Evaluating Results

Posted In: Blog Discussion

  • Vern Gambetta
    Participant
    Vern Gambetta on #16233

    “If you don’t test max’s and lift heavy weights then how do you evaluate results?” In essence this was the question posed to me by a “Lost generation” strength coach. My answer was simple- I just pointed to the pool (In this case the sport was swimming).The ultimate judge of an Athletic Development program are the results in the competitive arena. First are the athletes healthy and

    Continue reading…

    Avatar
    Participant
    Matt Norquist on #90016

    But isn’t getting stronger an indication of capacity to produce better results?

    I think all can agree that competitive performance (in any sport) is the ultimate goal – so OLY or Powerlifting is the only sport in which max strength improvements is the ultimate goal. But… Wouldn’t increasing weight room performance go hand in hand with increased potential to run fast, jump high, swim fast, etc?

    It is an extremely good yardstick by which to judge capacity for performance.

    Nick Newman
    Participant
    Nick Newman on #90020

    Yeah i don’t disagree with you Matt…But you said it best, weight room numbers and specific testing suggest POTENTIAL and that’s all…doesn’t actually show an improvement in event performance and could also never show that event performance improvement…

    If the test results always go up but event performance never improves possible the tests and training isn’t coorelating at all?

    Avatar
    Participant
    JeremyRichmond on #90021

    But isn’t getting stronger an indication of capacity to produce better results?

    I think all can agree that competitive performance (in any sport) is the ultimate goal – so OLY or Powerlifting is the only sport in which max strength improvements is the ultimate goal. But… Wouldn’t increasing weight room performance go hand in hand with increased potential to run fast, jump high, swim fast, etc?

    It is an extremely good yardstick by which to judge capacity for performance.

    Situation 1:
    Strength goes up in quads and hamstrings but…when moving both muscles now increase their antagonist recruitment strength or duration. Result = stronger engine and stronger brake = no improvement

    Situation 2:
    Strength goes up in the squat. As a result of the heavy weights and slow movement during training, the vastus muscles increase in strength but the rectus femoris doesn’t. Also the pennation angle of the vastus muscles change slightly to facilitate the lifting of heavy weight but…with each EMG pulse (contraction) the parallel arrangement of the vastus muscles allow for great loads to be lifted compared to the rectus femoris which for every pulse (contraction) the more series like arrangement allows for a greater change in muscle length and therefore more speed of movement.

    Summarising my argument – resistance training is not appreciated as a motor control tool as much as it should be. Instead we consider resistance training as a strength tool. Especially in swimming where the forces are small – the skill of turning the hand inward and outward during the stroke (using resistance exercises) needs greater emphasis.

    Avatar
    Participant
    mortac8 on #90022

    Hey I actually agree with Vern on this one. I don’t test much as I never want poor results to show up in practice. I will leave meets be the testing or do tests in practice only if I’m mega-sure that there will be a significant improvement.

    Nick Newman
    Participant
    Nick Newman on #90023

    ” date=”1254723113″]Hey I actually agree with Vern on this one. I don’t test much as I never want poor results to show up in practice. I will leave meets be the testing or do tests in practice only if I’m mega-sure that there will be a significant improvement.

    Hmm, had me thinking many things when i read that…

    So you’d risk not testing in training for possibility of poor results for possible poor results in competitions?

    testing is if anything a gauge of training and how the athletes are responding to it…

    Why wait all the way until competition time to realise that training hasn’t been working as well as it could?

    Avatar
    Participant
    star61 on #90024

    While there may be no reason to test weights specifically for RM, if the notion is that the athlete needs strength, and you are using weights as the means to that goal, I believe you should be looking for two results, even if not in the form of a formal test…1)improvements in strength and 2) a transference of that strength to performance. You need to be able to measure #1, in some way, that the training is successful in terms of the secondary goal…strength. If you can’t quantify in some way, even by casual observation, that the athlete is in fact getting stronger, then something is wrong with his strength training and you are wasting his time training strength. Secondly, you need to be able to realize that the training is successul in terms of the primary goal…performance. If you can observe strength gains but see no improvement in performance, then either there needs to be a better focus on transference or perhaps the coach needs to realize that in this specific instance, increases in strength will not benefit performance.

    In any case, I can’t see any benefit in not having a full understanding of an athlete’s progression.

    Avatar
    Participant
    mortac8 on #90026

    Hmm, had me thinking many things when i read that…

    So you’d risk not testing in training for possibility of poor results for possible poor results in competitions?

    testing is if anything a gauge of training and how the athletes are responding to it…

    Why wait all the way until competition time to realise that training hasn’t been working as well as it could?

    I can usually predict the results of most tests just by watching practice performances from month to month. This philosophy is basically Charlie’s concept of “if you test it, it damn well better be a PR” to the 10th degree. I think testing may be more useful in a distance coaching situation (coaching from a remote location).

    Plus 4 of my best athletes this year are max stressed out pre-med majors. I don’t think they need any more tests. Anyway, my main “test” is the lone meet we have in early December before Christmas break.

    Nick Newman
    Participant
    Nick Newman on #90028

    Yeah i understand…

    So do most athletes not like/ look forward to testing? I know i do…For me and i thought others, testing breaks up routine training, can revitalize an athlete and also help get the athlete ready for mindset needed in competition.

    Avatar
    Participant
    utfootball4 on #90030

    [quote author=”mortac8[Ashley Mort]” date=”1254723113″]Hey I actually agree with Vern on this one. I don’t test much as I never want poor results to show up in practice. I will leave meets be the testing or do tests in practice only if I’m mega-sure that there will be a significant improvement.

    Hmm, had me thinking many things when i read that…

    So you’d risk not testing in training for possibility of poor results for possible poor results in competitions?

    testing is if anything a gauge of training and how the athletes are responding to it…

    Why wait all the way until competition time to realise that training hasn’t been working as well as it could?[/quote]

    I don’t see the point in testing if you know your athletes aren’t ready. I don’t have a problem with having testing built into the workout, for example if your workout calls for 2x4x30 you could time 3-4 of the 30’s without letting the athlete know you’re timing the runs. Test when you know your athletes are ready; otherwise it could be problematic.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Chad Williams on #90031

    Yeah i understand…

    So do most athletes not like/ look forward to testing? I know i do…For me and i thought others, testing breaks up routine training, can revitalize an athlete and also help get the athlete ready for mindset needed in competition.

    We test often in multiple disciplines. In weights, it might be twice or three times in the fall to get data for percentages. Testing reveals weaknesses that otherwise might not be known had the coach not tested. I don’t believe in the whole CF mantra of you better be sure of an improvement. Athletes don’t go out and run/jump PR’s everytime, so they better be able to handle some set-backs. Training and improving is a process and if anything, a possible negative test should be talked about before hand as a motivator for change.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Ryan Reynolds on #90033

    Being part of a great team means everyone plays a role and knows their role. As a sports performance coach your role is that of increasing the physical qualities that have the potential in improve ones on field performance, if you wish to measure yourself only by one field success you should have been a sport coach. Careful trying to manipulate what CF says to the weight room when he is talking about PRs on the track.

    You have to “Monitor” your athletes, and that is what CF is talking about. I the weight room you have to be able to monitor your athletes. You are just getting a snapshot of the athletes Preparedness at that moment in time. So when lifting you should know how a 85 percent load for x amount of reps should about look, etc. You need to monitor the athlete preparedness so you know if the stimulus you apply is creating the adaptations you intended.

    To me saying that the only thing that matters is the end result of athletes on field performance is simply stating the obvious. DUHHH who disagrees with that? But our jobs are to apply a stimulus to the organism to improve preparedness, if you wish to improve the skill set of the athlete, which is the other part of their success, gt a new job and put on your sport coach hat.

    A doctor who gives a dose of medicine(a workout) doesn’t say all that matters is if they live or not, im not going to monitor my dose so i know if it is doing what i want or not, and so i can improve my dose giving in the future with more patients.

    But I guess im part of the “lost Generation” and this information i use to learn and gain the great wisdom of the not lost generation? is not important only if my team wins, that makes me a good strength coach.

    Nick Newman
    Participant
    Nick Newman on #90034

    [quote author="Nick Newman" date="1254732733"]Yeah i understand…

    So do most athletes not like/ look forward to testing? I know i do…For me and i thought others, testing breaks up routine training, can revitalize an athlete and also help get the athlete ready for mindset needed in competition.

    We test often in multiple disciplines. In weights, it might be twice or three times in the fall to get data for percentages. Testing reveals weaknesses that otherwise might not be known had the coach not tested. I don’t believe in the whole CF mantra of you better be sure of an improvement. Athletes don’t go out and run/jump PR’s everytime, so they better be able to handle some set-backs. Training and improving is a process and if anything, a possible negative test should be talked about before hand as a motivator for change.[/quote]

    Totally agree!

    Avatar
    Participant
    mortac8 on #90035

    Being part of a great team means everyone plays a role and knows their role. As a sports performance coach your role is that of increasing the physical qualities that have the potential in improve ones on field performance, if you wish to measure yourself only by one field success you should have been a sport coach. Careful trying to manipulate what CF says to the weight room when he is talking about PRs on the track.

    You have to “Monitor” your athletes, and that is what CF is talking about. I the weight room you have to be able to monitor your athletes. You are just getting a snapshot of the athletes Preparedness at that moment in time. So when lifting you should know how a 85 percent load for x amount of reps should about look, etc. You need to monitor the athlete preparedness so you know if the stimulus you apply is creating the adaptations you intended.

    To me saying that the only thing that matters is the end result of athletes on field performance is simply stating the obvious. DUHHH who disagrees with that? But our jobs are to apply a stimulus to the organism to improve preparedness, if you wish to improve the skill set of the athlete, which is the other part of their success, gt a new job and put on your sport coach hat.

    A doctor who gives a dose of medicine(a workout) doesn’t say all that matters is if they live or not, im not going to monitor my dose so i know if it is doing what i want or not, and so i can improve my dose giving in the future with more patients.

    But I guess im part of the “lost Generation” and this information i use to learn and gain the great wisdom of the not lost generation? is not important only if my team wins, that makes me a good strength coach.

    That’s the difference between being the “strength coach” and the “everything coach”.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Ryan Reynolds on #90042

    Who is a good “everything coach”??

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.