North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
That was also the thread where @Bill Been pointed out how many of the respondents don't train at higher reps, why expect to continue generating power at higher reps.
Kettlebell Way to tell when power drops in swings; any guesses?
- Thread starter Smile-n-Nod
- Start date
- Status
That was also the thread where @Bill Been pointed out how many of the respondents don't train at higher reps, why expect to continue generating power at higher reps.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to maintain power through 10 reps. Olympic lifters can manage a lot of weight for doubles and triples, so we can use a fraction of their weights but maintain power for longer.
-S-
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
If that be the case, it is a question of training. Load vs reps. But ability to continue beyond 7 reps is a function of training systems to work in an integrated fashion - ATP recharge rates. Your drop dead point might be more precipitous.
"As we age, speed goes first, strength next, and endurance last. Prof. Yakovlev pointed out that you will never see a seventy-year old killing a 100m sprint, while countless folks of the same vintage casually cover 15-20k while hunting or picking mushrooms." - Pavel (personal communication)
Speed and power seem to be just as important to aging as strength.
In the Strong Endurance protocols, what is often overlooked is the intensity of the lifts. For some of the A+A protocols, you need about 30-60% of max intensity. Whereas some of our other protocols are at 90%. We hypothesize that our different protocols challenge different physiologic components (e.g., type IIx versus type I mitochondria density). I train with about 4-6 SFGs regularly. When I asked them to dial their swings up and down, they had a tough time. They were used to trying to make their swings 'crisp' at a high intensity. The Push Band helped a great deal with providing feedback on intensity (we tried multiple accelerometers; force plate is not feasible for everyone). Part of changing intensity will come naturally. If you are doing a 50-minute A+A session, a person won't be able to maintain 90% intensity and will dial it down appropriately.
This type of tool is not for everyone and it is great if you can find your intensity naturally. It is a tool that fits people who want to know more about their 'lifts'. Can you maintain 90% power for 10 swings every minute on the minute for 5 minutes (or ten minutes)? What is your optimal rest interval in order to maintain a specific amount of power? It provides great feedback in the moment. I know that seeing the graph of power after each set (or real-time after each rep) holds me more accountable. It makes me train more powerfully.
Speed and power seem to be just as important to aging as strength.
In the Strong Endurance protocols, what is often overlooked is the intensity of the lifts. For some of the A+A protocols, you need about 30-60% of max intensity. Whereas some of our other protocols are at 90%. We hypothesize that our different protocols challenge different physiologic components (e.g., type IIx versus type I mitochondria density). I train with about 4-6 SFGs regularly. When I asked them to dial their swings up and down, they had a tough time. They were used to trying to make their swings 'crisp' at a high intensity. The Push Band helped a great deal with providing feedback on intensity (we tried multiple accelerometers; force plate is not feasible for everyone). Part of changing intensity will come naturally. If you are doing a 50-minute A+A session, a person won't be able to maintain 90% intensity and will dial it down appropriately.
This type of tool is not for everyone and it is great if you can find your intensity naturally. It is a tool that fits people who want to know more about their 'lifts'. Can you maintain 90% power for 10 swings every minute on the minute for 5 minutes (or ten minutes)? What is your optimal rest interval in order to maintain a specific amount of power? It provides great feedback in the moment. I know that seeing the graph of power after each set (or real-time after each rep) holds me more accountable. It makes me train more powerfully.
Bret S.
Level 9 Valued Member
What would be really useful is having a bluetooth and app connection like my Polar HRM. If you had a daily training record/graph of power output during specific parts of whatever training you're employing. I could see that as being very useful. Along with the HRM you could really tweak your training to specific levels and have it monitored and recorded for later analysis.
On the other hand you could be like the golf guy who buys the latest cutting edge golf club technology, buys all the latest swing training gadgets and uses the latest super high tech golf ball and still can't hit a fairway.
On the other hand you could be like the golf guy who buys the latest cutting edge golf club technology, buys all the latest swing training gadgets and uses the latest super high tech golf ball and still can't hit a fairway.
Bryant W
Level 5 Valued Member
@CMarker Have you found evidence that at 90% kettlebell loads, that by manipulating rest intervals individuals are able to maintain maximal power output (relative to the trainee's capabilities) for up to 10 swings? For me, a set of 10 is usually roughly 12-15 seconds. Just like running a 100 yd dash, by the 7 second mark or so I am usually focused on "not decelerating", even though I am. The only way to keep the last half as fast as the first half, from a power perspective, is to dampen the first half, which then begs the question whether I am training power anymore. Why not just keep the reps at 6 or less if power is the goal?
Also, this is a very specific question to the higher 90% load and not meant to question the value of the device in general. In fact, the device reminds me of a clear correlate in the sprinting world: tempo runs as prescribed by Charlie Francis, his version of general conditioning. During tempo runs, the last rep should be as fast as the first. If swings are a big component of the conditioning program, with the specific goal of developing the capacities of the fast twitch fibers, then the device may be worth the investment.
Also, this is a very specific question to the higher 90% load and not meant to question the value of the device in general. In fact, the device reminds me of a clear correlate in the sprinting world: tempo runs as prescribed by Charlie Francis, his version of general conditioning. During tempo runs, the last rep should be as fast as the first. If swings are a big component of the conditioning program, with the specific goal of developing the capacities of the fast twitch fibers, then the device may be worth the investment.
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
I got to thinking about this device and measuring power output, then about sports that require maximal power bursts with intermittent rests. I'm talking specifically about baseball. In ball, we have a pretty easy quantifiable way to measure output (and trust me, every kid thinks about it all the time): Velocity. But it fascinates me as to what the push band could do. Would it be a "better" indicator of fatigue? Could we use it as a way (obviously combined with the good old eye test and watching someone's mechanics) to potentially measure decrease in effectiveness?
@CMarker you obviously have some intimate details about this product. On their website, PUSH mentions it's used in many sport organizations. I don't know if you would be allowed to answer this question, but I'm really curious to know - did you learn anything about how it is possibly used in baseball, specifically in measuring pitcher performance?
@CMarker you obviously have some intimate details about this product. On their website, PUSH mentions it's used in many sport organizations. I don't know if you would be allowed to answer this question, but I'm really curious to know - did you learn anything about how it is possibly used in baseball, specifically in measuring pitcher performance?
Interesting discussion. I can understand the price limitation for an individual.
The way I see it, this is a tool that has been tested and approved by senior leadership, people who are not exactly tech-addicts. So it triggers my interest.
Is it worth the price for an individual? The correct answer is "It depends"...
I will test it for myself. Then I will use it with students.
Imagine having someone who learnt swings on Youtube (squatty and front arm raise). Have them wear the band, do a few swings as they learnt it. Then put them in the StrongFirst progression. Test power again. Show the difference. Have them hooked to our approach.
Mandatory? No. Useful, if available? Yes. Just like a HR monitor.
The way I see it, this is a tool that has been tested and approved by senior leadership, people who are not exactly tech-addicts. So it triggers my interest.
Is it worth the price for an individual? The correct answer is "It depends"...
I will test it for myself. Then I will use it with students.
Imagine having someone who learnt swings on Youtube (squatty and front arm raise). Have them wear the band, do a few swings as they learnt it. Then put them in the StrongFirst progression. Test power again. Show the difference. Have them hooked to our approach.
Mandatory? No. Useful, if available? Yes. Just like a HR monitor.
Great points Bryant. 10 swings is about the maximum amount before power drops off. The closer we are to 8 or 9 seconds the closer we are to maintaining power over the set (due to the energy systems changing; squeezing the last few seconds out is tough). We start seeing a bit of acidosis at 10 swings (which has some other benefits; as we see more hypertrophy in our 10 swing protocols), but 5 swings is a great sweet spot for maintaining 90% power over the set.
Sprinting is a bit difficult due to the differences in the start. It is tough to keep accelerating past a certain distance. Hill sprints or sled sprints can help. Swings seem like a great tempo as you will have to reverse the force on every swing until your power drops.
I will ask their main sports scientist about how much they have done with baseball. I know they have received a great deal of funding from a NFL team. They are developing some really neat tech to measure body mechanics in different ways. Thus, it makes quite a bit of sense to measure explosive activities. The band works quite well in Olympic weightlifiting too. The velocity of the bar is a great way to quantify the explosiveness of the athlete (since many reps are done at 70-80% of one rep max and are successful).
Right now the algorithm is set for it to be on your arm. If you attached it to the kettlebell the numbers would not be the same (valid).
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
That's pretty cool. I greatly appreciate any info on that, both for personal and professional reasons!
Chapman
Level 1 Valued Member
Team,
Joining late to the party! My name is Chris I am the resident sport scientist and strength coach at PUSH. I am happy to answer any questions regarding the PUSH band. It has been interesting to dive into this thread, and I think there are a few general themes I can address to start. Let's begin with the biggest one I see reading this thread + a second topic as it coincides with it:
1) Tech adoptive vs. Tech adverse coach/athlete + HR monitoring
There seem to be two categories people are grouping themselves into - there are a decent amount on here who aren't into the concept of integrating tech into training and very against it, and a decent amount who are into it and supportive. This is to be expected, especially when introducing something new into a current model (in this case tech into a non-tech paradigm). It is also not surprising to us at PUSH as we have seen this during the 5 years we have been on the market (although we are seeing it less and less every year). We cut our teeth pro-sport and NCAA S&C strength and conditioning world, but now our biggest market is private training facilities as they see it as a way to engage more clients and differentiate from other facilities and trainers, all while tracking their progress while going paperless.
We consider ourselves the like the garmin, power meter or catapult for the weight room. We measure the external and total system mechanical loading (velocity, power, force, work, etc.) by using an inertial motion unit (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer) combined with Newtonian physics (fancy math). Whereas heart rate is the internal response to exercise, for say running, distance, speed/pace and elevation are the external load. They are not interchangeable, although can be surrogates of one another depending on the situation. These are all objective measures, while RPE and questionnaires are subjective. In an ideal training scenario, you look at external, internal and subjective to get a full picture of training.
You will not find a top performing runner, cyclist or endurance racer who doesn't monitor both external loading and internal responses in today's world. Why not bring the same mentality to the weight room I would ask those of you who are against tech? The gym is one area that arguably all humans and athletes should be spending time in regardless of sport, event, goals, fitness, health etc... No one forces runners to buy a garmin watch or cyclists to by power meters, as here there is no obligation for SF coaches and members to get a band. So those of you who aren't into tech can still train, run, cycle, lift etc. without any tech, and I'd argue the majority of people at the participation level do this. But if you goal is to get better, how are you measuring and informing that improvement. If you goal is the be the best, you need to look for ways to train better and train smarter in order to maximize gains, minimize fatigue/injury in order to increase performance.
While training velocity and power have been around for a long, long time, Velocity based training (VBT) was innovated in the modern sense in mid 1990's. Somewhat affordable commercially available tools (such as Tendo and Gymaware string pods) becoming available in the early 2000's. One of the modern pioneers (there are many) Dan Baker, an Australian football league S&C with the Brisbane Broncos for over 20 years, had one of the first commercially available machines in 1993 began doing research and modernizing the training methodologies now that he had the ability to quantify velocity and power in the weight room. Another pioneer of modern VBT (dynamic method/conjugate for powerlifting) who didn't use tech, Louie Simmons (Westside barbell), is another person we have been in discussions with as he is looking for ways to quantify velocity to take his methods to another level as he sees value and a need for it. If you want to know more about VBT training in general, Dan's work is rather easy and actionable you can use the PUSH band in a more traditional S&C sense, check out the manuals he has written for us here: Free VBT Guide by Dan Baker
The early adopters of VBT initially, and PUSH more recently were coaches who were into tech and wanted to quantify all aspects of training. I was an early adopter VBT, having spent nearly 10 years at the Canadian Sport Institute training olympic athletes I got a tendo device in 2007, myotest in 2008 and gymaware in 2010. However these systems came with a lot of manual labour and headaches. When I saw the birth of PUSH and what they were trying to do, I was super intrigued because it was 1/10th the cost, smaller and more portable, more versatile in what it could do, and a lot of the heavy lifting was done by the software and app.
The S&C world has changed a lot over the past 5 years, and now you can't find a pro/NCAA team who doesn't have some sort of VBT tech. 10 years ago only pros runners had garmins and and pro cyclists had power meters, now everyone who competes at your local race has them. It comes down to what your goals are, what you are willing to invest in to be better, and what has proven to work. In the S&C space VBT has proven to work. Given the direction SF is heading with strong endurance, there is a place for PUSH to measure and monitor what you are doing. Further, as tech advances and costs come down it becomes accessible to the masses. This is what PUSH has done for the weight room.
HR monitors have been around much longer, and have been rather inexpensive. However the same argument could be used with HR. Heart rate correlates highly with RPE, so I could easily argue to those using HR why buy an HR monitor if you are against using other tech, why not just use RPE? Being independently objective versus human perceived subjects are not the exact same. Same in the weight room. There is always a more low-tech and cheaper option, and always a more accurate, more costly option for quantifying training. Unfortunately, the human eyes, as free as they are, are not good sensors for measuring velocity, power and their derivatives, so unlike RPE we cannot even guestimate the values in the gym based environment. As a quantitative biomechanist at the University of Toronto we have done a lot of this work, and it's surprising how bad trained coaches, physios, trainers and the like are at inferring information from watching humans move. This is where tech can help.
Now I am generalizing, but from what I have seen the tech adverse group tends to be of an older generation (>40 years old), and has gotten to where they are without the help of tech, so they don't feel a need for it. They can continue to achieve their goals regardless of it. There is also a group that didn't grow up with tech, so they aren't comfortable using it. Then there is the tech adoptive group who tend to be <30 years old, grew up surrounded by it, looking at screens for feedback, quantifying and gamifying everything. I'm 35 so I grew up in a generation that straddled these groups, with minimal tech as a child, but during my social formative years was exposed to the explosion of tech, so I completely get both groups.
What we are seeing in the S&C world, is the young group is growing rapidly as the older group is retiring and moving on. And the older group who is still practicing is having to adopt the methods of the younger group because most of the people they work with are from the younger generation, and feel if you aren't using tech or measuring stuff that you aren't current with the time, forward-thinking, etc. While this may not be the case now with respect to KB training and SF methodology, we are seeing it in every other facet of fitness, from orange theory to peloton. However it doesn't mean we need to lose our belief is sound fundamentals that we can always come back to and rely on, but instead, find new ways to enhance them.
This is where I commend SF for being open-minded and forward-thinking as they see an opportunity to improve on what they do by utilizing a tool that has proven itself in the athlete strength world. It will take years to develop and refine how it will be used to achieve best outcomes, but there are immediate ways to start incorporating that can have an impact. Send us your ideas on things you want to see or potentially measure. For example, we can already track work completed or tonnage lifted. Both of these metrics are used in the long-term planning of training, and it is large and quick increases or prolonged decreases in these that tend to lead to soft tissue injury. So with yourself or your clients you can get an accurate strain measure and you don't have to write anything down. That saves you time and hassle, all while being better planned and smarter about training.
If you are a coach who cares about bringing more clients to your business, if you care about educating SF methodologies to the masses, or if you care about capitalizing on every advantage possible to be the best, adopting tech might be something you want to consider at some point down the line. Like anything new, the innovation cycle will always have early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Tech, in general, is here to stay, and it is a way to reach new people and younger generations, so for the tech-adverse, perhaps give it a spin before you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Joining late to the party! My name is Chris I am the resident sport scientist and strength coach at PUSH. I am happy to answer any questions regarding the PUSH band. It has been interesting to dive into this thread, and I think there are a few general themes I can address to start. Let's begin with the biggest one I see reading this thread + a second topic as it coincides with it:
1) Tech adoptive vs. Tech adverse coach/athlete + HR monitoring
There seem to be two categories people are grouping themselves into - there are a decent amount on here who aren't into the concept of integrating tech into training and very against it, and a decent amount who are into it and supportive. This is to be expected, especially when introducing something new into a current model (in this case tech into a non-tech paradigm). It is also not surprising to us at PUSH as we have seen this during the 5 years we have been on the market (although we are seeing it less and less every year). We cut our teeth pro-sport and NCAA S&C strength and conditioning world, but now our biggest market is private training facilities as they see it as a way to engage more clients and differentiate from other facilities and trainers, all while tracking their progress while going paperless.
We consider ourselves the like the garmin, power meter or catapult for the weight room. We measure the external and total system mechanical loading (velocity, power, force, work, etc.) by using an inertial motion unit (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer) combined with Newtonian physics (fancy math). Whereas heart rate is the internal response to exercise, for say running, distance, speed/pace and elevation are the external load. They are not interchangeable, although can be surrogates of one another depending on the situation. These are all objective measures, while RPE and questionnaires are subjective. In an ideal training scenario, you look at external, internal and subjective to get a full picture of training.
You will not find a top performing runner, cyclist or endurance racer who doesn't monitor both external loading and internal responses in today's world. Why not bring the same mentality to the weight room I would ask those of you who are against tech? The gym is one area that arguably all humans and athletes should be spending time in regardless of sport, event, goals, fitness, health etc... No one forces runners to buy a garmin watch or cyclists to by power meters, as here there is no obligation for SF coaches and members to get a band. So those of you who aren't into tech can still train, run, cycle, lift etc. without any tech, and I'd argue the majority of people at the participation level do this. But if you goal is to get better, how are you measuring and informing that improvement. If you goal is the be the best, you need to look for ways to train better and train smarter in order to maximize gains, minimize fatigue/injury in order to increase performance.
While training velocity and power have been around for a long, long time, Velocity based training (VBT) was innovated in the modern sense in mid 1990's. Somewhat affordable commercially available tools (such as Tendo and Gymaware string pods) becoming available in the early 2000's. One of the modern pioneers (there are many) Dan Baker, an Australian football league S&C with the Brisbane Broncos for over 20 years, had one of the first commercially available machines in 1993 began doing research and modernizing the training methodologies now that he had the ability to quantify velocity and power in the weight room. Another pioneer of modern VBT (dynamic method/conjugate for powerlifting) who didn't use tech, Louie Simmons (Westside barbell), is another person we have been in discussions with as he is looking for ways to quantify velocity to take his methods to another level as he sees value and a need for it. If you want to know more about VBT training in general, Dan's work is rather easy and actionable you can use the PUSH band in a more traditional S&C sense, check out the manuals he has written for us here: Free VBT Guide by Dan Baker
The early adopters of VBT initially, and PUSH more recently were coaches who were into tech and wanted to quantify all aspects of training. I was an early adopter VBT, having spent nearly 10 years at the Canadian Sport Institute training olympic athletes I got a tendo device in 2007, myotest in 2008 and gymaware in 2010. However these systems came with a lot of manual labour and headaches. When I saw the birth of PUSH and what they were trying to do, I was super intrigued because it was 1/10th the cost, smaller and more portable, more versatile in what it could do, and a lot of the heavy lifting was done by the software and app.
The S&C world has changed a lot over the past 5 years, and now you can't find a pro/NCAA team who doesn't have some sort of VBT tech. 10 years ago only pros runners had garmins and and pro cyclists had power meters, now everyone who competes at your local race has them. It comes down to what your goals are, what you are willing to invest in to be better, and what has proven to work. In the S&C space VBT has proven to work. Given the direction SF is heading with strong endurance, there is a place for PUSH to measure and monitor what you are doing. Further, as tech advances and costs come down it becomes accessible to the masses. This is what PUSH has done for the weight room.
HR monitors have been around much longer, and have been rather inexpensive. However the same argument could be used with HR. Heart rate correlates highly with RPE, so I could easily argue to those using HR why buy an HR monitor if you are against using other tech, why not just use RPE? Being independently objective versus human perceived subjects are not the exact same. Same in the weight room. There is always a more low-tech and cheaper option, and always a more accurate, more costly option for quantifying training. Unfortunately, the human eyes, as free as they are, are not good sensors for measuring velocity, power and their derivatives, so unlike RPE we cannot even guestimate the values in the gym based environment. As a quantitative biomechanist at the University of Toronto we have done a lot of this work, and it's surprising how bad trained coaches, physios, trainers and the like are at inferring information from watching humans move. This is where tech can help.
Now I am generalizing, but from what I have seen the tech adverse group tends to be of an older generation (>40 years old), and has gotten to where they are without the help of tech, so they don't feel a need for it. They can continue to achieve their goals regardless of it. There is also a group that didn't grow up with tech, so they aren't comfortable using it. Then there is the tech adoptive group who tend to be <30 years old, grew up surrounded by it, looking at screens for feedback, quantifying and gamifying everything. I'm 35 so I grew up in a generation that straddled these groups, with minimal tech as a child, but during my social formative years was exposed to the explosion of tech, so I completely get both groups.
What we are seeing in the S&C world, is the young group is growing rapidly as the older group is retiring and moving on. And the older group who is still practicing is having to adopt the methods of the younger group because most of the people they work with are from the younger generation, and feel if you aren't using tech or measuring stuff that you aren't current with the time, forward-thinking, etc. While this may not be the case now with respect to KB training and SF methodology, we are seeing it in every other facet of fitness, from orange theory to peloton. However it doesn't mean we need to lose our belief is sound fundamentals that we can always come back to and rely on, but instead, find new ways to enhance them.
This is where I commend SF for being open-minded and forward-thinking as they see an opportunity to improve on what they do by utilizing a tool that has proven itself in the athlete strength world. It will take years to develop and refine how it will be used to achieve best outcomes, but there are immediate ways to start incorporating that can have an impact. Send us your ideas on things you want to see or potentially measure. For example, we can already track work completed or tonnage lifted. Both of these metrics are used in the long-term planning of training, and it is large and quick increases or prolonged decreases in these that tend to lead to soft tissue injury. So with yourself or your clients you can get an accurate strain measure and you don't have to write anything down. That saves you time and hassle, all while being better planned and smarter about training.
If you are a coach who cares about bringing more clients to your business, if you care about educating SF methodologies to the masses, or if you care about capitalizing on every advantage possible to be the best, adopting tech might be something you want to consider at some point down the line. Like anything new, the innovation cycle will always have early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Tech, in general, is here to stay, and it is a way to reach new people and younger generations, so for the tech-adverse, perhaps give it a spin before you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Chapman
Level 1 Valued Member
Hey wespom9,
The PUSH band is used by many pro-teams and their affiliates across MLB, NCAA schools and private baseball facilities. While they all have different uses, from using free movement to measure peak throwing velocity to measuring jumps using reactive strength index for daily readiness, the biggest usage I see is the ability to quantify, train and chase speed without worrying about max loads, putting on size or fatiguing guys. We have whats called a velocity loss cutoff feature where you can set the app to notify you when you have dropped below a certain percentage of your first or best rep. This is an easy way to autoregulate your training and stay out of unnecessary fatigue, say in season, during try-out/evaluation or during a heavy training camp. I wrote a blog post on the topic here: Velocity Loss Cutoff - The Most Actionable VBT Metric For Coaches and Athletes
Baseball players tend to do a lot of medball training so the second most popular usage I see is quantifying speed and power. What we have seen is players tending to use lighter medball than you would expect as they are producing higher power than with a heavier medball.
The leader in VBT style training for baseball is driveline (Kyle Boddy): Homepage
Check them out they are a wealth of knowledge.
Bryant W
Level 5 Valued Member
I think it is a mistake to phrase this as a tech averse vs tech adopter issue. This is a relevant vs non-relevant issue, or for many a cost-effective vs a non-cost effective issue. To suggest that "the older generation" is tech averse is absurd. Tech is not new; this tech is new. The "older generation" may not actually be "tech averse", but more likely "tech common sense". They are old enough to have made the mistake of adopting many of "the next big things", only to find them no better than old things, just more expensive, at least in the first years after their introduction.
So, the big question here: Is it worth it? Well, in my opinion, based on more than I have experienced just in this forum post or the recent blog post, is, well, maybe, in the right situation.
Issue number one: the insinuation that all coaches and athletes in the cycling/endurance world have adopted the power meter...well, Brett Sutton, who has coached and is coaching Olympic and world champions and record holders, disagrees. He is on record as recommending against it. As for velocity based training, the sprint coaches at Altis, who have experimented with it, have found it to be not so useful as to justify the expense in most situations (see Jason Hettler interview on Pacey Performance Podcast, number 175, for instance).
Additional questions regarding this implement itself: as per the recent blog post, do I need an acceleromator to tell me that by rep 8 or 9 of swings my power output is diminishing? Well, no; I just stop the set in the 3-6 rep range if power is the focus-not unexpected for those who know the basics of rep ranges/loads and their expected effects/benefits. And if I'm not using swings for pure power but more for power endurance with higher rep sets (also from the recent blog post), do I need data from the swings to tell me that they are having a negative effect on my jumping / sprinting? Not really. I just see how adding this volume/intensity of swings affects the relevant parameter, namely the jumping or sprinting. If the parameter worsens, I either adjust or abandon the exercise/load/volume in question. (Of course, this article doesn't state at what point the jump was measured; how recently the high volume day was to the measured jump; whether this may have changed after some rest or a deload week, i.e. once the fatigue resolved; and it doesn't escape me that the acceleromator in the referenced study was on a slow speed/high load squat and not a ballistic low load/high speed hinge---how relevant will the data be between the two different exercises?).
On the other hand, if I am not a sprinter/jumper, and swinging is my primary parameter, well then having data on this primary measure may be more useful, and may be worth the expense. Or, if I am a trainer, and the populations I train demand tech data to show improvements (despite the fact that they are surrogate markers of other parameters that may or may not be relevant; and despite the fact that there may be other, less expensive ways to evaluate it), then it makes great business sense to gather this data and show it to clients.
Instead of presenting this as an artificial "tech averse" vs "tech adopter" issue, let's just focus on the "tech". After all, at some point in history the kettlebell itself was "new tech", yet most people here have adopted it.
So, the big question here: Is it worth it? Well, in my opinion, based on more than I have experienced just in this forum post or the recent blog post, is, well, maybe, in the right situation.
Issue number one: the insinuation that all coaches and athletes in the cycling/endurance world have adopted the power meter...well, Brett Sutton, who has coached and is coaching Olympic and world champions and record holders, disagrees. He is on record as recommending against it. As for velocity based training, the sprint coaches at Altis, who have experimented with it, have found it to be not so useful as to justify the expense in most situations (see Jason Hettler interview on Pacey Performance Podcast, number 175, for instance).
Additional questions regarding this implement itself: as per the recent blog post, do I need an acceleromator to tell me that by rep 8 or 9 of swings my power output is diminishing? Well, no; I just stop the set in the 3-6 rep range if power is the focus-not unexpected for those who know the basics of rep ranges/loads and their expected effects/benefits. And if I'm not using swings for pure power but more for power endurance with higher rep sets (also from the recent blog post), do I need data from the swings to tell me that they are having a negative effect on my jumping / sprinting? Not really. I just see how adding this volume/intensity of swings affects the relevant parameter, namely the jumping or sprinting. If the parameter worsens, I either adjust or abandon the exercise/load/volume in question. (Of course, this article doesn't state at what point the jump was measured; how recently the high volume day was to the measured jump; whether this may have changed after some rest or a deload week, i.e. once the fatigue resolved; and it doesn't escape me that the acceleromator in the referenced study was on a slow speed/high load squat and not a ballistic low load/high speed hinge---how relevant will the data be between the two different exercises?).
On the other hand, if I am not a sprinter/jumper, and swinging is my primary parameter, well then having data on this primary measure may be more useful, and may be worth the expense. Or, if I am a trainer, and the populations I train demand tech data to show improvements (despite the fact that they are surrogate markers of other parameters that may or may not be relevant; and despite the fact that there may be other, less expensive ways to evaluate it), then it makes great business sense to gather this data and show it to clients.
Instead of presenting this as an artificial "tech averse" vs "tech adopter" issue, let's just focus on the "tech". After all, at some point in history the kettlebell itself was "new tech", yet most people here have adopted it.
Bret S.
Level 9 Valued Member
Tech, in general, is here to stay, and it is a way to reach new people and younger generations, so for the tech-adverse, perhaps give it a spin before you throw the baby out with the bathwater.[/QUOTE]
I'm 59 and certainly not tech averse, I've been following this thread with interest and can definitely see the differing viewpoints.
This new 'gadget' seems to have alot of potential and I'm sure as it evolves into some 'narrow but deep' sport specific uses it will be a part of many different fields of training and planning. Personally I think PUSH type devices are here to stay and in the future be another useful tool like the HRM, stopwatch and the hundreds of other 'new' developments that have come along recently.
I'll be watching with interest from the sidelines for now..
I'm 59 and certainly not tech averse, I've been following this thread with interest and can definitely see the differing viewpoints.
This new 'gadget' seems to have alot of potential and I'm sure as it evolves into some 'narrow but deep' sport specific uses it will be a part of many different fields of training and planning. Personally I think PUSH type devices are here to stay and in the future be another useful tool like the HRM, stopwatch and the hundreds of other 'new' developments that have come along recently.
I'll be watching with interest from the sidelines for now..
@Bryant W:
It's well known and well documented that, as people get older, they become more resistant to change. I don't find it at all absurd to characterize older people as being more tech averse than younger people. Not all older people are that way, and they don't have to be that way, but it's a reasonable supposition. I am, btw, enjoying being decades past "old" as the term is being used in this discussion.
I was, until a few minutes ago, unfamiliar with Brett Sutton. To say that he is an outlier is an understatement. He seems to have, as you say, coached some athletes to high levels of performance, his methods are very old school and essentially unique to him. I will add that he sounds like someone I wouldn't go within a country mile of if I was looking for a coach for myself. Anyone interested can Google his name and read the Wiki. The guilty plea to sexual offenses against a teenage girl swimmer he was coaching certainly caught my attention. He's an Australian who's been banned for life from coaching in Australia.
And FWIW, it's a bit funny to me that, as we're discussing the next big tech thing after the HRM, that I just got my first HRM. I actually tried one 20 years ago - bought it used, ran with it a few times, but the support structure just wasn't there and therefore I didn't feel like it provided me with any really useful information. With my recent Polar 10 purchase, I feel like there's lots to take in, and lots of research "in the bank" about training in various heart rate zones that I didn't know back then, and I'm looking forward to using my new gadget and learning more from it in the future.
Just my opinion, and your mileage, and your heart rate, and your, uh, acceleration may vary.
-S-
It's well known and well documented that, as people get older, they become more resistant to change. I don't find it at all absurd to characterize older people as being more tech averse than younger people. Not all older people are that way, and they don't have to be that way, but it's a reasonable supposition. I am, btw, enjoying being decades past "old" as the term is being used in this discussion.
I was, until a few minutes ago, unfamiliar with Brett Sutton. To say that he is an outlier is an understatement. He seems to have, as you say, coached some athletes to high levels of performance, his methods are very old school and essentially unique to him. I will add that he sounds like someone I wouldn't go within a country mile of if I was looking for a coach for myself. Anyone interested can Google his name and read the Wiki. The guilty plea to sexual offenses against a teenage girl swimmer he was coaching certainly caught my attention. He's an Australian who's been banned for life from coaching in Australia.
And FWIW, it's a bit funny to me that, as we're discussing the next big tech thing after the HRM, that I just got my first HRM. I actually tried one 20 years ago - bought it used, ran with it a few times, but the support structure just wasn't there and therefore I didn't feel like it provided me with any really useful information. With my recent Polar 10 purchase, I feel like there's lots to take in, and lots of research "in the bank" about training in various heart rate zones that I didn't know back then, and I'm looking forward to using my new gadget and learning more from it in the future.
Just my opinion, and your mileage, and your heart rate, and your, uh, acceleration may vary.
-S-
Bryant W
Level 5 Valued Member
I have of course heard many times of this idea that as people get older they get more set in their ways. But I have also witnessed too many "elderly" people pursue new careers, change careers to tech careers, pick up new hobbies, etc to think this is very accurate; there is much more nuance. Take your heart rate monitor. After people have developed support systems for it, evaluated its use (confirming it in some ways useful and in some ways showing it isn't so useful), you've adopted it again despite your prior experience, and despite being in a "tech averse" generation. Maybe your reticence was just sound wisdom based on experience
As far as Brett Sutton, I certainly won't defend him as a person. But that doesn't contradict the fact that he coaches, using "old school methods", elite athletes to victories over the more "tech adoptive". So just how necessary is the tech? (I'm aware the answer may be...quite useful. Maybe it is much easier or takes less time to become a great coach using tech than developing traits like Sutton's training eye and experience. It's quite possible.)
I'm sure the new device is here to stay, and I'm confident there will be areas where it will be just as if not more useful than alternatives. And I applaud SF for examining and studying it. I would just prefer to keep the discussion to the merits of the tech itself, and where it may be useful, rather than debatable arguments about generational traits.
- Status