Over complicating your training

[rudd]

There have been a number of topics recently on strength training, conditioning and nutrition. All good stuff and all useful for the competitive fencer. However do we make training too complicated and waste time we could spend on the fundamentals i.e footwork, bladework etc.

Here a quote from a fitness site

"The advances in technology have been quite staggering over the last ten years. There can’t be an aspect of life not touched by electronic wizardry in some form. Sport is no different. Sports science is now a serious arm of science and has been attracting huge investment from big clubs and national sporting bodies.

However, does this appliance of science really help? Recently a number of top sports coaches have questioned the use of sports science - especially in sports injury prevention. Sports injuries appear to be on the increase. I say appear because up until recently statistics for sports injuries were very unreliable and difficult to assess.

Greg Chappell, ex Australian cricket captain and current coach of the Indian team, bravely criticised the methods used by the current world champions Australia. He believes too much reliance on sports science can interfere with the ‘natural development’ of young cricketers.

I think too much emphasis is placed upon minute details such as results from motion analysis requiring athletes to control aspects of their technique way beyond our natural ability. Surely if the scientists have got it right injuries would be on the decrease? Cricket is a good example of where I think it is not helping. Comparisons of fast bowlers from the 1950s to today’s players show a remarkable increase in injuries. What’s the difference? The players of the 1950s bowled 5 times as much as today’s players but spent virtually no time in the gym doing exercises devised by science to improve their bowling! Food for thought.

Perhaps we can get too focused on the science and make it too complex when simplicity is the key."

Do you feel we over complicate things? Or should be try to be cutting edge in our training?

[kilo_foxtrot]

I think a statement like "does this appliance of science really help?" is misleading. Science isn't some gunk in a bottle that people in lab coats mix to put on everything; it is more about learning what works, and what doesn't.

I think the more appropriate questions would be what are we learning, and are we developing the right applications for it? The article quotes above are very general about what "science" we're using.

[Allen Evans]

I think if you look back at the last 25 years of athletic performance, one would see an improvement in athletic performance, not just in the professional ranks, but in a large swath of the "athletic population". I wouldn't be surprised if High School athletes were achieving results only known to high level college athletes from 25 years ago. I am certain that this improvement is partially due to application of technology (better bats, balls, poles, and so forth) and the application of Sports Science.

However, as the physical limits of Human Performance are pushed, injuries are going to increase.

I certainly feel that athletics has benefited a great deal from "sports science" (in all of its incarnations). I feel -- and I've made this point in previous posts -- that fencing has not done ENOUGH sports science. The fencing community as a whole would probably benefit from some strong research in the mechanics of our simplest actions, like thrust, lunge and fleche.

[dramamine]

There have been a number of topics recently on strength training, conditioning and nutrition. All good stuff and all useful for the competitive fencer. However do we make training too complicated and waste time we could spend on the fundamentals i.e footwork, bladework etc.

Here a quote from a fitness site

"The advances in technology have been quite staggering over the last ten years. There can’t be an aspect of life not touched by electronic wizardry in some form. Sport is no different. Sports science is now a serious arm of science and has been attracting huge investment from big clubs and national sporting bodies.

However, does this appliance of science really help? Recently a number of top sports coaches have questioned the use of sports science - especially in sports injury prevention. Sports injuries appear to be on the increase. I say appear because up until recently statistics for sports injuries were very unreliable and difficult to assess.

Greg Chappell, ex Australian cricket captain and current coach of the Indian team, bravely criticised the methods used by the current world champions Australia. He believes too much reliance on sports science can interfere with the ‘natural development’ of young cricketers.

I think too much emphasis is placed upon minute details such as results from motion analysis requiring athletes to control aspects of their technique way beyond our natural ability. Surely if the scientists have got it right injuries would be on the decrease? Cricket is a good example of where I think it is not helping. Comparisons of fast bowlers from the 1950s to today’s players show a remarkable increase in injuries. What’s the difference? The players of the 1950s bowled 5 times as much as today’s players but spent virtually no time in the gym doing exercises devised by science to improve their bowling! Food for thought.

Perhaps we can get too focused on the science and make it too complex when simplicity is the key."

Do you feel we over complicate things? Or should be try to be cutting edge in our training?

The amount sports have changed since the introduction of weight/plyometric training and sprinting is enormous. Running backs in the NFL are weighing on average about the same as linemen were 50 years ago, with one key difference: they can run the 40 yd dash in under 4.5 seconds. The change in sprinters, boxers, swimmers, and basically any sport relying mainly on the anaerobic energy system is remarkable. The reason there are more injuries with kids (you were talking about young athletes, if you are not talking about kids let me know) is because sports are being pushed more and more as an important thing in a child's development. Kids overtrain or resort to steroids which greatly increase the chance of injury.

What exactly are you trying to say? If sprinters only sprinted, their times would all be well above 10 seconds. I don't want to watch a bunch of skinny guys running around playing football, either.

It is not really 'devised by science', it's devised by common sense. In a famous study at the Mexico olympics the olympic weightlifters scored highest of all the olympic athletes on the vertical jump test, and also in the 30m sprint (I think it was 30m, I am going to work but I'll find it later). Higher than the sprinters! (they died off before the 100m, but still). Recognizing the explosiveness it takes to snatch twice your bodyweight isn't some complicated science, it's common sense.

Injuries come from from improper training, overuse, and drug use. Resistance training and cross training (with other forms of cardio - say swimming for a fencer) has been proven to help prevent injuries by correcting muscle imbalances. Stop cross training and not only will you have crappy athletes, you'll have more injuries.

Then again I don't know anything about bowling or cricket. I imagine that cross training for bowling would not need to be as intensive as with many other sports because there is such a high skill componenent and virtually no cardiovascular output. Who cares though, we are fencers not bowlers right?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Over complicated training... pffft.... thats not a problem in fencing.

[RoninX]

Over complicated training... pffft.... thats not a problem in fencing.

DFP is right, I would guess the majority of USFA fencers spend more time talking (and typing!) about fencing than they do actively training for their sport. Some of us may wish we could train more, but they keep telling me I'm causing a disturbance when a try to do plyometrics here at the office... ...so I resort to f.net

[chefencer]

...Then again I don't know anything about bowling or cricket. I imagine that cross training for bowling would not need to be as intensive as with many other sports because there is such a high skill componenent and virtually no cardiovascular output. Who cares though, we are fencers not bowlers right?

The bowlers in the article are cricket players and they are similar to baseball pitchers in action and, I'd expect, in injury.

[RoninX]

The bowlers in the article are cricket players and they are similar to baseball pitchers in action and, I'd expect, in injury.

In action level perhaps, but as I understand it the "standard" physical motions are actually quite different, placing different stresses on the arm. Not meaning that they have fewer injuries, just different ones.

[chefencer]

I think if you look back at the last 25 years of athletic performance, one would see an improvement in athletic performance, not just in the professional ranks, but in a large swath of the "athletic population". I wouldn't be surprised if High School athletes were achieving results only known to high level college athletes from 25 years ago. I am certain that this improvement is partially due to application of technology (better bats, balls, poles, and so forth) and the application of Sports Science.

However, as the physical limits of Human Performance are pushed, injuries are going to increase.

I certainly feel that athletics has benefited a great deal from "sports science" (in all of its incarnations). I feel -- and I've made this point in previous posts -- that fencing has not done ENOUGH sports science. The fencing community as a whole would probably benefit from some strong research in the mechanics of our simplest actions, like thrust, lunge and fleche.

Agreed, 100%. It's funny in a sport that has striven to have 'science' associated with it (at least in a marketing sense) for hundreds of years, there has been so little actual work done. We're left to scramble for the journal abstract 'crumbs' of cyclists, runners and tennis players. Such is the fate of us niche-dwellers here in the US. If the world wide headquarters for sports medicine was in France or Italy...Gladius would be busier than ever.

Now the question of fencers over-thinking their training and spending too much time worrying, planning and bickering instead of just doing...
I'm as guilty as the rest!

(Cue SFX Elementary School Announcements): Class, please write 100 times 'There is no Try, only Do'.

[campb1pr]

What we have to remember here is the advancement of knowledge as it applies to sports is not a problem - any advancement in understanding the movement of the human body, and how to change it can be a good thing. It is the application of such knowledge that can lead to problems.

As an aside, in the original post and quote from the fitness site, the term "fast bowlers" applies to a position in cricket, not the sport of bowling. If you imagine them as the pitcher in baseball, you get an approximation. And this leads to my point. Serious studies have been done to break down the motion of pitchers in baseball (and bowlers in cricket, I would imagine) and to understand how each part of the motion contributes to the result of the ball moving through the air. With the technological advances we have made in the last 30 years, we can now understand that what degree of arm rotation produces the most break on a curve ball, or what release point gives the greatest speed on a fast ball. Once this knowledge is found, it is disseminated to the people who teach the sport, who then incorporate it into their teaching. Thus, we get pitchers who can throw upwards of 100mph, which was all but unheard of 25 or 30 years ago. However, we also see an increase in the amount of injuries to such people as well.

I would hypothesize that the increase in injuries is related to a couple of specific factors - the overspecification of training, and pushing the envelope to quickly. First point - if you isolate a small group of muscles and the surrounding area of the body for training and development, and you work only those areas, you are more likely to suffer from repetitive use injuries. Analogy - if you take a hammer and chisel to a section of wood that is 10 inches wide, and you chisel randomly in that area, it is going to take you longer to chisel down a couple of inches than if you pinpoint an area an inch wide. Second point - methods for fine tuning a movement or action are often disseminated long before studies have been made on the effects of such movements on the area of the body. Case in point - a number of years ago - little league pitchers started throwing a lot of curve balls as the technique became easier (improvements in understanding the physics of creating a curve ball, and easier ball to do it with). However, it was only about 10 to 15 years later that people realized that young boys were damaging their arms by using this pitching motion at that age, and only after studies were conducted on injury rates and the physio motor skills used. Thus - kids are not encouraged to throw curve balls at a young age anymore.

Part of this is that people trust "science" too much sometimes. A person is told to move his body in a certain way, because they will get thinner, faster, fitter, better, or whatever. Their body protests, and they hurt. They overlook that because their trainer/coach/teacher told them it works. What they don't realize is that the motion might not be correct for them, or may have unforseen consequences, but because it is the latest training fad, they persevere, and hurt themselves in the long run.

So - my point is that we often learn how to improve someone's motion or action to succeed in their sport, without knowing the consequences yet, if there are any.

With that being said, I agree with Allen in that I think we have not applied the benefits of "sport sciences" enough. There are many parts to the study of the human body, and its ability to move in strange and varied ways. Some of these areas could be of more benefit to the everyday fencer than others. Some would benefit the world class athlete, and do nothing but harm for out of shape me.

What we have to do is be discriminating in the application of knowledge, and knowledgeable in our discrimination of what works and what doesn't. Do you need to teach your beginners the way to increase the explosiveness of their lunge by 10%? No. But do you need to teach your beginners the most stable and least harmful way to lunge and recover? Yes. Both of these can come from the advanced study of kinesiology, but it is up to you to implement the appropriate knowledge.

Remember that Oppenheimer, upon witnessing the first atomic bomb test, said that he thought about the phrase from a Hindu text, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - any misapplication of knowledge can be harmful.

[Poulet]

Remember kids, studying kinesiology means that you are responsible for Nagasaki.

[campb1pr]

Remember kids, studying kinesiology means that you are responsible for Nagasaki.

Nope =- just all the deaths in the world SINCE then!

So maybe it was a bit of a reach as far as analogies go.... even overcomplicated, huh?

[Mr Epee]

I think if you look back at the last 25 years of athletic performance, one would see an improvement in athletic performance, not just in the professional ranks, but in a large swath of the "athletic population". I wouldn't be surprised if High School athletes were achieving results only known to high level college athletes from 25 years ago. I am certain that this improvement is partially due to application of technology (better bats, balls, poles, and so forth) and the application of Sports Science.

However, as the physical limits of Human Performance are pushed, injuries are going to increase.

I certainly feel that athletics has benefited a great deal from "sports science" (in all of its incarnations). I feel -- and I've made this point in previous posts -- that fencing has not done ENOUGH sports science. The fencing community as a whole would probably benefit from some strong research in the mechanics of our simplest actions, like thrust, lunge and fleche.

A. Allen is correct

B. I'm adding the following.

It's important to remember that people today have significantly more leisure time than they've had historically... also with the advent of world-wide media coverage, and commercial interest in sport, the stakes have become substantially higher. Many individuals will do whatever it takes to achieve the money, fame, and glory equated with sport success. It is not unusual for athletes to justify significant risk and permanent damage to their bodies.

Sometimes we (as sport consumers) expect too much from our heroes... and we end up with events like 70+ HR's in baseball, the Tour de France, and 50km X-country ski events... to be competitive in these herculean events, the athletes sincerely believe (justifiably) that they must resort to illegal substances.

This will always be the case, and it's important for scientist to cooperate with athletes to make sure that the most effective, and safest methods are available to achieve their goals.

That said... in a sport like fencing, precious little research has been conducted. And the people who are most interested in advancing the sport are the elite athletes themselves. This is a very different situation from MLB where you have legions of Athletic Trainers lining up to design programs and work with the elite (and socially prestigious) players.

[chefencer]

...This is a very different situation from MLB where you have legions of Athletic Trainers lining up to design programs and work with the elite (and socially prestigious) players.

Not to mention said trainers probably expect to get paid well for their services... It seems we need to find some lab coat types that also fence and don't mind working for free. *begins holding breath*

In Inqistan, the Benevolent Dictator has provided that there will be a huge cadre of fencing trainers and sports doctors, but they only treat saberists...

[Allen Evans]

Not to mention said trainers probably expect to get paid well for their services... It seems we need to find some lab coat types that also fence and don't mind working for free.

In America, we call those types "Graduate Students": one of the few bastions of indentured servitude (outside of NCAA athletes) left in the United States.

I think anyone who wanted to do some work with Fencers would have an easy couple of PhD topics to address.

[Peach]

It is easy to overestimate the amount of sports science knowledge that high school coaches have. Many of them simply apply what they see college or professional coaches doing--even down to the middle school level and younger. An increase in injuries at the youth level is generally not caused by too much knowledge, but by too little--and by the (slightly creepy, to me) ambition people sometimes have for their youth athletes.

Disclaimer: I work in an expensive prep school where being a "helicopter parent" is the norm and the worship by the alumni for our (relatively small, nerdy, intellectual) gifted athletes is downright unnerving.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Alot of sports science is based around preventing injuries. When applied correctly, it does.

But often it is not applied correctly.

Coaches go online, see "plyometrics" and decide to start jumping their athletes off of 3 foot blocks. Yeah, they mean well, but they do not have the full picture, and in the end, its the athletes who get hurt.

The problem is not having too little information, or too much information. The problem is not having all of it.

[sabreman]

Might want to check out Sherraine Mackay's book 'Running With Swords'. She has some great insight to offer on this subject.

[Bryn Ralph]

I recommend a broad over-view as presented in an article entitled "Resource Guide in: Sport Psychology" (Learning & Teaching Support Network)
http://www.hist.heacademy.ac.uk/reso...psychology.pdf
This guide covers three interrelated task functions: research, education, and application.

[glowstix]

The bowlers in the article are cricket players and they are similar to baseball pitchers in action and, I'd expect, in injury.

that's actually not true. the motion for baseball is throwing..anyone can do that. the delivery for a bowler is completely different, being a straight arm delivery..which i think is better since no one ever goes down with arm problems.