What are some MUST HAVE books for a PT (S&C Coach)

[DeriHughes]

Hey Dude. I actually don't see any conflict. Context is key. Zatsiorsky spends a good bit of time discussing the difference between maximum external force production (Fmm) and peak force (Fm) of a given movement. Fmm is the absolute max force produced in a given movement. Fm, in constrast, is the peak force achieved at a given "condition"...or in the shotput example, the peak force achieved putting a 16# shotput.

Explosive strength deficit, then, is 100(Fmm - Fm)Fmm. A not-very-strong novice/intermediate shotputter needs to get stronger (Zatisorsky gives the example of bringing a bench from 50 to 150kg). This increase in Fmm will improve Fm at 16 pounds for a novice lifter/shotputter.

Zatsiorsky goes on to say that an elite shotputter won't see much improvement in shot by bringing his bench from 200kg! to 300kg!! (context!!). This elite shotputter, argues Zat, should spend more time shrinking his explosive strength deficit by specifically getting better at throwing a 16# shotput (ie sport practice).

The problem with the industry (and what I think Rip rails against) is the tendency for the S&C industry to treat the not-very-strong novice and intermediate athlete like they're the massively strong, internationally competitive advanced athlete.

Further, I (and I assume Rip) think that it's absurd for an S&C coach to assume the role of Sport Coach. The mechanics of throwing a baseball, javelin and football are all so unique and insanely complex that each deserves its own subject matter expert to coach. In short, Fmm (getting maximally stronger) is the domain of the S&C coach. Fm (intermuscular coordination, & intramuscular coordination (optimizing MU recruitment & rate coding)) should be the domain of the Sport Coach.

Ok, see what you mean. I guess the point is that the ESD is task specific, and even if you can't improve your absolute rate of force development (whatever that actually is) much, you can still improve your ability to express a certain % of your maximum RFD for a given task. And beyond a certain point of strength that is a more efficient use of time than getting even stronger.

I think Rip does contradict this somewhat when he talks about Oly lifters. My reading of Zat is he would say that working to reduce task-specific ESD is more efficient than strength gains beyond a certain point of strength. Rip pretty consistently says that all Oly lifters should be programming systematic strength PRs, no matter how strong they already are, because they will have tapped out RFD and technique based improvements in performance. But maybe that is a specific example and there aren't many other sports that are so directly strength dependent.

My other issue is that very, very few athletes - even at the elite level - have actually tapped out their relatively easy strength gains (to, say, near the end of weekly PR-ville). So most athletes would be well served putting the work in to get stronger than they are today.

Where are you on throwing heavy baseballs, or using weighted throws for a javelin thrower? Rip is pretty anti that kind of work as well, on the grounds it messes up movement patterns.

[CJ Gotcher]

I think Rip does contradict this somewhat when he talks about Oly lifters. My reading of Zat is he would say that working to reduce task-specific ESD is more efficient than strength gains beyond a certain point of strength. Rip pretty consistently says that all Oly lifters should be programming systematic strength PRs, no matter how strong they already are, because they will have tapped out RFD and technique based improvements in performance. But maybe that is a specific example and there aren't many other sports that are so directly strength dependent.

Another element to consider in SPST is the specificity of transfer. The lighter the implement, the lower the transfer of strength and the less impact strength will have on your performance. A football lineman or a powerlifter will benefit from improved Fmm pretty much to the end limit of their genetic capability (so long as they don't injure themselves or interfere with their practice). They're operating at a quasi-isometric maximum-force condition.

Despite how fast the olympic lifts move, the olympic lifter is lifting a pretty damn heavy weight for enough time to reach near-maximum force output (it takes about a half-second to get to near-max, then it rises slowly until fatigue or boredom kicks in). Maximal strength will matter a great deal pretty-damn-far up the lifter's line of progression. The problem is when the lifter obsesses so much about technique that they delay the process of getting stronger ("I need to stay at 130 kilos until I really own the weight"). When their progress is painstakingly slow, it feeds the old adage that "it takes 10+ years to develop excellent snatch form" and they further entrench into their aversion to strength work, feeding the cycle.

[DeriHughes]

I'll take a stab at why it's a bad idea in terms of physics; I'll stay away from the philosophy.

When you're throwing a typical baseball, your body has to compensate, with a fair bit of variance, for the change in combined center of mass and the asymmetry of the movement. If you're going to change the mass of the object, and thus the combined center of mass, it requires a different set of mechanics to execute the throw. In essence, you're learning a new skill, and probably not getting significantly stronger since the actual mass moved isn't "huge" and the stimulus to the whole system is low. By separating the two, the skill has time and energy to develop as does strength. An overloaded sport specific movement would also seem to fatigue the trainee faster, leading to less time for skill acquisition.

That's what I believe as well - but Zatsiorsky seems to be claiming that throwing weighted balls is beneficial to improving strength in your pitching action. Maybe that's just out of date but it seems intuitively wrong to me either way. Not enough weight to enable a significant level of force production, therefore can't drive adaptation unless you're very weak, but plenty of weight to fuck up your throwing mechanics with a standard weight ball.

[DeriHughes]

Another element to consider in SPST is the specificity of transfer. The lighter the implement, the lower the transfer of strength and the less impact strength will have on your performance. A football lineman or a powerlifter will benefit from improved Fmm pretty much to the end limit of their genetic capability (so long as they don't injure themselves or interfere with their practice). They're operating at a quasi-isometric maximum-force condition.

Great point, I hadn't thought of it like that. Basically if the specific task does not enable a significant Fm relative to your Fmm then improving Fmm will not be hugely beneficial. If your Fmm is low - because you are a novice in strength terms - then there is value in getting under the bar until Fm/Fmm is low for the task you care about.

[John Hanley]

Regarding Oly: what CJ said. Fmm in squats, deads, jerk will increase the competitive movements...for pretty much everyone (assuming technique doesn't get fucked). Also, Zat actually talks about needing to hit max intensity every x-weeks to keep Fmm from detraining (I forget which chapter).

Pro athletes: I agree. Rip often uses Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, & Barry Bonds as examples of how profound increases in strengh make historically significant changes in competitive performance.

Throwing weighted shit: depends. I shared athletes with a pitching coach in Seattle. He was a big fan of Rip's and had tremendous success getting pretty average dudes pitching over 90mph. He'd be a good candidate to write an article here actually. He did all sorts of shit specific to increasing pitch speed. He does use balls of various non-competitive weight. And he has clients throw shit backwards. It works.

I would use a totally different set of sport-specific drills for a javelin thrower (and here, along with throwing the 800g javelin, footwork drills and sprints and anything extra you can do to beef-up the rotator cuff help). Increasing Fm in a movement pattern needs to be so fucking fine-tuned. It's the domain of the sport SME...NOT the NSCA approved S&C coach who likes daydreaming about staggeringly complex biomechanics (but who almost certainly sucks at college-level mechanics).

[DeriHughes]

Increasing Fm in a movement pattern needs to be so fucking fine-tuned. It's the domain of the sport SME...NOT the NSCA approved S&C coach

Totally agree with this - things start falling apart when the guy who is just supposed to be training people for general adaptations starts messing with highly technical tasks that he doesn't understand properly. Especially if he doesn't even really understand how to get people strong in the first place.

[John Hanley]

Also, Deri, it's been a while since I read through it, but I remember the sections on the physiology of muscle growth being totally dated (myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic growth). I'm no expert...but the book predates myonuclear domain theory, info igf splice variants, etc.

[Gerhard]

Also, Deri, it's been a while since I read through it, but I remember the sections on the physiology of muscle growth being totally dated (myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic growth). I'm no expert...but the book predates myonuclear domain theory, info igf splice variants, etc.

When I was studying Health and Fitness last year, they were still teaching in the context that myofibrillar and sacroplasmic growth are independent of each other and enabled through different means (ie, high rep sets, light weights for sarcoplasmic). One of the reasons I decided to leave - I thought it was completely insane to write essays on stuff I didn't believe and had been revised through up to date science.

Asides from that, if you can get a copy of it, I think "Anatomy Without A Scalpel" by Kilgore is a pretty good introduction to anatomy in the context of strength training. I'm also still awaiting Jordan's programming masterpiece (when that guy writes a book on programming, it's going to definitely be a must-have for everybody training with Powerlifting in mind).

[Chris McCarthy]

Given the stated goal of knowing this shit as in depth as possible there's plenty of books I would recommend, even if some of the info therein is now considered out of date, and Zatiorsky's is one of them. Knowing how current thought has changed over the years can give some important context.