If I mentioned Rod Corn people would not read the thread. Perform Better did a great job getting some big names…and some names did a nice job.
Loren Seagraves- Excellent job going into speed (was cut off because of time) made great points and did not bring anything up that was over the head of people.
Mike Boyle- Some great points and real examples of how and whys of a training program. Suggested Training for Speed and Chris T’s book.
JC Santana- A surprise, I am not a functional guy but he made some good suggestions with training people. Also showed Ben running in '88.
Rod Corn - Important information but didn’t get into some subject areas I felt could have been explained to the people there, then again going over the Kinetic chain again never hurts.
Gray Cook- He gave you a bunch of things to enhance your program…and was getting results on stage with people from the audience
I suggest people go to the Rhode Island summit in June.
I have his books and videos but what he did was go through and “clean up peoples movement patterns” and he got ankle range of motion within minutes by go through his methods…I got a spine chill watching him…very good stuff and hope to get more into what he is doing this week.
Buy the videos…the new set is great…I have never been so excited to adding something “new” to my programs…go to www.functionalmovement.com and you should be fine…yes the “F” word but trust me.
I despise the NASM and Rodney Corn, but the other presenters sounded good. I really want to see Mark Verstegen or Loren Seagrave speak. Verstegen runs a facility that I would eventually like to have. Give me time…
Speedkills, whats your beef with the NASM? I while back I had a question in regards to, in my opinion. the over placed value on the overhead squat. I was directed to the NASM website where I found some information.
What I gather from some NASM people and the functional followers is that if a certain movement cannot be executed properly, you spend your time improving, stretching or stabilizing yourself until that one movement can be mastered than move on to another progression. This seems to be done inspite of the other needs of the athlete. I don’t know about you or the other members on the forum, but my athletes don’t have the time to spend on micromovements and stabilization exercises on air discs.
I’ve seen s & c coaches take an athlete, make him overhead squat 5 times and tell him/her a laundry list of injuries they will get if they don’t fix these issues. Some of these coaches seem to do this just to justify there existance.
Isn’t this exercise a learned movement? Take an athlete. stretch what seems to be short, give them a few cue words and with a little practice they may master it. If they don’t, so what. Does a hang clean have to be textbook perfect before I load the bar. No. It has to look like a hang clean and the movement executed correctly. But if it’s not Olympics perfect, I’m not worried.
What if an athlete has bilateral, anterior tightness in his shoulder joint capsule? Born this way. Is he or her going to spend 15 min a day stretching just to master the overhead squat. Time that could be spent on more important qualities.
In over sixteen years in the profession I’ve had one injury that was training related. And that was a 25 lb plate he dropped on his foot. My athletes don’t overhead squat and I don’t use it as a diagnostic tool. Start telling someone that they are being set up for an injury because they cannot perform an exercise properly and guess what? They get hurt. Help them with the shortened tissue or lack of ROM in a joint but give them as little information as possible. They have other things to think about.
Has every good athlete benefitted from correcting all the imbalances or are they still good despite them?
The bottom line. If we spend all of our time working on correcting imbalances, functional movements and shortened tissue, when do we have the time to train the physical qualities of the given sport or the skill required to be successful at the sport?
The masters can correct this stuff in days…it is not hard and being strict is foolish…serious, you can do it all if you get the therapy and teach the exercises…somet things work themselves out others are what god has done.
I have issues with lots of people not just the NASM. But I do not understand after having tom purvis as the president for so many years that lenny and the rest of them can just ignore what they learned previously and say, oh that was wrong this is right. I like a lot of the NASM concepts i just happen to believe that they are attempting to put themselves out there as an NSCA or ACSM, but they are in fact a for-profit company which explains why they are offering online certifications. I know a guy who trains in town who has taken at least 3 tests for friends of his who have no business being in business. I also think their program design concepts are oversimplified and sometimes just plain wrong. It seems like every “fitness” organization is trying to blueprint exercise science and oversimplify things. Most people who are involved with NASM know lots of cool little exercises but often have no idea why to use any of them. If someone can’t answer why they’re coaching the way they’re coaching, I have a problem with that person!! And the “drawing in” maneuver is another issue entirely!! I agree with you entirely thomas on all of your points!! For all of the emphasis they put on “arthrokinematics” and all the energy they spend making everything sound real complicated, they sure do make the job sound easy!! If anyone wants to hear some good rock-solid information, listen to a tom purvis RTS rant on the “state of the industry”.