Solid points, but you are missing the purpose of using them, to provide stability for the knee. Search Boyle’s forum for SLS and why he does them.
ESTI, the previous comment was made about his “functional” training because if you had looked at his book, Core Performance, he would have you believe that he trained his athletes in the same manner (no real overload, heavy use of Swiss ball). When in actuality to achieve speed and power gains, he went to much more proven and traditional training methods.
So if my athlete can full squat 550lbs he doesn’t have the same stability capabilities of someone who can Single Leg Squat their body weight? Is that what you are telling me (or Mr. Boyle is telling me)? Because I don’t see that in practice. I know lots of guys who do single leg squats in my gym, and they have more knee pain than my athletes who full squat heavy loads.
Cutting on the field is nowhere in the same ballpark in terms of forces (and direction of forces) compared to single leg squats. Aside from cutting movements, I was a former national level triple jump athlete, and we never did single leg squats. What would be the point? The landing of the hop phase would yield forces 5-6x bodyweight. How would a SLS help in that situation?
A hate to beat a dead horse, but the “stability” argument put forth lacks credibility, and I have yet to see good data to support the claim.
Didn’t Charlie’s philosophy used to be “we train today the way others will train tomorrow” (at least according to Ian King)?
1-People in a gym performing single leg strength (and the comparison implied regarding knee pain) is just as irrelevant as an athlete saying Charlie’s methods don’t work because he tried them and he can’t run for shit. It takes good coaching and a good training environment to create improvement.
2-I just don’t like the Do/Don’t Do black and white argument against single-leg strength. There are many, many coaches who use single-leg strength work with athletes with great success and using research to back up an argument is just as ridiculous as the previous comparison, especially when considering that Rippetoe and Charlie weren’t using research methods to support their training philosophies, but successful coaches who laid the groundwork for the direction their athletes would be able to go. After the fact, the research does support most of what these guys do.
Out of respect for Charlie (and for you No. 2), I understand the rationale in practice. Again, especially when dealing with athletes such as sprinters and powerlifters, but to confuse chasing specificity with single-leg strength with what the practice is actually intended for reduces the quality of the argument.
Single-leg strength work can be used for many reasons, including:
1-Increased contribution of gluteus medius, contralateral quadratus lumborum (of the non-working leg, compared with traditional back squat), and latissimus dorsi (when holding dumbbells or a barbell on the back) known as the Posterior Oblique Subsystem. With that in mind, S-LS also will increase the contribution of the AOS (Anterior Oblique Subsystem) composed primarily of the adductors/obliques. Is this the same as on the squat? No, it’s a different contribution, but it has benefit.
2-Reducing strength imbalance from one leg to the other. In the same way that Stuart McGill talks on how the hamstrings should not be overstretched (different argument), unless there is a significant imbalance from one leg to the other to create structural balance. If you guys will sit here and tell me that if an athlete has a strength/stability/mobility imbalance from one leg to the other and you won’t try to separate the contribution of the two legs so they work independently I would tell you I thought that was crazy. Better question is, what would you do in this situation?
3-It’s a better selection than leg extensions, leg curls, or any number of machine exercises many coaches would select.
4-Depending on exercise selection, you can sometimes pick up on mobility discrepancies (or “control” discrepancies, meaning the combination of mobility/stability) faster and with less risk because of the decreased loading.
I’m not arguing between general/specific here, or right and wrong. I am just saying that there is definitely an appropriate middle ground for a training program. Especially one with a team sport emphasis. Sometimes it is good to have reduced loading (early in the training career) and increased balance demand, and sometimes it’s not good (perhaps as the athlete advances performance over time. But again, only to a point, there are pro athletes who cannot squat effectively due to previous injury and sometimes reduced loading and an emphasis on stability can help the “older” athlete). But you will have a hard time convincing me that it shouldn’t be done. Especially if the argument is “lack of specificity”.
If you read my last line I did say that coach Boyle has his own reasons. I did not say that is all he does. I have his functional training book and designing strength training programs & facilities book. Some very good inormation in those books.
How much I know does not matter. I am here to learn. I see this forum as an excellent resource and I make comments on subjects I want to learn about. So you cannot tell me what to do and what not to do. You are being too touchy and jumping the gun, there are no judgements being made.
You can read my thoughts on SLS on the front of the site. If you have an issue to address, you might use it for a bit but for optimizing stimulation of the whole organism, it’s a poor choice.
This is what I understood it’s selection for use in your programming. I agree, but also believe that it may provide some benefit in less ‘global’ form.
can you please provide the research which they use to support their position?
what kind of research is it?
In the FSC DVDs he uses anatomy/physics etc to argue his point but I can not recall citing any research…
Would be interesting to see.
I meant Charlie and Rippetoe.
If you identify a real problem, by all means correct it but that correction should occur over a fairly short period and wouldn’t make sense as a replacement for big power output moves such as cleans, squats, and snatches.
It might not replace them, but it probably should preceed them. It all depends.
Working with regular or sub-par kids (as many of us do) you quickly realize how weak they are.
I also have a couple of freaks who can easily do anything I ask.
Those two situations are different. I use butt bridges, single-leg squats, bulgarian squats, etc to prepare them to do squats, deadlifts, and cleans.
For my freak athletes they usually get to bypass a lot of the earlier stuff and get after the basic lifts faster.
For most of the other kids, they progress to them.
Believe me, I’ve tried both approaches and i’m simply telling you what I am now doing and why.
Either way, everyone is still try to build the best relative strength possible and that’s what is important.
As for the original thread heading. I think Mark is doing great things with regards to health. Yes, some people let it swing to far to the other side, but it all comes back to the middle eventually anyways.
My former boss is now the Assistant Director of Operations At AP in Arizona, and two former co-workers work for Mark as well as College Prep guy and AP Las Vegas Director. I follow a slightly different approach, but have great respect for what they are trying to do (and are doing).
I still am a fan of how Charlie views movement and I like the approach of letting the body be an individual. I’m a fan of Verstegen’s movement prep, prehab, and recovery.
Core Performance is a great book. There is only one section about swiss balls and by the last two stages it gets replaced with elasticity, so everyone is over-reacting about that. I think anyone who tried the 12 week program went back to their previous program healthier, and better.
If people just looked to get the good out of things like Core Performance instead of ripping on it, they’d realize that they just might learn something. It goes both ways.