I'll be interested in your impression of Haff and Triplett.
Member
Progress?
Rip,
I'm currently in the process of finishing an Exercise Science degree, much to your eternal disappointment I'm sure. Anyway, yes so far there have been some questionable units I've had to take. And today I thought I was walking into another one, however, I was pleasantly surprised.
The subject, Advanced Resistance Training. Now, previously any unit like this has been full of the silly bullshit you would expect (bosu balls, smith machines, machine weights).
Today I noticed a few key differences;
1. The lecturer looks as if he may have in fact touched a barbell at some point in his life.
2. The first lecture consisted entirely of criticisms of the entire industry, and the previous curriculum provided by the university. In summary, his contention is the science is not wrong, but the practical application of the science is wrong in many areas. And that the largest concern with Ex. Sci and S&C is the complete inability of graduates in respect to coaching any movement.
Now when reading the unit guide, I came across this,
Required readings:
Haff & Triplett Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning4th Ed. Human Kinetics.
2016 Rippetoe Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training3rd Ed. Aasgaard Company. 2012
In addition to this, the assessment portion of the unit consists of two practical assessments in which our ability to coach the oly lifts and the big 3. As well as a written exam.
I've also heard from others doing similar degrees elsewhere that similar changes are happening.
I'm not sure about your side of the globe, but it seems down under we're finally getting the message!
TMPHBITEU
I'll be interested in your impression of Haff and Triplett.
Member
From what I understand, it has to be there due to it being endorsed by the body you're legally required to register with.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
I haven't read it, or bought it. At nearly $150 for the text here, I probably won't.
TMPHBITEU
You're legally required to be a member of the NSCA???
Member
Well here it's the ASCA, but essentially yes. As well as a few other bodies, but the ASCA cert is the minimum requirement to work in a lot of fields.
Member
Coach, this is HUGE. If undergrads are now reading it...finally some sense and practical application of strength training will ensue for Exercise Science students. On a similar note I first started SS LP at a YMCA. The head of the weight room was a Ex Sci PhD who wrote some training books, grantd it was 90% machine exercises that he wrote about. But when I dropped your name his face lit up, he thought so highly of the way SS was written. Let's stay positive, SS is really coming into its own iin increasingly wider circles of the industry.
Member
So it's a union then obviously.
Member
It may still seem trivial, but compared to the last experiences I had with this, the change is very pronounced.
As for governing bodies etc. The point here is that the text because they're obliged to include it, not because they believe it to be true.
After reading more into the unit it seems the other text is used for guidelines for exercise prescription more than any actual approach to training. Basically just telling us how to be careful.
One could not reasonably include both texts as in instructional tool as after reading a summary of both you can see they are very different.
Member
Which university are you studying at?
Starting Strength Coach
This is incredibly positive news from across the pond, MadMaxaus- I know I'm glad to hear it at least.
Regardless of the ESC text (which, if it's anything like ours is incredibly conservative and phrased in such a way as to be not-wrong and not-meaningful at the same time), it's good to see the hands-on focus, the respect for barbell training, and the emphasis on mechanics which (I assume) comes with their reading of Starting Strength. Hopefully more schools pick up on this concept!
Posting Permissions