optimizing cod performance - national strength and ... · stride adjustments preliminary ... static...

5/15/2013

1

Click to edit Master title style

• Click to edit Master text styles

– Second level

• Third level– Fourth level

» Fifth level

1



– Second level


» Fifth level

2

Optimizing resistance training practices for change of direction performance.

John Cronin

AUT University

Edith Cowan University



– Second level


» Fifth level

3

Our Sports

Olympic Sports• Rowing• Kayaking• Sailing• Cycling

5/15/2013

2



– Second level


» Fifth level

4

Our Sports

Winter Codes

• Rugby Union (WC)

• Rugby League (WC)

• Netball (R‐Up WC)

Summer Codes

• Rugby Sevens (WC)

• Cricket (Finals ODI WC)



– Second level


» Fifth level

5

Our Research

• SPRINZ ‐ Sport performance – LTAD• Sport driven

Determinants

ProgrammingAssessment



– Second level


» Fifth level

6

Determinants

5/15/2013

3



– Second level


» Fifth level

7

Classification of COD PerformanceGround Based Acyclic Fluid

Ground Based Cyclic Aerial

Determinants



– Second level


» Fifth level

8

Agility

Perceptual Decision‐Making

Change of Direction

Determinants ‐ Assessment

T

D

P

(Hewit et al., 2011, PhD Thesis)



– Second level


» Fifth level

9

Agility

Perceptual Decision‐Making

Change of Direction

Determinants ‐ Assessment

(Spiteri et al, 2013, JSCR) Thoughts• Non‐specific cueing• High reliability = low validity• High validity = low reliability• Partitioning out limiting factors?• Attacking vs defensive cueing• Importance of context/sport specific stimulus

(Jeffreys, 2011, SCJ; Young & Farrow, 2013, SCJ)

5/15/2013

4



– Second level


» Fifth level

10

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical



– Second level


» Fifth level

11

How Do You Improve Your Athletes COD Performance

• Identify their weakness/es

– Assessment

• Train to improve the limiting factors

– Programming

Assessment‐Program Connect

Assessment Programming

Determinants



– Second level


» Fifth level

12

Assessment

• Survey coaches, players, S&C, medical staff, etc.

– Sport and positional demands

• Time motion analysis

– Physiological demands

• Movement analysis – event coding

– Biomechanical/movement understanding

• Development of assessment/battery

Assessment

5/15/2013

5



– Second level


» Fifth level

13

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical



– Second level


» Fifth level

14

Anthropometry

Anthropometry important?

– Height

– Weight

– Skinfolds – body fat

– Body segment lengths

– Height of COM

F = m.a or a = F/m

Assessment



– Second level


» Fifth level

15

Anthropometry

Champions born and made

Ideal anthropometry for your sport or position?– Height ✖

– Weight (FM & LMM) and distribution ✔


Training diaries• Change in anthropometry• Change in assessments e.g. strength and power, COD• Change in performance e.g. distance thrown

5/15/2013

6



– Second level


» Fifth level

16

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical

Aerial‐BasedGround‐Based



– Second level


» Fifth level

17


TechnicalQualitativeAnalysis

COD mark

Start/Finish mark

5 m

0.3 m

0.3 m

Pre‐observation

Plan

Movement analysis

Observation

Diagnosis

Remediation

Time Warp

(Hewit et al., 2011, Acceleration/Deceleration, SCJ)



– Second level


» Fifth level

18

1. Deep squat

2. Move COM

3. Arms and legs close

7. Intense arm drive

5. Large takeoffdistance

4. Full lateral extension

Ground Based COD (180o Turn)

Phase 1 – Preliminary Phase 2 – Initiation

Phase 3 – Through Turn Phase 4 – 1st Foot Contact


(Hewit et al., IJSSC, 2011)

5/15/2013

7



– Second level


» Fifth level

19

Assessment‐Programme Connect

1. Knee flexion2. Arm drive

8. Bilateral, parallel landing

3. Rotation begins prior to T.O.

6. Ball position

5. Rapid headturn

Aerial COD

4. Knee drive

7. Lower bodyrotation

9. Full turn

(Hewit et al., IJSSC, 2012)



– Second level


» Fifth level

20



– Second level


» Fifth level

21

Technical – Aerial COD


5/15/2013

8



– Second level


» Fifth level

22

Technical

Ground-basedMovements

Aerial-basedMovements

Upon LandingWhile Airborne

BodyPosition

(sport-specific)

Take-off Through Turn 1st FootGround Contact

Take-off

Body Position

StrideAdjustments

Body PositionBody Position

FootPlacement

FootPlacement

FootPlacement

StrideAdjustments

PreliminaryMovements

Joint and BodySegment

Sequencing


Sequencing


Sequencing


Sequencing

Determinants – Technical – Aerial Based



– Second level


» Fifth level

23

3D Kinematics and Kinetics

Inter‐limb differences in side step in Div1 female soccer players. Greater power absorption in the non‐dominant leg and greater power production in the dominant leg.

(Brown et al., 2013, In Review JSMS)

Assessment

Effect of strength on cutting/sidestepping. Recreational athletes with greater relative lower body strength produced higher magnitude plant foot kinetics and modified lower body positioning while producing faster COD performances.

(Spiteri et al., 2013, EJSS)



– Second level


» Fifth level

24

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical

5/15/2013

9



– Second level


» Fifth level

25

1 2 3 4

5 6

1) Static posture, 2) Bodyweight squat, 3) Bodyweight lunge and twist, 4) Push‐up, 5) Bodyweight bend‐and‐pull, 6) Single leg squat

Movement Competency ScreeningAssessment

(Kritz et al., 2009, 2010, SCJ)



– Second level


» Fifth level

26

Assisted

Body Weight

Resisted

Eccentric

Plyometric

MCS determines entry level to pattern

progressions

Movement Competency ScreeningAssessment‐Program Connect

Increasing IntensityDecreasing Volume

Simple Periodization/Progression



– Second level


» Fifth level

27

Assisted, Body Weight,

Resisted

Eccentric

Plyometric

Sport Specific Plyometric

Simple Periodization/Progression – Plyometrics

(Mothersole et al., 2013, In Review SCJ)


StrengthBalance

Movement

5/15/2013

10



– Second level


» Fifth level

28

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Assessments

Technical Physical



– Second level


» Fifth level

29

COD Assessments• 17 commonly used assessments

• Energetic requirements (~1.65 to 135 secs)

• Number of turns 2‐10

• Different force production requirements

• Relationship to each other?

Consensus????? (Brughelli et al., 2008, SM; Sheppard & Young, 2006, JSS)

Assessments



– Second level


» Fifth level

30

Pro‐Agility, 20 yd Shuttle Test, 5‐10‐5 Shuttle

Best ever 3.73 s NFL Combine

What does it test?

What is it’s diagnostic value?

Can I make it better?

Would I use it – validity?

Assessment

5 yards5 yards

5/15/2013

11



– Second level


» Fifth level

31

Assessment

Diagnostic Value?

10 m side‐stepping or cutting section

10 m backward running

10 m straight sprint

Specificity ‐ ValidityReliabilitySensitivity

StartFinish

Assessment Design



– Second level


» Fifth level

32

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical

Leg Strength QualitiesStraight Sprinting Speed



– Second level


» Fifth level

33

Relationship between COD and Speed

• Less CODs stronger the relationship (Sheppard and Young, 2006, JSS)

• Most correlations moderate (<0.5)

• All tests R2 < 50%

• Anthropometry – momentum

Tests Acc5m

Acc5m 1.00

Acc10m 0.90

Acc15m 0.87

MAT 0.50

5‐0‐5 0.28

Y20 0.26

(Mendiguchia et al., 2012)

Determinants

5/15/2013

12



– Second level


» Fifth level

34

Relationship between COD and Speed• Does training speed transfer to COD?

– Shared variance

– Research

• Increased speed = increased COD demands

• Training COD improves COD

Determinants



– Second level


» Fifth level

35

PlayergbCOD

2.5 m SSA 0.61B 0.61C 0.61D 0.62E 0.62F 0.63G 0.63H 0.63I 0.64J 0.65K 0.65L 0.65M 0.66N 0.66O 0.66P 0.66Q 0.67R 0.67S 0.68T 0.69U 0.69V 0.69

Player SSS 2.5 mF 0.72

C 0.74

K 0.76

S 0.76

G 0.77

J 0.78

D 0.78

N 0.78

O 0.78

R 0.78

M 0.79

A 0.79

E 0.79

H 0.81

T 0.81

V 0.82

L 0.83

I 0.84

Q 0.85

B 0.86

U 0.86

P 0.89

1st step quickness from a static start

Additional COD technique training




– Second level


» Fifth level

36

SpeedStride Length Stride Frequency

Take OffDistance

FlightDistance

Landing Distance

Stride Time

Physique

BodyPosition

Physique

BodyPosition

Angle atTakeoff

TakeoffVelocity

Height atTakeoff

AirResistance

Velocity atTouchdown

Change InVelocity

ForceExerted

Duration of Force

Flying Phase

SupportPhase

Braking Phase

PropulsionPhase

Qualitative Analysis of Speed (Hay, 1993)Vertical and Horizontal Force Ground Contact Time

Determinants‐Assessment‐Programme Connect

5/15/2013

13



– Second level


» Fifth level

37

Anthropometric

Change of Direction

Determinants

Technical Physical

Leg Strength QualitiesStraight Sprinting Speed

Relative PowerRelative StrengthAsymmetry

LateralHorizontalVertical



– Second level


» Fifth level

38

Strength/Power and COD

Does strength training transfer to COD?

• Heavy lifts (squats, deadlifts, good mornings, lunges), Olympic style lifts and plyometrics (VGRF) – generally

non‐significant changes in COD (Brughelli et al., 2008, SM;

Sheppard & Young, 2006, JSS)

• What strength matters the most?

Determinants



– Second level


» Fifth level

39

Leg Strength/Power for COD

Assessment – Programming• Maximal ‐ relative strength/power• Vertical/Horizontal/Lateral• Asymmetries• Acyclic/Cyclic• Eccentric/Concentric/SSC• Force profiling – force/power/impulse/RFD• Muscle profiling• Force – velocity profiling• Vertical – horizontal• Eccentric ‐ concentric• Stiffness ‐ compliance


5/15/2013

14



– Second level


» Fifth level

40

F = m x a or

a = F/m

Improving relative strength/power e.g. watts/kg

Decreasing fat mass – exercise and nutrition

Rugby, American Football – mass for contacts – absorb impacts – horizontal forces

Maximal – Relative Strength/Power?

Relative Force or Power




– Second level


» Fifth level

41

Jump direction

Player Vertical Horizontal Lateral

A 1 20 5 B 2 16 14

C 3 12 15

D 4 15 6

Vertical/Horizontal/Lateral

SLCM jump direction

Vertical vs. Horizontal

Vertical vs. Lateral

Horizontal vs. Lateral

Height/Distance 0.12 0.13 0.46 Force 0.39 0.36 0.45 Power 0.53 0.79 0.67

(Hewit et al, 2012, PTIS)

Table: R2 between Jumps Table: Rankings Player Jumps (Dist)

Assessment



– Second level


» Fifth level

42Magnitude of ASI depends on sensitivity of the variable (typically greater with kinetic variables)

Asymmetries – Cyclic/Acyclic

Assessment

(Hewit et al., 2012, PTIS)

Non‐motorized Treadmill ‐ Horizontal force ~ 15%‐ Vertical force ~ 19%‐ Power ~ 15%

(Rumpf et al., 2013, In Press PTIS)

5/15/2013

15



– Second level


» Fifth level

43Magnitude of ASI depends on sensitivity of the variable (typically greater with kinetic variables)

Asymmetries

Assessment

Player % Difference

(GB) % Difference

(H) % Difference

(L)

Squad Average 3.2 % 4.5 % 5.8 % A 1.6 6.4 10.9 B 4.5 5.3 1.6

C 4.7 10.8 4.5 D 1.6 9.7 3.1 E 4.4 10.3 8.6 F 10.3 6.6 0.3 G 4.3 0.3 0.3 H 3.2 0.0 13.2 I 1.6 0.4 20.4 J 3.1 6.1 3.0 K 6.2 5.6 5.8

Asymmetries (% difference) between legs for the gbCOD (GB), lateral (L),and horizontal (H) SLCM jumps.



– Second level


» Fifth level

44

Asymmetries

(Brughelli et al., 2011, JSCR)




– Second level


» Fifth level

45

Determinants

What type of strength matters the most?

Cyclic

Acyclic

5/15/2013

16



– Second level


» Fifth level

46

Force Profiling

Explosive Force or Power

Determinants

Which Muscles?

Force

Time (s)

Maximal Strength Index of Explosive Strength (IES)FmaxTmax

Reactivity Co-efficient (RC)Fmax

Tmax x WeightS-Gradient (Start)

F0.5T0.5

A-Gradient (Acceleration)F0.5

(Tmax - To.5)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Fmax

Tmax

0.5Fmax

T0.5

Which variables?Vertical/Horizontal/LateralForces/Powers/Impulses??

(Zatsiorsky, 1995)



– Second level


» Fifth level

47

Muscle Profiling

Isokinetic Profiling – Rugby Union (RU) and League (RL)

• Knee flexors/extensors

• Hip flexors/extensors

• Ratios


(Brown et al., 2013, In Press JSMS)

RL. Stronger Hip Extensors

RU. Stronger Knee Extensors/Flexors



– Second level


» Fifth level

48

Acyclic Leg Power Training

Assisted (~28%BM) Free Resisted (~28%BM)

Peak Velocity (m.s‐1) 2.8 ± 0.3 2.7 ± 0.2 1.8 ± 0.3

Peak Force (N) 1790 ± 350 1980 ± 360 2080 ± 320

Peak Power (W.kg‐1) 50.4 ± 8.0 49.4 ± 6.0 33.3 ± 8.3

(Argos et al., 2010, JSCR)

(Meylan et al., 2013, )

Assessment–Program Connect

Force‐Velocity Deficits – Resisted/Assisted Jumps

5/15/2013

17



– Second level


» Fifth level

49

• How much strength is enough?

• What to monitor?

• Power = F x V Impulse = F x t


(Randell et al., 2011, JSCR)




– Second level


» Fifth level

50


Horizontal/Vertical Deficits – HalteresComparison of haltere/hand held loading kinematics and kinetics at 0, 6, 8, 12 and 16kg (Brughelli et al, 2013, In review with JSSM)


(Cross et al, 2013, In Review



– Second level


» Fifth level

51


Eccentric Deficits – Drop JumpsVertical, horizontal and lateral landing GRF from drop heights (15, 30 and 45 cm) and jump distances (40, 80 and 120 cm) – two leg and single leg forward and lateral jumps.

Assessment –Program Connect

(Mothersole et al, 2013, In Review JSCR)

5/15/2013

18



– Second level


» Fifth level

52




Eccentric Deficits

• Instructions

• Haltere training – landing forces

• Assisted/resisted jumping

Assisted (~28%BM) Free Resisted (~28%BM)

Impact Forces (N) 3180 ± 1260 4130 ± 840 5330± 1970

Rate (N.m.s‐1) 46.1 ± 21.4 62.7 ± 12.9 94.0± 43.4

(Argos et al., 2010, JSCR)



– Second level


» Fifth level

53



Horizontal Deficits

• Horizontal vector training

• Pulleys and cables

• Haltere training

• Strongman training

• Sled towing

• Treadmill braking

• Plyometrics

Acyclic/Cyclic Leg Power Training



– Second level


» Fifth level

54

Cyclic Leg Power Training

Accelerative/Horizontal/Concentric Deficits – Sled Towing

• Loads that decreased sprint times (5 and 10 m) by 10 (~10 kg) and 30% (~30 kg) (Kawamori et al, 2013, Published Ahead of Print)

• Significantly greater improvements with heavy load (~5%) on both 5 and 10 m times

• At 8 m – heavy group decreased resultant (4.3%) and vertical (11.5) impulse. Increase in step frequency (8.1%).

• Horizontal impulse??

• Appropriate loading??



5/15/2013

19



– Second level


» Fifth level

55


Horizontal Deficits – Treadmill Braking



Braking loads of 4.7, 9.4 and 14.3 kg on acceleration and maximum velocity phases.Contact Time Step Length Step Frequency =

Horizontal Forces

Baseline Brake 4.7kg Brake 9.4kg Brake 14.3kg

Accn 482 ± 109 474 ± 79 560 ± 25* 593 ± 98**

Max Vel 270 ± 78 313 ± 79* 359 ± 97** 410 ±93***

(Cross et al., 2013, Unpublished data)



– Second level


» Fifth level

56


Eccentric/Vertical Deficits – Vest LoadingComparison of vest loading kinematics and kinetics at 0, 9 and 18kg = ~ 10 and 20% BM (Cross et al, 2013, In review JSCR)





– Second level


» Fifth level

57


Muscle Stiffness DeficitsTrampoline training – compliant surface necessitates greater development of stiffness (Ferris and Farley, 1997; Kerdok et al., 2002)

Some anecdotal evidence – trampolinists becoming national or WC sprinters.

Sled towing – PrePHV vs Mid‐Post PHV

Vertical and leg stiffness decrease (ES ‐0.76 and ‐2.16)

Vertical force (=) – greater (14.6%) COM displacement (Rumpf et al., 2013, In Review PES)



5/15/2013

20



– Second level


» Fifth level

58

Change of Direction Factors

Technical Physical AnthropometricMeasurements

Ground-basedMovements

Aerial-basedMovements

Vertical Horizontal Lateral

Relative Power

RelativeStrength

Asymmetry

Leg MuscleQualities

StraightSprintingSpeed

Upon LandingWhile Airborne

BodyPosition

(sport-specific)

Take-off Through Turn 1st FootGround Contact

Take-off

Body Position

StrideAdjustments

Body PositionBody Position

FootPlacement

FootPlacement

FootPlacement

StrideAdjustments

PreliminaryMovements


Sequencing


Sequencing


Sequencing


Sequencing

Determinants – Assessment – Program Connect



– Second level


» Fifth level

59

Lloyd et al., 2013, SCJ

Periodization

(Lloyd et al., 2013, SCJ)



– Second level


» Fifth level

60

Periodization

(Nimphius, 2012 SPRINZ Conference)

5/15/2013

21



– Second level


» Fifth level

61

Take Home MessagesAgility performance many components

Perceptual decision making factorsCOD factors

AnthropometricTechnicalStraight sprinting speed/COD SpeedLeg strength qualities

Assessment batteries developed to identify sport/position/player needsMatch the correct physiological/mechanical stimulus to player needsContinuous monitoring



– Second level


» Fifth level

62

Acknowledgements

Thank You!

Hewit Kritz Rumpf Brughelli Mothersole Cross Brown

optimizing cod performance - national strength and ... · stride adjustments preliminary ... static...

Documents