Tim Rowland Athletic Performance

“Coming up as a trainer, the way I looked at the big named coaches I was learning from is similar to how I look at most politicians. In that, I thought they had some good things to say on some things, while I thought they were totally full of it or out of touch on other things. And, I still feel the same way about the various training belief circles today.

For example:

I liked that strength coaches were all about practical application, but I didn’t like how many were very dogmatic.

I liked how research types emphasize the importance of having good evidence before you make claims. However, I didn’t like the arrogance of how they often communicate, and how they were short on practicality. Not to mention, their ignorance that good marketting needed to get attention in the real world is opposite of academic language.

I liked how corrective exercise practitioners pay attention to detail and wish to provide a higher level or service. What I didn’t like is the hero-healer complex many have, nor am I into telling clients they’re broken to justify your services. Not to mention, I don’t but into keeping people from doing real exercise until they first follow arbriary corrective exercise modalities for a given period of time.

I like how functional training types talk about training transfer, the importance of rotation, and not just lifting to get good at lifting. But I didn’t like the common idea that isolation exercises or machines are not beneficial to health and performance. Or, the idea of avoiding proven lifts because they’re single planar movements.

I liked how Powerlifter types talk about the importance of getting stronger and sticking to the basics. But I didn’t like the attachment to the barbell and certain lifts by making everyone train like a weightlifter via conflating the fundamentals of weightlifting for the fundamentals of strength training.

I liked that old school coaches talk about the importance of having personal interaction and taking shop with other experienced coaches instead of just sitting on your ass and reading studies and textbooks and having social media debates. But I didn’t like the idea that somehow younger trainers are lesser (a YouTube trainer or insta-trainer) because they’re not using manuals and VHS tapes to communicate like old
School coaches produced. They’re simply using the social media platforms that are currently available to them.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

In short, I never identified in any of these “groups” because, although they had some views and values that I shared, I didn’t like that those in those groups also seemed to have certain glaring biases and blind spots they also predictably accepted to identify as being in that group.

I’m all about individualism and giving my clients the best service. I use the training education and equipment, it doesn’t use me. I’m like the Stone Cold Steve Austin of fitness because I’ve got no allegiance to any group. The only category I’ve ever cared about identifying as is being one of the best.”

-Nick Tumminello - Fitness Page

Love this!

As strength + conditioning coaches, there are two main ways we can contribute to the team’s success:

1. By reducing the risk of injury so the team has better player availability, i.e. help keep the best players on the field

2. By improving the players’ athletic performance, e.g. conditioning, speed, power, etc

I have always been of the belief that the way we can have the biggest impact is by reducing injury rates, allowing the coach to pick the best team possible each game, and allowing for combinations to develop by having the same/similar team on the park each week.

A recent study on the EPL (linked below) looked into just how big an impact injury has on team success ⚽️

It found that injury “accounts for a significant portion of the variance in league placement (21%)”

21% is massive! Arguably a lot bigger impact we can have by making the players fitter and faster 🏃‍♂️

Because at the end of the day, technical and tactical performance has a much larger impact than athletic performance on field-sport team success. Notice how the best players on the field almost always aren’t the most physically gifted.

Now this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t train for athletic performance! Here’s why:

1. Injury prevention training = athletic performance training. The same training that enhances performance also reduces injury risk!

Take ACL injury for example 🦵

Single leg/unilateral training, strengthening quads/hamstrings/glutes, change of direction training, and plyometrics are all key for injury prevention.

And you guessed it - for athletic performance too!

So a proper S+C program will achieve both goals at once ✅

2. Enhancing athletic performance can still have a significant impact on team performance, especially in less trained populations or people who don’t have much experience with a proper S+C program.

Even for someone with a few years of good S+C under their belt, large improvements in conditioning and strength levels in particular can still be made.

It’s harder to improve qualities like speed and power in people with a higher training age, but it can still be done, albeit to a smaller degree.

———————————

Keen to hear your thoughts on this and whether you agree!

Drop them below 👇

Here’s the paper by the way (full text):

https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/6/1/e000675?fbclid=IwAR0j8cxyiRV7Gp2m_m4hhxFIHSP_x-_ygNKczHl1vP7OjweZSCRI9dNpyuU

Don’t ignore niggles! They are a warning sign 🛑

What supplements actually work for performance? 💊

Great infographic 👇

Myth busting Sundays!

Great blog 👌

Push to Pull Strength Ratio: Should You Pull Double What You Press? For the last few years now I’ve been teaching a workshop called Better Back Rows, which is all about helping fitness professionals understand how to...