0
comments
Mark,
Excellent post. You've brought up several critical components of
athlete development. Grenak, of the Hungarian Sport Science Institute,
wrote of the importance of a holistic approach to athlete development
over 25 years ago. He stated unequivocally,
been 25 years since I've read Grenak), that failure to be attentive to
the three major components of training would cause the athlete to
"inevitably destabilize"
hurt or give up.
Grenak's 'formula': B + P + S = T
B is Biological P is Psychological and S is Social and T is the
Totality of those three components. For the last 25 years all my work
with athletes has been based on Grenak's formula.
Istvan Balyi was Grenak's protege. If you aren't familair with Balyi,
he is famous for his comprehensive approach to long term training
planning. You can check out his long term planning program at the
National Coaching Institute, Victoria BC Canada.
In an article "Long-Term Athlete Development: Trainability in
Childhood and Adolescence" (Olympic Coach Magazine, Volume 16, Number
1, Spring 2004), internationally-
Ph.D. and Ann Hamilton, MPE state the following:
"Scientific research has concluded that it takes eight-to-twelve years
for a talented player/athlete to reach elite levels. This is called
the ten-year or 10,000 hour rule, which translates to slightly more
than three hours of practice daily for ten years" (Ericcson,et
al.,1993; Ericsson and Charness,1994, Bloom,1985; Salmela et. Al.,1998).
This position, that it takes eight to twelve years to develop national
level,(Olympic)
advance the use of Olympic Weightlifting as a major training modality
for athletes in middle schools and prep schools for the last 20 years.
Our Olympic athletes are often the result of good genetics and
serendipity, as opposed to middle and prep schools providing kids with
a better foundation in athletic development through the proper
application of Olympic Weightlifting, plyometric and other superior
training methods such as kettle bell training. The superiority of
these methods in developing athleticism is the reason I get testy when
it is suggested that machines can approach properly designed and
executed free weight training programs in developing athletes, a
rather unnecessary discussion taking place in another post in the
forum. It has been noted that in other parts of the world it is a
source of amusement amongst national level strength coaches that we
are still having this machines vs free weights discussion 20 years on.
The basic methodology of optimal athletic development is well
understood. Getting these methods into the schools early enough to
provide our kids with effective resistance training along with other
methods of preparation to play sports and maintain parity with our
competitors around the world is the limiting factor.
A further explication of Balyi's position, in this case on the
development of Weightlifters, can be found at Google search under the
title:
A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO TRAINING THE YOUTH WEIGHTLIFTING ATHLETE
LONG-TERM GOALS, DEVELOPING ATHLECTICISM AND HAVING FUN
Numerous other articles about Balyi's program and his work with people
like Tudor Bompa can be readily found by doing a GOOGLE search using
his name.
Thanks for reintroducing the discussion of a critical element of
training athletes to the forum,
W.G. Johnson
Ubermensch Sports Consultancy
San Diego, CA.
--- In Supertraining@
>
> A colleague of mine once said that the difference between a full time
> athlete and a part time athlete is not that the full time trains
more, but
> that they recover more.
>
> A previous post has highlighted the concern regarding over reaching and
> overtraining, which is key. Over reaching should be viewed on a
continuum.
> On one side is under developed, in the middle is optimum and the
other side
> is over-training.
>
> Managing training intensity is a combination of active restoration,
> assessment of the holistic capabilities of the athlete (physical,
emotional
> & psychological) and physical training. As previously stated that
some athletes
> train 8 hours a day, what needs to be understood is the difference
between
> being in training for 8 hours and training for 8 hours. For me that may
> include 2-3 hours of exercise (3 sessions), meal times and restoration
> activities.
>
> What we must consider is that whatever exercise is prescribed, it is
> valueless if what follows it is garbage. During an 8 hour training
day there
> will peaks and troughs of player capabilities. Training sessions
should be
> aimed at peak times. These sessions will then be interspersed with
recovery
> activities (optimise adaptation to previous bout + maintain athletes
ability
> to perform subsequent sessions) and meal times.
>
> Furthermore one must understand how one session will affect what is to
> follow, both in the short and intermediate days. For example, DOMS
has been
> shown to peak 48 hours after a novel exercise which is predominantly
> eccentric in nature. Therefore, if you are aware of this, don't plan
> anything other than restoration in this period.
>
> Verkhohansky'
abilities
> at the same time. Zatsiorsky & Kraemer (2006) discussed how to calculate
> training load, not to mention the excellent chapter in
Supertraining, the
> more intuitive programmers integrate some kind of qualitative
measure into
> their planning progress. Siff discusses how RPE and ratings of technique
> have been used by Eastern European coaches in cybernetic planning.
>
> What I would say is that the very first exercise of the very first
session
> you do with an athlete will be the only one that follows the plan
you start
> with. Calculating the intensity of an exercise for an individual is
a moment
> by moment process. Those in the UKSCA will have read an interesting
piece by
> Ian Jeffreys in a recent magazine regarding fatigue and recovery. In
this he
> says, quite rightly, that performance is affected by the physical,
emotional
> and psychological state of the athlete. Furthermore that problems in one
> domain will transfer to others, we see this everyday that athletes when
> tired concentrate less and find it hard to focus. This means that
what an
> athlete can do in one session, physically, they may not in the next
despite
> no loss of their physical attributes. Common to many athletes is an
> accumulation of psychological pressures to perform which then
manifest in
> physical symptoms.
>
> In short, whilst you should always have a progressive plan
established for
> an athlete, be aware of the state of that athlete and be able to
accommodate
> that within the demands of the session.
>
> Mark Helme
> Wakefield, UK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Supertraining@
[mailto:Supertraining@
> On Behalf Of Anthony Pitruzzello
> Sent: 14 January 2008 18:05
> To: Supertraining@
> Subject: [Supertraining] More About Load: How much is too much?
>
>
>
> The thread about HIT focused on a single set vs. multiple set debate. I
> would like to broaden that just a bit, comparing multiple set regimens.
>
> I'm not an exercise physiologist. However, my reading seems to
suggest that
> with respect to both hypertrophy and strength development, more
training is
> better except when it proceeds too fast, i.e., when an athlete's
training
> load exceeds the capacity he/she has developed to that point. To
clarify,
> I'm using "load" to mean (total number of repetitions) x (amount of
weight
> lifted per repetition). Moreover, I'm assuming a certain level of common
> sense. Obviously, one can generate "load" in ways that are smart or
not so
> smart. But consider the following:
>
> Zatsiorsky tells us that we make gains by forcing adaptation to greater
> loads. Bompa tells us that to generate the greatest hypertrophy, we
need to
> handle the heaviest loads we can tolerate. On his website, Verkoshansky
> states that
> the volume of training loads achieved the limit of reasonableness.
Today the
> professional athletes are training about 8 hours per day, 2-4 times
during
> the day, near to 1,700 hours per year. It's quite impossible imagine any
> further increase of load volume. We should look for models that assure a
> most rational use of the training loads over the year cycle;
> today there is the tendency to increase the intensity of the
training work
> to increase the effectiveness of the training process, especially
for the
> top class athlete. This is an expedient that needs to be used very
carefully
> according to the qualification of athletes, the level of their
preparedness
> and the calendar of competitions.
> Similarly, Louie Simmons talks about his powerlifters working through 14
> sessions per week.
>
> Granted, in terms of logic alone, the mere fact that "professional
athletes
> are training about 8 hours per day" does not necessarily mean it's
the best
> strategy. However, there is certainly serious evidence to suggest
that many
> of the most knowledgeable and committed people think that very extensive
> training regimens are worthwhile. The message I get is that the best
> results are achieved when a well-prepared athlete, following a
> well-conceived, well-managed program, extends his training load as
far as he
> can, commensurate with his level of preparedness.
>
> In contrast, I was reading a book by Anthony Ditillo, *The
Development of
> Muscular Bulk and Power.* While "Ditillo" probably is not a
household word,
> Anthony Ditillo certainly achieved extraordinary muscular
development and
> strength. He worked out four times a week using basic multi-joint
exercises
> (squat, deadlift, bench press, press, some curls). I would estimate that
> one of his workouts would take approximately an hour. Also, someone
on the
> forum recently mentioned Daniel Moore's Max-Stimulation program, which
> involves a moderate load, certainly nothing like the 6-8 hours per
day that
> many elite Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters, and bodybuilders
adhere to.
>
> Yes, there are people with genetic gifts such that their strength
and bulk
> increase when weights just come into their peripheral vision. But
are there
> serious scientific arguments that explain why and under what
conditions a
> workout like Ditillo's or Moore's produces equal or better results
than a
> much more extensive regimen that involves a much heavier load?
>
> ============
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
March
0 comments: