rest. It also has to do with switching reps and load, optimizing down time between sessions (max ~2 days), decrease micro-damage (which prevents muscle growth), etc, etc.

Certainly he knows a lot about strength and conditioning, I don't think anyone is denying that. From the chocolate milk thing, to his focus on olympic style training, to his method of moving people from station to station and limiting overall rest (and thereby constantly stressing various muscle groups, increasing cardio, while also increasing explosive strength) are all beneficial workout styles that many use, and clearly pay dividends. No one is arguing that.

But there are times when some of the things he says are not all together accurate. That doesn't mean it's a bad workout program, again, obviously it's not. It's that it isn't necessarily steeped in the most accurate of science. Either it's miscommunicated, slightly misunderstood, or what have you. Many of the things he does teach have scientific merit, and that's good. But at the end of the day he is a coach, as you're saying, he isn't the scientist or the professor, nor should he be.

His job is to teach technique, plan workouts based on results, continue to learn based on other's research and implement into his plan, and to motivate. Just as a researcher isn't the same as an engineer isn't the same as the person that eventually implements a concept, the same can be said with Barwis. Many college football coaches teach their players how to properly run. They teach their players how to properly gain leverage and explode through opponents. They do all this, but I doubt a whole lot of them truly understand the science behind it all. That's fine, they shouldn't have to know it, as long as they sell what their saying and as long as what their teaching is affective. A little background can certainly help, too much background is unproductive.

I haven't seen anyone on here that doesn't have their ego in check. No one is calling out Barwis as a bad S&C coach, in fact, everyone here even questioning some of his stuff has claimed he is a good S&C coach. No one is stating that his workouts are easy either, so your debating an argument no one is making. I've been through similar workouts, I've made it through the week, I've puked and sweat and felt like garbage and carried through it because of a high level S&C coach. It was hard, it sucked, and I wouldn't have gotten through it without that coach, and that's the purpose of the coach: to give instruction, to formulate a plan, to continue implementation of new ideas, and to motivate.

Ziff72

July 10th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^

SC, from your posts I can tell you have quite a bit of knowlege of football and take care in your posts so don't take this the wrong way when I say that your comment that you took some classes in college so you know that Barwis is wrong was quite hilarious. 

Putting that aside you are obviously very informed on the subject.  Please point to something specifically that Barwis said that you feel is incorrect scientifically.  Hard to pass judgement on an argument without specifics.

Thanks.

Space Coyote

July 10th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

EDITED - I had written something up, maybe you saw it maybe you didn't. But I said some things I probably shouldn't say (nothing insulting, just probably better left unsaid than out in a public forum).

Ziff72

July 10th, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^

I was just teasing because you said you majored in Kiniesology, it reminded me of a guy asking Hoke a question about why he doesn't run a play he plays on Madden 25 with great success.  With all the other criticism you have taken I wouldn't think you would have taken offense and lashed out if that's what you took back.  The other part about being critical of  Barwis I can't see why you would have taken that down.  It's good stuff if you have a specific point you want to make.  

I resepect your opinion enough to ask you to back up your argument against a well known expert in his field.  Most people that would make such claims I would generally dismiss as a clown, but I know you are not that.  I can't have you and Mike debate in a forum so asking you to back up your claim with some specifics is the best I can do for my curiosity.

 

Space Coyote

July 10th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

Needless to say, there are other reasons I had it taken down. I really didn't take offense to it, so no worries there, and I didn't reply with insults or anything nasty (I actually had a pretty well thought out response that had some decent info, it was just better left unsaid). There were just some other reasons I had that I didn't want what I said to be taken the wrong way. Can't say much more than that. But no offense taken.

Ziff72

July 10th, 2014 at 3:11 PM ^

I respect your position but now your intriguing me even more...hahaha.  

I guess I'll have to let it go.

Since I'm still  pining to see what would have happened with Denard in his Junior and Senior seasons in RR's offense I guess that's not my strong suit.

Let it go, let it go.......

MGoStrength

July 10th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^

Muscle hypertrophy is separate from muscle hyperplasia.  During hypertrophy, contractile elements enlarge and the extracellular matrix expands to support growth.  In contrast, hyperplasia results in an increase in the number of fibers within a muscle.  How exactly this occurs from resistance training is still considered theoretical, but most accept 3 primary factors that are responsible for initiating the hypertrophic response to resistance training: mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress. 

 

Mechanical tension is produced by force generation and stretch.  Mainly it is governed by the intensity or load placed upon the body.  It is believed that the tension associated with resistance training disturbs the integrity of skeletal muscle causing molecular and cellular responses in the myofibers and satellite cells that results in a slew of events that result in hypertrophy of which are not totally understood by science.  Metaboliic stress manifests as a result of exercise that relies on anaerobic glycoloysis for ATP production which creates a building up of metabolites which can produce a hypertrophic effect.  This process is believed to be due more to the accumulation of those metabolites and is less about intensity or load placed on the body.  And, muscle damage is theorized to occur due to tear(s) in the sarcolemma and supportive tissue which induces injury to the contractile elements.  This creates an inflammatory response that leads to a release of growth factors and satellite cell proliferation and differentiation, which in addition to satellite cell activity is believed to mediate muscle growth.

 

From there you can look at manipulating variables of resistance training such as intensity, volume, rest intervals, repetition speed, muscle failure, exercise selection, etc. in order to best achieve a hypertrophic response.  All of this is somewhat theoretical as science cannot at this time point to clear mechanisms for hypertrophy and what types of resistance training variables are responsible for which.  However with all that said, most exercise science folks would generally consider what Barwis is doing a combination of muscular endurance training (lots of volume with very little rest) and circuit training (going from one exercise to the another with no rest in-between).  This will absolutely cause muscle damage and metabolic stress, but the loads are less likely to cause significant mechanical stress.  Practical recommendations for hypertrophy training tend to employ a repetition range of 6-12 reps per set with rest intervals of 60-90 seconds between sets with exercises varied in a multiplanar, multiangled fashion to ensure maximal stimulation of all muscle fibers.  In addition, multiple sets should be employed, often carried to the point of concentric muscle failure.  Finally, concentric reps should be performed relative fast while eccentric repetitions should be performed at slower speeds. 

 

This is the current model for what is considered hypertrophy training.  That being said any resistance training could technically be called hypertrophy training in that it has the ability to have a hypertrophic response.  But, a phase of training that focuses extremely high volumes with very low rest is generally considered muscular endurance, despite its ability to have a hypertrophic effect.  Any S&C text and the NSCA CSCS certification next to his name would also follow this logic.

gord

July 10th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^

I think by high reps he means 10-15 and by low rest he means 60-90 seconds.

http://www.barwismethods.com/shop/football-skill-program-hypertrophy/

"Mike Barwis utilizes the Football Skill Hypertrophy program (6 weeks, 3 days per week) when training the top skill position players in the country! This program was specifically designed to increase lean muscle mass in the athlete by incorporating Olympic as well as traditional lifting movements. In order to increase the cross-sectional area of the muscle fibers, and thus increase lean muscle mass, the hypertrophy program calls for multiple sets of 10 or more repetitions or single sets to failure. The body should be absolutely fatigued and have very little rest. Includes percentages for each week."

He's not talking about very high reps with no rest.  That is this...

 

 

If someone is out of shape and does a workout with 10-15 reps with 60 second rests their muscles will get bigger and stronger which is hypertrophy, thus his marketing tactic of calling it hypertrophy training.

MGoBender

July 10th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^

Jesus, people.  Jumping on Barwis for glazing over what Hypertrophy technically is with all the details?  Come on.  This show, like all others in its genre, are aimed at the lowest common denominator.  Is it really hard to believe that the director said "Give us the 10-word description of what you're doing and make it sound scientific."?

Clearly they are not going to go into the physiological and scientific details with this type of show.

If this had been the show many of us wanted (a true documentary without the stupidness) then I'm sure we'd see Barwis be more detailed and exact in his descriptions.  

Instead, Discovery wanted Orange County Choppers in a gym.

MGoStrength

July 10th, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^

For my part I don't think I'm jumping on him as I mentioned I think he's still a good coach and appreciated a number of things on the show despite my critique of his exercise science understanding.  I may not have said anything, but he made a similar mis-diagnosis of another exericse science theory during his TED talk, so it seems like a trend for him to speak first and think second.  Ultimately, it's no biggie, but this stuff is my passion.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing if you see somone mis-speaking on a topic you're passionate about, you'd probably make a note of it too, no?

Chaz_Smash

July 10th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^

Liked how they pretended Richard Sherman flew to Michigan because he wanted to check out the "vibe" of Barwis' gym. Had nothing to do with getting paid to be on a TV show.