no, sorry, you’re wrong…Omega Wave is a too much commercial technology in my opinion…ARP is not the only technology for recovery.
There are a lot of options, but for who has not so much experience is HARD to know!
You can try another time DEAR svincenz!!!
ahahahahaha
Yes - they are merely tools, which need to be in the hands of a skilled craftsman.
Funny that Charlie - although he did endorse these sorts of products - never really had to rely on them. His skill and intellect were actually much better at resolving problems. The OmegaWave merely confirmed his beliefs. And the ARP was a poor substitute for his hands and diagnostic abilities.
Technology cannot substitute human mind, but can be a great help tools in the arsenal of everyone work in the sport field (and other areas).
Much problems born when you mix technology without practical experience!
jamirok, it was not a guess, sorry. In other threads you talked at length about OmegaWave and ARP (mostly pakewi for that).
I’d be interested if you decided to discuss a little bit more about the new hard-to-know-if-you-are-not-in-the-trenches methodology you have come up with. It would be of great interest for everybody.
Lack of context, jamirok. Technology (set of instructions --> results) can substitute human mind, depending on the context and the results you are looking for.
Maybe you can say that technology applied and developed so far in this context (sport, recovery) is not mature enough to substitute a skilled human. Maybe (this is the reason) the deveopment of sound technology is lacking because we still don’t know (quantitatively) what it’s going on. But the skilled human?
So, basically we are now saying that OmegaWave is an overpriced unessential piece of equipment?
I’m happy I did not follow the crowd (in general) when a couple of years ago it seemed that without OmegaWave you could not even think about training! I would be many 1,000$ poor, and with a piece of equipment that, it seems, does the same job of a 100$ ipod/iphone/ipad application.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss it’s value
Yeah! But all the greats of yesteryear didn’t have to rely upon it.
I still regard Alfredo Di Stefano (1943-1966) as the most complete soccer player ever.
I’m definitely old-skool. Technology cannot substitute the human mind.
I am finding that up immediately post workout, a 6 minute treatment using LLLT for lower body can reduce soreness to minimal levels. This is comparing a typical workout with and without treatment.
In small groups, this can be valuable. In large teams settings, multiple units are needed.
Jamirok,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I watch my players who certaily have lower V02 maxes than many of their counterparts run and skate circles around them. Usually high V02 max indicates to me that someone spend a lot of time on the eundurance end of training spectrum. I train mostly football and hockey, and i focus a lot on explosive speed and change of direction such as accel/decel. I believe Charlie told me the Russians had avg V02 maxes on Oly team of about 55. USA had 62-65. Who was whipping the arse off of who back then? Also, isn’t a high V02 max useless unless you have a high lactate threshold as well? Technology is nice, but it doesn’t replace experience. ESTI, Jamirok, No23 and many other have years of experience doing this. I can tell by the way my players enter the gym whether they are recovered just by demeanor, I don’t need to do a Wingate test to find out they are not recovered.
This just makes things worse! 
I have been playing with grip strength as a pre workout predictor, results are still in the air, need more work yet.
Slight exaggeration?. Unless its a technical drill in training. In hockey, soccer, football, nobody runs circles around anybody during games.
High VO2 is certainly a good quality to have & develop. Doesn’t necessarily mean your slow (even over the shorter distances). In my training, I’ve learned to balance high VO2 with fast sprinting over 30m. It can be achieved.
Just to elaborate a little on the application of technology in sport.
In particular I want to speak about two words ‘application’ and ‘enlightenment’.
The application of Technology is hugely important in sport.
Note I said ‘application’ as opposed to ‘use’. Many people use technology in sport, very few apply it. Even rarer is to find someone who applies it properly!
How many people know of coaches who have jump data, speed data, etc and never use it or apply it. It’s simply isolated data. (I won’t go into data management here)
It is ignorant to ignore technology and some mistakeningly assume the great coaches like Charlie didn’t use technology, they forget Charlie was one of the first to embrace both EMS and Omegawave in sport. In fact I know Charlie spent many hours discussing both of these technologies and what they were telling us.
But Number Two made the important point that Charlie while didn’t need it, he used it to confirm things, to support his thought process and for enlightenment. But he did use it when he had the chance, (including Omegawave), to test theories and concepts. But he embraced it for what it was.
The best coaches I know all have experience of technology and all use it to test concepts and for further enlightenment if you will.
Back to application. Application of a technology, like Omegawave means, using and applying it to the situation and continuously reassessing the results.
I don’t have time to go into it in huge detail, but this area is IMO the most important area and issue facing Team Sports at the minute.
Fitness Tesing is a complete waste of time in team Sports IMO.
I have written articles on this topic and will try and get them if anyone is interested.
It evidently depends on the intelligence of the human mind concerned.
I am definitely interested.
There are also plans a foot for a seminar later this year in the UK if you are interested in traveling to the sun!
Will be during a soccer international break.
no23,
good points, but many clarifications are needed. What is the technology you are referring to? (you made some examples, but then I missed the point, my fault, probably).
If you don’t define that, we are talking for nothing. Omegawave? ARP? An algorithm for the analysis of data would be technology (it is)?
The main problem is with the interpretation of data, as you said, because it requires a framework. In absence of framework, we are in a similar cul de sac as that currently faced by scientists working on the interface genome/medicine. Lots, tons of data, but many problems in the interpreation.
Now, as I wrote before, we don’t still understand a lot of things (and we won’t for a lot time) and therefore the implementation of technology is not automatic. If, let’s say, such a reliable algorithm were available, its simple implementation for determining training loads, emphasis and so on would be straightforward. If a reliable and 100% effective “cure” for, let’s say, overtraining were there, its application would be as straigthforward as the application of Quinine for malaria.
Talking about expertise vs technology without a context is naive.
Said that, Charlie was a great expert.
I was being general on purpose.
To get into the exact details of each technology would take forever, so I was speaking about the application of technology - from simplest to most complex.
Take timing gates and speed technique as an example … how many people use them properly and adjust training properly as a result?
How many people test speed once or twice and it just tells them what they more or less know already?
To summarize …
A test or technology is only useful if it affects a training session.
(Now I’m talking about Team Sports just so we are on the same page.)
Also, you make the comparison of quinine and malaria, with overtraining - however we generally wish to prevent overtraining, and as we know prevention is much more complex and therefore there is no ‘plug & play’ option, rather a protocol and series of steps to prevent it.
This is what I mean by application of technology.
Your last line is very important too (if I read it correctly). But rather than looking at it as ‘expertise vs technology’ look at it as ‘expertise & technology’.
The greatest impact is when expertise and technology are integrated and the degree of impact (of a technology, or on the athlete) is dependent on the degree of expertise of the user.