Mark Rippetoe on College S&C Effectiveness

Submitted by jcorqian on

As a distraction from the endless posts of doom discussing last week's game (although much warranted), I wanted to share this article by Mark Rippetoe, who shits on college and pro S&C coaches:

http://www.t-nation.com/training/current-state-of-sc-coaching

In it, he asserts that an athlete's "natural explosion" or sheer athleticism is something that cannot be improved through training (e.g., it’s just genetics).  However, pure strength is something that can be improved. 

Rippetoe’s point is that all the explosion, core, and pilates training etc. that current S&C coaches are quite fond of are useless compared to the core strengthening exercises of bench press, squat, and deadlift.

I’d be very curious to get the opinion of those knowledgeable in this subject.  There are a lot of people on this board who say that we don’t look bigger, stronger, more athletic, etc. than the other team despite having superior talent.  They assert that S&C has something to do with that.  I know Barwis wasn’t a fan of traditional Olympic strength, not sure about Wellman’s methods.

 

turd ferguson

September 11th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

That's interesting and makes sense.  That suggests that when you're recruiting you should place a lot of value in athleticism and explosiveness (since there's not much you'll be able to do to improve that once guys get on campus), but you shouldn't worry as much about sheer strength.  That's probably why a guy like KLS is so highly desired despite questions about his current strength.

Ziff72

September 11th, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^

In all seriousness I could see how you missed it.  All the crying and complaining moved that thread to page 9 already.   It's titled "Interesting read on college and pro S&C.   Only 15 replies so apprently it's not that intereresting to the masses.

I actually find it interesting,  which is strange since I'm spending so much time making fun of you.  hahahaha

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

But some of the stuff he says in that article is extremely wrong. Of course, we know some of that stuff is wrong from studies done well after Rippetoe established himself, but still.

You can definitely train "explosion" and the difference in muscle fibers seems to support this, but when you're recruiting a senior in high school, you're only going to be able to improve his explosiveness so much. You can't train a 40-year-old man to have a first step like Jadeveon Clowney...in fact, you probably can't train any old 18-year-old to have that.

I'm far from a professional, but I'd argue that the plyo stuff Rippetoe denigrates is in fact mostly a waste IF you don't build a strong base with the foundational compound movements. However, he frames it in a way to sound controversial and black-and-white.

Space Coyote

September 11th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^

At least, according to your summary. While S&C programs to focus on explosion, core, and pilates for reasons (including building core, balance, and working out muscles that don't often get attention from standard free-weight lifts), pretty much all S&C programs I'm aware of also employ bench, and particularly squat and deadlift. They do so because they do build your core (which is hugely important) and give functional strength.

Now, he's right in a way (it's been a long time sense I studied this) that you can't increase your fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers (to categorize it generally), but you can make them more efficient. I think it's pretty insane that kids add 50 lbs of muscle and maintain their speed and quickness, if not improve their speed and quickness, and I've seen it improve. The amount you'll improve it is fairly marginal, in the sense that these kids coming in are already good athletes. But they aren't at their peak either. Not in terms of strength as he notes, but also not explosion and things of that nature (it's just small compared to changes made in strength).

At the end of the day, I don't really know who this Mark Rippetoe guy is. Here's his wikipedia page. And here's where I come up with a significant issue. Rippetoe has a BS in petrolum geology. He's trained some big names, he was once certified by the CSCS (he relinquished it in 2009). And he's a CrossFit guy. Most college and pro S&C coaches have at least Master's in something like Kineseology or Exercise science. They know and understand the science behind it. This guy teaches CrossFit, something that when done well can be great, but all you need to teach it I think is a weekend course (think about that when you sign up for Cross Fit).

To me, this is a guy saying "hey athletes, your S&C coaches aren't nearly as smart as me. Pay me to coach you better".

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^

Rippetoe isn't really a "crossfit guy." He linked up with Crossfit to renew his popularity recently. This is probably better for Crossfit than Rippetoe, as he's an absolute disciplinarian when it comes to form and injury prevention.

His biggest claim to fame is Starting Strength, which is a success. He also co-authored Practical Programming, which is hailed as the first book anyone serious about strength training (Olympic lifters, powerlifters, etc.) should read.

Now that I've got the fanboi stuff out of the way, all of your criticisms seem on point. You're not alone in them; Rippetoe draws fire for those same reasons from other strength coaches, too.

Space Coyote

September 11th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^

Like I said, I didn't know who he was and just saw a lot about him and Cross Fit on his wikipedia page. So your information on him does clarify him, I just have some really mixed feelings about the general direction of Cross Fit and how it's being used/taught. It's a personal bias I guess.

I just read parts of the article and to me it came off as, in many ways wrong. Some I'm pretty sure is incorrect according to science. Other parts are incorrect because it insinuates College and Pro S&C people don't know what he knows. S&C coaches know that you can only work with what you are given in terms of an athlete, and that you can only make them so much better. They know they can improve strength more than explosiveness. They do a ton of squats and deadlifts and they do bench. 

The stuff he lists as things that are unnecessary are used in moderation, often times for their other benefits. Multistation barbell training, utilizing things like chains, and limiting rest inbetween as to get a endurance training and strength training are already utilized.

So while my correlating him to cross fit is admittedly wrong, I do have a problem with a lot of the ways he arrogantly and ignorantly attacked the S&C programs currently in place as high level D1 universities and professional teams.

Space Coyote

September 11th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^

I mean, my knowledge of it is based on three years studying it then transferring to a different major, and that was a... ummm... let's say it was quite a while ago now.

But I do know personally quite a few people that are S&C coaches, both at the college and professional level, in a variety of sports (not just dealing with football, in fact, most not directly dealing with football). I just have an issue because I can talk to those guys, and they can talk about the physiology, the research, and all that stuff, and they can talk about the benefits of a bench press, and it can go on for an hour or hours at a time. They know what they know and know what they don't know, and I can get a vague idea because I know enough to be dangerous and that's about it.

But yeah, I think starting a piece with that line pretty much turned me off right away too.

Zone Left

September 11th, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^

I'm a Crossfit guy. Love it. It's fun, efficient, and competitive. Anyone interested in basic wellness should think about it as opposed to going to a gym.

Crossfit has a serious coaching problem. The requirements to open a box are absurdly low and idiots abound. I started with a great coach. I'm up over 500lb deadlift, 350 squat, 300 bench, etc from about 20% lower on 5-6 hours per week. I haven't had a real injury since I started.

Good coaches are great. Bad ones are flat dangerous.

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^

Sounds like you started strong with your lifts when you began Crossfit, meaning you already knew what you were doing.

I don't think "efficient" is the right word to describe crossfit at all, but most people find the other two to be accurate. If your goals concern the powerlifting movements, a true strength program is several times more effiicient.

I'm pretty up in arms about Crossfit, and it's because it could have been a great thing. They made a shitload of bad choices as popularity rose and continue to do so. Shame.

Zone Left

September 11th, 2014 at 7:10 PM ^

We actually are in agreement. The money grab is hurting a lot of people.

For me, I don't just want to lift. I like the body weight training and cardiovascular challenge. I like that I can do a basic strength program and a WOD in a reasonable amount of time.

JTrain

September 11th, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^

Took care of a cross fitter in the er the other day......He was in complete rhabdo-
I love that people are motivated and want to try new things. Be extreme. But you should do it under the guidance of the right trainers. And by all means.....drink LOTS OF WATER.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Commie_High96

September 11th, 2014 at 9:17 PM ^

Fucking Christ, so many people on this blog hate Crossfit! I don't want to get back into the bullshit arguing with keyboard jockey's who have never bothered to try Crossfit, but there are a significant number of serious power lifters that are affiliated with Crossfit. Not only Rippetoe, but Westside Barbell and California Strength, find me three morel laudable names in powerlifting in America than those thee and they all are pro Crossfit in conjunction with their programs.

mgoBrad

September 11th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^

I'm no S&C professional, but in my amateur studies of the subject I think your critique is mostly correct. Rippetoe is a great read for those just getting into strength training, as others have mentioned his book Starting Strength is a must-read for any amateur weight lifter. However, he's very much an old school guy and I always get the distinct impression that he doesn't care what newer research in Kineseology says. Think along the lines of... Mike Gittleson. Basically, if I wanted to be a professional olympic lifter, I would love for Rippetoe to be my coach. If I wanted to be a professional football player... not so much.

Also, he has a love-hate relationship with Crossfit. I wouldn't say he's a "Crossfit guy." He was all about Crossfit years ago when it was first starting. After its popularity exploded and under-qualified Crossfit coaches became profligate and started getting people seriously injured en masse, he distanced himself from the movement. Not sure where he's at on it now. 

I dumped the Dope

September 11th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

The "old" Michigan teams were huge physically massive guys all over the field.

Yet they got taken apart by teams with speed.  Going back a ways, a UCLA loss in the Rose Bowl where Steve Smith got his shoulder separated (I forget the year, sorry) seems to stick out in my mind but I am sure there are others in more modern times.

I would argue that Iowa is now roughly equivalent to the Michigan of old.  They are chock full of burly guys wiht big pipes who do a damn good job of stuffing it back in your face but they seem ploddingly slow at times.  If the game can be funneled to that advantage, its a very nice probability overall.  However I will argue that its never going to be an elite formula for a team as eventually a hybrid team (with that speed in the right places) is going to beat a power team.

I would say the current Michigan team is a blended hybrid but elite in neither direction yet.  I think if we can find the rare guys like Jabrill Peppers who have the speed and strength and put them in the secondary its going to be quite nice.  Not dogging on current DBs but looking to the future.  It would also be interesting to have a Denard-fast guy (thinking along the lines of Venric Mark) to complement the power backs ala Smith and Green and presumably Isaac.  Fleet is close to that but lacking top end, Canteen is fast enough but not heavy duty enough yet.  We see already what problems Funchess creates on offense, if Ways can follow in those footsteps and we can continue to recruit that type of athlete its going to be a deadly matchup near the goalline.

The planks of a ship don't all come together on a single day, its one at a time, and it takes everyone working together.  I feel like the staff recognizes what they need to be an elite team (not an Iowa) and is working that way.  Recruiting has been nice and adding some respectability back has got to make their jobs a ton easier going forward.

543Church

September 11th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^

I don't know how any body serious about strength would NOT to squats and deadlifts.  No exercise gives you the bang for your buck that those do.   In fact you could probably do just squats, deadlifts, and bench and get your workout over with sooner and be much stronger than a guy doing curls in the squatrack or working on the leg extension machines for twice as long as you.

 

 

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^

I went away from all the bro stuff and latched onto a Starting Strength-type program about a year ago. It's mostly squats, deads, bench, and overhead press with a few heavy assistance movements.

I'm up 18 pounds (and it's not like I was unfamiliar with weights) and it's unreal how much my numbers have gone up. None of my workouts last longer than an hour and fifteen minutes, and they're only that long due to rest time.

543Church

September 11th, 2014 at 7:50 PM ^

I did Lou Schuler's New Rules of Lifting a few years ago and I gained 25lbs and was stronger than I'd ever been.     It was all centered on the basic movements and one of the biggest rules was "no machines!".   However, I got away from it after I got so heavy I was running slower.   Now I'm trying to find that balance between distance running and lifting and I'm realizing they seem directly opposed to each other.

 

 

Commie_High96

September 11th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^

The dude is right. Squat, deadlift, press and bench. You basically work your whole body with those lifts alone. Each time add five more pounds. After 6 weeks, you won't believe what you can do. I got a 500# deadlift from following this program got 6 months, it is legit.

Asgardian

September 11th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^

The general point that many times there is too much emphasis on "speed"/"plyometric" work for teenage boys when they haven't established a baseline level of strength is, in my opinion, accurate and there is some consenus among trainers on that point.  The degree to which those mistakes are STILL being made in D1 college football locker rooms... I wouldn't want to speculate on something I don't have first hand experience with; Rippetoe seems to "assume" an awful lot here, and writes like a jerk (which is generally encouraged by T-Nation editors).

Further reading:

Eric Cressey is an elite pro baseball strength coach:

http://www.ericcressey.com/the-absolute-strength-to-absolute-speed-cont…

Louie Simmons is perhaps the most famous trainer in truly world class elite powerlifting, his "speed" work is a core component of his philosophy, but its fundamentally different than cone drills, etc., it's about lifting "lighter" than your max fast; but he believes this is a waste of time until you can squat ~400/500 lbs, so "lighter" is still dang heavy to us puny humans.

http://www.westside-barbell.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic…

There is still innovation in S&C, not everyone is doing the same thing.  Numerous anecdotes from Chip Kelly & Jimbo Fisher (via WWL) here:

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11348255/how-philadelphia-ea…

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11121315/florida-state-s…

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^

I generally take anything Simmons says with a grain of salt, as the Westside guys are equipped lifters (as opposed to raw) and shamelessly and publicly 'roided out of their minds, but I think on a conceptual level, he has a point.

I like that Cressey video.

Blarvey

September 11th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^

I would add this piece by Jim Radcliffe, long time S&C coach for Oregon.

 

For the players in the trenches, being more powerful means getting out of a stance more quickly, accelerating, forcefully engaging an opponent, and finishing that engagement efficiently. We break our long-term goal of developing explosive power into three components: functional strength, directional speed, and transitional agility.

 

 

He also talks about something Rippetoe completely ignores about football players:

In addition to postural and performance issues like these, the popularity of strength training in a lying or sitting position (for instance, bench presses and biceps curls) can hinder overall mobility by creating imbalances between the upper front of the body and the back and lower body. Therefore, proper progression may not always start from scratch, but rather, from some point further behind. Sometimes the first step is not training, but retraining.

 

DMill2782

September 11th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^

explosiveness? In high school I started strictly doing jump exercises and increased my vertical by 8" in a year so I could dunk easily. I also got my 40 time down to 4.5 (hand timed. FAKE!). However, I didn't have any trouble improving my speed and vertical through a training regimen of jump exercises. 

Maybe this guy is talking about some other type of explosiveness I'm missing...

Monocle Smile

September 11th, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

But if you took another kid, maybe a non-athlete and put them through your same routine, it's likely they wouldn't achieve a 4.5 40 or be able to dunk. You clearly have a high explosive potential.

I think that's the point Rippetoe should have made and maybe the one he tried to make.

On another note, what kinds of jump exercises did you use? Depth jumps? Weighted jumps? Whatever you did, it sounds like it worked.

DMill2782

September 12th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

exercises, but three that I felt were the most important. One leg calf raises. All you need is a stair to do those. Calf burn outs where you stand on your tip toes and jump as high as you can over and over and over. I was doing sets of 300 of those. The last main one I did was squat jumps with ankle weights on. I would stand in front of my basketball goal and go down to full squat position and then jump as high as I could. Started out doing sets of 50 without the weights and ended doing sets of 150. It was an extremely difficult workout. When I first started, I thought how hard could just jumping be? I learned really quickly. 

 

Zone Left

September 11th, 2014 at 7:01 PM ^

Rippetoe writes like a lunatic. I found this, Starting Strength, and Practical Programming to be brutal reads that had to be studied to get anything out of. He makes a lot of sense, but it's hard to see that through the writing.

This article seems based on a lot of anecdotes and conjecture. He's clearly right that Devin Gardner has athletic potential I'll never match, but that doesn't mean S&C coaches are idiots. The young guys who come into college programs look totally different and are clearly stronger and faster after 4 years in a serious training program.

petered0518

September 11th, 2014 at 7:39 PM ^

I'll say off the bat that I'm following Rippetoe's starting strength program, so I am a fan of his.

I did a lot of research before starting a weightlifting program, and there some common standards amongst the most respected weightlifting coaches (though of course there are a lot of differences as well).  Then I check out some youtube videos of D-I college weightlifting programs and they seem to have terrible form.  At least, based on what the weightlifting coaches teach.

Check out this video of USC from 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwGWC4bAYuI

Starting at 1:35 they have a minute and a half of guys doing power cleans, and they are just all over the place.  I can't imagine anyone actually teaches cleans like that.

Then at 3:05 they show some guys doing squats.  They aren't even close to hitting proper depth, which every respectable weightlifting coach I found teaches is bad for your knees and less effective for strength building.

There are plenty examples from other schools.  It just seems like there is a huge disconnect between what I read about weightlifting from actual lifters versus what I see from the college programs.  I don't agree with everything Rippetoe writes in that article (dynamic work seems pretty important to me, at least for athletes), but I think he might have a point about college weightlifting coaches not necessarily being that good.

543Church

September 11th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^

I watched one of Barwis' shows on tv and I was surprised how bad the form was on some of the exercises.  In particular the brutal one where you have to clean the bar (with like 215 or 225 on it) 40 times without it hitting the ground or you start over.   It seemed to result in the lifter just doing whatever he could to get the weight up and contorting his body like crazy.

Of course I'm no expert but it looked like it could really result in injury but I was suprised a coach would allow that.  However the exercise seemed more to stress mental toughness than it was to build physical strength.

 

petered0518

September 12th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^

It isn't bad on weekends when I drink it throughout the day.  On weekdays I usually only drink about half to three quarters of a gallon because I only start after I get home from work. Early on when I was doing a legit gallon a day I was indeed very gassy at night when I had to chug to finish the whole gallon.

It works, though.  For context I was a complete beginner, never lifted weights in my life.  I started at 6 ft 140 lbs (I know, I am naturally extremely skinny without trying to be).  In about a month I gained 35 lbs and it was most definitely not all fat.

In relation to this article, I think Rippetoe is the absolute gold standard for a beginner.  His book is detailed and explains the lifts very well imo (though they are far longer and wordier than needed).  I don't think he is a good source for elite athletes, though.  All of his experience has been getting novices to lift heavy, not to fine tune the genetic elite.

MGoStrength

September 11th, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^

As one of the resident strength coaches, albeit former one now, I feel compelled to chime in.  But, any good coach will tell you his/her flaws.  I have never researched this specific question and my hunch is doing so would reveal a lot that would surprise me.  That being said here are a few thoughts.  The #1 role of a strength coach isn't to improve power, core stability, or strength.  The #1 role of a strength coach is to keep athletes healthy.  If your best athletes are on the field/court/ice, your chances of winning go up greatly.  The secondary role of strength coaches are to prepare the athlete to be able to handle the physical stress of practice and competition.  The major tiertary roles of a strength coach are to improve team chemistry, toughness, togetherness, and build measures of strength, power, balance, stability, endurance, etc.

 

Regarding the trainability of power, yes, it is highly genetic.  However, I have seen many college or young professional pitchers go from throwing 87mph to 95mph through a progressive training program.  And, pitching is power.  So, yes strength and power can be significantly improved over an athletes career, and in addition genetics may have a bigger role on speed and agility improvements than training adaptations do.  Also, for that matter adaptations to strength, hypertrophy (lean muscle gain), and endurance training are also highly correlated to genetics.  That idea is not specific to power training.  Further, static tests and improvements of balance can show objective improvements in static balance tests, but are fairly useless towards athletic proficiency, which is why unstable surface training is dumb for athletes.  Balance and proprioception is skill specific so static balance training improves static balance, but does not improve dynamic balance, and certainly does not do so at high speeds.  There is some research in fact to show that high intensity strength training outperforms static balance training at dynamic balance tests.  Further balance and power tend to be inversely related and training for balance tends to reduce power the same muscle group. 

 

But, there are plenty of research studies that show that plyometric training improves speed and power.  There are plenty more that show strength training in a balistic/high speed fashion also accomplishes this.  Reductions in body mass also typically show improvements in speed, which may not be beneficial to all positions in sports.  OK that's all for now.

Matt Siniscalchi

September 11th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^

Rippetoe is definitely a smart and repesctable guy but anyone who is purely a "all or nothing" guy in the strength world, I wouldn't trust. I am strength and conditioning coach at a private facility in NJ and it's always interesting that even the world's best would say this is folly. This goes for the "Im strictly a kettlebell....or barbell...or olympic lifting guys."  



Granted you can't always quantify wins with a team and how strong or explosive they are (what the weight room numbers, 40 times etc.)...there are A LOT of 500 benchers that are offensive lineman that sit the bench and that goes for speedsters too.  Skill of the sport always comes first, then the qualities of strength, speed, power, endurance come second. 



Rippetoe is very stuck in his ways albeit a very good coach but he needs to understand that if you coaches actually measure qualities such as vertical jump (power output), strength numbers, or conditioning measures (aerobic/anerobic power/capacity measures)...and they individualize programs and get BETTER then that should at least HELP somewhat. This could be reducing the risk of injury, or performing at a higher level...



just my thoughts but we could be taking him out of context because genetics does play a huge part esecailly since athletes or what... about 1% of the college environment.



 

BIGBLUEWORLD

September 12th, 2014 at 1:47 AM ^

No one throughout this discussion even mentioned a huge factor in generating athletic power: muscle fiber efficiency and flexibility.  Rippetoe talks about strength so much, he neglects the critical element that many Olympic coaches today emphasize, having muscle fibers that are free from chronic tension, and connective tissue (fascia, tendons, ligaments) with adequate pliability and resilience.

Myofascial release techniques and trigger point therapy are critical for optimum athletic performance.  If an Olympic athlete carries chronically tight, non-functional muscle fibers, it's like an anchor.  They can't compete at world class levels.  S&C coaches are all over the map on this subject.  One of our former U of M coaches thought flexibility was useless, even detrimental.  That's really WRONG.

I've been a professional health and fitness instructor for many years: successfully training professional and Olympic athletes.  (More fun than being an addiction counselor.)  Doing more post-surgical rehab and geriatric work now.  You can check a website called Somax about what muscle adhesions do to athletes; how range of motion and maximally efficient muscle fibers make all the difference in the world. 

Here's the primary principle for any athletic training: The more you do something, the better you get at doing that thing.  Following this maxim, I train my athletic clients with elastic bands and cables more than anything.  Stabilization traing produces more real world power, and is optimal for the support tissue around the joints.  Elastic bands with sufficient resistance support maximum force generation along with explosive speed, and optimize endurance as well.  I've read Barwiss utilizes this type of training.

Also core training in all three planes of motion (sagittal, ventral, transverse) is key for any athlete, because the core is the weak link transferring power from the legs to the torso.  Rippetoe neglects this as well.

Finally, flexibility, mobility, range of motion, are critcal components for generating athletic power.  I wonder sometimes if Aaron Wellman and company are putting too much emphasis on hypertrophy (muscle mass) and not doing enough training for the dynamic, multi-planar activity that football demands.  Why so many ACL injuries?  Where is our fourth quarter performance?  Explosive power, that is force with speed, is more important than strength measurements or even muscle mass.

 

Monocle Smile

September 12th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

All day.

For the record, I don't think Rippetoe actually neglects mobility, but I do think that Practical Programming spends more time on it because of Glenn Pendlay's input.

Last Friday, I struggled to do my squat sets with a weight I should be able to handle with little difficulty. I felt terrible and every rep was a grind. It was because my hip carriage was stiff and sore from doing squats and deadlifts while having a desk job and not doing proper recovery.

I spent the weekend not lifting and doing a different hip mobility routine, both morning and night.

This past Monday, I set a squat PR. Three days after a horrible, regressive workout. It's utterly astounding how much stronger your body is when you're not fighting yourself.