The S&C-related Studies Thread

Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by miaou, Dec 11, 2011.

  1. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    The majority of training-intervention studies in sports are crap. The sheer volume of them doesn't make the ensuing conclusions any more reliable. As a matter of fact, I think we would be able to reach much more reliable conclusions with one-tenth the studies but with higher average quality.

    My opinion, based on the literature and on personal coaching experience, is that it can vary a lot from individual to individual. Studies show a fairly strong general connection, but I've seen high variability: some athletes' vertical will increase a lot after strength training, some others' not so much, yet others none at all. The responsiveness may have to do with a number of things (like the speed-strength curves of the athlete and his elastic abilities). Not to mention how some people are pretty damn unresponsive to exercise in general.

    You see, I don't find that argument convincing. If we consider a sport like basketball, for example, there is no doubt that individual success is multi-factorial: not only has it to do with different athletic abilities (jumping, linear acceleration, multi-directional movement ability, etc.), but it hugely depends on technical, mental, emotional and situational/environmental factors as well - to a point that cannot be overstated. Tons of players with far inferior athletic qualities than others have far greater professional success. It is so multi-factorial that I would expect it to be virtually impossible to isolate and test any one narrow parameter (for example, the same exact player may have an entirely different level of performance from season to season depending on which team he lands in, which league he plays in, which coach he works under, the roster of the team, etc.). As a matter of fact, I would argue that, if a player manages to increase their vertical in the off-season, it would be misguided to expect that would have any sort of clear correlation with success in the upcoming season. I would expect it would correlate over a number of athletes over their entire career, which is something that cross-sectional/correlational data do agree with.

    Having said all that, you would be hard pressed to find a basketball player that wouldn't want a bigger vertical, or a basketball coach that wouldn't slightly value a player with a bigger vertical. One could use the literature to argue that this is due to the effect of bias and that there is no good evidence a bigger vertical positively affects basketball performance, but I would personally consider that person a dumbass who engages in mental masturbation.

    I've actually seen less/no proof that doing stuff like "agility training" will have a transfer on sports performance. Which isn't to say it won't, because I would expect that to be an even harder hypothesis to prove.
     
  2. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    Yeah I agree with you that they are pretty crappy and that higher quality studies would be much better. The point is that, as I see it, often times it's not so much the outcome measurements that's faulty (which they very well can be), but it's the contextualising and perspectivation that's the weakest point. Meaning that the outcomes are often measured in a vacuum, with all that entails in regards to cofounders, in/exclusion criterias and so on. A large quantity of studies wont necessarily be better, but context can more easily be developed across a high number of studies. A shit study is still a shit study though, but even good studies I find are a lot of the time inconclusive and can't stand alone.

    Yes some studies show a correlation between squat and vertical, but as you say there is a very high variability. Also as far as I've seen, there is less evidence for the causation of increasing your squat and getting a higher vertical (especially if we remove any actual jump training). It would be interesting knowing more about the physiological, or other, mechanisms behind the responsiveness in certain individuals.

    Very good point on the mental, emotional and environmental factors being huge, and often underestimated, factors on sports performance. The understanding and importance of psychosomaticism is sadly lacking in much of the S&C, and even physio world. I agree that those factors would make it much harder to gauge any increase in vertical effect on performance. That is why I said that we would need to include qualitative measures and outcomes after a given intervention (which leads to even more cofounders with things like interrelationsships between trainer and trainee). It's definitely not easy, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible. Still, probably wouldn't be conclusive data, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

    Do cross-sectionals suggest that an increase in vertical for a given athlete improves performance over their career, or is it the correlation between a high vertical and sports performance at the elite level during their career?

    Again, agree. Anyone who plays basketball or coach would want a higher vertical. Getting that vert though is resistence training necessarily the best way to go about it? Maybe for some, but not for others. I know basketball is your wheelhouse, but if we move to other sports the importance of say a 1RM squat might get even muddier, and especially in regards to measuring the transferability. I also think it gives rise to a interesting thought experiment (albeit perhaps a tired one). Let's use Basketball as an example as I'd like your take.

    Removing the additional benefits of injury prevention, which surely would effect performance indirectly in the long run as a player would have more training hours, lets think of a scenario where player A uses X amount of time a week to improve one or two basics lifts in an attempt to improve lets say vertical and player B uses the same amount of time doing drills and practicing weaknesses in their game. Performance wise, can we hypothesize who would improve the most? Obviously it's somewhat opinionated.

    I'm aware that we would want to, and can, incorperate both, but for the sake of discussion. I think it's important to be realistic about the time you have avaliable, and make an informed and conscious decision on how you choose to spend that time. It's easy to fall into something that is done because that is just the way things are.
     
  3. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    S&C scientists/coaches who have little to do with actual sports and a lot to with the weight room and/or the classroom may not realise this, but this is understood and taken for granted by any sport coach worth their salt.

    Elite basketball players have higher verticals on average compared to lower-level basketball players of the same height.

    Bro, I replied to your statement "If we state for a fact that improving your 1rm squat will improve your vertical, how well that transfers not only to the attribute of jumping, but to sports performance as a whole is not that well researched.", and you respond with "getting that vert though is resistence training necessarily the best way to go about it?".

    Seriously, now?

    I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's a dumb question.
     
  4. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    I'm not just talking about "setting the mood", I'm talking about the literal pshysiological psychosomatic mechanism which are not as well understood. Sure manipulating a players psychology is a part of being a good coach, but that wasn't really what I was talking about.

    My comment about if resistence training is the best way to go about it, wasn't a response to your reply. I was pondering. The concession that improving your max 1RM squat increases your vertical for a fact, in a vacuum, was just to humor you for the sake of conversation anyway. That is not necessarily the case, as you said yourself. I think it's fair to wonder about other modalities. I was hoping to have a real conversation but unsurprisingly you're too arrogant.

    I don't think the last part is a dumb question either. I feel like it's important to discuss these things. The naivety is purposeful, but please, do enlighten.

    EDIT: Thinking about it, you're under no obligation to engage in any conversation. It's unfortunate but it is what it is. I respect what you do in your field.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  5. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    Dude, it's not my responsibility if you can't articulate your thoughts clearly enough.

    I already shared my thoughts on the effects of strength training on an athlete's vertical jump. After that I responded to your hypothetical scenario ("If we state for a fact that improving your 1rm squat will improve your vertical...") and your direct response to that paragraph was "getting that vert though is resistence training necessarily the best way to go about it?", to which I replied with "Seriously, now?". If, based on that, you think that "unsurprisingly I'm too arrogant", then I guess I'll opt to not waste any more time discussing with you.


    Regarding your last question: you are considering a scenario where "player A uses X amount of time a week to improve one or two basics lifts in an attempt to improve lets say vertical and player B uses the same amount of time doing drills and practicing weaknesses in their game". That's a dumb question because it is impossible to answer. For example, a skilful but weak player who currently spends 10 hours per week working on their skills would clearly benefit more from 1 extra hour per week of squatting as opposed to 1 extra hour per week of skill development. A strong but relatively unskilled player who spends 3 hours per week practicing basketball would obviously benefit more from an additional hour of skill work.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
    Badger67 likes this.
  6. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    You do come off as arrogant/know it all in the way you communicate, that's just calling a spade a spade. Doesn't really bother me that much though, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable considering your experience.

    That is an answer. Yeah you're right, it's not as black and white and considering what would benefit the player the most is an important part of figuring out how to spend their time. That's a good point.

    The funny thing is that I would be hard pressed to find any situation in which I would not prescribe something like a basic bilateral compound movement for any athlete. It's easy to manage, it improves certain mechanics, it help prevent injuries if done right and it might have a positive impact on performance. I'm not necessarily convinced it's always the best option though, and I doubt that it always is. I think working with patients who can't do a squat or can't do a DL or whatever, and finding other ways to rehabilitate or train to improve various functions (especially in geriatrics and neurology) has broadened my horizon. The outcome measurements on those patient groups are also much more encompassing and well done than in sports literature, and the improvement in function can be pretty staggering and surprising, considering what we think we know about training. For example. it's amazing how auditive and visual feedback can make an impact, and the stuff being done with mirrors for stroke victims regaining function, and the science on mirror neurons, is really awesome.

    At the same time I'm also not against strength training at all, and I went as far as to hypothesize that simple leg extentions in geriatric patients with osteoarthritis can have simular impact on function, balance and QoL as weight bearing, multi-faceted "functional" training. Which I then ended up pretty much backing up going through the evidence writing a research paper. Main thing is that with sarcopenia the importance of mass and strength applies to even balance components. In essence it was from a clinical experience in which pain prevented weight bearing exercise, and I also found some very interesting pilot studies showing induced pain literally inhibiting the ability to produce force in healthy subjects. Long story.

    Point is that I think it's important to be open about the possibilites and flexibilty of training modalities and options therein over just having someone on a squat rack, however easy it is. Not saying that it doesn't work, or shouldn't be used, I'm just saying the mind and body is so amazing and that there is so much more to garner and learn from it would be a waste to limit oneself.

    I think anyone who thinks they are set stops learning. There is sooo much we don't know, and probably never will. That's why I believe it's not so much about asking "stupid" questions, but exploring the answers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  7. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    It's funny how I never seem to recall you mentioning that I'm arrogant before I said that question of yours was stupid (which I even prefaced by "I'm sorry to be blunt"). Maybe your skin is just too soft?

    What is your coaching background in regards to pro/amateur athletes?
     
  8. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    That's pretty funny, because I was thinking the same thing about you and thin skin. I'm honestly not upset, it's not something new and the stupid question remark didn't rustle me. We've had a few back and forths before. I think it has to do with wanting to be the smartest guy in the room, but maybe I'm projecting on that one.

    My coaching background with athletes is very limited. It's only this last year that I slowly started working with some different people on the side. Just passed the clinical exams as a physio but been working and interning with patient groups previously mentioned for a while, and with studying as well there is only so much time.

    One of my classmates is handling the S&C for a national Basketball team funny enough, and I've been a sparring partner in regards to a plyo regiment. I've been working with a girl as well who was a top youth nationally in 400 meter track, but again it's sparse. A few Crossfit guys, but you can hardly call them athletes in my book and in that regard it's mostly as a way to prevent injuries and return to sport. Right now I'm working with a girl who does equestrian vaulting at a high level, it's fucking nuts lol. That's mostly about keeping injury free as well and returning to sport from patellofemoral problems (many hard landings), but there's some performance and other S&C work too.

    My main passion is fight sports though. I have coached beginner boxing classes, but right now I'm just helping out beginners when I have time through my school, and then I incorperate S&C workout plans into it as well. I'd like to do more with athletes on the side in the future, but I don't think it'll be my main work. I don't know what I want to do exactly, but I'm writing my bachelors on PCS and I'm doing case studies in conjunction with center for brain damage here in the capital, so II might move onto neurological rehabilitation. Maybe use it as a platform to treat concussed fighters, or maybe work in a hospital. Don't know.

    I'm a baby in this whole thing and I don't have anything even resembling the experience you have with training athletes. I do have a little bit with patients though in various forms. I hope to keep growing and gaining practical experience over the years to come.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  9. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    Your perspective on this entire thing, regarding what athletes would or would not benefit from, will change enormously if/when you get a couple of years of experience working with actual athletes. What in intervention studies is called an "outlier" and is excluded from statistical analysis in order not to skew results, in pro sports is just another "athletic player".

    Maybe you think that sounds arrogant, but it's simply the truth. I've had university professors talking about S&C training and what this or that study shows, who have never really coached actual high-level athletes in their life. I'd take the opinion of a coach who has years of experience producing/coaching high-level athletes over somebody who knows the literature any day of the week.
     
    Badger67 and Sano like this.
  10. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    It's the same in physiotherapy. Evidence is alright, but you come up short so many times in a clinical setting that it's almost the rule, not the exception. That's the thing with working with people.

    Tbh anyone can be a ”S&C coach” or a physical trainer and put together some basic programming hoping it will stick. It’s harder to be a good one who can differentiate and detach themselves from "study this show", and even harder with the coaching aspect as you say because it involves dealing with the human psyche. As someone working with say a cancer patient who is reacting negatively to the kemo and losing their ability to feel their legs, or a stroke victim who can’t communicate or use their limb and basicly just wants to die, you are forced to learn about the human psyche. We have the sole responsibility to find some way to motivate that person and it’s all on us to get these people out of bed and start positively improving their physicality and mentality. No one else is going to do it, not the doctors, not the nurses, not the social workers. We are schooled on this, but it’s a huge fucking responsibility. Holding on to some dogmatic view based on certain literature, especially if it isn't working, wont do jack shit when you're staring into the face of someone who just don't want to go on anymore.

    Or when you’re working with injured former soccer or handball players who might never play again and is struggling with their identity as a player and a person. We have to be able to take everything into consideration. The mental aspects, the social, the physical, the biomechanics, daily function, pain matrix, living arrangement so on.

    I would expect that to be a good platform to understand some of the finer nuances in coaching someone, but I might be wrong. I know that I like that part of it though and I'm looking forward to it. I'm positive my perspective will keep changing as I gain more experience.

    Contrary to what you might think, I'd like to say again that I really respect the work you're doing. I can be a bit of a contrarian sometimes, but I have much to learn. Doesn't mean I'll lie down for any authority if I feel strongly about something though.
     
  11. miaou

    miaou barely keeping it together

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    624
    I think you would appreciate the somasimple forum. Look it up.
     
    selfcritical and Sano like this.
  12. Sano

    Sano Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    8,767
    Location:
    Denmark
    Thanks! I've been a member for a little while now, but unfortunately haven't had the time to really delve into it. I'm also a member of the critical physiotherapy network, which is a bit in a simular vein. I really want to engage more, but slow and steady wins the race I guess. So much exciting stuff to learn, it's pretty cool.
     
  13. corpse

    corpse Random Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    it's over 10 years since i read zatsiorsky et al and my prehab/rehab trainer job doesn't really produce the need to dig into new studies in sports science since i most of the time workout with old, overweight people who profit a lot from the most basic workout routines and movement training.

    i just wondered if stuff like sarcoplasmatic/myofibrilar hypertrophy, time under tension or the insights in the mechanics of cellular adaptions in muscle tissue have changed much since then.

    i read some stuff of a danish histologist who also works out and he says for example there is zero evidence for the sarcoplasmatic/myofibrilar theory.

    i also tried to find a study who came up with the time under tension thing, which is pretty outdated, i think. charles poliquin made it popular but where did he get it from?

    maybe some of you guys can give me a quick update or point out some new insights.

    thanks in advance.

    have a nice day.
     
  14. corpse

    corpse Random Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    http://sci-fit.net/articles/

    i found this site to be helpful in getting me back into training science.
    good source of more general training info.

    cheers
     
    auger38 likes this.
  15. spiderguarda

    spiderguarda Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    37
    The histologist you mentioned wrote a blog post and argued where the origin of this theory came from which happens to be Zatsiorsky who only mentioned this theory in his book.

    https://andersnedergaard.dk/en/kropblog/sarcoplasmic-hypertrophy/

    Time Under Tension is still one of the variables that influence hypertrophy. Most researchers such as Brad Schoenfeld and other prominent researchers in this field believe in this theory.
     
  16. spiderguarda

    spiderguarda Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    37
  17. corpse

    corpse Random Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    i know the blog post.

    did you read any newer studies on sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy?

    and who came up with the time under tension thing? i couldn't find the scientific origin of that theory.
    since a lot of studies are a little special and should be read with a plausible scepticism, i would be interested in the real study
    and not what charles poliquin interpreted thereof.

    i will read up what schoenfeld has to say then.

    thanks and have a nice day
     
  18. spiderguarda

    spiderguarda Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    37
    Neither could I find the source study. Some sites mentioned it came from Poliquin and Ian King. But there are studies if you do a search for tut.

    http://www.typhillipspt.com/understanding-tempo-for-faster-gains/
     
  19. spiderguarda

    spiderguarda Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    37
    He tweeted a co-authored paper where it argues resistance training may be useless for increasing athletic performance but believes it may have a protective aspect in injury prevention.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717311106
     
    miaou likes this.
  20. corpse

    corpse Random Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    thanks, man
    it's too bad that we can't find the original thing.

    i found other stuff about it:

    greg nuckols:
    https://www.strongerbyscience.com/can-we-predict-muscle-growth/

    where he cites this about rep speeds for hypertrophy:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25601394

    and this by brad schoenfeld:
    https://www.t-nation.com/training/new-science-of-time-under-tension


    have a nice day
     
    spiderguarda likes this.

Share This Page