Thursday, December 16, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
It seems that when you read the sport page today it is a medical report rather than a report of game or match performance. It seems paradoxical that with all the advances in athletic development, sports medicine, and sport science that we are seeing the type of injuries, number of injuries and the severity of the injures that are occurring. Certainly it is a great concern to all involved. The human and economic costs are astronomical.
Let start with a couple of problems where there is universal agreement:
1) The extended competitive season that does not allow for an off-season where training can done to both build and rebuild the athlete as well as recharge the batteries. Top players in some sports have gone as long as three years without more than a three-week break from competition in their sport!
2) We are now bearing the fruit of down side of early specialization and the lack of physical education at younger ages. These athletes are a product of their background. They arrive at the highest levels of their sport with poor general athletic skills but finely honed sport skills. It is a house made of cards. They have the sport skill but not the fundamental movement skill base to stand the test of the competitive cauldron. The strong and gifted sometimes survive and the weak are cast by the wayside
The solutions are rather simple, but certainly uncomfortable, there will have to be some radical changes. There is no quick fix. Realistically the extended competitive schedule will not change, we can not turn back the clock. Money is the driving factor here. That being the case then all those in athletic development, sports medicine and sport science need to unify our efforts, in essence get on the same page (or at least in one room) and come to some consensus regarding logical solutions to the problem. Because the problems are systemic the solutions must be systemic. It certainly is not more hamstring prevention or rehabilitation programs, or more or less small-sided games. Rather we need to look at the whole performance team, including the composition and structure of that team as well as the development pathways and see what can be done in the short term, medium term and long term to develop and implement a bottom up systematic development approach. The goal at the end of the development journey is simple: When the athletes arrive at the elite level all physical limitations are eradicated, fundamental movement skills are thoroughly developed and they are ready physically, psychologically, technically and tactically to thrive in order to compete to win in the competitive arena. The task is to turn those words into action.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
The House of Representatives on December 3 joined the Senate by passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act ending months of deadlock and significantly improving opportunities for low-income students to get healthy, more affordable school meals.
If President Obama signs the bill into law, as expected, there will be $4.5 billion in new child nutrition funding over 10 years and schools will:
- Serve more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products.
- Get help meeting new standards for healthier school meals.
- Have to follow national nutrition standards for all food sold on school grounds.
- Strengthen their wellness policies.
- Get funding for farm-to-school programs.
- And expand the Afterschool Meal Program to all 50 states.
While valid concerns remain about nutrition and hunger programs for low-income families and crucial work must be done to ensure that Congress and the President restore funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), passage of this bill is a huge victory in the battle to end the epidemic of undernourished and obese children.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
1) Don't believe that strength training will help/benefit baseball players;
2) Go about the wrong way.
Here is a quick abstract that challenges the first debate.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Press Release from the Corn Refiners Association
Washington, DC – In an effort to help clarify the labeling of food products for consumers, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) today petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow manufacturers the option of using ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative name for high fructose corn syrup.
“Consumers need to know what is in their foods and where their foods come from and we want to be clear with them,” said CRA president Audrae Erickson. “The term ‘corn sugar’ succinctly and accurately describes what this natural ingredient is and where it comes from – corn.”
Contrary to widespread consumer belief, high fructose corn syrup – a safe and affordable natural sweetener found in many popular products on grocery shelves – is not high in fructose when compared with other commonly used nutritive sweeteners, including table sugar, honey and fruit juice concentrates. Like table sugar, it is roughly half glucose and half fructose and is metabolized by the body in the same way as regular table sugar. In fact, the high fructose corn syrup that is used in many foods, such as baked goods, is lower in fructose than table sugar.
But independent research demonstrates that the current labeling is confusing to American consumers.
For example, independent research indicated that despite the fact that high fructose corn syrup and table sugar contain approximately the same amount of fructose, nearly 58 percent of respondents believed high fructose corn syrup has more fructose than other table sugar.
Corn sugar – or high fructose corn syrup – has been used for more than 40 years to enhance flavors in foods and beverages and maintain freshness.
A continuing series of inexact scientific reports and inaccurate media accounts about high fructose corn syrup and matters of health and nutrition have also increased consumer uncertainty.
Yet, the facts are straightforward. For example, in a December 2008 report, the American Dietetic Association confirmed that high fructose corn syrup is “nutritionally equivalent to sucrose (table sugar)” and that the sweeteners contain the same number of calories per gram. The ADA found that “once absorbed into the bloodstream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.”
As Americans grapple with an “obesity epidemic,” well-renowned nutritionists question whether sweetener confusion could lead consumers to make misinformed decisions about sugars in their diets.
“The last thing we want is for Americans to think that avoiding high fructose corn syrup is the answer,” said Registered Dietitian Carolyn O’Neil. “All added sugars should be consumed in moderation – corn sugar, table sugar, honey and fruit juice concentrates. These sugars contain an equal number of calories that must be burned off– or the body will convert them to fat.”
“We hope that the FDA will act positively on our petition in the interest of consumer clarity,” said Erickson.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
* Dragging sleds
* Medicine Balls
* Pneumatic resistance
* and of course bodyweight.
8) Puberty has a way of evening out the playing field at times; who was once the small, slow kid is now the fast, bigger kid. Once kids accept that puberty gives them the tools to get where they want to get, they can enjoy the process of learning how to do everything correctly. Personally, I was very small until 18 (135# as a senior in high school) and then in college put on muscle like I was on steroids! I know all of my years of free play and sports gave me the foundation to really take off (albeit after high school ended). So, parents and kids should trust in the natural, progressive way of the human body and be patient while building a neurological library of information.
9) Believe it or not, overweight kids thrive when it comes to strength training. It does not involve the things they are not good at, or do not like: running, jumping, teams, gym class, getting picked last in games, etc. It is one-on-one activity. The extra weight that has been a "burden" to this point actually prepares them to be somewhat stronger than average weight kids. I am not suggesting to become overweight to get stronger, but I am saying that if you cannot find the activity that suits you because of your size, try strength training. It will certainly lead to #10...
10) Let's face it, getting stronger makes you perform better. It also improves your performance from the neck up by helping confidence, body image, self-esteem, discipline, pain tolerance and healthy competition ("what's your bench?!"). I have seen kids in one hour improve their attitude just by increasing the amount of weight that they lifted compared to their previous session. That is priceless.
11) Similar to #10, I truly believe that kids can also become more aggressive with strength training. Sports are hard~physically, mentally and emotionally. Aggression can pull you through even the most challenging obstacles. Before I go further, my definition of aggression always involves sportsmanlike conduct, respect for the game and your opponents, and playing within the rules of the sport. Aggression does not imply fighting, cheating or bullying. It is a mental tool to use when needed: when you need to attack a defender, grab a loose ball, win the race, or always being ready. I use the word "aggression" quite often as I see more and more kids going through the motions but not really attacking that particular drill or exercise.
12) Finally, strength lays the foundation for longer term consequences. Statistically, most kids will not play sports in college and even fewer will become professional athletes. However, if strength training is introduced correctly at a young age, it can be done forever. Conversely, if it is used as punishment ("drop and give me 20!"), do you really think a child is going to want to do that voluntarily? We are in a position to affect not only the present, but the future and how healthy this generation becomes.
There yo go....I am sure I missed a few, but these are the big ones. Now, GET STRONG!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
In looking at our program design layout, you will notice that we always perform strength and power training after our movement skills. Effective and efficient movement of the body is priority number one. However, I am convinced that movement patterns, especially speed, will only be reinforced and improved through gaining strength. So, I am going to modify our training protocols to include more strength than we have before.
Here are some thoughts as to why strength training is so good for young kids:
1) Before the onset of puberty and during puberty, the Central Nervous System can be thought of as moldable, or plastic. It is still capable of being introduced to a stimulus, adapting and starting the process of changing relatively quickly. Older athletes and adults are capable of this also but not at the level of young children. These tools will form the foundation for which further changes can occur.
2) We can move a kid as we strengthen them. Typically, strength training is limited to the space of the equipment in use, but in our world of bands, sleds, climbing, crawling, etc, the movement patterns and the strength patterns happen simultaneously. An example would be a walking sled press instead of a bench press, or a sled march instead of a squat. That doesn't mean we will not use those exercises, but there are options beside the traditional means.
3) While it is a cliche, balance of the body is important for performance and injury prevention. Generally, balance will involve front/back, side/side and top/bottom; it will not always mean an equal ratio, however. For instance, our baseball players will always perform 2 to 3 posterior upper body movements for every anterior movement. Runners may perform more hip extension than hip flexion. Jiu Jitsu players and wrestlers may do core work on their backs more often than a football player. Once the body is looked at Generally, it can be broken down Specifically and Competitively based on the demands and needs of the sport.
4) Strength, more than any other motor skill, seems to have the greatest transfer to improvements in all other motor skills. As strength improves, acceleration, deceleration, jump height, jump distance, and speed typically improve. Couple that with proper teaching of the mechanics of movement, and the athlete is poised to be a dangerous weapon.
5) Similar to #4, as strength improves, force production and force absorption also improve. Sports, in the big picture, rely on producing and absorbing forces, either into the ground, an object, or a person. Take running for example: As an athlete accelerates, he/she must be able to apply enough force into the ground to create the desired speed over a desired distance. If they are not strong (enough), they will not get to where the want to go as fast as they should (this is a very simple overview). Conversely, if they need to decelerate and change direction, they must be able to control their bodyweight, absorb any forces needed and slow down momentum, and possibly re-accelerate.
6) Many times strength is measured by how much an athlete lifts in the weight room, and rightly so. If Athlete A squats 400 and Athlete B squats 300, Athlete A is stronger...or is he? In powerlifting, that is true. Weight room strength is a tool that must be able to transfer into sport. Much has been debated about how weightlifters and powerlifters can hang with sprinters for the first10-20 yards of a race based on their strength levels, but don't win the race. That is for another time, but strength for strength's sake is only as good as the degree of transfer. Athletes should see a positive correlation between improved strength and improved performance. Also of importance is the concept of relative strength. There are a few interpretations of relative strength:
* Strength relative to bodyweight;
* Strength relative to their maximum or absolute strength (expressed as %1RM);
* Strength relative to the forces found within a given sport (ground reaction forces, for example).
Athletes obviously need both relative strength and absolute strength to be successful.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Inactivity 'no contributor' to childhood obesity epidemic...which comes first: obesity or inactivity?
A new report from the EarlyBird Diabetes Study suggests that physical activity has little if any role to play in the obesity epidemic among children. Obesity is the key factor behind diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.
EarlyBird is based at the Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, UK, and has been observing in detail a cohort of city school children for the past 11 years.
A review published in 2009 of all trials using physical activity to reduce childhood obesity showed weight loss amounting to just 90g (3oz) over three years, and the EarlyBird study wanted to know why the trials were so ineffective. So they challenged some popular paradigms.
It is well known that less active children are fatter, but that does not mean – as most people assume it does – that inactivity leads to fatness. It could equally well be the other way round: that obesity leads to inactivity.
And this is the question EarlyBird was uniquely placed to answer. With data collected annually over several years from a large cohort of children, it could ask the question – which comes first? Does the physical activity of the child precede changes in fatness over time, or does the fatness of the child precede changes in physical activity over time?
And the answer, published recently in Archives of Disease in Childhood, was clear. Physical activity had no impact on weight change, but weight clearly led to less activity.
The implications are profound for public health policy, because the physical activity of children (crucial to their fitness and well-being) may never improve unless the burgeoning levels of childhood obesity are first checked. If this cannot be achieved through physical activity, the focus has to be on what – and how much – children consume.
EarlyBird has already shown how the trajectory leading to obesity is established very early in life, long before children go to school, and how most childhood obesity is associated with obesity in the same-sex parent.
While portion size, calorie-dense snacks and sugary drinks are all important contributors, early feeding errors seem crucial - and physical activity is not the answer.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
I have seen and heard much discussion regarding how different kids are today. I hear that they are lazy, not fit, disrespectful, they just won't do the things that kids did forty or fifty years ago. Since I am still involved in day to day coaching of high school athletes I also have given this issue much thought. I guess the perspective of coaching 41 years at all levels of competition gives me some insights that others who started later may not have. I also have been a classroom teacher, history and geography, a teacher of physical education and a coach of multiple sports. A few preparatory points are necesaary1) The older you get the easier it is to remember the good of the good old days and forget the bad. 2) We live in an entirely different world today than 41 years ago. Those points being made please indulge me as I attempt to explain what I see in kids today.
Lets look at then first:
Students rode bikes or walked to school
Kids had mandatory daily physical education
Most kids started playing three sports in elementary or middle school and then narrowed it down to two by high school
Family structure was still there
You seldom saw a latchkey kid
No high fructose corn syrup
No professionalization of youth and high school sports
Sports were centered in the schools and recreation departments
Parents were interested, but not directly involved
There were virtually no competitive opportunities for girls
Coaches were usually trained teachers, often physical education teachers
Coaches were the experts, because in many cases they were
Coaches did not specialize they coached multiple sports
A sporting event on TV was special because there was not many of them
No national high school or youth championships
You wore Converse or Keds, black or white was the choice of colors
There were strict transfer rules – no changing schools in midyear because you did not like the coach or you were not starting
Let look at now:
Students ride to school
No mandatory physical education and no recess
Kids specialize in one sport from an early age
Sports are centered outside the schools
Coaches are not trained as educators; in essence anyone can be a coach
Parents are involved; they run and have ownership of school and club programs because of fundraising
National championships in youth sports and high school sports
Sports are on television 24/7
Our diet is worse than most third world nations
Kids spend hours a day on computers and cell phones
The only time many kids play is at organized practice
We have more knowledge in sports medicine and sport science
We have significantly better facilities
Unlimited competitive opportunities for boys and girls
If you are not a starter or a star you either quit or transfer
So what the conclusion? First of all you cannot separate sport from society. I have always felt sport is a reflection and in some ways a magnification of what you see in society, both good and bad. We are a nation of consumers, instant gratification and fast money. So a logical step as a reflection of society is to use kids to make money and build reputations. The shoe and apparel companies really do not care about kids they are concerned with the bottom line. In your face ads and smack talking sport stars sell shoes. With sports on 24/7 the kids imitate their role models good and bad. We live in a throwaway world, national champion at 13, nobody at 16. Who cares? Essentially we - adults, parents, coaches and administrators have created a monster. What we see in today’s kids is the result of an over indulgent culture. We have lowered the bar, eliminated behavioral expectations and compromised sound educational principles to chase a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that is not here.
So is it all l that bleak, all gloom and doom? No way! We need to stop and take a long look at what we as parents, coaches, administrators, in short the adult authority figures need to do. We need to raise the bar, set a higher level of expectation for the kids in areas that matter. I see the kids that I work with day to day achieve at a very high standard, just like the kids I coached 40 years ago. I have the same standards and they know what they are and reach up to those standards. Lets stop blaming the kids and look at ourselves in the context of society. These kids are crying out for teaching, structure, and firm fair discipline, they want the special experience that real coaching can provide. Lets not cop out and blame the kids, we all need to look in the mirror and raise our standards.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Groups representing teachers and school boards told a Senate committee last week that it would be impossible to implement the measure without money to pay for it. Most schools will see state funding cuts or freezes next year.
"We can't solve every social problem at the school door," said Darold Johnson of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. "We need to do what we do well, and that's educate."
Jeff McCuen, treasurer of Worthington City Schools near Columbus, said the 30-minute exercise requirement would cost the district $4 million and take time away from core classes.
Other provisions in the bill would increase nutrition standards for a la carte food and beverages served in schools and require students to get body-mass-index screenings.
State Sen. Kevin Coughlin, a Republican from Cuyahoga Falls, agreed to take the exercise requirement out of his bill and instead allow districts to obtain a waiver. But he added that society rightfully asks a lot of public schools.
"While I share the view that parents have responsibilities on all these things, I can also have the view that our schools should be doing the right stuff while our students are in there nine months a year, seven hours a day," he said.
One in three American children is overweight or obese, increasing their risk of developing diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses, and contributing to high health care costs.
First lady Michelle Obama has made a campaign against childhood obesity. A government panel issued a report last week recommending 70 specific steps that all levels of government, the private sector, schools, parents and others can take.
Some of the recommendations call for updated federal nutrition standards for meals served at schools and more school-based nutrition education.
Obama has said her goal is to solve the problem within a generation so that babies born today can come of age at a healthy weight.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
When faced with a choice that could yield either short-term satisfaction or longer-term benefits, people with complete information about the options generally go for the quick reward, according to new research from University of Texas at Austin psychologists.
The findings, available online in the journal Judgment and Decision Making, could help better explain the decisions people make on everything from eating right and exercising to spending more on environmentally friendly products.
"You'd think that with more information about your options, a person would make a better decision. Our study suggests the opposite," says Associate Professor Bradley Love, who conducted the research with graduate student Ross Otto. "To fully appreciate a long-term option, you have to choose it repeatedly and begin to feel the benefits."
As part of the study, 78 subjects were repeatedly given two options through a computer program that allowed them to accumulate points. For each choice, one option offered the subject more points. But choosing the other option could lead to more points further along in the experiment.
A small cash bonus was tied to the subjects' performance, providing an incentive to rack up more points during the 250 trial questions.
However, subjects who were given full and accurate information about what they would have to give up in the short term to rack up points in the long term, chose the quick payoff more than twice as often as those who were given false information or no information about the rewards they would be giving up.
In a real-life scenario, a student who stayed home to study and then learned he had missed a fun party would be less likely to study next time in a similar situation — even if that option provides more long-term benefits.
"Basically, people have to stay away from thinking about the short-term pains and gains or they are sunk and, objectively, will end up worse off," says Love.
While psychologists have long studied how humans make choices, this is among the first research that examines how people measure "what could have been" when they make repeated decisions that affect their future state.
Love says he believes the long-term benefits of specific decisions can be reinforced by tangible rewards, such as a good grade, a raise or promotion, which can serve as markers of long-term success and help overcome short-term biases
"If there no were no conflict in our choices, this wouldn't be a problem. But everything has that conflict between short-term and long-term goals," says Love. "It's really hard for a learning system to disentangle what's good for you in the short term or long-term."
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
When I consult with an athlete or anyone for that matter, the most important thing I do is find out what their dream is. This is actually a four-step process.
Step one is finding out what their one love is. In other words, what is their primary goal? Why are you lifting weights? Are you trying to go to the Olympics? As a coach and therapist, I need to know this. How do I know what is optimal for you if you don't even know yet where you want to end up?
Without a clearly defined dream and a clear compass bearing, you'll just keep following whatever bullshit is written in magazines and probably get injured. A clear dream is like a GPS or compass bearing, and as the saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
The second step is to explain that there are only two forces in this world, yin (female) and yang (male). The male is more expressive of the fire principle, about "doing", building, making things happen. The fire principle is catabolic in nature and shows up in many as a love of working out and training, both of which are catabolic in nature.
The female, or water principle is more anabolic, oriented toward growing, nurturing, holding a family together, and recuperating. Once I know your dream, we then have to balance these two essential but opposing forces.
So if your goal is to compete in the Olympics and your regular training is fully established, as a therapist or coach, I have to look at your recovery side or your use of yin energies. Is that game of pick-up basketball or bashing tennis balls with your buddy every Saturday helping you reach your dream, or is it adding too much catabolic energy, limiting recovery, and therefore, holding you back?
Step three is to look at choices; choices relative to the core values I help my athletes and patients develop as a means of achieving their dream the most efficient way.
Only by having clearly defined core values or modes of behavior as a guiding philosophy can you effectively know when or how to make important decisions that either support, or detract from your overall objective. If your dream is to win a MMA fight and you're sleeping five hours a night, that's a bad choice. Sleep is the chief engine of our anabolism; why spend hundreds of dollars on supplements if you're sleep deprived?
I work with clients to have clear core values relative to the objectives at hand. I teach them to see that with every objective there are three possible choices: Number one is the optimal choice, which is best for everyone involved with achieving your dream. It's the choice that is in harmony not with just you but with all others involved.
Choice option number two is sub-optimal. It offers instant gratification, but creates stress with others because the decision is typically made with only you in mind.
No matter who you are, or what the dream is, there is someone out there who's feeding you, taking your garbage to the dump, cooking for you in restaurants, driving ambulances, and others helping keep the roads safe...there are many in service to each and every one of us, and vice versa.
The sub-optimal choice is to do something that benefits you at the risk of ignoring the needs of others who support your dream directly or indirectly.
Choice number three is simply to do nothing at all. This is the worst choice you can make, as it benefits no one.
The fourth and final step of 1-2-3-4 for achieving your dream is where I introduce my Four Doctors living philosophy, and these should be the only doctors you'll ever need:
Dr. Quiet, who deals with rest management and your inner life.
Dr. Movement, who governs how you spend energy and teaches you how to use movement such that you don't disrupt the dynamic balance of your yin/anabolic and yang/catabolic energies. This includes how you move, train, exercise, play, and your work: rest ratio, etc.
Dr. Happiness, who deals with getting clear on your dream and establishing your core-values.
Dr. Diet, who deals with how you feed your body.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
To read a summary of the event, click here.
Monday, January 18, 2010
I have had a lot of conversations over the last week regarding Mark McGwire's "revelation" concerning his drug use. Because of my connection to bodybuilding, many people assumed in the past and still ask me today about the topic. The general public is still largely misinformed about steroids and other performance enhancing drugs; how do they work, why do they work, what are the side effects, etc.
I have been around steroids since 1990. I have never taken them. I have seen guys (and girls) inject them, swallow them, sell them, and distribute them. It is much more prevalent than you would realize. Many of my friends have taken them. I am not an advocate of steroid use, but I do advocate making intelligent decisions. If you are going to put something in your body that may harm you, at least inform yourself of what the potential side effects are. Please don't read into this that I condone steroids use; people will use them whether you tell them to or not. I have an obligation to help them make a decision if they ask me for help. Here are a few other thoughts about steroids and other drugs:
* They work...but not for everyone. Judging the effectiveness of the results by the people who I know took them, they will work for 80% of the people who try them. By using the word "work" I am implying that they make you stronger, bigger and more aggressive.
* They work much better for people who have good genetics to begin with. Steroids don't change your DNA, per se; they won't make your collarbones wider or your hips smaller. They will target certain receptor sites located all over the body and flood them with signals to grow at accelerated rates.
* They will not replace poor eating habits, poor exercise habits or poor work ethic.
* They are psychologically, not necessarily physiologically, addicting.
* They won't necessarily make you into an a-hole; but they will make you a bigger a-hole if you were one already!
* They have legitimate medical purposes and uses, especially for muscle-wasting diseases.
* The biggest market for these drugs in the future may not be athletes, but (older) men whose natural testosterone may be too low (similar to women and Hormone Replacement Therapy after menopause).
* Most, but not all, elite physique athletes have taken, or currently are taking, performance-enhancing drugs, including steroids, growth hormone, insulin, erythropoietin, methamphetamines, and pain killers, among others. The sports that have the highest rate of use are bodybuilding, powerlifting, weight lifting, track and field and football. While cycling also has a high rate, they are very specific to the types of drugs they use.
I believe that the next wave of enhancing performance will be gene doping, or changing what genes we turn on or off to achieve a desired result. It is currently being studied and used in animals. Humans will be next, for better or worse. It is our natural desire to want to be the best, blindly turning our minds away from the potential consequences. If a pill or a needle holds that hope, that gold medal, that world record, that trophy, then we will do it.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Before I go into detail on my opinion of strength training for youth, there are a few more highlights to share that will help strengthen my point (pardon the pun). As I mentioned, I started lifting weights when I was 13 or 14, I can't remember exactly. It never stunted my growth, I never broke a growth plate, I never was injured playing sports and I never committed random acts of violence because of my new-found passion. Had to get that out of the way to squash some myths :)
As I entered high school athletics, I realized that, while I was strong and fast, I was smaller than just about everybody else on the field, diamond, court and mat. So, just to compete, I had to attack the weight room with even more fervor and intensity. I remember the first time I could bench press 100 pounds...what a feeling! But, that only made me want to do more. Fast forward to my senior year: I was now a powerlifter in the 125 pound weight class with personal best's of 235 in the bench, 315 in the deadlift and 300 in the squat. Keep in mind I was 125 pounds soaking wet.
I was gaining strength weekly, it seemed. I gradually weaned myself from my love of playing sports to only concentrating on my lifting. In my senior year, I was hospitalized for a month for various ailments, but still managed to lift. I would lie under my bed and do push ups with the bed frame, put two chairs side by side and do dips. I would load up my book bag and squat and deadlift with it. Yes, I was a little nuts. When you find your desire, no one can take that away from you. As I entered college, my powerlifting transferred into bodybuilding. My body finally hit puberty around 18 and I was adding muscle by the week. I entered my first of 17 bodybuilding shows and the rest is history...
When I look back at the tools that were forged via lifting weights, the one constant that never stopped growing was my self-confidence. I was a classic under-achieving student and a pretty good athlete, but was also aware that I never quite fit in with everyone else. High school can break a young kid if he/she let's it. The ironic thing is that while I was using weights for my own selfish gains, I also became more popular. It was purely unintentional, but it happened. Strength and muscle have always had a cartoonish or cult like-quality to those that admire the athletes that partake in it. Weights then had a two-fold purpose: the obvious one of strength gains but also gaining acceptance among my peers. It felt phony but I didn't care.
The reason I bring this up is to show the wide ranging effects that strength training can have on a growing boy or girl. In short, strength training can:
* Improve self-esteem, self-confidence and body image perceptions;
* Decrease injuries by making connective tissue, joint structures and muscles more resilient to potential trauma;
* Improve ALL indices of sport and athletic skill development. This is the biggie. If you want to:
Jump higher....run faster....stop quicker....tackle harder....kick further....swing faster, etc. then strength is the one component that will help every other component of athleticism.
Every sport relies on one major aspect: the production and application of FORCE. From hitting to kicking to swimming to throwing to jumping to running and everything in between, the constant is the application of force to an object, whether it be a ball, a person, water, or the ground. In order for force to improve, strength must improve.
If you think your son or daughter is too young to strength train, think again. They will be exposed to more dangerous conditions while playing sports then through lifting weights. Gymnastics? Strength training! Football? Strength training! Baseball, soccer, jungle gyms, swing sets, recess, phys. ed., running, cutting....all involve the application of force, thus are forms of strength training! The negative perception of strength training stems from junk science from several years ago outlining the dangers of strength training for young kids. This has since been updated to reflect new research. All forms of activity come with risks, but lifting weights, under supervision, has one of the safest track records relative to sports such as soccer, football and gymnastics, among others.
Notice that I am not using weight training in the same context as strength training. They are not necessarily synonymous. The strength training that I advocate for youth consists of medicine balls, bands, ropes, tires, sleds and, of course, bodyweight. There is room for light dumbell and kettlebell work as well. To be blunt, kids are weak (it hurts me to watch kids struggle with their own bodyweight as resistance). I have several theories why that is, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how they got that way; the question then becomes, "What are we going to do about it!?"
I hope that you enjoyed this and maybe even learned something. Strength is an unbelievably powerful tool that can transcend the weight room, playground or athletic world. Get strong. Stay strong.