Author Archive
March 22, 2012 | 
Author
Cal Dietz and Kevin Kocos recently ran an article on Elitefts.com describing a type of plyometric training that they called antagonistically facilitated shock training. The concept, while not entirely new, is a neat one. By contracting the opposing musculature (antagonist) to begin the movement, the targeted muscles (agonist) are relaxed and space is created between the floor/bar, depending on what exercise is being performed. Upon contact with the floor/bar, there is a strong eccentric contraction in the agonists (e.g. the pecs, delts and triceps) followed by an explosive reversal of the direction of the movement, as the strong concentric contraction kicks in. The article gives variations for the squat and the bench press
Don’t get me wrong, I love both of these variations, especially for athletes like pitchers where being able to relax and explosively contract the right muscles with good timing is crucial. The squat variation is one that can be used anywhere and even loaded up some
The issues I have with the bench press variation are twofold:
1) this is a movement that requires a spotter who actually knows what they’re doing, which would make it very difficult or impossible to do on your own or at most commercial gyms and
2) even if you did have a spotter, throwing barbells typically doesn’t go over too well at many facilities.
Aside from the access issues, I like the pushup pattern a lot more than the bench press for a number of reasons. It is a closed-chain exercise (hands/feet fixed) that offers more functional carryover for most sports than a bench press (aside from powerlifting). When properly performed, it has greater benefits when it comes to training core and shoulder stability, and it is all around more of a total body exercise.
Enter the AFS pushup:
I’ve already explained why I like this exercise over the bench press, but here are a couple reasons I like it better than a standard clapping pushup.
1) This version of the plyometric pushup is always caught in the proper position at the top. Clapping pushups have added, unnecessary hand and arm motion, increasing the risk of landing in a poor position that may put unneeded stress on the wrist and elbows
2) Clapping pushups are typically performed continuously for medium to high reps or until after fatigue has set in. By pausing between pushups and keeping sets short, power output is maximized with each rep.
As with any plyometric variation, these should ideally be done fresh near the beginning of a workout and broken up into a moderate to high number of sets for low reps. Experiment with 8×3, 6×4 and 5×5 to see what set/rep scheme works best for you. Additionally, you may feel like the load of the pushup is too great to achieve proper explosion. Try elevating your hands on a bench or adjust a barbell on the squat rack to the preferred height – everything else stays the same. Good luck and make sure to check out Dietz and Kocos’ original article over at Elitefts.com
Every rep counts. That’s right: each rep of each set of each exercise in your training program is there for a reason. With every rep, you have the option of getting the most out of it, or of half-assing it. This is common sense, right? You have at most half a dozen exercises in a given training session, so it shouldn’t be too hard to give maximum focus and effort to each one for 45-60 minutes. And yet, this is less common than you would think.
I’ve seen it too many times already for it to be a fluke. Serious baseball players who lifted year-round for 2, 3 or in some cases all 4 years of high school, and somehow manage explode in strength once they reach college. Gaining 15 lbs in bodyweight was typical for freshman on my collegiate team this fall, and almost everybody was making their previous one rep-maxes look like light weight by thanksgiving break.
I’m going to revisit a piece I wrote about eight months ago with regards to the ever-burning question: what drives you to train? If it’s a little dramatic, just bear with me and it will make sense once you finish reading.
I scream. Lights dance in my eyes with each step, and in this moment of primal agony I am propelled by just one thought: onward. My pounding legs nearly falter as another frenzied wave of fire courses through my legs – and then it’s all over. The tire sled skids to a stop. Clenched hands release as the metal links clatter dully on the concrete, my body following suit just moments later. Read the rest of this entry »
In this post I’ll outline my mental approach to pitching. I’m not going to get into pitching strategy (selection, location, situational stuff) too much, but rather, talk about the general mindset I take when I step onto the rubber.
The most important strategy for me is to get cocky. I’m normally a pretty laid back guy, but when it comes to baseball, and especially pitching, I become arrogant, and an a-hole, kind of like these guys:
I was recently checking out some slow-mo clips of top-ranked college pitchers and I came across a video of this kid named Logan Verrett, now a sophomore at Baylor. At 6’2” 170lbs the kid is a beanpole, and yet he was gunned as high as 94 mph when this clip was taken his freshman year. Given another couple years to keep maturing and build up some strength, this kid should be touching upper 90sby the time he’s draft eligible. The scouting report on this website had only positive things to say about him, until it mentioned that his mechanics included a common flaw of “traditional” mechanics: “reverse forearm bounce.”
I was scratching my head at this point. That’s a BAD thing? You see, every high level thrower (yes, this includes outfielders and anyone else who throws at least mid 90s) that I have ever seen, not to mention nearly all amateur players as well (to varying degrees) exhibit this mechanical trait. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me first present you with the definition of “reverse forearm bounce” that the website provided, and explain why it was called a “flaw.”
Applying the deliberate practice principles to your throwing
In my last post, I talked about the deliberate practice principles laid out in the book Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.
To refresh, deliberate practice involves
- Working on a specific aspect of performance
- High repetition
- Continuously available feedback
- Highly demanding mentally
- Isn’t (usually) much fun
In this post I’m going to talk mainly about the third piece of the puzzle, focusing primarily on how it relates to improving throwing mechanics and velocity.
Feedback and throwing mechanics:
To start, you’re probably wondering why “throwing mechanics” and not “pitching mechanics.” Paul Nyman of SETPRO was the first to make the clear distinction between these two activities. Pitching is about doing everything you can do get the batter out, whereas throwing refers to the specific movement patterns/sequences that your body goes through to apply force to the ball. When you hear people talking about posting leg position or hand break timing or whatever, what they are really referring to is a player’s throwing mechanics.
Feedback is particularly under-appreciated when it comes to players and velocity development. When was the last time your pitching coach brought a radar gun to your team’s bullpen sessions? I can tell you that, in my experience, at the high school level and below this form of feedback is almost nonexistent.
So how do you make sure that you’re applying the continuous feedback principle and aren’t wasting your practice time on empty repetitions? Here are a couple ideas…
Author’s note: Let me just say that this was intended to be broken up into three parts, but it was decided that readers would get more out of it, despite the length, if kept in one piece. Enjoy.
After hearing rave reviews about Geoff Colvin’s book “Talent is Overrated,” I decided to give it a read. For me, it absolutely lived up to the hype. Colvin lays out a solid, clearly organized argument for why the widely accepted concept of “talent” is flawed, and proceeds to illuminate the topic of what really distinguishes the greats from everybody else. By detailing the path to greatness, Colvin forces the reader to come to terms with his or her own performance. It’s an eye-opening read, but I’ll do my best to summarize the author’s argument here and, where possible, tie it back into baseball and training (this will likely be a separate article).
“Talent” here refers to the “natural ability to do something [specific] better than most people can do it…it is innate; you’re born with it, and if you’re not born with it, you can’t acquire it.”
Without further ado, here is the basic outline of Colvin’s book, as I interpreted it.
People are mediocre
Most people are just ok at what they do for a living, despite devoting huge amounts of time and energy in preparation for their career. Furthermore, research shows that most people aren’t even getting better/more efficient at their jobs with experience. Writes Colvin, “we tell our kids that with hard work, they’ll be fine. And it’s true. They will be fine.”
People assume that great performers have:
1. A “natural gift”
While this could be argued for some physical characteristics (Phelps wouldn’t be as fast if he didn’t have a 6’8” wingspan and massive hands + feet) the book does not consider physical attributes to be the same thing as a “natural gift.” This is likely because Colvin does not consider physical attributes to be domain specific. That is, Phelps was not born a talented swimmer; he just had physical attributes that happened to lend themselves to the sport.
A common assumption while on the topic of “natural gifts” is that, in many fields, elite performers must be “smarter” or have superior memories than their average counterparts. Colvin demonstrates that IQ tests are poor indicators of high achievement, and, furthermore, that remarkable memory is almost always created (and domain specific), not inherent. Furthermore, the “natural gift” explanation is convenient because it helps us come to terms with our own performance.
2. Worked hard to get to the top
This is (mostly) true. All great performers have worked substantially harder than almost anyone in their given field. There is a strong correlation, through research, between amount of practice and proficiency/expertise. Colvin gives an example of a study:
There were two groups of music students. One was considered elite, the other simply good. What separated them was how much they had practiced. But it still took them the same amount of practice to reach certain checkpoints (grade 5 for example). They weren’t more “talented” as we might think, they had just practiced more. Writes Colvin, “Ambitious parents who are currently playing the ‘baby Mozart’ video for their toddlers may be disappointed to learn that Mozart became Mozart by working furiously hard.” But this does not tell the whole story. While those at the top certainly worked hard, it doesn’t always work in reverse. Hard work alone doesn’t guarantee success. So then, what does, if anything? Read the rest of this entry »
*By Ben Brewster, our newest contributing author*
You’re trying to gain weight. You train hard for one hour 3-4 times a week, you’re getting adequate sleep and recovery, and you don’t have a glaring muscle imbalance that is holding you back. You eat when you’re hungry (sometimes more often), and don’t stop until you’re full. And yet, you still can’t pack any muscle onto your skinny frame. You’ve only achieved modest gains in the weight room and chalked up huge gains only to those who have “freaky” genetics. If this sounds like you, listen up. Here’s a tip that helped me gain 10 lbs of muscle in 7 weeks, up to 193lbs from 183lbs, after spending the previous 4 months working to make similar gains.
Track your nutrition.
I’m going to assume you already eat clean, more or less. I’m going to take that leap that you never touch fast food and soda, and that you work on maintaining a high-protein diet with plenty of healthy fats, including lean meat, fruits, veggies and nuts. Let’s assume you have the quality of the food covered, but you still aren’t making great gains in the gym. Let’s talk about quantity. You think you’re eating enough to gain weight. You are rarely hungry.
You’re wrong.
Now, I’m no expert nutritionist, but everything in my experience indicates the body wants nothing more than to maintain homeostasis. This is a fancy way of saying that to stimulate new growth you must push your body beyond what it feels comfortable with. Yeah, I know this already, you’re thinking. Maybe so, but as you think about finishing that last gulp of protein shake or saving it for later, your body is going to be fighting you every step of the way trying to tell you that you’re full. My point:
It is remarkably easy to trick yourself into thinking you’re getting sufficient calories.
Back to my story. I had done my research and knew I should be getting at least 4,000 calories a day, but never took the time to write down everything I ate throughout the day or add up my average total caloric intake. I did this, finally, and it turns out I was missing the mark from 750 – 1250 calories each day! Granted, I don’t always know exactly how many calories I consumed on any given day, but at least now I know within a few hundred.
Again, I’m no nutritionist, but another benefit I’ve noticed is that my already quick metabolism seems to have shot through the roof! After a couple weeks of this, I began to feel hungry much faster, even though I was eating far more than I used to! My gut tells me that this is part of the reason I have not gained any visible fat.
Here’s roughly what I eat every day, though it varies a bit. I know it’s not perfect, but it’s what I‘ve come up with given my current circumstances.
Breakfast:
Chicken Omelet: 540/52
Cup Milk: 110/8
TOTAL: 650cal/60g protein
Morning Snack:
Peanut Butter Sandwich: 420/16
2 small handfuls cashews (2 oz): 320/8
TOTAL: 740/24
Lunch:
Chicken, 6 oz: 275/50
Yogurt: 170/5
1 cup OJ: 110/2
Sweet Potato: 80/2
TOTAL: 635/59
Post-Workout Meal:
2 scoops EAS Whey Protein: 240/46
Peanut Butter Sandwich: 420/16
TOTAL: 660/62
Dinner: Varies 600-900 calories, >40 grams protein
TOTAL: 600-900/30+
Post-Dinner Snack:
Super Mass Shake: 750/48
(1/3 cup oats, 1 cup milk, 1 tbsp olive oil, 2 tbsp peanut butter, 1 scoop whey)
TOTAL: 750/48
Pre-Bedtime Snack:
Cup Milk: 110/8
2 Flameout Caps: 25/0
1.4 Cup Cottage Cheese: 50/7
TOTAL: 185/15
NEW TOTAL: 4220-4520 Calories/298g protein
In conclusion, you really need to have a general idea of what your caloric intake is every day. I’m not asking you to painstakingly record every meal, but a general idea and plan to follow is huge when it comes to pushing your body out of its comfort zone and spawning new muscle growth.