What Counts? Albert Einstein and the Philosophy of Training

- Derek M. Hansen –

Albert Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” As a track coach and strength and conditioning coach, I am always trying to determine which components of the training program actually count, and which components do not really contribute to the greater performance whole. On closer inspection, we can argue that there are direct inputs that create useful, tangible adaptations (i.e. speed, power, strength, endurance, etc.), while other peripheral components can create an environment for positive adaptation or a synergistic effect even though they do not directly contribute to improvements. But determining which training elements, components or exercises that give you the biggest bang for your buck is a difficult exercise in itself. Those who can identify the key elements will have greater, more consistent performances from their athletes, as well as less injuries and minimal instances of overtraining.

Controlling Your Variables

As a young coach, I was always intrigued by the observations of Bruce Lee. I also enjoyed watching his movies. Through descriptions of his approach to martial arts and his ultimate creation, Jeet Kune Do, I have been able to arrive at a philosophy of coaching that enables me to keep things simple and account for improvements as well as decrements in performance.

“In Jeet Kune Do, one does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity. In building a statue, a sculptor doesn’t keep adding clay to his subject. Actually, he keeps chiseling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions.” Bruce Lee

Coaching the 100m sprint is a good measure of your ability to achieve pure physiological and technical gains with athletes. There are no game strategies, trickery or teammates to rely upon to make up for physical shortcomings. When you step into the blocks in the 100m final at the Olympics, it’s the athlete and his or her competitors running in their individual lanes – putting their faith in their preparation. The same goes for other Track and Field events, as well as other sports such as weightlifting and swimming. Ironically, it is often these sports where performance enhancing substances make the biggest impact.

Specificity is key when planning and implementing a training program for a given sport or individual event. Thus, performing the actual event would be considered the most important training element. If you do not spend enough time performing your given sport in your specific position, role or event at the appropriate level of output, it is very likely that you will not significantly improve over time.

Using the 100m sprint example, you could run only 100m out of starting blocks for every training session. Specificity advocates would say that such workouts would yield positive results and adequately prepare you for your competitions. However, adaptation may be limited and short lived using this method since an athlete would only be challenged in the same manner for every workout. As we know from basic training theory, periodic variation in the stimulus is integral to providing ongoing adaptation and prolonged improvement in performance. Doing sprints of varying distances – some shorter, some longer and in various combinations and volumes – as well as adding other training elements such as weightlifting, explosive training, plyometrics and even aerobic training will enhance preparation for the 100m sprint. The difference between good coaching and average coaching is determining the proper amounts, progressions, combinations and sequences of all of the training elements – in coordination with good technical preparation – and applying them appropriately to an individual athlete.

Many coaches grab every bit of information and training technique and integrate it into their overall program, hoping to add value. There is nothing wrong with striving to learn more to improve yourself as a coach and bolster your training approach. However, adding more without taking something out of the equation can lead to problems. Adding more training elements haphazardly can lead to problems of:

Overtraining. Adding more elements and exercises can lead to an athlete that is over-stressed. If this trend continues over the long-term, overtraining syndrome can result. It may take the athlete weeks or months to recover from this affliction. Adding is not so much the solution as replacing. A coach that is adding something must also take something away to ensure that a balance in training load is achieved.

 

Interference. Some elements that are added may conflict or interfere with existing elements, particularly if inserted at the wrong time or day of the week. For example, excessive work in the area of endurance and lactic tolerance can dull explosive, alactic abilities. This is why you don’t see elite Olympic weightlifters running quarter-mile repeats with three minute recoveries.

 

Accounting. The more a coach adds, the more complex the entire training equation becomes. It becomes much more difficult to make adjustments and transition from one phase to the next. It is also harder to determine which elements are the critical elements (i.e. those that are providing the most bang for your buck). Thus, when a problem occurs, it becomes a much more difficult task to determine where to make changes.

Once again, I am not saying that adding new training methods should not be pursued. I am saying that one should be conscious of the big picture and the impact new elements can have on the adaptation abilities of an athlete.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

The “Confusing Menu” Syndrome

One of my favourite television programs of late is a reality show called Kitchen Nightmares in which world renowned chef, Gordon Ramsey (from Hell’s Kitchen fame) helps revitalize problem-ridden restaurants. One of the first things he does when evaluating the restaurant is review their menu. In every instance, these near-bankrupt establishments have too many items on their menus. Customers cannot figure out which items on the menu are actually good, while the chefs and cooks preparing the food cannot focus their talents on just a few good dishes. The result is low quality food, confused customers and a failing restaurant. The same can happen with a training program. Too many inputs, too many choices and no focus on what is going to provide the real payoff for the coach and athlete. You run the risk of bankrupting your athlete.

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” Bruce Lee

Classifying and Prioritizing Training Elements

Table 1 below provides a graphical representation of the classifications of contributing (and non-contributing) training elements. For illustrative purposes, I have identified potential training elements for an elite level 100m sprinter. The first column represents elements that will directly result in starting, acceleration and maximum velocity improvements for the elite level sprinter. For beginner sprinters of adolescent age, almost any type of training can result in an improvement. But this type of example does not provide us with the critical imformation for determining critical elements for effecting significant improvement at all levels of ability. For elites, over-use of non-contributing elements will result in a de-training response (i.e. they will get slower).

Additionally, the elements identified in column two of Table 1 are classified as indirect contributors, which can enhance an athlete’s ability to improve when training direct contributors. For example, improving aerobic ability, through the use of low-intensity intervals, can enhance recovery and regeneration abilities between sprint repetitions, sets and workouts. Use of electronic muscle stimulation can enhance muscle fibre recruitment velocities that can be applied in sprint training and plyometric sessions. The third column includes items that we cannot conclusively say provide assistance, but are often left in a program because we feel that the athlete can gain confidence by incorporating these elements in their training.

Finally, column four elements are activities that would not provide any appreciable improvement for an elite level 100m athlete. Scientific evidence does not support use of these elements and even anecdotal evidence is non-supportive. Some coaches may still incorporate these elements at a volume which does not negatively affect performance (i.e. used as filler activities to add variety) while others over-use them to the detriment of the athlete.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.” Albert Einstein

Recommendations

So how does one go about choosing the correct amount and blend of training elements to elicit the best training response in an athlete? There is no black and white answer to this question. What is clear is that heightened awareness on the part of the coach is paramount. A coach must keep track of all of the inputs in a given training program and be able to understand what an athlete is getting out of the prescribed elements. You do not need to attach percentages to individual training elements, but you should have a good idea as to the relative importance of each input. Key factors that will help a coach to make the right choices for their athletes include:

Experience

The more hands on experience a coach has under their belt, the more able they will be to discern what is working for their athletes and what is not working. Knowledge is of no use unless you apply it. And regardless of what you read in a book or on the internet, or pick up at a seminar, you really don’t know how to make it happen until you have logged the hours with athletes and seen the improvements first-hand. Having said that, there are coaches who continue to do the same routines over and over again, expecting a different result – which is essentially the definition of insanity.

Intuition

Some of the best coaches that I have met have combined adherence to scientific principles with incredible intuition – resulting in profound results on a consistent basis with their athletes. To some degree, enhanced intuition does come with experience. However, it appears that some coaches are simply better at reading their athletes and understanding how to elicit optimal adaptation through good planning and timely rest and recovery. Unfortunately, intuition may not be something a coach can learn – it may be only available to a select few coaches.

Quantitative Evaluation

Every training program should have a means of evaluating its effectiveness. For sprinters, the stopwatch is the indicator. In the weight room, the amount of weight lifted is the key indicator. In field events, such as high jump, long jump and shot put, the measuring tape is the indicator of progress. Other athletes from team sports can also use these indicators to identify progress for qualities such as power, strength, speed and endurance. If you can’t measure improvement, it will be very difficult to determine if your training program is working. Qualitative assessment can also be used. However, if something looks better but there is no quantitative improvement in performance, it will not fly in the world of competitive sports – unless you are a figure skater or rhythmic gymnast.

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.” Albert Einstein

In short, training for the sake of training is not the best use of an athlete’s time. I often come across athletes who don’t improve, and when asked why they continue with the grind of training with no tangible results, they respond with, “I just like working out. The training itself is enjoyable for me.” If you are one of these people, all the power to you. But if you are hoping to make significant improvements, keep track of your training inputs and make sure they are paying dividends for you. Once you figure out what counts and what doesn’t, training will not only be simpler, but also much more gratifying.

Rhythm and Running: Hitting Your Stride

- Derek M. Hansen -

I was having a discussion with a running client of mine recently, and she mentioned how she didn’t like to wear her i-Pod when running. She said that running for her was a time where she could be free and able to listen to her body. She felt the music interfered with her running experience. I thought about this for a while and agreed. My personal experience with running and listening to music has been similar, although there were times when my body was not feeling great and the music actually distracted me from the experience of forcing myself through the pain and discomfort. Hard, classic-rock seemed to work well for me, particularly Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix.

The more I thought about it and other experiences with sprinting and athletic performances, the more I kept coming back to the importance of rhythm for running. The concept of an internal metronome, whether for fast running or slower-pace running, seems to be a common thread when examining good, fluid running performances. And, like musicians, better athletes seem to have a good grasp on keeping rhythm and not rushing the movement. Does this mean that musicians, particularly drummers, make better runners? No, not necessarily. I believe that rhythm for musical pursuits is somewhat different than rhythm in running. But I can see a connection with music playing from an i-Pod disturbing, or at least interfering with, the rhythm of a runner – particularly a runner that is very intuitive and aware of their body.

So what does this connection between rhythm and running mean for instructing someone how to run and enhancing their overall running performance? From my experience, rhythm, as it relates to running, should almost come from an autonomic part of the brain, much like the beating of our hearts. Runners are not counting in their head (i.e. one-Mississippi, two-Mississippi…) while executing a performance. The concept of “Feel” is critical and focusing efforts on other areas of the body seems to yield the best results. An example would be simply concentrating on breathing in a relaxed fashion and allowing the performance to flow from there.

We know that rhythm is important in executing a sprint, as the right combination of stride frequency and stride length must be employed for different phases of a sprint. Inappropriate rhythm at any given phase could result in tightness, over-striding, premature depletion of energy and many other performance limiters. Over longer distances, rhythm will determine efficiency and running economy. Over terrain that is varied, combining up-hills, down-hills and flats requires careful manipulation of rhythm. This is especially true for cycling, where the achievements of Lance Armstrong demonstrated that rhythm or, in cycling terminology, cadence can determine performance, particularly over long-distances and steep climbs.

With athletes who are working on developing fast acceleration abilities, I often encounter individuals who either rush their strides too much (overly high stride frequency) or athletes who push too hard on their individual strides resulting in long strides with a rhythm that is too slow. In both cases, muscle tension is too high, fluidity of motion is not present and the athletes are working well below their acceleration potential. John Jerome, an author who wrote many books on sports including “A Sweet Spot in Time,” presented a theory whereby all top athletes had greatly developed their “sweet-spot” for biomechanical movements in their sport – whether it was a golf-swing, baseball pitch or tennis shot. Finding that sweet spot for your running rhythm is a critical step in the skill-development process.

How do we determine what is an appropriate rhythm for an athlete or recreational runner? In all cases, optimal rhythm must be achieved in a “relaxed” state, where tension is managed in a way that the performance flows and does not lead to unwanted fatigue. Additionally, technical execution is critical, as good biomechanics will almost always lead to optimal rhythm and frequency. A good coach will be able to spot flaws in technique for cyclical activities by identifying disturbances in rhythm. One stride or series of strides may be interrupted in a manner that results in a loss in velocity or force application. A good friend of mine and one of the sharpest technical coaches I’ve ever met – Charlie Francis – was always critical of over-analyzing video because of the limitations of 30 frames per second yielded by most modern video cameras. He always felt that running technique would be “smoothed over” as critical frames would be missing. Watching someone with the naked eye always yielded more information from his perspective with the video camera serving only a supplementary purpose.

My personal experience has yielded similar results. When analyzing running performances, I’ve shifted towards moving way back from the athlete in an effort to take in the movement as a large sampling of strides as opposed to looking at one or two strides. I liken the approach to stepping back from one of those pictures that have a hidden pattern or picture within them. If you stand to close to them, you don’t see the pattern, just the individual pixels of color. However, if you move back and almost allow your vision to glaze over, the picture suddenly appears. This is how I look at running performances. The “real” picture appears only when you don’t look for it.

For runners who are analyzing their own rhythm, the process is one of trial-and-error. You must take the time and effort to free yourself from distraction, employ different levels of effort and cadence, and determine the effect of such changes. Sometimes the result will be visible with the stop-watch, your heart rate monitor or the video camera. While other times, your changes to rhythm will simply result in an improved “feel.” While the i-Pod may bring you hours of joy with your favorite tunes, it will not match the sheer excitement of finding that optimal rhythm when you run.

Running: Intuitive Activity or Complex Motor Pattern?

- Derek M. Hansen -

Running tends to be the most common training activity for individuals seeking to improve their fitness. It’s cheap and everyone knows how to run – left-right, left-right. For some, it’s right-left, right-left. Coaches of sport teams use running to condition their athletes whether it is running around a field or court, running back and forth in shuttles, or running up stairs or hills. And, young children run around for hours as a part of normal playtime.

All active, able-bodied human beings have engaged in running activities throughout their life to some degree. Yet, despite the popularity of this activity, very few individuals know how to run well. A very small percentage of individuals are considered “natural” runners, and are able to hold stride comfortably and effortlessly. But even these individuals need technical training to fully realize their athletic potential.

Thus, the answer to the question, “Is running an intuitive activity or is it a complex series of motor patterns?” is yes. It is both. This reality does have significant implications for how we instruct athletes and non-athletes on how to run properly. The teaching progression for runners, whether they are sprinters or long-distance athletes, must take into consideration the duality – natural and complex – of this activity. Coaches who approach running instruction from only one of these dimensions will likely be missing integral pieces of the running puzzle.

History

Distant ancestors of the human race walked upright over 4 million years ago. Australopithecines were “bipedal intermediaries between the apelike and the subsequent homo-like forms, and were unlikely to have been able to outrun most large predators,” as cited by Bernd Heinrich in his book Why We Run. It is obvious that running bipedal – even if it was slow running – has been occurring amongst the human race for a very, very long time. Thus, to some degree, running is hard-wired in our species.

I would argue, however, that good running is not hard wired. Running athletes from 100 years ago cannot compare in their performances versus athletes from the 21st century – in most part due to better training and better technical awareness. Athletes from the past still knew how to run and could cover the competition distances in Track and Field events relatively fast. But if you examine film footage of pre-1930’s sprinters, the technique being employed by the most athletes could be compared to what you would see at a local high school competition in the current era: athletes straining to reach the finish line, with possibly the first two or three finishers holding form for most of the race. Modern day elite performers have greater resources to provide them with better technical execution over the entire race. Additionally, equipment advances in the form of better footwear and competition surfaces have also helped to advance performances. The question is how do we advance beyond the evolutionary hard-wiring stage to the point of a “software” upgrade that enables individual runners to clean up their mechanics?

Feel: Moving Beyond Rote Instruction

rote – n. (rot)

1. A memorizing process using routine or repetition, often without full attention or comprehension: learn by rote.
2. Mechanical routine.

Part of the challenge of moving beyond our hard-wired condition and toward elite performances is achieving technical optimization through gaining a sense of trust and awareness with athletes. When teaching someone how to run properly, it is important to get the individual to feel comfortable when running. More importantly, it is critical to get an athlete to feel comfortable while performing the correct technique. This is done through constant repetition of the proper mechanics. The accumulation of proper technical work – either through the use of drills or the actual movement itself – will lead to a greater sense or feel of the proper mechanics, providing a frame of reference for the individual. Video review of their technique will also help to reinforce the proper running mechanics. It allows them to connect what they feel with what is actually happening when they run. The kinesthetic feel of proper running must be ingrained into their sub conscience so that good running is intuitive and reflexive, not cognitive.

This is much like a golf swing, where the novice, when learning how to drive a ball, will feel awkward regardless if their swing is mechanically correct or incorrect. They have no frame of reference for good or bad technique because they have little or no experience at all. If left to their own devices, the novice golfer would most likely continue with poor technique and become accustomed to the feel of bad mechanics. However, if a golf instructor intervened early on in the process and provided proper instruction on a consistent basis, the novice golfer would then become more comfortable with good technique and gain a better feel for a mechanically correct golf swing. This is why it is always harder to “teach an old dog new tricks.” Old habits are hard to break.

What I typically encounter when teaching athletes how to run is a condition of comfort with poor technique. Unfortunately, good running technique in the sports world is the exception rather than the rule. Most athletes have never received proper running instruction through their developmental years in their sport. Hence, poor mechanical habits are ingrained over the years and become comfortable for the athlete – even if that technique has resulted in sub-par performance or even injury. Thus, part of the evolution of teaching one of these athletes how to run mechanically correct is having them trust the discomfort of running properly. A common comment I receive from individuals when have them perform optimized technique is, “This feels strange!”

Awkwardness will prevail in the initial stages, particularly with drills. Your job as a coach is to ensure that drills that confuse and confound are kept to a minimum. Setting the athlete up for success is key in this process. For complex movements in sport, many times we find that slowing down the movement will make it easier to learn and assimilate. This is sometimes the case with Olympic weightlifting movements when we use a lighter bar to trace the proper sequence of movement and bar path for an athlete. With running, however, it is sometimes more prudent to keep things moving at a reasonable pace. I often see athletes agonize over the sequence of limb movements required for a Marching “A” movement (high-knee marching), putting the right hand forward with the right knee lifting, which is completely opposite of what is required. But when we speed the motion up to a running pace, limb movements sequence much more fluidly and appropriately. This is because the intuitive elements of running supersede the learned aspects. The key is to make all elements of running more intuitive and less cognitive.

This concept of making running an intuitive activity is critical. As a coach, you will have more success creating drills and running scenarios that move the athlete’s mind away from the task at hand. Many times I will focus on the action of the arms with athletes in order to correct postural flaws or lower extremity mechanics. A stronger upward arm motion will help to maintain proper posture, while emphasizing a downward pull with the arms can enhance knee drive. In both cases, you are shifting the emphasis to create an improvement somewhere else in the system.

Because running is a lower-brain function (i.e. non-cognitive), another way to improve efficiency is by enhancing flexibility and suppleness. By focusing on improving ease of movement you can facilitate the proper limb movements such as knee drive, heel recovery and hip extension without any additional expenditure of energy or effort. It is surprising how – with many aspects of biomechanics – the human body will perform the correct technique if you remove the obstacles to natural human movement with no cognitive intervention. In the example of running, improving hip mobility through both static and dynamic stretching, soft-tissue therapy and massage, as well as other muscle-tone reducing activities, can go a long way to increasing power output. Remember, almost every muscle has an opposing counterpart that can hinder movement (i.e. flexors versus extensors) and negatively impact ease of execution or even foster an environment for injury.

Prescriptions

There are many different ways to enhance your running mechanics. A comprehensive approach is best, one which addresses mechanics on several different levels. Key methods include:

1. Outlining key technical goals for your athletes. A checklist that identifies key technical elements and cues can help to enhance athlete awareness and guide them to achieving technical excellence. Awareness of self is half the battle when teaching someone new techniques. If the athlete knows what they need to work on, they can focus their attention on key elements rather than going blindly into the task.

 

2. Breaking down the technique into smaller sub-elements that can be isolated through drills or technique oriented runs. These drills must be performed at the highest possible quality to ensure that they transfer effectively. Drills can include activities that isolate hip extension, foot recovery, ground contact, arm carriage, posture or combinations of these qualities. A drill can also be comprised of a run over a specified distance with key technical goals that address sub-components of running technique.

 

3. Immediate video review to identify current technical issues and confirm prescribed technical adjustments. The quicker the review, the better. Athletes will be able to effectively connect what they feel with what they see to enhance kinesthetic awareness. Modern day flash-memory based digital cameras, which are relatively inexpensive, have the ability to provide video replays of drills and repetitions, sometimes in slow-motion.

 

4. Specific stretching and therapy protocols for addressing key obstacles to efficient and free movement, as well as enhancing the availability of muscle fiber for contraction. Passive corrections (i.e. enhancing mobility to improve technique) to mechanics are always more easily assimilated than active corrections (i.e. telling an athlete to change mechanics). Many times if a muscle is tight, you will not be able to will it to do what you need it to do. This is why many top athletes have physical therapists on hand at training sessions to help with improving mechanics and efficiency, as well as minimize exposure to injury.

 

5. Directed strength training to address key weaknesses in the running kinetic chain. Exercises that address body rigidity and foot reactivity during ground contact, hip extension power and upper body strength for arm carriage can significantly enhance overall mechanics. As we know, running alone cannot be the only conditioning tool in your arsenal. Other methods can enhance overall strength, power, speed and endurance qualities that contribute to better running performance.

Concluding Remarks

Hard-wiring aside, it is obvious that running athletes can improve performance through a dedicated effort to improve technical execution. The goal is to “upgrade your software” without taxing your “processor.” In layman’s terms, this means to improve your execution of technique through methods that do not require the athlete to over-think the problem and unnecessarily stress the central nervous system with laborious repetitions of improper mechanics. Methods that can be subtly introduced create greater body awareness and effect change over a gradual progression will be retained more readily. Additionally, in times where tension and stress can be maximal such as during competitions, running technique will be more stable and will not degrade. The inevitable result will be better performance, better-looking running and a reduced incidence of injuries. One might say it is an intuitive solution to a complex problem.

Balance Training or Balanced Training? Which is More Stable?

News flash: “Athletes and average citizens are falling over spontaneously and collapsing at the waist on a daily basis! What do we do? There is a world-wide epidemic of poor balance and stability resulting in sprained ankles, buckling knees and, ultimately, severe head injuries!”

If this were the case, I could understand why a large majority of the fitness and sports training professionals are incorporating copious amounts of so-called balance training, unstable apparatus training and core stability work. But clearly, this purported stability and balance crisis is not occurring. So what really is going on here? My take on it is that the age-old problem of “a small bit of knowledge becoming a dangerous thing” is at play.

Let’s be honest. People are sheep. There are certainly many more followers than leaders in our society. We like to be told what to do in many instances. What is the latest fashion trend? What car should I buy? How should I invest my money? What is the easiest way to lose weight? I am, however, a follower of the age old process of doing things the ‘right way’, not the popular way. So let’s delve further into the discussion of this balancing act.

The Biomechanics of Balance and Stability

I recently taught a biomechanics course for coaches at the International Coaching School in Victoria, BC, Canada. The text for the course, Sport Mechanics for Coaches, was written by Professor Gerry Carr and offers a concise overview of the fundamentals of sport biomechanics. His discussion on balance and stability offers some important points:

“Stability specifically relates to how much resistance athletes “put up” against having their balance disturbed. The more stable an athlete, the more resistance the athlete puts up against stable forces. An athlete can be in a balanced position and be as stable as the Rock of Gibraltar. At the other extreme, an athlete can be balanced but be highly unstable. A giant sumo wrestling champion squatting low with both hands on the ground is obviously in a more stable position than a ballerina balancing on the tips of her toes. A child can produce enough force to push the ballerina off balance, but it’s unlikely that the same force will do anything but bring a smile to the sumo wrestler’s face.”

What I take from this description is that athletes require skills that allow them to orient their bodies and extremities in a manner which maximize their stability. The ballerina, on the other hand, is balancing and, at the same time, holding an unstable body position. Dr. Carr also goes on to discuss differences in linear and rotary stability, which relate more to body position and technique than it does balancing. Carr’s text provides us with what we need to do to enhance stability in sports. Athletes increase their stability when they:

• Lower their center of gravity.
• Increase their body mass.
• Extend their base in the direction of the oncoming force.
• Shift their line of gravity toward and oncoming force.

In case you missed it, Dr. Carr’s list did not include training on unstable surfaces. This may be a shock to many personal trainers and strength coaches, but it is the cold, hard truth. If I ever see an athlete teetering and balancing when performing a skill in any sport, with the exception of gymnastics (and I work with elite gymnasts and they don’t do any balancing on unstable surfaces), they are more than likely executing that skill improperly. Increasing balance and stability is all about good biomechanics and skill execution.

Sport and human movement should be fluid and effortless. Watching an individual perform balancing exercises on an unstable apparatus is like watching someone with hypothermia (with a severe case of the shakes) try to thread a needle. It is not fluid, efficient or pleasing to the eye. It is a massive over-stimulation of low-threshold, proprioceptive motor units engaging in a frenetic attempt to keep a person upright and off their butt. The adaptation is highly specific and not transferable to dynamic movements. The impact on Central Nervous System fatigue is significant, but without positive adaptations for sports. So, you’re working hard, your CNS is getting fried and you aren’t getting any faster, stronger or more athletic for your sport. Great tradeoff!

Movement in sports is inherently unbalanced and, to some degree, unstable. Fast, explosive movement requires that your center of mass be placed outside its normal resting place (i.e. inside your stomach). In sprinting, your center of mass is in front of you to assist in the forward driving motion for acceleration and maximum speed. Sprint athletes are unstable in the forward direction. You can be off balance, yet still in control. Throwing athletes such as discus throwers, hammer throwers, cricket bowlers and baseball pitchers all employ techniques that force them off balance to create greater forces and higher velocities. Training that requires athletes to engage in balancing activities works counter to dynamic, explosive human movement.

Research on Balance and Stability

Common sense tells me that training on unstable surfaces does not make sense for healthy athletes. For some reason, unstable surface training made the jump from the rehab setting to the athlete conditioning realm. If that trend continues, look out for the flying ice-bag throw and doing squats with an ultrasound machine strapped to your butt. Common sense aside lets look at what recent research has proven.

In a paper by J.M. Willardson, Core Stability Training: Application to Sports Conditioning Programs, he appropriately comments that, “Despite the popularity of core stability training, relatively little scientific research has been conducted to demonstrate the benefits for healthy athletes.” He quotes findings by authors of studies such as Vera-Garcia and Behm that indicate that the abdominal region of the body experiences greater muscular ‘activity’ during exercises on unstable apparatus such as a Swiss ball as compared to a stable weight bench. My response to such findings would be, “Is this type of muscular activity producing a useful adaptation for sports and, for that matter, normal human activities such as walking, standing, jogging and picking up something off the floor?” I know that when I sneeze or cough my abdominal area experiences significant muscular ‘activity’. A friend of mine even broke a rib during a coughing fit (not recommended). Following from the pro-Swiss ball perspective, should we then encourage athletes to start smoking and inject them with the cold virus? We could probably get financial support from tobacco companies and the producers of Nyquil with this training approach.

Behm and associates also found out that force output was less on unstable apparatus versus stable benches. Wow – we had to perform a scientific study to determine that outcome! Just go check out your local gym where the fitness crowd is performing dumbbell presses on Swiss balls with the 10 and 15 pound dumbbells. That’s okay – you won’t find me on that end of the dumbbell rack anyways. Willardson again appropriately states that while core stability is required for successful execution of sports skills, “very few sports skills require the degree of instability inherent with Swiss ball exercises.” He goes on to quote Stuart McGill who indicates that, “Any exercise that channels motor patterns to ensure a stable spine, through repetition, constitutes a core stability exercise.” So, from my count, this would include standing, walking, running, jumping, weight lifting, throwing, playing sports and so on and so forth.

Behm and associates also looked at wobble boards and ice hockey performance. For some reason, people associate balancing on a fulcrum board with slipping and sliding on ice. Good thing personal trainers aren’t helping design automobiles and snow tires. Behm and associates found out that, “for the most skilled players, skating speed was not significantly related to wobble board balance (R= -0.28). Once again, we needed a scientific study to figure that one out! Apparently, common sense is not so common. Willardson goes on to state something that every good coach and trainer should figure out before they provide a training program for hockey players – “The optimal approach to improve balance for healthy athletes might be through practice of relevant skills and movements on the same surface on which those same skills and movements are performed during competition.” Hallelujah!!!! I think we are on to something here. You won’t get a standing ovation at a personal training conference or even an NSCA conference, but hey, you’ll be doing the industry and your clients a service.

Here’s a good one. Stanton and others, as identified in Willardson’s article, evaluated Swiss ball training for improvements in running economy and VO2 max. They found out that Swiss ball training yielded no significant differences in these running performance indicators. Once again… no kidding! The funny part is that they concluded that the best type of core strengthening for running would be, “exercises performed in a unilateral, single-leg support, standing position, with the arms held in a position similar to running.” By jove, those exercises sound like – you guessed it – running. You mean to tell me that actually doing the running will condition my ‘core’ to the demands of running? Get outta here!

Stanton and friends also concluded that, “Improvements in core stability were skill specific.” This is something I have always told my athletes. Performing repetitions on a Swiss ball, Bosu trainer or balance board will improve your stability on these devices. But, there is little to no transference to high speed, forceful and dynamic movements on solid ground, or even ice for that matter. It is similar to using the juggling of balls as a training activity for improving hand-eye-coordination. It will make you better at juggling balls, but it won’t prepare you for catching a 100 mph fastball.

For those who are willing to listen to reason, the best way to address the core strengthening requirements for running would be to:

• Run (yes, it’s that simple).
• Perform the marching, skipping and high knee running drills we should have all learned as young athletes.
• Low amplitude jumps and plyometrics which load the core vertically, similar to running.

Of course, as supplementary exercises, you can continue to perform your med-ball passes and abdominal crunches. Do you need to be ‘unstable’ while doing these types of exercises? There will always be a small degree of balancing going on while performing these types of exercises, but not to the degree that your well-being is at risk (i.e. falling off a Bosu or Swiss ball). A good solid surface should serve you well.

In the paper by Behm and Anderson, The Role of Instability with Resistance Training, they conclude that, “…both stable and unstable exercises should be included to ensure and emphasis on both higher force (stable) and balance (unstable) stressors to the neuromuscular system.” My problem with this statement is that the term “unstable” needs to be appropriately defined and a magnitude attached. I would take the term ‘unstable’ to mean performing a standing, single-arm shoulder press (on solid ground) over a seated barbell bilateral shoulder press. However, others might conclude that “unstable” means performing a single-arm dumbbell snatch on a Bosu ball while in a canoe surrounded by alligators. You might go as far to deem the person performing this exercise as both physically and mentally unstable.

Cressey, West, Tiberio et al. also found similar results with athletes performing exercises on stable surfaces outperforming those who trained on unstable surfaces (inflatable disc) in activities such as jumping, sprinting and agility. As with other studies, they determined that force application was not nearly as high on unstable surfaces as compared with stable surfaces. Translation: When your body senses you could possibly fall over, it doesn’t allow you to put heavy weights over your head. Thank goodness your body has more sense than most trainers. It’s really all about self preservation.

So the research is in and it shows that balancing on different unstable devices yields no significant improvement in athletic ability. I’ve gone through at least a dozen studies and the results are pretty much the same. I hope more researchers don’t continue to waste their time studying this fact of training. But I suspect that proponents of balance training will continue to push their agenda and try to manufacture studies that prove their assertions. It’s as though Donald Rumsfeld is pushing the unstable surface training agenda: “They do have weapons of mass destruction, even though we cannot find any proof whatsoever, except these 20 year old barrels that might have once been used for chemical weapons or fertilizer or something like that. But let’s invade anyways!” Sounds logical to me?!?!

Practical Considerations

If stability exercises on unstable surfaces only provide specific adaptations that do not transfer to sporting movements, why are we still seeing these concepts pushed by sports and fitness training gurus? One answer is that if “all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Many trainers are only equipped to address stability issues in their array of training options. It is amazing to find out that many trainers do not know how to perform or properly instruct many basic weightlifting movements including squatting, pressing and pulling. They know very little about proper biomechanics for running, jumping, throwing and lifting. Additionally, they do not properly understand how to train different energy systems. So, what options are left for these types of trainers? “Get on that fancy ball and start balancing for me! When you get better at balancing on that thing, I’m going to start throwing balls at you! Then, I’m going to strap these elastic bands onto you.” And the madness continues.

Anyone that has done any conventional stability work knows that one of the side effects is that it really tightens you up. The core abdominal work on unstable surfaces tightens up the abs, hip flexors and lower back muscles. Balancing vertical on Swiss balls, balance boards or Bosu trainers tighten up the groin and the IT bands to a point where chronic groin pulls, abdominal strains and knee pain are not uncommon. The National Hockey League is a prime example of this phenomenon. Groin pulls and abdominal strains are commonplace even though many teams do nothing but “strengthen the core.” You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to connect the dots and identify the causes of these strains. If you are an athlete that must perform required workouts with all of these crazy stability exercises, make sure that you are supplementing this work with lots of light, static stretching of the hip flexors, glutes, hamstrings, groin and piriformis to bring down the muscle tone in these areas.

Where is this Going? Future Directions

One would hope that this obsession with balancing and stabilizing will be a passing fad, like the hula-hoop, the yo-yo and disco dancing. Unfortunately, as my wife reminded me, all of these fads make comebacks at some point. Even the Rubik’s Cube is making a comeback this Christmas season. So, even if our generation comes to its senses in time to prevent more sprained ankles, abdominal tears and head injuries, inevitably our great, grand-children will be bombarded with new stability exercises to help deal with zero gravity on the International Space Station version of the Olympic Games.

So what can we do to improve the situation? The answer is – you guessed it – education. The general public has been duped into thinking that balance is important. Let me rephrase that… They have been duped into thinking “balancing” is important. Of course balance and stability is important. However, the methods currently being used to enhance balance and stability are way off base. Every sporting coach and strength coach must go back to the fundamental biomechanical requirements for different movements and sports. Specificity of training is important. This includes specificity of movement, specificity of load, specificity of velocity, specificity of contraction type, specificity of joint angle, etcetera, and etcetera. However, trying to simulate sporting movements by creating artificial environments and over-thinking the equation in an effort to sell products is irresponsible. Hopefully the masses will be enlightened sooner than later.

References:

Anderson, K.G. and D.G. Behm. Maintenance of EMG Activity and Loss of Force Output with Instability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(3), 637-640.

Behm, D.G. and K.G. Anderson. The Role of Instability with Resistance Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(3), 716-722.

Behm, D.G, K.G. Anderson and R.S. Curnew. Muscle Force and Activation Under Stable and Unstable Conditions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(3), 416-422.

Carr, Gerry. Sport Mechanics for Coaches. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois: 2004.

Cressey, E.M., C.A. West, D.P. Tiberio, W.J. Kraemer and C.M. Maresh. The Effects of Ten Weeks of Lower-Body Unstable Surface Training on Markers of Athletic Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(2), 561-567.

Hamlyn, N., D.G. Behm, and W.B. Young. Trunk Muscle Activation During Dynamic Weight-Training Exercises and Isometric Instability Activities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1108-1112.

McBride, J.M., P. Comrie and R. Deane. Isometric Squat Force Output and Muscle Activity in Stable and Unstable Conditions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(4), 915-918.

Stanton, R., P.R. Reaburn and B. Humphries. The Effect of Short-Term Swiss Ball Training on Core Stability and Running Econonmy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(3), 561-567.

Willardson, J.M. “Core Stability Training: Applications to Sport Conditioning Programs.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(3) 979-985.