TargetTalk

"research has led to the identification of a number of evidence-based motor learning principles, which, when properly understood and applied, can have a significant impact on athletic development and achievement..."


"a century of scientific evidence and volumes of published research that have conclusively demonstrated that part progressions have minimal transfer to the whole skill [2] and in a number of scientific studies part training methods have actually demonstrated negative transfer [5, 6]..."


"Improvements in any single mental function rarely brings about equal improvement in any other function, no matter how similar, for the working of every mental function group is conditioned by the nature of the data of each particular case"

"sensory stimuli and movement are tightly coupled and that training specificity is required to achieve meaningful results [9-12]. Indeed, a convincing body of scientific research now indicates that the most important practice variable in terms of motor skill acquisition is practicing the criterion skill itself..."

Training is specific. The maximum benefits of a training stimulus (i.e. acquiring functional skills as permanent behavioral changes), can only be obtained when the stimulus replicates the movements and energy systems involved in the activities of a sport. This principle may suggest that there is no better training than actually performing in the sport”.

"...examined the research comparing effects of whole training vs. part on motor learning and were unable to identify a single study that favored part or progressive-part methods of instruction."

“Anything less than a game situation, unless very well planned, has the possibility of introducing artificial situations, and complete transfer to the game situation will not occur. When practice activities are developed,
the instructor should carefully consider the way the skills are performed in a game to structure drills that are as close to the game as possible"

It should be clear from the preceding summaries that the underlying principles of motor learning are firmly grounded in evidence-based, scientific research.

Essentially all of the available scientific evidence comparing whole vs. part teaching methods indicates that teaching the whole skill is superior to part teaching methods, regardless of initial skill level.

"a common fallacy associated with part training is the assumption that the brain is a serial processing device, allowing skills to be taught in component parts, which can then be rearranged and assembled by the brain as needed
for subsequent execution. Functional neuroscience has displaced this false notion by revealing that the brain structures responsible for controlling voluntary movements are massively interconnected (trillions upon trillions of synapses) and operate in parallel".


"Significantly, as movement patterns stabilize rapidly even in young players (conscious, explicit domain), motor map formation and skill development will be driven by practice methods that elicit limb trajectories and force applications (subconscious, implicit domain) that reflect the same movement patterns and functional goals as those required in actual competition."

Five stars, two thumbs up, 10 on the quality of information in this post! Thank you from the "lurkers" to all those that contributed.

Thanks to mbradley for sharing that info and link.

In a similar article, the same authors nicely summarise their point in a quote:
"... the best passing drills are pass, set, hit (P-S-H), the best setting drills are P-S-H, and the best setting drills are P-S-H, and the best digging drills are P-S-H and dig."

Still, this is all about learning (complex) motor skills. In addition to these motor skills, I would say that a volleyball player needs a fundamental physical condition. Being able to run, jump, etc without getting exhausted after 5 minutes. This fundament is not merely achieved by training the whole volleyball task, but certainly also by basic physical training, to improve explosive power, jump height, stamina, speed and agility. Which, when integrated into the complex motor part, will yield a better volleyball player.

Now back to shooting: is postural balance just a part of the whole-task complex motor skills, or is it part of the fundamental physical skills? Come to think of it, I'd say both. And if so, honing the fundamental balancing skill will make you a better shooter.

---

(*) Coaching Volleyball Online, December/January 2010-2011 Volume 28, Issue 1
http://www.virtualonlinepubs.com/publication/?i=53174

JeroenH wrote: Now back to shooting: is postural balance just a part of the whole-task complex motor skills, or is it part of the fundamental physical skills? Come to think of it, I'd say both. And if so, honing the fundamental balancing skill will make you a better shooter.

You can use the analogy of aerobic training. The capacity can be trained up to a certain level using any means you want (swimming, running, cycling etc), but if you want to become better at a specific activity, you have to perform that activity in a planned way. Cycling uses different muscles than running and the aerobic ability can't move between the two above a minimum level. Maximum heart rate differentiates between the two as well which highlights this difference.
I would say the same applies to balance too (for example). Get the base capacity up and then add activity-specific training to point that capacity in a specific direction (like a pyramid)

EJ wrote:Get the base capacity up and then add activity-specific training to point that capacity in a specific direction (like a pyramid)

So, what training methods do we have to get the base capacity up? And of course, it's evidence-based methods that we're looking for, not merely belief-based :-)
Slackline has been mentioned: does this work?
What else...? Anybody...?

As for the activity-specific training: what is suitable here? The OP's question was about wobble boards: I did not hear any positive response to these. What should he / we be doing instead?

I agree that the training should be specific, but there must be more than "just shoot". I mean, for marathon runners, we don't say "just run marathons", do we?

Well, if you want evidence-based methods, you basically have to look at physiotherapy for elderly or stroke patients (etc), like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22267151 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071817. There are not a lot of studies (that I have read anyway) focusing directly on balance and postural control outside of this group. But one way is to train similar to gymnasts ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17597942 ).
The few studies done on shooting are not of an intervention kind and only shows differences in performance or gender and postural control (or comparing shooting with other sports: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21395364 which basically shows that you get the ability you need). So my guess is to just make it easy for you. Any exercise challenging your postural control will increase your ability in that exercise. A few different general ones before going specific is what I'd do.

And I'm not opposing wobble boards at all. A shooting specific wobble board which only allows one-sided movements works well (I think). Together with just standing in position and focus on balance, with out without visual input or boots, and you have a well-covered training routine.

JeroenH wrote: So, what training methods do we have to get the base capacity up

And now we get to the meat of it!

After a short discussion, I will get to the conclusion, which turns out to be very simple.

From your physical training, you are you trying to build the "raw material" of your body, or your "capacity". You are trying to build muscle and improve your force potential. Most of the controversy about the correct way to train comes from the confusion of strength development and strength demonstration. They are not the same thing.

There are a lot of ways of demonstrating strength that are as much skill related (shot put), leverage and skill related (Olympic lifting), or leverage related (Powerlifting) as they are strength related. Most importantly, these demonstrations of strength are very time consuming to learn and can be extremely dangerous. As a shooter or as anyone wishing to train for a lifetime, you want to develop your strength in the safest and most time efficient manner possible. In short, you want a strength training program, not a weight lifting program. This is not just a matter of symantics. It has profound implications, as it changes your perspective.

Almost any task or skill you can do, you can do better if you are stronger. If walking up a flight of stairs requires you to use 50 out of 100 units of muscle fibers when you are untrained, but only 20 out of 100 units of much stronger muscle fibers when you are trained, then the task will be much easier. You will have more muscle fibers in reserve, the recycling of muscles during longer duration activities will be improved as the resting fibers are allowed more time to recover, and your "condition" will improve as it your cardiovascular system will not need to work as much to support the fewer number of fibers now necessary to do the job.

The same concept applies to your skills, even your fine motor skills. If you can perform a task with a greater reserve of strength, you can perform it with more precision and for a longer period of time.

One unfortunate result of conflating strength development with the demonstration of strength has been the attempt to mimic athletic skill and movements in the weight room. The history of this is long and is best demonstrated with an example most are likely familiar--training with ankle weights in an attempt to run faster. When this has been properly tested, the results, if any, have been negative. This is due to the fact that the overload of a small amount of weight on the ankle is not enough to stimulate strength changes, but it is enough to change the running pattern slightly and produce a negative transfer of skill.

Getting stronger is the key. Strength training is the way to make true morphological changes to your body. To get stronger, you must provide the correct stress that nature itself requires. All the evidence suggest that the stimulus is high tension exercise and high intensity exercise. High tension refers to the way repetitions are performed. The movement should be strict, deliberate and relatively slow so that the tension level is high and not reduced by momentum. High intensity refers to the effort level. The set should be taken to the point where another repetition cannot be performed, as this will force the brain and nervous system to recruit the largest amount of muscle fibers.

Attempts to mimic skills with resistance then provides the worst of all world. It is an ineffective way of strength training, as the tension and intensity level is too low. It is a potentially dangerous way of training, as the extra weight can become ballistic on the joints when trying to imitate skills. And it is a horrible way to train skills, which need very specific practice. Ineffective, dangerous and at best a waste of time.

The solution then is very simple. You want your skill development to be as specific as possible. On the other hand, you want your strength training to be as far removed from skill work as possible. To that end you need only perform basic strength training exercises in a strict style with a very high level of intensity.

For those of you interested in further reading, I highly recommend Dr. Doug McGuff's book "Body by Science" and Matt Brzyki's book "A Practical Approach to Strength Training" 3rd edition.

There are a lot of interpretations as to the specific nuances of this style of training. But if you can get your training to look close to how Doug is training in this video link at the bottom of this post, you will be much closer to getting great results without destroying your body in the process. In the video, notice the effort level, the technique and the rapid pace of moving from exercise to exercise. Also notice the workout takes only ten minutes. That is because of the proper high intensity level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVhhbC51_3k

One topic not mentioned here is the concept of progression, which is the engine driving all of exercise. But that topic for another time.

Best,

Mike

A agree with many things in your post, except for HIT.
Body by Science looks impressing with many references which supposedly supports what the book states. But, taking a closer look at some of them, you get a slightly different picture. They either look at novices (which have no problem increasing in strength no matter what they do) or have been extrapolated a bit far. The book doesn't mention all research pointing in the opposite direction, like this one from only a few months ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22328004 (note: this study post-dates the book, but there are more, earlier ones, of the same kind which I can link in if anyone wants to have a look). In summary it reads: traditional strength training with higher weight and rep speed will yield a faster strength increase than super slow training (results are sometimes insignificant and close together, but so far I haven't seen anything suggesting HIT to be the better training protocol).

With that said, if you follow its methodology, you will increase in strength. It might be enough for many people, like novices, someone who can't lift heavier loads due to injuries or a have medical problem. It's also time effective, but if that's a problem, super sets are a good alternative. However, the more experienced you become, the more of a volume you require to continue increasing at a faster pace.

EJ wrote: However, the more experienced you become, the more of a volume you require to continue increasing at a faster pace.

That is flatly false. It is without question not only not true, but actually the exact opposite of the truth.

I do not have time to to completely rebut the study you site, except to say that I, nor anyone I know, would ever train at anyone at "40-60% of 1RM." That they researchers got any results at all training with such a low amount of weight, much less results approaching traditional their version of "traditional strength training," is only further evidence of the effective of slower speed training.

As I stated at the start of this thread, I do not have the time, or the temperament, to get into a long running internet argument about skill and strength development. Everyone can do whatever they like and it will not affect my life one bit. So this will be my last post on the subject as I have provided the reader with enough information to set him out on the right path. Information that will save some people a lot time, frustration and injuries.

But if I saw you in a field trying to dig a hole with your bare hands and I handed you a shovel, and you then proceeded to dig with the pole end of the shovel, then there is nothing left I can do for you.

High Intensity Training is nothing more or less than the rational application of physiological principles -- principles that have been tried and tested for decades by tens of thousands of people of all backgrounds and abilities. HIT is not the invention of one man, but is the refinement and distillation of nearly one hundred years of training information. It is not a paint-by-numbers list of instructions but a set a principles that allows for much variety and interpretation. Most importantly, High Intensity Training has the potential to pull you out of years of training frustration and make what should be the most consistently productive activity in your life a source of great joy and happiness.

If folks have further questions, feel free to send me a personal message.

Best,

Mike

There are a lot of myths, superstitions and rituals around athletics.




__________________
WoW Gold Kaufen|Cheap Diablo 3 Gold|RS Gold|Swtor Credits

My 14 year old boy was shooting 4P scores in the low to mid 200's. He took 4 months off to ski Biathlon and just skate ski to the point of exhaustion for conditioning for the biathlon matches. After the season was done, his first 4P match scored 325. He gained 100 points. He was stronger, his pulse was in the low 60's and he had a lot more endurance. Not concrete evidence as his age had something to do with it, but it seems to me that conditioning leads to better shooting. That and good instruction seem to be the key to better scores. BTW, shooting standing on skis with your heartrate at 180 B/M didn't hurt either
Chris

Here is another pop article regarding myelination as described by golf coach Sean Foley. This guy gets it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... +whisperer

As the link is to a WSJ article and may not be available in the future, here are the pertinent comments.

When I asked him to explain Rose's rise over three years from 67th to 19th to fifth in one measure of long-iron excellence. Foley gave me a one-word answer: "Myelin."

"That's the insulation that wraps around neural brain circuits and helps them fire faster when presented with certain stimuli," he said. Laying down more myelin, over time, helps secure new skills; that's the value of those reps Woods always talks about.

'Swing change' is really a stupid term, because it's actually just gradual evolution in encoded brain patterns,"

"...he gave Rose only two drills to do for the first five months."

He's been working intensively with trainers to improve the external rotation of his left hip. But until that improves sufficiently, Foley said, "it's not worth working on." A good point for amateurs: Foley teaches only what he knows his players are functionally able to do."

"Maybe once a year, if that often, you have one of those impeccable rounds, where everything just collides in this beautiful symphony. But you can't base anything on that. Those rounds aren't even very helpful, because we only learn by failure,"

"Humans are fragile. Mistakes are guaranteed. Our concentration is always shifting. There's no reason, except that this is the natural constitution of the mind."

"Three years ago, when Rosie had a bad stretch of squirrely drives, or whatever, he came to me in a panic. Now he knows that if he stays logical and reasonable for 72 holes, if he picks his emotional battles only where the war needs to be fought, there won't be many people standing next to him come Sunday," he said. "In a tournament, at the level of great these guys are at, it's more about state than about swing. If you could get a printout of every thought they have when walking from the green to the next tee, you'd probably find the cause of every bad drive and every good drive right there."

"Rosie told me not long ago he's on a pretty good run and wants to keep it going," Foley said. "I told him, no, it's not a run. This is who you are now. It's not going to go away."