Today's nytimes.com has an article about Stanford's training regimen and how it differs from most team's and how Stanford has fewer injuries than most programs. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/sports/ncaafootball/stanfords-distinct-training-regimen-redefines-strength.html?ref=ncaafootball
Semi OT: Stanford's Training Regimen
Stop visits from the ACL fairy?
Stop--no. But improved flexibility and core strength will greatly reduce those type of injuries over the long run, as well as improve performance.
Neuromuscular control is a big risk factor. One of the potential problems with a lack of neuromuscular control is that folks tend to land with their knees in greater valgus aligment (knees move together and internally rotate). Landing in knee valgus without sufficient muscle activation can produce tensile loads that damage the ACL. In addition, reduced control and strength from the hip abductor and external rotator muscles can be implicated. This weakness allows the femur to assume an adducted and internally rotated position which contributes to the knees coming together during landing. Some of the underactive muscles associated with this compensation pattern are the glutes.
The methods most frequently reported as factors involved in an ACL injury are 1) strong activation of the quadriceps muscle over a slightly flexed or fully extended knee, 2) a marked valgus collapse of the knee, and 3) excessive external rotation of the knee, where the femur is excessively rotated internally at the hip relative to a fixed tibia. A few of these factors lead to genu valgum (knees coming together). This can be due to weaknesses in the hip muscles such as the glute medius or excessive foot pronation (bearing weight on the inside of the foot). Greater quadriceps-to-hamstring activation could also be a problem. The posture of lumbar extension (low back extension) pattern could indicate overactive hip flexors and underactive glutes and hamstrings. This is common among male athletes. This increase in quadriceps activation can cause the tibia to translate anterior, which further increases the strain on the ACL especially when landing with a knee closer to full extension. Some reasons for these compensations patterns include a lack of neuromuscular control, overactive hip flexors, inhibited glutes and hip abductors and external rotators, less hamstring-to-quadriceps strength, and weakened intrinsic core stabilizers.
Ultimately there are a million reasons that could be implicated in an ACL injury and every one is different. The key is ongoing regular assessments of athletes to find any muscular imbalances and compensation patters so you can give individual programming to address those. But, when you take big kids moving at high velocities, a certain amount of ACLs are gonna be torn regardless, especially on artificial surfaces when we all practice and play on a lot.
So what you're saying is more deadlifts?
More curls. In the squat rack.
all that was right on the tip of your tongue, right?
"Ya know, I was thinking the SAME thing...weird."
One of us is missing the /s here and I'm not sure if t is you or I.
Hey coach Barwis, how's your wolves doing?
this - why I read the board.
May 2014 bring even better posts and happy tidings.
Posterior chain strengthening and eccentric/braking emphasis in drills is a must.. Too many athletes/coaches are concerned about starting really fast and fail to realize the importance of the eccentric braking phase that is essential for all change of direction and stoping and starting movements.
Funny coincidence, I just had ACL surgery this year and my doctor was the Stanford football team's knee doctor (who is at the sidelines during games). The guy was amazing
Threre's nothing really new there. There are hundreds of different philosophies out there. There are also still some old school strength coaches, especially in football, that either prioritize the Olympic lifts and their derivitives (clean and jerk & snatch) or the powerlifting exercises (deadlift, squat, and bench). I've seen this more to be the case in the South. But, tons of coaches, especially the younger ones, take a more evidence based approach and don't train to make players neccessarily bigger or stronger, but better football players. Strength is not highly correlated with being good at football. Mobility, stability, and power are much more so, but even still they only make you a better athlete, not a better football player. Strength and conditioning's main goal above all else is to reduce the chance of injury, then to prepare athletes for the rigors of practice and games, then to improve things like strength, power, endurance, mobility, speed, power, etc. while building team spirit, accountability, mental toughness, etc. But, reducing the chance of injury is always #1. Keep the players healthy so the best players can play.
outcomes on the field?
Agree on nothing revolutionary but ia team's S&C philosophy has to match the style of football and optimally develop the players to perform their responsibility on Saturday (which only happens if healthy). Oregon's S&C should differ dramatically in emphasis from Stanford's from Auburn's from UM's. The article tries to show the counter-intuitive philosophy of a power team relying on "finesse" exercises instead of heavy lifting.
To bring the article On Topic, do you see signs of UM's S&C program working effectively? If so, what are the signs?
You link it in certain ways. You link it to injury rates as most strength coaches track them. You link them to objective assessments such as movements screens that they mentioned in the article the Functinal Movement Screen (FMS). You link them to performance assessments like vertical jump, pro agility, 40 yard dash, 1-rep max testing, etc. But, it's extremely difficult to link the success of a strength program to wins and losses. Strength coaches don't make better football players they make better athletes. Its the position coaches job to take that added athleticism and turn in into a better football player. That doesn't mean some head coahces don't want it linked but IMO it's a misguided metric to rate the effectiveness of a strength coach and his/her performance.
Regarding the counter-intuative philosophy of a power team relying on finess instead of heavy lifting...the term power is often misunderstood. Power is just as similar to speed as it is strength. Many people say a guy is powerful when what they really mean is strong. Strong is not neccessarily explosive, which is what being powerful is all about. For exmaple an offensive lineman is not powerful, they are strong. They display slow speed strength, which inronically is built by powerlifting exercises, which are not power exercises at all, they are strength exercises. Power requires fast explosive movements. Jumping and short sprints are more indicatvie of power than powerlifting is. But, building stability is just as important in a "powerful" running game. Because if you build strength in a limited capacity or a single plane of movment such as deadlifts, bench presses, and squats all in the saggital plane (up and down) you are not required to use the other planes of motion or control lateral or rotational forces. Sports are played in all three planes are require a higher degree of motor control, core stability, ect. This is why stabilization exercises and training that uses the entire body in all planes is required to develop a power running game. If you're only strong in one plan how are you going to deal with a defender that runs around you and pushes you off your base of support? You can't. So training for a power running game can't be done by only using powerlifting. Otherwise you will create strong powerlifters and limited, immobile, unstable, slow, football players.
Also, because at BCS fooball programs head football coaches hire the strength coach becasue they report to the head football coach, yes they are linked to the head coaches overall philosophy. At smaller programs that's not the case, even at FCS football programs. But regardless of whether you play manball or uptempo/no huddle spread all strength coaches will take their athletes through various phases of training. All coaches will at some point focus on max strength at certain times of the year and at the same time all coaches will focus on endurance at some point in the year. And, different positions have different needs. Even different players at the same position have different needs. Some guys need to put on weight and strength, others need to take off weight. So, although every program has an overall philosophy, the best way is to individually assess players regularly using objective measures and create programs for them individually that meet their specific needs. Most programs to do this which makes the overall philosophy less important and more talk than anything else...or at least better utilized on the field versus with the strength staff.
I couldnt' say if UM strength program is working. I don't know their goals or philosophy or how they assess. Maybe I can find out for you. I know a guy who worked with UM Olympic sports, not football, so maybe I can track it down. But, I wouldn't judge the success or failure of the strength staff based on wins and losses.
And I'm sure it works very well, the proof is in the pudding they say. One word of caution, and I realize he said that the system isn't a particular type but a hybrid of several, but the mention of crossfit raises an eyebrow. As effective as that system is, over time crossfit (or anything like it) has long term negative impacts for people. It opens up a bigger opportunity for injury, which is what they say they've accomplished the exact opposite. I'm no doctor, but I do read and study a lot about fitness and I'd warn someone to be cautious when thinking about crossfit.
Here's one article that explains in more detail: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-basso/crossfit_b_2649450.html
and thanks for the link. I found the descriptions between "training" and "exercise" to be very enlightening. Since I started doing triathlons almost three years ago, this type of information interests me.
Rippetoe has another good article pertaining to training and "exercise". It's a mindset I take everyday into the gym with me. Train, don't exercise.
Here's the other link.
That's a good article by Rippetoe. I started doing his Starting Strength program recently and the results have been incredible. I was really out of training before starting but in only 4 months have added 150 lbs to my squat and still haven't hit a wall or needed to reset. Definitely had noticeable body comp changes as well. It's not easy lifting the heaviest weight you've lifted 3 times a week but it works.
SS is a great program to start with. I liked it a lot but ended up switching to ICF after I kept stalling. ICF still takes advantage of linear progression but adds more volume. It's a bit longer of a workout compared to SS, but I've noticed great results with both.
Since he didn't really explain, my hunch is that when he references Crossfit he means they use circuit style of training at times to build muscular endurance and that he uses some non-traditional movements instead of just weights like sled pushes/pulls, tire flips, body weight calesthenics, etc. This is just my hunch. But, this is stuff many strength coaches do. But, I'd be surprised if he's acutally prescribing WOD such as chosing 4 exercises for time and saying "how fast can you do all these exercises". Crossfit can be fine if coached well as any program could. It can also lead to tons of overuse injuries it coached poorly. Exercises are not inherently good or bad, it's all about the right program for the right person based on goals and assessments of strengths, weaknesses, imbalances, and compensation patterns.
Most definitely on all that. You're right, he didn't really go into detail and I suspect your hunch is right. But just for arguments sake and for the sake of anyone who sees "Crossfit" and thinks, YEAH...I should try that! ... I just wanted to put out that word of caution before doing so. As some of the articles have pointed out, be careful before going full bore into any routine that markets itself as Crossfit.
Dave Brandon poach this Turley guy? I thought I've read that Stanford underpays their coaching staff and assistants, you would think with this guy would have job offers to jump ship left and right with his resume/track record.
Mike Barwis, CSCS, is the founder of Barwis Methods. The focus is on developing the complete athlete. It’s not just about strength, but rather maximum performance. Coach Barwis designs and implements holistic programs that include sport- and phase-specific weightlifting, speed, agility, balance and functional training, injury prevention/rehab, core strength and stability, functional flexibility, plyometrics, and proper nutrition.
Most college level strength coaches have a similar philosophy. I have worked at 3 college S&C programs and visited many others, talked to coaches at conferences, etc. The vast majority of coaches have a similar philosophy with slighly different tweaks or emphasis, but they all say the same basic thing. Very few old school coaches are just looking to get bigger and/or stronger.
This was my first thought as well. Barwis' program was more about mobility and range of motion than brute strength and IIRC there were not a lot of injuries to the 2008-2010 teams.
Thing is, no one training program can cover all athletes. A 230 pound freshman that is expected to be a 260-280 lb. DE in a couple years will probably be on a strict EAT EVERYTHING IN SIGHT diet and training that emphasizes legs, core and back, and shoulders while an upperclassman RB or WR probably focuses on speed, changing direction, jumping, etc. as they already have a strength base. I know the article says they don't focus on that at first, but there is no way an athlete or anybody else can put on 30-60 lbs of muscle doing crossfit and plyometrics.
Everyone should listen to mgostrength- he's nailed everything thus far. Nothing in this article is revolutionary but it does illustrate the contrast in the newer training regimens to those of the 70s-90s and maybe even early 2000s. Everything in the article was done at UM under Barwis, but I cannot speak for the the new strength coach.