Discussion in 'Texans Talk' started by infantrycak, Mar 27, 2010.
Finally a S&C coach that is up to date on the new things that are being done in the NFL and how the S&C program relate to on field production.
I'm willing to bet USC had a better S&C program than the Texans have had.
I would love to hear Cushing thoughts on this.
Yeah, woo hoo!
Finally, common sense trumps athletic computer mapping.
Maybe we'll finally see a less "finesse" team now that they've added a tougher S&C regimen.
Agreed all around.
What gets me is how this approach isn't already the common consensus among all S&C coaches.
I blame liberals (Haha, just kidding... kinda).
Outstanding. This is what real athletes do in the weight room.
My grandfather was an Olympic weight lifting coach for most of his life, and trained football players at Sterling and Barbers Hill high schools in Baytown. If he ever found a machine in one of his gyms, he'd probably rip the cable out and strangle whoever put it there.
I have to ask, what is wrong with training with machines? Is it ok for us non athletes or should we also use only free weights?
Barbers Hill huh? That's crazy, I grew up in Chambers County, went to Anahuac High School not too far away.
Machine weights have their place and depending on your goal can be very useful. But to get the very most out of weight training there is no subistute for free weights.
Why? Please explain. How is it that training "standing up" and free versus machines is better for a football player?
I don't know anything about this stuff.
Best I can assume is that in football, everything you do is centered around your balance. You have to be strong while standing and pushing or back peddling as opposed to while laying on your back. (unless you're Flannigan, then that's probably a more sensible way to train.)
Is it an issue that you continually are stressing joints etc. instead of on a machine where I assume it's more of an isolated stress on a specific muscle group?
Alot of it is what you are thinking. But instead of benching on a machine, lay on a bench and use dumbells instead to do benchpress. Or use a bar with free weights. It takes more strength to do it, and more of the smaller stabilizing muscles have to work more to assist with the load. It challenges the muscle more, makes you stronger. With machines you can lift 60% of the load with the right arm (dominant arm for me) and 40% with the left, with free weights every muscle has to pull it's weight so to speak. And one could argue that it can feel like the machines give you an assist, it's just harder to lift the free weights and more realistic as it applies on a football field.
hmmmmm, makes too much sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Here's my rant.
Machines force the body into unnatural movements and remove the need to work a lot of your stabilization muscles.
Many trainers think that if they perform a motion on a machine, that the machine is "forcing" them into correct form. Nothing could be further to the truth. Every one has different biomechanics and different lengths of different levers. Machines are constructed to work with an "average". And that's unnatural.
Some machines are just wrong from the get-go. An example is the Leg Extension machine. Years ago, this was THE machine used to rehab knees. Until some studies came out showing that doing a complete range of motion on one of those machines can actually damage your knee. Also, your leg is constructed to have force applied from the bottom and the top. Your feet are made to have force applied to them... your shins AREN'T. Placing a lot of force against your shin can be bad for your knee.
Also, let's say you're working out on a bench press machine. This movement is going to help you isolate your pecs and triceps (and your front delts to a degree). But it forces you into a pure, straight movement. Lots of people don't naturally have that pure straight movement. And since it's only going to move in that straight line, you don't have to stabilize the weight to keep it from drifting over your face or toward your stomach. There are muscles that keep the weight from drifting like that but if you're not training them, they're not going to build up strength proportional to the rest of the muscles that they normally work with. Then when you get into a "real" situation those stabilizers will be overpowered by the other muscles in the chain, and you can easily get injured. It's like slapping a rocket engine in a go-cart. It sounds like fun, but someone's going to get hurt.
The whole machine thing really got going with bodybuilders who like to isolate muscles to train them up. For athletic training, it's generally not a good idea. Even for bodybuilding, it's generally better to work with free weights.
With all that said, there are times and places where isolation and machine training is OK. Especially when there are specific muscle imbalances and medical issues that need to be addressed.
Ever since I started training (and I started late in life), I've trained powerlifting. I've had a couple of good Oly coaches that I worked with (including one that was S&C for Air Force back in the 90's when they had that great rushing attack.) All I need is a bar, some plates, and a power cage and I'm set. I am anti-machine and it hurt me to read some of the things that our S&C staff have said. The last guys weren't as bad as the ones before that.
I still boggles my mind that we continually see this on the job training by our coaches.
Glad to see we are making a move that makes athletic/football sense, rather than trying to be the smartest guy in the room.
There's pretty much only two machines that I like when I work out and that's the butterfly machine (because it's a great chest workout) and the elliptical runner, because it's so easy on my feet and knees. Everything else I do in the gym is with free weights.
I think machines for Cardio make sense, but for strength free weights are the business.
Barrett, Almost any athletic move, whether hitting a baseball, throwing a ball, making a out-cut and then jumping for a ball, etc... all of those things require a series of muscle engagements and explosions. Many of those are centered in the core of the body, not to mention all the smaller stabilizing muscles that become engaged only in certain operations. So, simply laying on a bench and pushing a bar with weight on it into the air does almost nothing to improve ones ability to do any of those things required by an athletic sport.
Furthermore, simulating those things you will be doing in a game are much better forms of practice and growth in the area in which one wishes to improve. Someone like Dan Riley, in order to improve the explosiveness of a WR, would have the WR sit on a machine and press weights out with his feet, thereby isolating the quad and glut muscles and forcing them to grow.
However, a football trainer that understands what he is doing, will have the WR weighted down somehow and have them go from a squat to an exloding jump into the air. In this instance, it simulates an action that the WR does on the field (first, simply by standing up and then by jumping and exploding on his two feet) but it also engages every single muscle that he uses to perform that task. So, his body becomes better able to do those things he needs to do on the field in order to be effective and the body doesn't become lopsided and inefficient because certain muscles have been isolated and worked and therefore larger while other ones have remained dormant... when that happens, injuries are much more likely. Ask a body-builder to do something athletic. It's pretty funny, actually!
Separate names with a comma.