Sport “Science”
What is Science?
As Karl Popper famously stated: “science may be described as the art of systemic over-simplification.” Science is not about proof. Science is about the continuous iteration of superior explanation through a process of deduction. Deduction simply means that we start with a problem, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, error eliminate and iterate over time. The key to science, as Popper would explain, is the ability to test the hypotheses in hopes of refutation, or failure. As Popper explains, “every refutation should be regarded as a great success,” as it brings us closer to the “truth.” Testing a hypothesis is like testing a piece of machinery. Attempt to find fault in order to build efficiency. Every failure is a great success in building a robust machine.
Well, what happens if we don’t test our hypotheses? Is that still considered science? I think this depends on who you ask. Very rarely do we get the opportunity to test our hypotheses with research-based control, randomization or blinding. Sure we “test” KPI’s, but we can’t confirm causality by observation alone. Popper would call this the “Demarcation Problem.” He concluded that what distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the (potential) falsifiability of scientific hypotheses. In other words, you have to test your ideas. “If scientific theories are not falsified, they forever remain hypothesis and conjectures.” There are plenty of great conjectures in sports science today. Here are a few:
Long Term Athletic Development
Periodization
Constraints Led Approach
Acute/Chronic Ratio
Are we doing science?
Sports science is the new buzz word today. Two decades ago, it was the title of strength coach. Last decade, performance coach. Today, sports scientist. Well, the question we must ask ourselves is, are we actually doing applied science? Are we applying deductive reasoning? Do we start with a hypothesis? Are we testing our ideas? OR are we simply collecting data, assessing trends, and then adjusting? Popper would call this pseudoscience. Start with the data, look for trends and commonalities, and then hypothesize. The end result is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s not science. Opinions do matter, and some opinions hold more weight than others.
Well, isn’t that coaching you may ask? I believe it is. We trust our gut with years and years of experience to validate our findings. We collect data (clues), think logically and provide conjecture very similar to a crime scene investigator like Sherlock Holmes. Yes, we also look for evidence-based research to strengthen our conjectures, and longitudinal data BUT we mustn’t confuse the art of investigation with the actual scientific method for new ideas/discoveries. They’re different!
Sport Science or Texas Sharpshooting?
I think the majority of what we call the “Sport Scientist” today is really the Texas Sharpshooter (I’m pointing my own thumb here). Catapult, HRV, force plates, Moxy, tendo units, ect, ect, we collect this information, look for trends and outliers, and make informed decisions. We draw the target after the bullets have been shot. We are Texas Sharpshooters. In order to change the title to “Sports Scientist” several things need to occur.
We hypothesize BEFORE collecting the data – Draw the target
Randomize participants
Break into groups (Control – Experimental)
STRINGENT data collection process – Shoot the bullets
Test the hypothesis – Did the bullet(s) hit the target
Is this what is happening today? Do most coaches have the time to conduct this research? Are most coaches trained as scientists? I can’t answer that question, BUT in the private sector, I don’t feel this happens a whole lot. My PhD studies opened my eyes to bullet number four. Data and the process of how it’s collected is massively important, and it may be the difference between measuring signal or noise. Causality is another field altogether. You can’t claim casual inference without randomization, control and experimentation! This almost NEVER happens in the applied setting. So squat program “X” can never be said to have caused speed gain “Y.” There are too many other variables at play. However, great investigators feel strongly about the weight of certain variables at the expense of others though experience and trial and error programming with their athletes.
The Role of Technology – Problem, or Problem Solver
Today’s coach has more bullets than ever before. Metric upon metric. Technology upon technology. More shots taken; more bullseyes drawn post hoc. Before loading up with ammunition, FIRST strive to be a good marksman(women). What does a good bullseye look like? Can you shoot efficiently? How many years of target practice have you had? Do you understand the rules of marksmanship? Technology is NOT the problem. Knowledge, or LACK of knowledge is the problem. The limiting factor is knowledge. People solve problems. Problems SHOULD arise from within the shooting (sport) environment, not from academia or technology companies. Where the problem arises is VERY important! Don’t solve problems, that don’t need to be solved in the first place. Sherlock Holmes would not waste time investigating “crimes” like these. Collecting evidence that holds little value is a waste of time for serous professionals. It’s a business for tech companies.
Sport Specialist vs. Tech Specialist
Teach the sport specialist the technology, NOT the technologist the sport. The “Catapult guy,” the “HRV guy,” the “TRIMP guy” the “Resisted Sprint guy.” Without any prior knowledge of the sport at hand, how do you decipher what’s important? How do you communicate what’s important? Why does it matter? How does it help the player?
You may think this is all just a bunch of non-sense. Does it even matter? Who cares? Call it science, Texas Sharpshooting, or whatever! I care, and the field should care! I would like to call myself a pretty good marksmen with an understanding of what science is AND isn’t! Coaches use a combination of “gut” feel and theory to make informed decisions on a daily basis. They are the Sherlock Holmes of sport. Great investigators use the available evidence and resources. However, most investigators don’t have the gift of time to solve the crime. They don’t live in the abstract world. Science, on the other hand does, and this is a very difficult world to re-create in the applied setting. Don’t confuse the two. They’re different. Sherlock Holmes and Karl Popper understand this difference. We as a field, should as well.
Impulse
When asked a few years back, as to what impulse is, I would have given a pre-packaged answer based on the definition. Impulse is the product of the force applied to an object and the amount of time applied. I couldn’t simplify it enough to understand its applied application in the performance setting. I needed a better way to understand. The answers to these questions, came from two great books by Dr. Dan Cleather (Force, The Little Black Book of Training Wisdom), and the brilliant mind of friend and colleague Dr. Mal McHugh. So, is there a better way to think of impulse for performance coaches and not physicists? What does this have to do with performance? If it’s important, how can we maximize it?
Is there a better way to think of impulse for performance coaches?
“Think of impulse as total force.” -Dr. Dan Cleather. What a simple way to think. Got it! Or job is to improve it!! How?
What does net impulse (total impulse – impulse from body weight) have to do with performance?
“The net impulse is particularly important variable because it is perfectly related to a person’s change in velocity during a movement – the more impulse equals a greater change in velocity.” - Dr. Dan Cleather (The relationship is directly derived from Newtons 2nd Law).
Very often in sport performance abrupt changes in velocity in short periods of time are the key ingredients to success. Large net impulse is key! Got it! How do we improve it?
How can we maximize net impulse?
Increase the area under the force time curve. Dr. Mal McHugh once told me that looking at a force time curve is akin to looking at an EKG. A picture tells the story brilliantly. Raw metrics, a distant second. So, how do we maximize net impulse? Increase the area under the curve! I like to use the mountain analogy.
1) Increase the peak of the mountain (increase peak force)
2) Increase the steepness of the mountain (improve rate of force development)
3) Increase the width of the mountain (force duration)
How do we do this? We use our Gain, Go, Grow model throughout the week focusing on improving all facets of the mountain.
Gain Day: Improve peak force (height of the mountain) lifting max loads (this can be accomplished many other ways as well) – acceleration work – high impulse jump training
Go Day: Improve rate of force development (steepness of mountain) using sub-max loads – linear speed work – SSC plyos
Grow Day: Improve force duration (base of mountain) using sub-max loads for time– COD work– highest impulse jump training
Thanks gents for your work!
The Trade-Off
“We need to follow the evidence.” “What does the research tell us?” “Is it supported by science?” Evidence-based is a big buzz word at the moment in sports science. I am not anti-science, in fact, I love science and the scientific method, however it’s important to understand what scientific research is, and its implications in the applied setting. The best way to explain this is with an analogy.
Picture two worlds. The world of science, and the real world. In science we live in the world of the abstract. We create theories to solve problems, and we test them. In science we attempt to isolate an independent variable while holding all other variables constant. We then look at the impact of the dependent variable (and sometimes for not an overly long period of time). We create an environment that is nearly impossible to create in the real world. (We may also create an abstract world via in vitro experimentation and animal modeling). Even then it’s extremely hard to tease out confounders. Humans are VERY difficult to study. The supplement/dietary research indusrtry is a prime example. The end result is a tradeoff between control and ecological validity (fancy way of saying is it generalizable to the real-world).
Not many coaches in the real world have the ability to hone in on one variable while holding all others constant. Imagine telling an entire sport team to hold nutrition and exercise constant while looking at the effects of a new supplement? Imagine telling an entire sport team to hold all programming and nutrition constant while looking at the effects of a new exercise? Most “research” in the applied field is observational research with an N=1 approach. Observational research is prone to bias, confounding and cannot be used to imply causation. We observe, create theories, test, and iterate accordingly. Having said that, we can learn several valuable lessons from the world of research that can be used on OUR populations, with OUR athletes, in OUR environments in the real world. I call this mining the gap. Here are a few:
Mining the Gap
If the existing published research attempts to solve a problem that uses a similar sample (ex: professional athletes) for a said period of time (longer the better) with appropriate methods
If the existing published research has similar environmental constraints (technology, resources, people etc.) with appropriate methods
Application: creating an environment within OUR unique environment. If we know why “controlling” is important in research, we can do our best to create that in our unique environment. Process is key. Control the controllables.
Reliability: Longitudinal data collection within OUR team. For EVERY observed measure, there is an error. Error in the applied setting is the process in which we collect the data from. If we firm up our data collection process, we have less noise and error.
It’s not a question of one, or the other. It’s understanding the limitations of both and using equal parts art and science, real world and abstract to make better decisions. A constant work in progress.
Hockey IQ
We like measurement. Hard numbers. Objective explanation. It harnesses a better understanding of ”the truth,” it builds trust, and accountability, and enables us to better understand complex systems. Strength, power and speed are relatively easy to measure. The improvement of these metrics insure we are meeting expectations in program design and performance enhancement for our players. The game of hockey, however, is a complex game of organized chaos. If the game revolved around strength alone, powerlifters could play in the NHL. If the game revolved around speed alone, the best players would be Olympic sprinters. If we hyperfocus on these qualities with binocular vision, we are measuring trees without respecting the forest. Reductionist thinking is problematic in complex environments.
Hockey IQ is the ability to adapt and adjust efficiently in a complex environment. What is a complex environment? Six players (including the goalie) moving at speeds of 20+ mph, playing on ice with minimal friction, handling a piece of vulcanized rubber moving at speeds of 80mph with a stick is COMPLEX!
Hockey IQ
Hockey IQ can make a player look fast. Not by blistering speed, rather position on the ice, how one processes the game, how one anticipates, how one responds, and how one slows the game down. Can we measure this? I don’t believe we can. That frustrates a lot of us, including myself. Wisdom comes at the user’s expense. It also teaches us that not all problems are solvable. Not everything can be measured.
Hardware (Left Side) vs Software (Right Side)
Take a look on the left side of the picture. All of these qualities can be measured. They are the equivalent of trees. Force plates resisted sprint machines, free weights, tendo units, etc., etc.
The right side, nearly impossible. How do you measure processing and anticipation, and game sense? Have we confused the left side (hardware) with the right (software)? External load measures and internal load measures are outputs (I understand the difference between the two). They are hardware measures, BUT they are massively impacted by the right side (software). Game speed, heart rate, total player load, explosive efforts! Smart players may not exert as much! They’re more efficient! They’re in the right spot. They take ice, they give ice. They slow the game down. An accurate measure isn’t always a good measure.
“Those who believe what can’t be measured doesn’t matter, also believe that what can be measured does.”
Improving Hockey IQ
I recently interviewed a friend and colleague Troy Smith on the High-Performance Hockey Podcast. He runs a business called Hockey IQ. Troy breaks down video into bite size pieces and views the game as a series of repetitive patterns. He also highlights the importance of hockey IQ.
Video courtesy of https://www.hockeyiq.ca/
“I really believe you can do it by teaching people to watch the game in a different way. The challenge with hockey IQ is that I’m not sure that a lot of people know how to measure it.” - Troy Smith
His opinion on improving hockey IQ parallels that of Coach Dave King.
“Reoccurring game situations that happen all the time. There are patterns to the game that exist. There not as clear sometimes as other sports such as baseball and football, but we have a pattern to our game. So, there are things we can help a youngster understand so his execution can be better.” - Coach Dave King
The sports car - driver analogy: No matter how robust the engine, the driver must control, turn and operate in diverse conditions.
Improving Software: The Mind
Perhaps the biggest tool to improve hockey IQ is the use of video. The game is played too fast. Video gives us the opportunity to slow it down and assess patterns, highlight positioning and spacing, while reinforcing principles of play.
I’ll never forget a story from a NHL GM reflecting upon the importance of hockey IQ. He said:
Player “X” goes to the shopping mall and attempts to find a parking spot. There is one spot available. He finds it. The next day player “X” comes back to the shopping mall looking for a parking spot. The parking lot is empty. He can’t find a spot.
Same car, same hardware, same engine, same lights, same ignition. It’s the driver that controls it all. The software. The driver can’t find a spot! Not the car!
Improving Hardware
Reinforcing pattens of play is best harnessed on the ice. Target Context, target environment. You can be the king of the driving range, but it all changes when you hit the ball is in the sand. I’ve written about this many times before. Skill work is king! ***Side note: there is a BIG difference between skill work and practice. Skill work is done in small groups enabling players constant repetition. Practice is done in large groups which has drastic impact on the practice plan.*** Blocked or random practice! Whichever suits your fancy. Kucherov is a prime example:
"All those little things that happen 25 to 35 times a game, I practice them. I want to be ready to pick any puck off the boards - backhand, forehand. I want to have my head up and be able to find open guys as fast as I can. I want to be in control. So, I work on that, and when the season starts with training camp, I don't struggle to make that play or get the puck off the wall so easily.”
Hands, feet, and mind as Anatoly Tarasov is fond of saying, the most important is speed of mind. It can make a mediocre skater blazing fast. It just may not show up on the KPI list. It’s not tangible. It’s great to increase horsepower, polish the paint and improve fuel efficiency, but the driver of the car perhaps is the most important piece of all. A metric that is simply too hard to measure.
The Paradox of Injury
It’s has often been stated that health ends where sport begins! No one gets inherently healthy playing high level sport. Yes, athletes are in great physical condition, but health is a much broader construct than looking good in a t-shirt. Bangs, bruises, avulsions, lacerations and concussions happen daily in high contact sports such as hockey. The game moves at high speeds and the forces of impact endured by collisions are that of a minor car crash. Orthopedic injuries are a common in today’s game. The paradox is quite simple, with all of the technology, money, resources and people power, injury reduction has been debatable at best. In fact, depending on how you interpret the numbers (averages, median) rates have risen. I was reminded of this a year or so ago, from a Tweet by NBA commentator Stan Van Gundy, he stated:
“90’s NBA teams had just a trainer and a SC, they practiced more often and harder and played more back to backs. Teams now have huge medical & “performance” staffs and value rest over practice. Yet injuries and games missed are way up. Something isn’t working.”
I pondered the same question in the sport of ice hockey. Are injuries up, down, or relatively stable?
NHL Injury History Chart (Click MGL boxplot)
Side Notes:
*Assumption: Almost half the league had a dedicated Sports Scientist by the 2015-2016 season
*The 2012-2013 season was cut short due to lockout
*The 2019-2020 season was cut short due to COVID
*The 2020-2021 season was cut short due to COVID
In 2000-2001, the league had 30 teams. In 2017-2018, **Vegas was added to the league and in 2021-2022, ***Seattle was added, making the league a 32 team
The Numbers
Numbers are always up for interpretation. What is the universal definition of what constitutes an injury? How are injuries calculated for each team? Do players play injured during certain portions of the year? Regardless, injuries per 1000 game hours in often used in research as the gold standard. [1] Injury per 1000 player-game hours is based on a 60-min active game and is calculated as the number of injuries/number of players on the ice at the same time (6)/number of games x 1000. It appears that that there has not been a considerable decrease in this number over the last 24 years. In fact, it’s relatively stable. The average injury per 1000-player game hours from 2000-2024 is 19.8 games. Look at the red trend line of injury per 1000 games and compare the fluctuation to the mean (the straight blue line). This is the regression towards the mean.
Injury per 1000 player-game hours is based on a 60-min active game and is calculated as the number of injuries/number of players on the ice at the same time (6)/number of games x 1000.
From 2000-2012: 7 seasons this number was at or under the average
From 2012-2024: 7 seasons this number was at or under the average
Average Man games lost (MGL)/team appear to have risen 2.5% from the period 2000-2012 - 2012-2024
From 2000-2012: The average MGL/team was 242.26, the median average MGL/team was 239.7
From 2012-2024: The average MGL/team was 247.9, the median average MGL/team was 233.4 (*2021-2022 saw a record MGL and Avg MGL/season)
The Potential Causes
Training: Players are bigger, faster and stronger. Training has evolved. In fact, increasing strength, speed and mass actually may increase (not decrease) the chance of orthopedic injury. Yes, that’s right! Increase injury. It all has to do with basic physics. Kinetic energy and force at impact play an important role in our understanding.
The ice surface has a minimal friction so players can reach higher speeds. Looking at the kinetic energy equation (k = 1/2 m x v2), both mass (m) & velocity (v) play an important role.
An object with twice the mass and equal speed will have twice the kinetic energy, while an object with equal mass and twice the speed will have quadruple the kinetic energy. At these speeds injuries are likely to occur.
The force of impact = change of Kinetic energy/deformation distance. Higher speeds, higher mass equate to larger forces. In fact, the goal of equipment companies in to spread that impact over larger surface areas affecting the denominator in this equation. Bottom line, increased performance equates to larger forces at play, and larger forces to accept during high-speed collisions.
Game Schedule: 82 car crashes per year. That’s a lot of hockey. Though game schedule is not in the control of the performance professional, managing this stress throughout the year is critical. Coupled with schedule is travel, sleep, nutrition and lifestyle. Injury is complex.
Implications for Sports Science - Hindsight vs Foresight
According to an article published in in The Athletic written in 2017, 15 teams in the NHL have someone with a job title related to sports science. That was roughly half the league. It can be assumed that this number continues to grow. Depending on how you view the numbers:
Average MGL/team have risen since this time frame
Median Avg MGL/team has declined slightly
Can sports science solve the problem?
Hindsight is the easy part. Foresight, not so much. In hindsight uncertainty doesn’t exist; we know what happened! Explanations are plentiful. As Phillip Tetlock states “we have an uncontrollable need to believe in a controllable world.” Today, data, technology, metrics, and testing permeate the sport scientist. The fact is no technology, no measure, no metric or statistical ratio can predict injury. At best, we can use these tools to measure initial baselines, and once injuries occur, we can provide both objective and subjective feedback regarding status. Unfortunately, in the world of injury, we are “hindsight” beings!
“Just as the financial advisor can produce a respectable explanation for yesterday’s stock results, the complex strategy can weigh its many reasons so that the resulting equation fits well with what we already know. Yet, in an uncertain world, a complex strategy can fail exactly because it explains too much in hindsight. Only part of the information is valuable for the future, and the art of intuition is to focus on that part and ignore the rest.” -Gerd Gigerenzer
We mustn’t get overly enamored with fancy measures and complicated post hoc explanations used to predict injury. People, principles, process and provisions are key for any culture. However, today one must be conscious of focusing too much on the provisions without questioning the reliability, importance, feasibility and content knowledge within the environment in which we operate. Bottom line, based on the aggregate injuries have not decreased. Tech is not the answer! Perhaps a better question emerges from this dialogue? How should we be evaluated?
Man-Games Lost (I think this is overly simplistic and perhaps unfair)
Content knowledge
Winning percentage
Solving problems (using the scientific method) for coaches
Like-ability
Communication-Reliably
Ability to work with others
The answer is multi-factorial. Just like we mustn’t marry methods in the S&C realm, we shouldn’t marry methods in the tech/injury realm either. Being the external load guy, the resisted sprint guy, the sleep guy, the force plate guy, the asymmetry guy is the equivalent to hyper focusing on the method without understanding the complexity of the landscape.
In contact sports such as hockey injuries don’t seem to be going anywhere. Great testing/monitoring can serve to collect baseline numbers, reinforce recovery, and provide objective feedback, but we mustn’t confuse and accurate measure with a good measure, and at the current moment, we don’t have a good measure to predict injury.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -Voltaire.
1. Donskov, A.S., D. Humphreys, and J.P. Dickey, What Is Injury in Ice Hockey: An Integrative Literature Review on Injury Rates, Injury Definition, and Athlete Exposure in Men’s Elite Ice Hockey. Sports, 2019. 7(11): p. 227.
The Forrest and the Trees: Simplifying Complex Systems
I had the privilege of interviewing ‘Bad Data’ author Peter Schryvers last year on the High Performance Hockey Podcast. In my opinion, this book is a must read for performance coaches. In the age of metrics and measure, the book is full of practical gems and common-sense logic. Perhaps my favorite chapter in the book is called “The Forrest and the Trees: Simplifying Complex Systems.
Speed, power, strength etc. are all relatively easy measures. However, they are also very jagged. Jaggedness is the idea that we cannot apply one-dimensional thinking to understand something that is complex and jagged. Take for example, team speed. Who’s faster? Personally, I’d choose player #1. Speed is a jagged concept.
The follow up question is, how does it affect the scoreboard? You can be the fastest, strongest, most powerful player to the wrong spot. Linear speed alone is the equivalent to measuring a tree. Timing, space, hockey IQ, and anticipation is the forest.
Video courtesy of Troy Smith (Website: https://www.hockeyiq.ca -IG: @hockeyiqcan)
"Speed of hand, speed of foot, speed of mind. The most important of these is speed of mind. Teach it." -Anatoly Tarasov
The forest is hard to measure. For some, it may be scoreboard outcome, for others +/-, but the forest considers the landscape and playing environment. It’s complex. It’s chaotic.
“Those who believe that what cannot be measured, doesn’t matter, also believe that what can be measured, does! “
No one is saying, don’t train speed, strength or power, but there is a problem with only counting part of the whole. It doesn’t paint the entire picture. It ignores the forest, and in certain cases, some trees aren’t worth the effort to upkeep.
Off-Season Goaltending Considerations
A few months ago, I was asked to do an in-service Q&A with an outstanding performance company in Rochester NY. Towards the end of our chat, a bright, young coach asked:
“During your summer programming, do you program anything different for goalies?”
It was a great question. Our programming is simple and based on first principles, one of which is a solid understanding of biomechanics. The majority of all menu list items are identical regardless of position. The goal(s): move well, load (weight, speed, RFD, power), progress. Having said that, there are subtle nuances in programming that we implement with our goalies.
Warm-Up:
Motion is lotion – full hip mobility series (extension, IR, ER, scour)
Dynamic Pattern Specific Movement
Hand Eye: Juggling, vision work
Loaded Jumps
This year we experimented with loaded jumps focusing on abduction/adduction under load (VBT: 1.3ms)
Lifting
Debatable, but we do not traditionally barbell squat (front or back) our goalies. Deep squatting pushes the limits of internal rotation under load. A great commentary on pelvic/hip mechanics and squatting can be found on Zac Cupples YouTube channel
Posterior hip mobs. We do program self-mobs and mobs under load (cable row)
Structured hip strength – ISO, concentric, eccentric. Next year we will be experimenting with reflexive eccentrics
Truth is, you could argue that this could be programmed for both forward and defensemen as well, but these are the subtle nuances that we currently use for our goaltenders in small groups.
Catch-Toss Medicine Ball Work
Prior to off-season programming, I typically perform a personal audit. I revisit old notes , presentations and video, while taking a deeper look at some of the nuances of speed and power work from coaches that I admire. The goal is quite simple, learn, fill blind spots and evolve as a practitioner. This summer was the influence of Boo Schexnayder. In place jump circuits were a mainstay for our advanced trainees on “Go” days, as well as the use of catch-toss medicine ball work.
Why catch-toss? Simple answer, eccentric, stretch shortening of the trunk musculature. Traditional medicine ball work that we have done in the past incorporates non-bouncing balls. This places a concentric focus on the surrounding tissues. The majority of hip related issues, as well as the junk term “hockey groin syndrome” involve torque and eccentric forces on the adductor complex as well as the internal and external obliques. Bottom line, we haven’t had them in our program for years. It’s a blind spot. (Yes, strength training incorporates both eccentric and concentric contraction, but not at these speeds). That changed this summer. We view catch-toss med ball work as plyometrics of the upper body. Here’s how we incorporate them.
Adaptational Goal: Improve RFD (both eccentric and concentric) in the trunk musculature
Load: 6lb-9lb MB
Volume: 3-4 x 5-10
Intent: Catch-stick, Catch, Catch, Catch – Stick, Dribble
Where: “Go Day” - to compliment lower body SSC plyos
Oscillatory Training
I’ve recently written an article titled “The Strength Umbrella” outlining my thoughts on defining strength for various populations. This umbrella may look very different for young athletes with minimal training ages chasing foundational performance factors. A healthy dose of progressive overload, and linear periodization may work wonders.
In contrast, defining strength for advanced trainees may be quite different for team sport athletes. Rate of force development (both eccentric and concentric), muscle coordination, and rhythm (ability for agonist to contract while the antagonist relax) are various forms of “strength” and may be wiser to chase (in my opinion) than absolute strength. One of the methods we’ve employed is oscillatory training. This method is nothing new as it was first introduced in Super Training many, many years ago. Friend and colleague Cal Dietz has been using if for years. Here is a run-down of why, and where it’s placed in the training micro-cycle.
Adaptational Goal: Improve RFD (both eccentric and concentric), reduce co-contraction and improve rhythm under load
Load: Approx 30-60% 1RM (may use higher loads if chasing different goal)
Volume: Oscillations may be programmed for time (< :10), or reps (5-8)
Where: “Go Day” - to compliment speed training and SSC plyos
The Strength Umbrella
If you haven’t already read Dr. Matt Jordan and Stu McMillan’s excellent article titled: Reflexive eccentrics: Their role in performance enhancement & injury prevention please do! Per usual, anything written by these two gentlemen usually gets me thinking, questioning myself, and, in some cases reinforces hunches and ideas!
Specifically, for me, it was a basic question: “What is strength?” Really, that’s it? What is strength? Are you kidding me? Well, one of the first priorities in measurement theory is to properly define what it is you’re measuring. So, what is strength? And for whom? What kind of strength? For what training age? What sport?
“This was a turning point for us and spurred us to view muscular strength as an umbrella term that encapsulated many different force capacities.” – Dr. Matt Jordan
Reflecting back over the years, my internal question was always, what’s strong enough? Is there a certain cutoff, threshold or measure of absolute strength. Specifically, for athletes with advanced training ages, what’s the time cost, risk/reward for increasing absolute strength? I viewed strength with horse blinders. Perhaps a better question would have been, at the highest level of sport, are there any other strength qualities that matter more?
“We questioned and redefined what we understood about traditional strength training methodology, knowing when to apply the basics and when to experiment with other training methods that deviated from the norm.” -Dr. Matt Jordan
“This period was marked by a significant shift in our approach. We moved from a traditional “get big, strong, and powerful” mindset to a more nuanced understanding of strength, where the specific shapes and patterns that occurred in the sporting movement, and the quality and type of muscle contraction, became as important as the quantity of force produced.” -Stu McMillan
Our strength umbrella is very different for foundational performance factors (beginner/intermediate) relative to specific performance factors (advanced trainees).
The Strength Umbrella: Specific Performance Factors
This has been written about in my second book, The Gain, Go, Grow Manual. Here is an exert below.
“You could say that as strength and conditioning professionals we build efferent beasts, but some of the best hockey players I’ve played against or coached aren’t the strongest, although they do take their training seriously. Perhaps the “best of the best” are afferent beasts who use their strength wisely, position themselves appropriately and are much more efficient in choosing the appropriate motor task to accommodate the changing environmental conditions. Strength training is paramount in sharpening the sword and should be part and parcel of the process. Strength enhances the action/reaction of the foot to ice contact forces, reduces soft tissue related injury and increases performance; however, the coordination and response to the environment to use this strength may separate the average from the high caliber. This specific coordinative response is best perfected on the ice.”
Our programs are still simple, but the adaptations we are attempting to solicit are different. Our strength umbrella is more nuanced. Thanks Gents for the reminder and excellent article.
Donkeys, Hard Work, and Farm Ownership
“Work!” “No one cares, work harder.” “No one has ever drowned in sweat.” “It’s a matter of work ethic.” Truth is, I’ve been guilty of spewing all of these quotes in my 20+ year career as a performance coach. In fact, my entire athletic career in college was built on a firm foundation of sweat equity! Well, experience comes at the user’s expense, and very rarely these days do these words come out of my mouth. Instead, we tell our athletes:
“Work smart, work diligently and work effectively.”
“Trim the fat.”
“Use your rifle, not your shotgun.”
“Be a hungry dog.”
“If hard work was the key to success, the donkey would run the farm.”
Donkeys don’t run farms! Smart, logical thinking, hard working men/women do! Be a farmer. Here are a few ways to think like a logical farmer during the off-season AND in-season for team sport athletes.
Time
The most precious resource of all is time! There is always a time tradeoff. The more time I spend on something, the less time I’ll have left to hone my craft, recover, sleep, hydrate, skill train, etc., etc., etc. This advice may be different pending different populations such as professional or youth athletes. However, at the foundational level, time is the same for all of us.
For every ice touch, summer combine, summer training camp, speed, power or training session there is an opportunity cost, and that cost is TIME! Answer this question: What is my biggest goal? Then challenge yourself to ELIMINATE, not ADD to the list of how to accomplish it! “Trim the Fat!” “Use your rifle, not your shotgun!”
At the professional level, skill work is king. Target context, target environment! I’ve written about this before: NIKITA KUCHEROV AND THE WISDOM OF BUDDY MORRIS. At the youth level, low hanging fruit (strength, power and speed) are king. Just make sure you allot enough time to pick it! More is NOT better. Better is better!
Intent
We’ve all heard the quote “ A large dose kills, a moderate dose inhibits, and a small dose stimulates.” As coaches, we like to think in terms of cutoffs and end points. The idea of a minimal effective dose is sexy, but in reality, its different for everybody. It’s a moving target! Having said that, here is a Meta Analysis that does provide some insight as to what it may be, and how it may be prescribed (make sure to understand the assumptions and population in the analysis).
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase
1RM Strength in Resistance‑Trained Men: A Systematic Review
Inclusion Criteria: “The following criteria had to be met for inclusion: randomized trial, resistance training interventions lasting a minimum of 4-week manipulating dose (i.e. repetitions, sets, load, intensity of effort, etc.), a maximum of 1 working set per exercise per training session, study population consisting of healthy men with at least 1 year of resistance training experience, at least one of the powerlifts being included in the training intervention (i.e. SQ, BP, DL) and a 1RM test used to assess strength changes on the powerlift(s) pre and post training intervention.”
Key Results: “For trained men, the minimum effective training dose required to increase 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength in the squat (SQ) and bench-press (BP) appears to be a single set of 6–12 repetitions performed with high intensity of effort at a training frequency of 2–3 times per week.”
Be a hungry dog! Side note, I have two beautiful yellow labs that sit in the air conditioning every day and get fed table scraps and two full course meals daily. Love em’ dearly, but they’re lazy. We tell our athletes to “be hungry dogs.” Hungry dogs bite! More is not better. Better is better!
Please don’t mix up the message! I value hard work, desire, dedication and discipline, but for today’s athlete there is simply too much noise, too many alternatives, too many coaches (power, speed, strength, conditioning, skill ect), too many choices and too little time. Trying to take them all in during the week is donkeys’ work. Smart farmers prioritize, organize and keep the goal the goal. Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying “ Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the ax.”
You can be the strongest lumberjack in the world, but with a dull axe, you’re in trouble….or, you’re a donkey.
Interesting or Important?
In my opinion, curiosity is one of the most important qualities of being a lifelong learner. Like an onion with never ending layers, great practitioners consistently ask themselves “why,” while pushing the limits of their own knowledge ceiling. These questions continue to expand with the advent of various technologies. Technologies such as tracking devices, sleep monitors, and the fascination with objectivity have exploded within the past decade in sports science. If you can measure it, surely it’s more precise? Surly it matters? Surly it peels yet another layer of the performance onion? Well......
“Those who believe that what cannot be measured, doesn’t matter, also believe that what can be measured, does! “
A great reminder recently was from my friend Chad Drummond (S&C coach for the Edmonton Oilers), who said (paraphrase): Is it interesting, or important?
As I’ve aged, the best way to explain it, is that it’s been a skewed sea saw relationship for me regarding metrics and measure.
I find so many things interesting, but very few things important. So much noise, yet so little signal. We have become proficient at measuring trees, without understanding the impact of the forest, or the unintended consequences of the landscape. So, ask yourself, is it interesting, or is it important? Does it move the needle? How does it help the player? How does it affect the scoreboard? Curiosity is paramount, but it can be both a blessing and curse if not realizing the difference.
Science and the Application to Sport
If only it were as easy as writing it on a napkin. Well, as I’ve aged, I’ve challenged myself to do just that. What exactly is science? That’s a question I feel every sport “scientist” should be able to answer. My napkin, and its contents reside in the mind of philosopher and scientist Karl Popper.
“Science may be described as the art of systemic oversimplification.” -Karl Popper
If it’s that easy, what are the challenges of applying quality science to sport? Here are my thoughts.
1. Start with a Problem
That’s right. As a coach, start with a genuine problem. Perhaps your problem is defined by the sport coach or the athletes you serve but define a problem. The origin of the problem matters! Tech companies and academia are not the best sources of fishing out initial problems (IMO), it’s your team, your athletes, and your coaches.
The origin the problem matters.
Regarding the problem: ask yourself two things:
How does it help the player?
Is it interesting or important?
2. Temporary Theory
Use specific language when creating your theory. Definitions matter. What kind of strength? What kind of power? Cleary state your assumptions. Science and research are filled with assumptions. Statistics and probability, filled with assumptions. Models are built on assumptions. In fact, models are oversimplifications of reality. They are built from the assumptions of “experts” and are used to make predictions in the real world. Clearly state your assumptions.
Don’t be fooled with fancy jargon. Understand first principles (physics, programming, phycology, physiology and biomechanics). I rely on these as my BS meter. I learn every day, and we recently reminded of my ignorance on the HPH Podcast with my friend Dr. Mal McHugh: The Case Against Adductor Squeeze Testing. Your first principles are your Swiss Army knife of knowledge. Rely on them.
3. Error Elimination
Perhaps the most important! Are we collecting noise? “I’m a numbers guy.” “You can’t manage, what you don’t measure.” “We will measure and manage metric “X” and make the appropriate changes.” “We have a new force plate, Catapult system, Moxy Monitor, HRV system and we can’t wait to measure and make changes to quality “X.””
How many times have we heard this as a 21st century sports scientist? Perhaps the best place start (aside from having an initial problem to solve), is to perform your own experiment. First order of analysis: is the metric reliable?
Reliability: the degree to which the measure is free from measurement error
Y (observed score) = h (true score) + e (error)
“We think the error is contained within the device. It is not. The error is the process that you collected the data from.” -Scot Morrison
Here’s a simple way to test it.
Choose your test. Focus on a metric(s)
Create a standardized warm up/procedure for your team (error comes from a number of sources: rater, the individual player, ordering effects, actual test itself, time of day, etc.)
Test
Wait a week
Perform exact same standardized warm up/procedure
Test
Download the Hopkins spreadsheet, and click the “Reliability” tab
Plug and play your data points (two separate dates)
View Column “L91”
Side note: I am not a statistician. There are plenty of good resources within performance community. (Patrick Ward and Scot Morrison are two of them.) A variety of statistics can be used to calculate reliability as the best measures to assess this quality are debatable [1, 2]. Relative reliability, reflecting how the individual maintained his rank within the sample over time, can be evaluated using the interclass correlation coefficient ICC (3,1) [1]. Values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.9 may be interpreted as poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability respectively [3]
Absolute reliability, indicative of how repeated measures vary for individuals over time [1], can be assessed using the standard error of the measure(SEM). The SEM is calculated by multiplying the SD of scores from all subjects by the square root of 1.0 minus the ICC [4].
Here is the formula to calculate via the spreadsheet: =D51*SQRT(1-L91)
Finally, intra-day reliability for each team member can be quantified as a coefficient of variation (CV) [s/mean*100] using the within-trial variability of the measures from the three trials. The three trials of each test are averaged for an individual mean value. The level of acceptance for reliability is debatable as a CV 15% [5] has been used in previous research [6].
Yes, this is extra work, but isn’t that what sports science is about? In addition, it enables us to be better stewards of our measures and prevents us from managing noise (I have been guilty of this
These are a few challenges that I face in the private sector re: the application of science to sport. What are yours?
1. Atkinson, G. and A.M. Nevill, Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports medicine, 1998. 26(4): p. 217-238.
2. Hopkins, W.G., J.A. Hawley, and L.M. Burke, Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1999. 31(3): p. 472-485.
3. Koo, T.K. and M.Y. Li, A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 2016. 15(2): p. 155-163.
4. Weir, J.P., Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(1): p. 231-240.
5. Stokes, M., Reliability and repeatability of methods for measuring muscle in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Practice, 1985. 1(2): p. 71-76.
6. Meylan, C.M., et al., Temporal and kinetic analysis of unilateral jumping in the vertical, horizontal, and lateral directions. Journal of sports sciences, 2010. 28(5): p. 545-554.
In-Season Hip Health – Changing the Tires on a Moving Car
I recently viewed an Instagram post by baseball fitness professional Eric Cressey.
Boy, does he hit the nail on the head. My response back to Eric’s post was: ”Well put. Same with the hips in ice hockey.” The volume of games and practices at the AAA level is comparable to Major Junior hockey. It’s a professional hockey season on growing bodies. A good off-season addresses limitations and acts as a tune-up. Yes, a tune up! Hip health, range of motion, strengthening serve to fill buckets and enhance performance. Expecting to address this during the season is a dangerous game as the velocities, magnitudes and frequency of on-ice touches taxes the hip considerably. The hip in ice hockey, is the shoulder in baseball. Throwing year round and expecting “shoulder health” without a proper tune up is a fool’s errand.
Once the off-season starts, great coaches take a systemic, integrated approach to hip health. I have a chapter in The High-Performance Hockey Masterclass dedicated to hip health and how we program during this time frame. Here’s a brief overview based on first principles (assuming no pain).
ROM: Hip IR/ER -90/90 progressions, hip scour
Strengthening: Short to long, Isometric-concentric-eccentric-reflexive eccentric
Patterns – General to Specific
Speed- Slow to fast
Frequency: low magnitude/high frequency (3-4/week)
From my experience, trying to increase the performance measures on the above during the season, is the equivalent to changing the tires on a moving car.
Thanks Eric, for the beautiful analogy.
The steamroller and the nickels
The image of the steamroller and the man picking up nickels is a great reminder re: the importance of the big picture. It seems as though we’re so fascinated with metrics and measure, that we fail to realize we’re dealing with animate beings. The big picture includes:
People: The ability to motivate, love, build trust, establish relationships
Process: Establishing efficiency is task completion
Principles: Content knowledge
Data, tech, metrics are great, but if you don’t see the steamroller in view, it may lead to problematic consequences. Pick up nickels that you feel matter. Just make sure you keep your head up in the process.
Tissue Re-Education
I was recently contacted by a fellow colleague in high-performance ice hockey regarding our first phase of the off-season. We call this phase the tissue re-education phase. I was first made aware of this and its proposed adaptations through a friend and colleague Jim Snider at the University of Wisconsin. The tissue re-education phase typically lasts 2-3 weeks in length with the following physiological goal:
Reset length tension in the tissues from the chronic position of sport
Which sport? Ice Hockey
Which Position? The hockey position
Which contraction profile: slow, sub max eccentrics and long isometric holds
Re: Iso Holds: An important viscoelastic characteristic of tendons is creep: an increase in deformation over time under a constant load. The goal is to shorten the muscle by contraction , while the tendon relaxes.
How much time? According to Dr. Keith Barr, :30 second holds are the sweet spot.
“For health or repair of an injured tendon, what we do is we use a very long isometric holds. The reason we do that is because of that property that we talked about earlier which was that viscoelastic creep. Creep in a tendon means if I pull it and hold it at a certain length, and I measure the tension between the two ends of the tendon, and I hold it there over time, what I’ll see is that the tension goes up really high when I pull it and it goes through this relaxation. It’s an exponential relaxation. The relaxation kinda gets to the bottom where the tension is as low as possible around :30. So, its about 45% of the tension within the tendon is released in the first :30. If I go out to 180 seconds, it only releases maybe 5% more of the tension.” - Dr. Keith Barr (Episode 156 Just Fly Performance Podcast)
Which anatomical Areas: Hips, Shoulders, and ankles
Here is a look at our 2024 program tissue re-education program. You can perform it as a 2-day/week program, or a 4-day/week program. Once again, this is a heath-based program (not performance based) with the goal of resetting length tension of the system.
A Fishing Expedition: Measuring Noise
For the past year and a half, I have volunteered as an Assistant Coach for my nephew’s hockey team. He recently completed his 8U season, and his now preparing for his 10U select tryouts. At a recent coaches meeting, a board director was eager to mention that the organization recently partnered with a tech company. The goal was to “objectify” performance development by attaining “hard numbers.” Each player would wear an RFID bracelet, “beams” would be used for “timing”, with the goal of collecting information and sharing it with other organizations creating an age-appropriate longitudinal data stream. “Data” would be collected twice/year. “Wow,” one would think. “This is impressive.” When one critically thinks about this in more detail. It’s simply a fishing expedition hooking noise as the catch. We do this many times in sport science. Tech companies love it as it improves their bottom line. Here are a few questions this individual should think about prior to this “investment:”
What is the organizations definition of development? Is it skating speed? Hockey sense? Compete level? A positive hockey experience? Certain things cannot be measured.
What are the tests? Are the tests reliable? Have they been tested-retested with the same population? If so, what’s the variability? If so, what population?
Re: population: what’s the learning effect? We’ve all seen this in action as coaches. Young Tommy “miraculously” adding 3” on is vertical jump in 2 weeks. Tommy didn’t do anything but learned the skill of jumping more effectively.
Frequency of “testing.” Is speed improved, or did Tommy gain 15lbs and 2” over the course of the hockey season?
Who’s administering the “test?” Same coaches, tech companies? This may lead to drastically different results.
What does “success” look like? How big? Expectations?
Who communicates results that aren’t favorable?
Why are the results not favorable? Who’s fault?
This seems to be happening more and more in the circles I frequent. If you’re a “numbers guy,” that’s fine, but understand the limitations of measurement and think critically before tech procurement. “But something is better than nothing” some may say. My response. No, it’s not. Nothing is better than something. Otherwise, you’re on a fishing expedition, and more than likely, that “something” you’re reeling in is noise.
The Napkin: Wisdom from Joe DeFranco
I remember sitting in seminar room many years ago listening to Joe DeFranco speak in a lecture titled “Sprinting Problems...Prowler Solutions”. He used a Buddy Morris quote in his presentation:
“If you can’t explain it to a waitress on a napkin, then don’t bother talking about it.”
Joe gave a great presentation which I still believe holds merit today considering it’s been upwards of 7 years since his talk. Joe collected data for 15+ years on his NFL athletes performing the 10-yard sprint. His quote: “Best performances all had one thing in common, 6.5 steps or less.” His hypothesis, stride length reins supreme. The question then becomes, how to do improve stride length. Joe’s napkin looked like this:
Improve Relative Strength
Improve Mobility
Technique (heavily dependent on strength & mobility)
Therefore strength + flexibility = > stride length
I love this napkin. I’ve used if ever since. I do also realize there are assumptions involved on the napkin that may be overlooked such as genetics and biomechanical differences such as lever length, and how to improve relative strength. However, for most athletes improving stride length is not a magic pill. Yes, even after relative strength and mobility are improved, targeted intervention on the ice STILL may be necessary, in fact, mandatory. Skating is a skill, just like playing the guitar. The key is to pick the low hanging fruit while continuing to master the craft. Ground contact times in the game of hockey are much greater than in field-based sprinting. Hockey is a high impulse game. Think of impulse as total force. How does one maximize impulse?
Improve peak force
Increase the rate of force development
Increase the duration of force application
Strength and mobility are important in improving impulse. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication....so simple, it fits on a napkin.
But the Research Says....
How often do we as coaches revert to “this is what the research states” when defending a point? I know, I know, we all do. Me included. If you’re like me you never stop asking why, until you seek an “answer.” Yes, I understand the answer is temporary as superior explanation is an iterative process, but the point is passionate exploration. I listen, and read well outside the scope of physical performance, but as I’ve aged, the more and more I believe it directly relates. One such podcast I listen too frequently is EconTalk. A fantastic episode in 2018 was that of Dr. John Ioannidis titled Statistical Significance, Economics and Replication. A masterful conversation ensued which led me to one of John’s papers titled: Why Most Published Research Findings are False. Important to note, Dr. Ioannidis was referencing epidemiology and medicine NOT sport science, but what better measuring tool to use as a proxy for gold standard.
Here are a few highlights:
“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Ioannidis outlies four corollaries pertaining to the probability that a research finding is true (or false):
Corollary 1: The smaller the study conducted, the less likely it is to be true. This has to do with the power of the study (1- Type II error rate). Moreover, power can be thought of as the probability of capturing an effect when in fact it does exist.
Corollary 2: The smaller the effect, the less likely it is to be true. Power is related to effect size. Effect size is the magnitude of change, or how big the effect is.
Corollary 3: The greater the number of tested relationships, the less likely the research findings are true.
Corollary 4: The greater the flexibly in study design, definitions, and outcomes, the less likely it is to be true.
“The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.”
So, how does this relate to sports performance? Many of the studies in the medical literature are randomized controlled, and blinded studies, this typically does not happen in our field. Certainly, there are other challenges facing research in sports performance such as sample size (a sample of 25 professional hockey players is quite large as not many people make a living playing the game), bias design, confounding, and limitations of observational findings.
Perhaps the answer to these problems is pre-registration? This has been something Franco Impellizzeri has spoken about for some time. When you preregister research, researchers specify their plan in advance of the study and submit it to a registry. Preregistration separates hypothesis-generating (exploratory) from hypothesis-testing (confirmatory) research. It also prevents P-Hacking, HARKing, flexibility in study design, and reduces researchers’ degrees of freedom after the fact. In addition, replication papers attempting to answer the same question using the same methods are also extremely important. The problem is, most of these papers will not be published because journals aren’t overly interested.
Our field is extremely noisy as we study complex beings. The cumulative approximation of explanatory knowledge will continue to move the needle forward. What the research says is important...we just need to do our best to find the right kind.
The Emperor HaS NO Clothes: what the hell is a Sesquipedalian?
“There is no progress without change, but not all change is progress.” These are the wise words of coach John Wooden. It also happens to be one of my favorite Wooden quotes. I wonder what he would say today regarding coaching pedagogy paradigms in athletic development and motor learning. Perhaps he would state: “There is no progress without change, but we can confuse people into thinking change has occurred by using research and pretentious language.” Alright, maybe he wouldn’t say this, but I certainly feel this way at the current moment after 25+ years in the coaching profession. This long winded, pretentious, esoteric banter is called being a sesquipedalian. According to vocabulary.com:
“Sesquipedalian can also be used to describe someone or something that overuses big words, like a philosophy professor or a chemistry textbook. If someone gives a sesquipedalian speech, people often assume it was smart, even if they don’t really know what it was about because they can’t understand the words.”
Coaching pedagogy paradigms may be the worst offenders of all! “Ecological Dynamics,” “The Constraints Led Approach,” and “contextual interference,” may lead an experienced coach to question themselves and wonder...”do I need to change the way I’m coaching?” You need to do your own research just to make sure you’re relevant these days (don’t forget the thesaurus). Let’s take a deeper look at the Emperors Clothes.
The Emperor has no clothes!
Ecological Dynamics: “Ecological dynamics is a multi-disciplinary framework that adopts concepts and tools of dynamical system theory, ecological psychology and complex system in neurobiology to investigate and model the relationships that emerge in extreme sports between athletes and their environment.”
Let’s start with common sense approach. What does it mean to be “complex”, and what are the “relationships that emerge in extreme sports?”
Complex simply means athletes can adapt to their environments (yes complex also may mean irregular, disorderly, random, and unpredictable).
Relationships in team sports? Let’s not overcomplicate. If you’re playing offense, the goal is to create time and space. Defense? Eliminate time and space. Simple. Choose your drill set accordingly based on age, skill, and end goal.
The Constraints Led Approach: “A constraints led approach is a teaching/coaching method based on the principles of non-linear pedagogy (another fancy word). It advocates a more ‘hands-off’ approach to teaching and learning within Physical Education. Through the manipulation of certain constraints, different information is presented to the learner.”
More common sense emerges when one asks the logical question: what are the constraints? The answer is not earth shattering. Simple in fact! It’s the task, the player, and the environment! That is essentially EVERY drill on the ice or pitch. A great coach can manipulate them all for the desired effect. This is not ground breaking, it’s common sense! Choose your drill set accordingly!
Contextual Interference: “The contextual interference effect is a learning phenomenon where interference during practice is beneficial to skill learning.”
Great. I just call this good coaching! When to choose blocked practice to attain a motor skill for beginners/novice, and random practice to retain a motor skill. It’s hard to retain what you haven’t already attained in the first place. Choose your drill set accordingly. Once again, great coaches have done this for decades.
With all these fancy words floating around, it’s easy to view the beautiful clothes the emperor has on without realizing he’s naked. Yes, these ideas have merit, but they are cloaked in obfuscating language. Furthermore, smart coaches have done this for years! I’m all for research, yes even observational research which doesn’t provide causation, but at what point do we start to ask ourselves: what’s going on here? Are we moving the needle, or creating more confusion? Is someone naked? My opinion, most still think the emperor is well dressed.