WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.299 But as we've seen from the pilot and the discussion 00:00:02.299 --> 00:00:03.740 that I had about some of the other literature 00:00:03.740 --> 00:00:06.259 and experience as a coach, if we push through 00:00:06.259 --> 00:00:09.080 it and we understand that is part of the process, 00:00:09.400 --> 00:00:11.980 oftentimes we will see a favorable outcome. It's 00:00:11.980 --> 00:00:13.919 just about understanding the athlete. It's about 00:00:13.919 --> 00:00:16.140 understanding the adaptation. It's about understanding 00:00:16.140 --> 00:00:18.760 the time course to peak. And if we can do that 00:00:18.760 --> 00:00:24.129 as a coach, we're absolutely loving life. Welcome 00:00:24.129 --> 00:00:27.030 in Evidence Strong Show. It's my pleasure to 00:00:27.030 --> 00:00:28.910 have you. Could you please briefly introduce 00:00:28.910 --> 00:00:30.989 yourself? Thanks, Alex. So my name is Lee Bell. 00:00:31.109 --> 00:00:32.929 I'm a senior lecturer in sports and exercise 00:00:32.929 --> 00:00:34.869 science at Sheffield Harlem University that's 00:00:34.869 --> 00:00:37.250 based in England in the UK. From a research and 00:00:37.250 --> 00:00:39.530 teaching perspective, I think to summarize my 00:00:39.530 --> 00:00:42.270 interest, it would be in strength sports programming 00:00:42.270 --> 00:00:45.609 and specifically periodization programming strategies 00:00:45.609 --> 00:00:48.929 and tactics. The majority of my research has 00:00:48.929 --> 00:00:51.509 been in either overtraining in strength sports 00:00:51.509 --> 00:00:54.350 or in kind of deloading and tapering also in 00:00:54.350 --> 00:00:56.729 strength sports. Amazing. Okay, we'll be talking 00:00:56.729 --> 00:01:00.909 about the paper that is titled Effects of a 5 00:01:00.909 --> 00:01:04.469 -Day Back Squat Overreaching Protocol on Strength 00:01:04.469 --> 00:01:08.769 Performance, Passive Recovery and Wellness Responses. 00:01:08.790 --> 00:01:11.829 And that's a pilot trial. So let's start with 00:01:11.829 --> 00:01:15.469 some definitions. What overreaching is? I think 00:01:15.469 --> 00:01:17.849 for definition, like this there are two ways 00:01:17.849 --> 00:01:19.829 to tackle it there's either a very simple one 00:01:19.829 --> 00:01:22.310 if we look at overtraining first i think that's 00:01:22.310 --> 00:01:24.790 an easier route into overreaching overtraining 00:01:24.790 --> 00:01:26.590 can be used as a verb and it can be used as a 00:01:26.590 --> 00:01:29.650 noun and in research we see that that's the case 00:01:29.650 --> 00:01:31.569 but also with practitioners we see that's the 00:01:31.569 --> 00:01:35.109 case as well so as a verb as a doing word overtraining 00:01:35.109 --> 00:01:38.209 is simply just doing more than what we can recover 00:01:38.209 --> 00:01:40.430 from so that could be intentional that could 00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:42.829 be a programming tactic that might be a training 00:01:42.829 --> 00:01:45.569 camp or it might be an impact microcycle where 00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:47.799 we choose to ramp up the frequency of training 00:01:47.799 --> 00:01:50.620 and that could be in general or it could be for 00:01:50.620 --> 00:01:52.980 a specific lift that we think is lagging or needs 00:01:52.980 --> 00:01:55.500 a little bit more work it could be for a specific 00:01:55.500 --> 00:01:58.140 adaptation that we want to induce typically something 00:01:58.140 --> 00:02:00.819 strength related perhaps hypertrophy related 00:02:00.819 --> 00:02:03.040 but it might also be accidental as well it might 00:02:03.040 --> 00:02:05.239 be a miscalculation of how we're monitoring our 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.519 training load relative to our recovery tactics 00:02:07.519 --> 00:02:11.039 and in short effectively it's just about ramping 00:02:11.039 --> 00:02:13.620 training up relative to recovery capacity as 00:02:13.620 --> 00:02:17.000 a noun as an outcome overtraining is used colloquially 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:19.300 often to mean like the overtraining syndrome 00:02:19.300 --> 00:02:21.719 and so here to be properly defined by expert 00:02:21.719 --> 00:02:23.979 consensus the overtraining syndrome is where 00:02:23.979 --> 00:02:26.819 we see a significant that's kind of a vague word 00:02:26.819 --> 00:02:29.139 really because it's relative to how we're measuring 00:02:29.139 --> 00:02:31.520 it the outcome measure will performance decrement 00:02:31.520 --> 00:02:33.520 for a minimum of four weeks and that's really 00:02:33.520 --> 00:02:35.699 really important because if we're seeing our 00:02:35.699 --> 00:02:38.180 athlete recovers back to baseline so there's 00:02:38.180 --> 00:02:39.740 an assumption there that we've got a baseline 00:02:39.740 --> 00:02:42.020 measurement if they recover within four weeks 00:02:42.020 --> 00:02:44.360 they by definition have not had the overtraining 00:02:44.360 --> 00:02:47.080 syndrome. If we see that recovery is lagging 00:02:47.080 --> 00:02:48.919 and we see that performance hasn't returned to 00:02:48.919 --> 00:02:50.900 baseline within that four -week period, then 00:02:50.900 --> 00:02:53.419 that's when we might investigate clinically whether 00:02:53.419 --> 00:02:55.500 this person has the overtraining syndrome. So, 00:02:55.539 --> 00:02:57.560 you know, much like any other medical condition, 00:02:57.759 --> 00:02:59.879 we can't self -diagnose. We need to be sent, 00:02:59.900 --> 00:03:02.280 to be referred out to a medical practitioner 00:03:02.280 --> 00:03:04.680 to go through a series of checkpoints to then 00:03:04.680 --> 00:03:06.800 probably diagnose the overtraining syndrome. 00:03:07.039 --> 00:03:09.740 So where the problem exists then is right in 00:03:09.740 --> 00:03:11.979 the middle. I said colloquially, people often 00:03:11.979 --> 00:03:14.150 call the overtraining syndrome. overtraining. 00:03:14.310 --> 00:03:17.289 So now we're using one word, which is both process 00:03:17.289 --> 00:03:19.930 and outcome. And again, you know, we see that 00:03:19.930 --> 00:03:22.210 in conversations with coaches. Absolutely fine. 00:03:22.250 --> 00:03:24.009 A lot of my research is in the language that 00:03:24.009 --> 00:03:26.289 coaches use. I have no issues with that whatsoever. 00:03:26.629 --> 00:03:28.889 But the origins of the research, which are meant 00:03:28.889 --> 00:03:31.490 to be benchmarks to properly define that term, 00:03:31.590 --> 00:03:33.550 they use the same colloquial term as well. And 00:03:33.550 --> 00:03:35.810 we see that in quite a lot of even recent research, 00:03:35.990 --> 00:03:37.729 where they'll use the term overtraining and not 00:03:37.729 --> 00:03:39.710 the overtraining syndrome to mean the outcome. 00:03:39.930 --> 00:03:41.909 And sometimes the overtraining syndrome to mean 00:03:41.909 --> 00:03:44.590 the process. Now, if we were to go to that hashtag 00:03:44.590 --> 00:03:46.349 overtraining and we used to look at the first 00:03:46.349 --> 00:03:49.250 maybe 100 posts, they would always talk about 00:03:49.250 --> 00:03:51.289 overtraining as being a bad thing. But remember, 00:03:51.389 --> 00:03:53.909 it's an intentional tactic. It's an impact microcycle. 00:03:54.110 --> 00:03:56.490 It's often coaches might call it a red week if 00:03:56.490 --> 00:03:58.509 they're using a red amber green rating. It's 00:03:58.509 --> 00:04:01.169 a training camp. So if that was always going 00:04:01.169 --> 00:04:04.150 to arrive at a negative outcome, we wouldn't 00:04:04.150 --> 00:04:06.610 do that as coaches. So overtraining can be a 00:04:06.610 --> 00:04:08.990 positive thing if we use it appropriately. And 00:04:08.990 --> 00:04:11.310 we know perhaps from my pilot trial, which we'll 00:04:11.310 --> 00:04:12.840 talk about. later we know from some of the other 00:04:12.840 --> 00:04:15.580 research that for certain adaptations if we ramp 00:04:15.580 --> 00:04:18.360 up the stimulus and then we recover we can see 00:04:18.360 --> 00:04:20.759 an improvement in performance or in that specific 00:04:20.759 --> 00:04:23.459 adaptation so it is an intentional tactic which 00:04:23.459 --> 00:04:25.500 can be favorable and we never really see that 00:04:25.500 --> 00:04:27.199 in the literature we never really hear it in 00:04:27.199 --> 00:04:29.560 discussions that overtraining can be a good thing 00:04:29.560 --> 00:04:31.600 if we use it properly so that's our first term 00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:34.199 kind of defined then what we come to is we arrive 00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:37.139 at overreaching similar sort of thing we've got 00:04:37.139 --> 00:04:39.660 a process definition we've got an outcome definition 00:04:39.660 --> 00:04:42.720 we have got an expert consensus definition, but 00:04:42.720 --> 00:04:46.339 that most light is around the outcome. So overreaching 00:04:46.339 --> 00:04:48.519 is where we see a decrease in performance that 00:04:48.519 --> 00:04:51.089 lasts. fewer than four weeks. So between kind 00:04:51.089 --> 00:04:53.029 of one and four weeks. So we see a little bit 00:04:53.029 --> 00:04:55.870 of dip in performance. If we return back to baseline 00:04:55.870 --> 00:04:58.829 within four weeks, our athlete was quote unquote 00:04:58.829 --> 00:05:01.069 overreached. So again, what we're seeing here 00:05:01.069 --> 00:05:03.810 is that that perhaps not necessarily a positive 00:05:03.810 --> 00:05:06.110 outcome, but then to make it more complicated, 00:05:06.310 --> 00:05:09.310 we need to divide that term up into functional 00:05:09.310 --> 00:05:11.209 overreaching and non -functional overreaching. 00:05:11.370 --> 00:05:13.230 So non -functional overreaching is effectively 00:05:13.230 --> 00:05:14.889 what I've just said there is we're not seeing 00:05:14.889 --> 00:05:17.449 any positive outcome. There was no real reason 00:05:17.449 --> 00:05:19.810 to undertake. that training. We've returned back 00:05:19.810 --> 00:05:22.290 to baseline simply because it's taken us so long 00:05:22.290 --> 00:05:24.850 to recover that we've perhaps lost that potential 00:05:24.850 --> 00:05:27.350 stimulus and adaptation. Functional overreaching 00:05:27.350 --> 00:05:28.949 is where we've seen improvement in performance 00:05:28.949 --> 00:05:32.209 relative to baseline. So that's our best case 00:05:32.209 --> 00:05:35.329 outcome. We've undertaken a really short and 00:05:35.329 --> 00:05:37.170 intense period of training. The athlete's probably 00:05:37.170 --> 00:05:39.610 not like that and probably not like the coach 00:05:39.610 --> 00:05:41.569 for giving them, for prescribing them that level 00:05:41.569 --> 00:05:43.930 of intense exercise. We've then applied some 00:05:43.930 --> 00:05:45.689 recovery, but they've come out of the other side 00:05:45.689 --> 00:05:47.889 flying. They're stronger, they're faster. can 00:05:47.889 --> 00:05:50.209 jump higher perhaps they're more muscular depending 00:05:50.209 --> 00:05:53.009 on the type of training but this functional overreaching 00:05:53.009 --> 00:05:55.709 is is the best case it's most favorable outcome 00:05:55.709 --> 00:05:58.889 now being extremely pedantic how do we separate 00:05:58.889 --> 00:06:01.050 functional overreaching from a normal response 00:06:01.050 --> 00:06:03.649 to training? And in the literature, that is that 00:06:03.649 --> 00:06:06.350 we must, and this is very, very clear, we must 00:06:06.350 --> 00:06:08.689 see that initial decrement in performance for 00:06:08.689 --> 00:06:11.610 around a week before we see this rebound, or 00:06:11.610 --> 00:06:13.589 we might call it a super compensation effect. 00:06:13.689 --> 00:06:15.550 If we're not seeing that, then we might just 00:06:15.550 --> 00:06:17.910 label it kind of like a progressive overload, 00:06:18.329 --> 00:06:22.430 fitness to fatigue kind of response. The last 00:06:22.430 --> 00:06:25.230 part of the definition then comes down to the 00:06:25.230 --> 00:06:27.990 actual process of overreaching. Again, all that 00:06:27.990 --> 00:06:30.149 is, is it's synonymous with overtraining. We 00:06:30.149 --> 00:06:32.889 often call an overreach like an impact microcycle 00:06:32.889 --> 00:06:35.709 again. So overtraining as a verb and overreaching 00:06:35.709 --> 00:06:38.709 as a verb are effectively the same thing. An 00:06:38.709 --> 00:06:41.529 overreach is just the type of intentional overtraining. 00:06:41.709 --> 00:06:43.689 We end up with these kind of myriad of different 00:06:43.689 --> 00:06:45.930 things that we can move around depending on the 00:06:45.930 --> 00:06:48.029 context of whether it's intentional, accidental, 00:06:48.589 --> 00:06:51.069 process -driven, outcome -driven. But it's really 00:06:51.069 --> 00:06:53.329 important that for us as coaches and practitioners 00:06:53.329 --> 00:06:55.350 that we understand those words, particularly 00:06:55.350 --> 00:06:57.839 if we choose to... to listen to podcasts like 00:06:57.839 --> 00:07:00.319 this or read articles or read research papers 00:07:00.319 --> 00:07:02.240 because the context of the words are really, 00:07:02.339 --> 00:07:04.519 really important. And again, whilst that might 00:07:04.519 --> 00:07:07.060 seem quite pedantic for me. understanding the 00:07:07.060 --> 00:07:09.560 words we use in sports science is key let me 00:07:09.560 --> 00:07:13.060 mirror to you what i've learned and let's see 00:07:13.060 --> 00:07:16.459 where what i'm missing so in normal training 00:07:16.459 --> 00:07:20.259 we want to apply some stimulus and hopefully 00:07:20.259 --> 00:07:23.579 it will drain the athletes so they can adapt 00:07:23.579 --> 00:07:28.199 now overreaching is requires that this dip under 00:07:28.199 --> 00:07:31.420 before the adaptation has to be for a week and 00:07:31.420 --> 00:07:35.670 then they either recover and we achieve super 00:07:35.670 --> 00:07:37.850 compensation adaptation and they get better and 00:07:37.850 --> 00:07:40.230 that's functional overreaching or they just go 00:07:40.230 --> 00:07:43.649 to the baseline and plateau there and we call 00:07:43.649 --> 00:07:46.550 it non -functional overreaching because the function 00:07:46.550 --> 00:07:49.149 was to get them better we didn't do that so that's 00:07:49.149 --> 00:07:52.470 how i understand non -functional if it goes for 00:07:52.470 --> 00:07:56.350 so let's say they plateaued at three weeks and 00:07:56.350 --> 00:07:59.209 they stay there and we are week four stay there 00:07:59.209 --> 00:08:02.649 week five or they go down and can't can't bring 00:08:02.649 --> 00:08:05.149 themselves up after four weeks we We call it 00:08:05.149 --> 00:08:08.790 overtraining syndrome. Yeah. But again, I use 00:08:08.790 --> 00:08:11.350 assumption quite a lot because we have to assume 00:08:11.350 --> 00:08:14.490 quite a lot with this research area because understandably, 00:08:14.490 --> 00:08:16.529 there's very, very little work that's being done 00:08:16.529 --> 00:08:18.990 to intentionally give someone the overtraining 00:08:18.990 --> 00:08:22.029 syndrome. In research, we have ethics boards 00:08:22.029 --> 00:08:24.290 that stop things from happening that are too 00:08:24.290 --> 00:08:26.470 risky. It comes down to an argument about risk 00:08:26.470 --> 00:08:28.529 and reward. And we can talk a little bit about 00:08:28.529 --> 00:08:30.610 that with our pilot and some of the kind of, 00:08:30.610 --> 00:08:32.889 I say loopholes, it sounds very cynical, but... 00:08:33.049 --> 00:08:34.690 some of the things that we had to do in order 00:08:34.690 --> 00:08:37.409 to get this study off the ground. There are very, 00:08:37.529 --> 00:08:39.750 very little. And off the top of my head, I can 00:08:39.750 --> 00:08:42.289 think of one study in particular that's used 00:08:42.289 --> 00:08:45.590 repeated time points to track the recovery process. 00:08:45.870 --> 00:08:49.929 How to put overreaching into context of periodization? 00:08:50.129 --> 00:08:52.669 Because I can speak from Olympic weightlifting. 00:08:52.889 --> 00:08:55.809 When you prepare for a meet, you have a structure 00:08:55.809 --> 00:08:58.389 to your training. It's not linear progression. 00:08:58.769 --> 00:09:03.230 It's not, at least not at some point. You can't 00:09:03.230 --> 00:09:06.049 do just linear progression for years. So there 00:09:06.049 --> 00:09:09.730 is some kind of periodization. Now, how overreaching 00:09:09.730 --> 00:09:12.529 and possibly overtraining syndrome fits into 00:09:12.529 --> 00:09:15.370 that? Yeah, absolutely. So there are, you're 00:09:15.370 --> 00:09:17.889 right, linear periodization models don't lend 00:09:17.889 --> 00:09:20.830 themselves very well to incorporating a planned 00:09:20.830 --> 00:09:24.169 overreach. There could be an argument if we were 00:09:24.169 --> 00:09:27.070 using a summated microcycle approach. So like 00:09:27.070 --> 00:09:29.330 your traditional one would be three weeks where 00:09:29.330 --> 00:09:32.220 the training load increases. through volume or 00:09:32.220 --> 00:09:34.679 through load on the bar, followed by a deload, 00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:36.440 then another three weeks. It doesn't have to 00:09:36.440 --> 00:09:38.399 be three weeks. Summated microcycles could be 00:09:38.399 --> 00:09:40.759 five weeks deload, six weeks deload. It doesn't 00:09:40.759 --> 00:09:42.399 really matter. But there are some periodization 00:09:42.399 --> 00:09:44.379 models like block periodization, for example, 00:09:44.559 --> 00:09:47.320 that give us an opportunity to go for this seven 00:09:47.320 --> 00:09:50.559 or 14 day period, we are going to ramp things 00:09:50.559 --> 00:09:52.879 up. You will not be in a good place. You will 00:09:52.879 --> 00:09:55.440 feel under recovered. You will feel absolutely 00:09:55.440 --> 00:09:58.480 fatigued. You will feel sore. But you need to 00:09:58.480 --> 00:10:01.279 trust the process that we're layering. on the 00:10:01.279 --> 00:10:03.960 stimulus we're creating the adaptation it's just 00:10:03.960 --> 00:10:06.779 being masked by fatigue but when we apply the 00:10:06.779 --> 00:10:09.240 deload period that fatigue will dissipate really 00:10:09.240 --> 00:10:11.399 quickly but we'll retain we'll hold on to those 00:10:11.399 --> 00:10:14.840 adaptations if we then are on platform because 00:10:14.840 --> 00:10:17.100 we're competition or we're leading into another 00:10:17.100 --> 00:10:19.059 block of training our athlete all of a sudden 00:10:19.059 --> 00:10:20.899 goes wow i feel in a really good place like i'm 00:10:20.899 --> 00:10:23.100 just moving really really well the bar's moving 00:10:23.100 --> 00:10:25.460 fast i've got a lot of load on it now we did 00:10:25.460 --> 00:10:28.360 some research on this because i come from a coaching 00:10:28.360 --> 00:10:30.460 background and the problem that i had with some 00:10:30.460 --> 00:10:32.580 of the the kind of the studies where they applied 00:10:32.580 --> 00:10:35.039 an intentional overreach was i was looking and 00:10:35.039 --> 00:10:37.480 i'm going this is just not how people train in 00:10:37.480 --> 00:10:40.360 the real world it's not you can't you can't create 00:10:40.360 --> 00:10:42.919 a fictitious microcycle and then go oh wow look 00:10:42.919 --> 00:10:44.919 these people were fatigued and then go coaches 00:10:44.919 --> 00:10:47.360 you should follow this because the coaches are 00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:49.100 ahead of what the sport scientists are doing 00:10:49.100 --> 00:10:51.940 so what i did as part of my phd in the early 00:10:51.940 --> 00:10:55.080 years was i spoke to coaches you know high level 00:10:55.080 --> 00:10:57.559 elite level international level coaches i said 00:10:57.559 --> 00:11:00.029 what do you do Like I want to paint a picture 00:11:00.029 --> 00:11:02.470 of an intervention that I want to apply in practice, 00:11:02.590 --> 00:11:05.029 but I wanted to mirror what you would do. And 00:11:05.029 --> 00:11:07.889 I wasn't surprised by this, but there were basically 00:11:07.889 --> 00:11:09.950 a million different ways that you can apply an 00:11:09.950 --> 00:11:11.950 overreach. And it wasn't like, oh, weightlifting 00:11:11.950 --> 00:11:14.149 coaches do it this way and powerlifting coaches 00:11:14.149 --> 00:11:16.250 do it this way. It was all about the athlete. 00:11:16.389 --> 00:11:19.549 It was all about the individual response kinetics 00:11:19.549 --> 00:11:22.049 of the athlete. What do they enjoy to a degree? 00:11:22.269 --> 00:11:24.169 What do they respond well to? I mean, we all 00:11:24.169 --> 00:11:26.169 know that some athletes just respond really well 00:11:26.169 --> 00:11:28.440 to just lots of heavy load. Some respond really 00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:31.000 well to lots of volume. A small proportion respond 00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:33.419 well to lots of volume and intensity for a short 00:11:33.419 --> 00:11:35.419 period. You know, some athletes will just not 00:11:35.419 --> 00:11:37.340 turn up to the gym if they've got in the middle 00:11:37.340 --> 00:11:40.059 of a cycle. Some will, you'll ask them to just 00:11:40.059 --> 00:11:41.679 calm down a little bit. You turn your back and 00:11:41.679 --> 00:11:43.440 they're off doing a max again. So there were 00:11:43.440 --> 00:11:45.399 all of these different tactics, but effectively 00:11:45.399 --> 00:11:48.179 it was, there is a skill component to sports 00:11:48.179 --> 00:11:50.220 like weightlifting and powerlifting. So where 00:11:50.220 --> 00:11:54.159 possible, reduce the number of accessory exercises 00:11:54.159 --> 00:11:56.840 and focus on the pattern, focus on the squat 00:11:56.840 --> 00:11:58.899 pattern. and focus on the bench the deadlift 00:11:58.899 --> 00:12:01.500 don't completely get rid of the other stuff but 00:12:01.500 --> 00:12:04.700 just reduce that down a touch increase volume 00:12:04.700 --> 00:12:08.100 within a given period of time a week a session 00:12:08.100 --> 00:12:11.039 whatever it might be by doing more sets by increasing 00:12:11.039 --> 00:12:14.279 the load by increasing the density so reducing 00:12:14.279 --> 00:12:16.519 rest periods potentially depends on the adaptation 00:12:16.519 --> 00:12:18.740 that we're wanting to create and whether we've 00:12:18.740 --> 00:12:20.980 got another block of training coming after the 00:12:20.980 --> 00:12:23.679 overreach or we want to be on platform to then 00:12:23.679 --> 00:12:26.299 effectively be on podium so the answer to that 00:12:26.299 --> 00:12:28.600 is there's a million different ways to do it 00:12:28.600 --> 00:12:31.820 but there are some kind of key metrics that we 00:12:31.820 --> 00:12:34.899 want to abide by like lots of volume like reducing 00:12:34.899 --> 00:12:38.769 the the number of exercises. We then risk monotony 00:12:38.769 --> 00:12:41.409 because the athletes come in doing what they 00:12:41.409 --> 00:12:43.389 feel like the same thing over and over again. 00:12:43.629 --> 00:12:46.389 That unfortunately is the nature of the overreach. 00:12:46.549 --> 00:12:49.169 I think we're clear on overreaching versus overtraining 00:12:49.169 --> 00:12:51.490 syndrome. Functional and non -functional, is 00:12:51.490 --> 00:12:54.429 there anything else in terms of functional and 00:12:54.429 --> 00:12:56.269 non -functional we need to talk about before 00:12:56.269 --> 00:12:58.350 we go into the study? There probably is, to be 00:12:58.350 --> 00:13:01.669 honest. I think... Going back a good few minutes, 00:13:01.710 --> 00:13:03.610 you mentioned about with functional overreach 00:13:03.610 --> 00:13:06.009 and we'd need to see the seven day lagging performance 00:13:06.009 --> 00:13:08.269 before we see a super compensation effect. And 00:13:08.269 --> 00:13:10.590 something popped in my mind there. And what I 00:13:10.590 --> 00:13:13.429 was thinking was, well, what if our athlete was 00:13:13.429 --> 00:13:15.830 to super compensate two or three days after? 00:13:15.950 --> 00:13:18.169 Technically, we can't call it a functional overreach 00:13:18.169 --> 00:13:21.860 by definition, but it's still functional. in 00:13:21.860 --> 00:13:24.379 nature because that's what we want. And there 00:13:24.379 --> 00:13:28.840 is this concept called super compensation kinetics. 00:13:29.039 --> 00:13:31.019 And what that is, is that we could take a bunch 00:13:31.019 --> 00:13:33.639 of athletes, a small or a large sample. We give 00:13:33.639 --> 00:13:36.059 them all the same block of training with the 00:13:36.059 --> 00:13:38.440 same relative amount of training load. So obviously 00:13:38.440 --> 00:13:40.379 like, you know, if you can lift more than me, 00:13:40.460 --> 00:13:41.899 you would lift more than me in the block, that 00:13:41.899 --> 00:13:43.720 type of thing. And then we give everyone the 00:13:43.720 --> 00:13:46.200 same deload or taper period. And we'll see that 00:13:46.200 --> 00:13:48.440 people peak at different time points. As coaches, 00:13:48.500 --> 00:13:50.379 we know this already. Again, coaches are way 00:13:50.379 --> 00:13:52.840 ahead of us. scientists but we've seen this in 00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:55.000 a small number of studies including our pilot 00:13:55.000 --> 00:13:58.019 study where some athletes will take 14 days to 00:13:58.019 --> 00:14:00.500 reach peak strength so they need a longer taper 00:14:00.500 --> 00:14:03.059 period before competition so do i need to give 00:14:03.059 --> 00:14:05.820 them a different overreach not really but i need 00:14:05.820 --> 00:14:07.679 to give them the overreach further away from 00:14:07.679 --> 00:14:09.820 competition otherwise they're still carrying 00:14:09.820 --> 00:14:12.039 a little bit of latent fatigue into competition 00:14:12.039 --> 00:14:15.590 we see that some stroke most will peak around 00:14:15.590 --> 00:14:18.230 seven days but there are a very small and this 00:14:18.230 --> 00:14:19.850 for me is really really interesting there are 00:14:19.850 --> 00:14:22.149 a very small number of athletes that do not need 00:14:22.149 --> 00:14:24.909 a taper at all so they can come off an overreach 00:14:24.909 --> 00:14:27.289 or they can come off a training block and they 00:14:27.289 --> 00:14:30.149 are straight ready to peak lucky busters oh absolutely 00:14:30.149 --> 00:14:33.370 absolutely but how do we know this unless we 00:14:33.370 --> 00:14:36.629 use repeated testing and go wow like if you do 00:14:36.629 --> 00:14:39.070 a taper that's eight days you're in perfect and 00:14:39.070 --> 00:14:42.080 prime position to win that competition But, and 00:14:42.080 --> 00:14:44.179 it gets even more complicated, the next time 00:14:44.179 --> 00:14:45.860 we try it, at eight days, they're still in the 00:14:45.860 --> 00:14:47.519 hole. They're still feeling like shit and they're 00:14:47.519 --> 00:14:49.620 just like, I need longer. So now we've got this 00:14:49.620 --> 00:14:52.519 like intra -individual layer of variability where 00:14:52.519 --> 00:14:54.539 we need to treat every athlete differently when 00:14:54.539 --> 00:14:56.740 we apply an overreach and then the taper. But 00:14:56.740 --> 00:14:59.340 this kind of like, sorry, an inter -level variability 00:14:59.340 --> 00:15:01.460 and then an intra -level variability where the 00:15:01.460 --> 00:15:04.360 same athlete might require a different duration 00:15:04.360 --> 00:15:06.840 of taper depending on where they are in the competition 00:15:06.840 --> 00:15:09.340 cycle. So it becomes very, very complicated and 00:15:09.340 --> 00:15:12.830 to me comes right back. to you can't create and 00:15:12.830 --> 00:15:14.570 i think when i first started my phd i was very 00:15:14.570 --> 00:15:16.389 naive on this i was like you know what i want 00:15:16.389 --> 00:15:18.970 to create here a framework where i can give it 00:15:18.970 --> 00:15:21.350 to coaches and go follow that and i promise you 00:15:21.350 --> 00:15:23.269 now your athletes will be the best they ever 00:15:23.269 --> 00:15:25.389 will be in every competition and the more i was 00:15:25.389 --> 00:15:27.809 testing the more i was learning i was like yeah 00:15:27.809 --> 00:15:31.179 like that that's a stupid idea Because we cannot 00:15:31.179 --> 00:15:35.580 remove the coach's intuition from this. So how 00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:37.620 do we measure? Again, it becomes problematic. 00:15:37.659 --> 00:15:40.820 We often use proxy measures because they're not 00:15:40.820 --> 00:15:43.120 invasive. They don't layer on additional fatigue. 00:15:43.279 --> 00:15:45.500 They're quick and they're simple. The problem 00:15:45.500 --> 00:15:47.600 is sometimes we can rely on those a little bit 00:15:47.600 --> 00:15:50.080 too much. Well, certainly we will rely on one 00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:52.960 singular metric. So with our pilot study, for 00:15:52.960 --> 00:15:55.879 example, what we found was that we were training 00:15:55.879 --> 00:15:57.820 people every day and we were training them hard. 00:15:58.019 --> 00:16:01.080 They were able to retain that. quite well but 00:16:01.080 --> 00:16:04.600 their jumping ability was it just tanked it absolutely 00:16:04.600 --> 00:16:07.379 tanked some of the perceptual measures which 00:16:07.379 --> 00:16:10.100 are really really important again i i don't think 00:16:10.100 --> 00:16:13.139 we can treat an athlete like a number i think 00:16:13.139 --> 00:16:15.279 we need to get them involved in the process but 00:16:15.279 --> 00:16:17.340 we also need to be aware that what they report 00:16:17.340 --> 00:16:20.090 how they feel And the objective measures sometimes 00:16:20.090 --> 00:16:22.389 don't measure up very, very well. So, you know, 00:16:22.409 --> 00:16:25.110 we had athletes some days coming in. I'm segwaying 00:16:25.110 --> 00:16:26.929 into the pilot study a little bit now, but we 00:16:26.929 --> 00:16:28.549 had some athletes coming in and they were going, 00:16:28.590 --> 00:16:30.830 oh, wow, like, I just can't move today. I feel 00:16:30.830 --> 00:16:33.210 so sore. We were like, okay, well, I'll tell 00:16:33.210 --> 00:16:34.870 you what, let's see how you're jumping today. 00:16:35.070 --> 00:16:36.970 Oh, yeah, yeah, you're not jumping very well. 00:16:37.070 --> 00:16:40.090 Like, your jump has decreased by, you know, a 00:16:40.090 --> 00:16:42.809 large amount. We get them under the bar. We track 00:16:42.809 --> 00:16:44.590 the velocity of their warm -up and that's moving 00:16:44.590 --> 00:16:46.950 much slower. And we're like... This is not looking 00:16:46.950 --> 00:16:49.330 good for you. And then we go, okay, well, let's 00:16:49.330 --> 00:16:52.610 get some load on the bar and see how well the 00:16:52.610 --> 00:16:54.929 heavy load moves. Oh, it's moved the same. It's 00:16:54.929 --> 00:16:56.990 moved the same velocity with the same load. So 00:16:56.990 --> 00:16:59.370 we can use some of the proxy measures, but we 00:16:59.370 --> 00:17:02.169 can't dismiss what's happening right up at the 00:17:02.169 --> 00:17:05.670 top end as well. And again, same with the previous 00:17:05.670 --> 00:17:08.549 interview, it's an issue that we have, and we 00:17:08.549 --> 00:17:11.210 sometimes just need to marry up the objective 00:17:11.210 --> 00:17:13.970 data. We triangulate it, the objective data. 00:17:14.509 --> 00:17:16.390 with how the athlete feels but our experience 00:17:16.390 --> 00:17:19.250 as a coach as well and go look yeah we need a 00:17:19.250 --> 00:17:22.130 down day today we need a deload day let's just 00:17:22.130 --> 00:17:24.609 have a more of a relaxing session lightweight 00:17:24.609 --> 00:17:27.529 bit of skill work coming tomorrow we'll hit it 00:17:27.529 --> 00:17:30.390 again or we go you know what you're in an impact 00:17:30.390 --> 00:17:33.170 cycle you will feel sore do i care that your 00:17:33.170 --> 00:17:36.000 jumps are down not really because what i'm chasing 00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:38.720 is maximal strength get under the bar stop complaining 00:17:38.720 --> 00:17:41.099 and lift now you can do that with some athletes 00:17:41.099 --> 00:17:42.859 so they'll go yeah come on let's do it are you 00:17:42.859 --> 00:17:44.480 with other athletes and you've lost that trust 00:17:44.480 --> 00:17:46.420 with them so whilst we're triangulating the metrics 00:17:46.420 --> 00:17:49.279 we we can't can't dilute the coach athlete relationship 00:17:49.279 --> 00:17:51.930 as well Again, that's very individualistic. So 00:17:51.930 --> 00:17:54.509 I think to kind of sum up the question, yes, 00:17:54.630 --> 00:17:56.369 there are different time courses to different 00:17:56.369 --> 00:17:58.730 adaptations in the same way that there are different 00:17:58.730 --> 00:18:01.890 time courses to chase those adaptations. And 00:18:01.890 --> 00:18:04.430 I think that that pretty much covers that really. 00:18:04.529 --> 00:18:07.269 It's important about what we choose to measure 00:18:07.269 --> 00:18:09.170 and when we choose to measure it and how we use 00:18:09.170 --> 00:18:11.170 it as a proxy. All right. So I think it's a good 00:18:11.170 --> 00:18:14.529 moment to bring up your study and go through 00:18:14.529 --> 00:18:16.829 from the beginning how you set it up. But what 00:18:16.829 --> 00:18:19.089 we ended up with was effectively a very challenging 00:18:19.089 --> 00:18:21.130 protocol. and I want to be very very clear on 00:18:21.130 --> 00:18:23.130 this that whilst the results of the study showed 00:18:23.130 --> 00:18:25.009 that I think everyone improved their one rep 00:18:25.009 --> 00:18:27.789 max this is not a cycle that I would ever tell 00:18:27.789 --> 00:18:31.029 a coach to introduce within a training plan bear 00:18:31.029 --> 00:18:32.990 with me on this while I talk through it please 00:18:32.990 --> 00:18:35.769 so it was it was five successive days of bike 00:18:35.769 --> 00:18:37.849 squats we weren't allowed to do more than five 00:18:37.849 --> 00:18:41.970 days each day the athletes used 80 % of their 00:18:41.970 --> 00:18:45.430 daily max so a daily max isn't the same load 00:18:45.430 --> 00:18:48.089 across the five days we had to use quite an elaborate 00:18:48.089 --> 00:18:51.880 velocity tracking approach to go, okay, well, 00:18:51.960 --> 00:18:55.480 when you're fresh on day one, how fast are you 00:18:55.480 --> 00:18:58.359 moving 80 % of your one rep max? So we tested 00:18:58.359 --> 00:19:00.160 them beforehand. What's your max? We had some 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:02.420 very, very strong people on the study. Now let's 00:19:02.420 --> 00:19:04.799 look at how quick you can move 80%. You can move 00:19:04.799 --> 00:19:07.799 that at 0 .75 meters per second, right? That's 00:19:07.799 --> 00:19:10.599 the load you'll use on day one. Day two, what's 00:19:10.599 --> 00:19:13.480 the load that you are still moving at 0 .75 meters 00:19:13.480 --> 00:19:15.740 per second? So we're looking at daily fluctuations 00:19:15.740 --> 00:19:19.099 in fatigue. We did that. Not to be, you know, 00:19:19.099 --> 00:19:22.119 sport science -y per se, but to be cruel. To 00:19:22.119 --> 00:19:24.799 stop athletes from going, oh, today that's not 00:19:24.799 --> 00:19:27.859 80%. That feels more like a 90 % and I can only 00:19:27.859 --> 00:19:30.240 do sets of two, you know? So we were basically 00:19:30.240 --> 00:19:33.559 engineering a way for people to lift repeatedly 00:19:33.559 --> 00:19:36.740 heavy loads with lots of volume. Your protocol 00:19:36.740 --> 00:19:39.759 was designed to challenge the athletes. So you 00:19:39.759 --> 00:19:43.500 ask them to come five days a week at 80%. You 00:19:43.500 --> 00:19:46.079 measure velocity on the first day and then this 00:19:46.079 --> 00:19:50.130 velocity was... the mark for 80 % weight for 00:19:50.130 --> 00:19:53.809 each consecutive day. And they were lifting to 00:19:53.809 --> 00:19:56.250 failure. To failure. And they did five sets each 00:19:56.250 --> 00:19:58.490 day. So you can look at that two different ways 00:19:58.490 --> 00:20:00.690 and you could say, well, that's only 25 sets 00:20:00.690 --> 00:20:04.349 across a five -day period. It's not a lot. But 00:20:04.349 --> 00:20:06.089 what you need to bear in mind is that that's 00:20:06.089 --> 00:20:09.549 the same lift with no variation. And we know 00:20:09.549 --> 00:20:11.930 this from when we train to failure, we are much 00:20:11.930 --> 00:20:15.349 more likely to induce a fatigue effect, potentially 00:20:15.349 --> 00:20:18.630 soreness. So what we found was that, firstly, 00:20:18.750 --> 00:20:21.069 the load on the bar varied each day, as you would 00:20:21.069 --> 00:20:23.549 expect. It didn't necessarily get lower. There 00:20:23.549 --> 00:20:26.150 wasn't a pattern as such. But what we found was 00:20:26.150 --> 00:20:29.109 that day three was the worst day for most participants. 00:20:29.289 --> 00:20:31.190 Day three, they came in. And I think you can 00:20:31.190 --> 00:20:33.589 attach various hypotheses to this. But in my 00:20:33.589 --> 00:20:35.470 mind, what we've got is they come in on day two. 00:20:35.529 --> 00:20:37.390 How sore do you feel? And we did ask them this 00:20:37.390 --> 00:20:39.210 question. I feel quite sore, actually. Like I 00:20:39.210 --> 00:20:41.329 did five sets to failure with a heavy load on 00:20:41.329 --> 00:20:43.690 the bar. Okay. Then they come in on day three. 00:20:43.730 --> 00:20:47.339 You've got the effects of day one. still bubbling 00:20:47.339 --> 00:20:49.019 along in the background but now you've got the 00:20:49.019 --> 00:20:51.160 additional stimulus of day two so people were 00:20:51.160 --> 00:20:53.000 coming in in day three and they were not in a 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:55.680 nice place whatsoever we even had one participant 00:20:55.680 --> 00:20:58.380 that's just said like i'm gonna get through this 00:20:58.380 --> 00:21:00.759 because it's like sunk cost fallacy i'm like 00:21:00.759 --> 00:21:02.359 i'm day three like i might as well just work 00:21:02.359 --> 00:21:04.460 through it but he was just like just don't talk 00:21:04.460 --> 00:21:06.859 to me please don't talk to me like just let me 00:21:06.859 --> 00:21:08.599 get on with it because i just psychologically 00:21:08.599 --> 00:21:11.720 i'm not in a great place mental breakdown yeah 00:21:11.720 --> 00:21:14.960 exactly and so like for me for me as a coach 00:21:14.960 --> 00:21:16.789 that's where I'd take him to one side and we'd 00:21:16.789 --> 00:21:18.390 have a discussion about, look, this is normal, 00:21:18.490 --> 00:21:20.549 but you need to trust the process that when we 00:21:20.549 --> 00:21:22.730 deload, when we tape, whatever it might be, you'll 00:21:22.730 --> 00:21:24.769 feel great. In a controlled environment as a 00:21:24.769 --> 00:21:26.490 sports scientist, I'm not allowed to lead the 00:21:26.490 --> 00:21:28.309 participants. So I was just kind of like, okay, 00:21:28.410 --> 00:21:30.349 that's fine. Anyway, get under the bar, let's 00:21:30.349 --> 00:21:34.390 lift. We even had one participant peaked the 00:21:34.390 --> 00:21:37.170 load on the bar on day five. Now I have no hypothesis 00:21:37.170 --> 00:21:39.650 for that whatsoever because that shouldn't happen 00:21:39.650 --> 00:21:42.009 based around everything we know around models 00:21:42.009 --> 00:21:45.029 of general adaptation, fitness fatigue. factor 00:21:45.029 --> 00:21:47.670 model whatever it might be but we this guy had 00:21:47.670 --> 00:21:50.190 a decent increase in load on the bar on day five 00:21:50.190 --> 00:21:52.549 now he actually lost his adaptation seven days 00:21:52.549 --> 00:21:55.349 later so That's an example there of someone where 00:21:55.349 --> 00:21:57.690 we might, and again, I'm not saying we do this 00:21:57.690 --> 00:22:00.289 in practice whatsoever, but we might start to 00:22:00.289 --> 00:22:02.789 look at that athlete as having minimal taper 00:22:02.789 --> 00:22:04.869 period because it may well be that they respond 00:22:04.869 --> 00:22:08.049 to previous days of reasonably heavy load that 00:22:08.049 --> 00:22:12.369 somehow has a potentiating effect on their performance. 00:22:12.710 --> 00:22:14.809 So that could be an example of where we don't 00:22:14.809 --> 00:22:16.849 have a long taper because clearly they lost that 00:22:16.849 --> 00:22:19.569 adaptation if it's a strength -based competition. 00:22:19.630 --> 00:22:22.650 In order to track what was happening from day 00:22:22.650 --> 00:22:24.970 to day, We asked questions like, how sore do 00:22:24.970 --> 00:22:28.009 you feel? How stressed do you feel? How recovered 00:22:28.009 --> 00:22:30.309 do you feel? The responses were just all over 00:22:30.309 --> 00:22:32.289 the place. Like there was just no pattern whatsoever. 00:22:32.470 --> 00:22:35.069 And I think that harks back to this really individual 00:22:35.069 --> 00:22:38.369 response that athletes have. We looked at jumps 00:22:38.369 --> 00:22:40.829 beforehand. Jumps were just getting worse every 00:22:40.829 --> 00:22:43.109 day for most people. So that appeared to be the 00:22:43.109 --> 00:22:45.970 most sensitive to fatigue. But we can't then 00:22:45.970 --> 00:22:48.869 go, oh, your jump has decreased by X amount. 00:22:48.990 --> 00:22:51.490 We need to just take you off the study because 00:22:51.490 --> 00:22:53.910 all of the... participants did experience an 00:22:53.910 --> 00:22:55.910 improvement in maximal strength after the taper. 00:22:56.009 --> 00:22:58.289 We looked at isometric mid -thigh pull because 00:22:58.289 --> 00:23:00.869 there seems to be a lot of discussion around 00:23:00.869 --> 00:23:03.869 how we might utilize that to track fatigue. Most 00:23:03.869 --> 00:23:06.450 people got better each day. So it seemed that 00:23:06.450 --> 00:23:09.069 the back squat protocol would potentiate in the 00:23:09.069 --> 00:23:11.710 mid -thigh pull. We know from previous literature, 00:23:11.829 --> 00:23:13.589 the mid -thigh pull, the isometric mid -thigh 00:23:13.589 --> 00:23:15.630 pull and back squat performance are not correlated 00:23:15.630 --> 00:23:18.549 very well whatsoever. So there, there could have 00:23:18.549 --> 00:23:20.609 been a bit of a fallacy, a little bit of a mistake 00:23:20.609 --> 00:23:22.859 where you went, oh. wow, these are really clearly 00:23:22.859 --> 00:23:26.319 correlated. They're not. We had discussions around 00:23:26.319 --> 00:23:29.019 whether we wanted to do an isometric squat beforehand, 00:23:29.140 --> 00:23:32.059 but this is an example about when we read a study, 00:23:32.160 --> 00:23:35.059 we only see the outcome. We don't see what discussions 00:23:35.059 --> 00:23:37.200 and problems were encountered along the way. 00:23:37.279 --> 00:23:39.240 And one of the issues that we found was that 00:23:39.240 --> 00:23:41.799 some participants... we're experiencing a lot 00:23:41.799 --> 00:23:43.859 of dons in their traps because they've got a 00:23:43.859 --> 00:23:46.720 heavy load on their bike repeatedly. So yeah, 00:23:46.779 --> 00:23:48.980 we care about how sore are their quads. We care 00:23:48.980 --> 00:23:51.559 about how sore is their lower back. But most 00:23:51.559 --> 00:23:53.640 athletes were saying, it's my traps that are 00:23:53.640 --> 00:23:56.339 really, really sore. So now you're going, okay, 00:23:56.480 --> 00:23:59.059 well, I want you to do an isometric squat. I 00:23:59.059 --> 00:24:01.119 want you to push against this bar with your traps 00:24:01.119 --> 00:24:03.079 as hard as possible. It's not going to happen. 00:24:03.180 --> 00:24:04.680 And all that's going to happen there is you risk 00:24:04.680 --> 00:24:06.940 athletes from dropping out of the study. So the 00:24:06.940 --> 00:24:09.299 decision we made was not, we feel the isometric 00:24:09.299 --> 00:24:11.920 mid -thigh pull. is the best exercise or sorry, 00:24:11.980 --> 00:24:14.539 the best test to monitor fatigue. It's the best 00:24:14.539 --> 00:24:18.119 that we've got with the logistical issues removed. 00:24:18.380 --> 00:24:21.400 And that to me was a big, because the study was 00:24:21.400 --> 00:24:24.039 potentially so risky, that to me was how do we 00:24:24.039 --> 00:24:26.319 remove risk as much as possible? Now, we had 00:24:26.319 --> 00:24:28.559 no participants drop out. Unsurprisingly, we 00:24:28.559 --> 00:24:30.680 had a small number of participants opt in. And 00:24:30.680 --> 00:24:33.339 I'm using the word athlete quite a lot. None 00:24:33.339 --> 00:24:36.000 of them were competitive athletes. For me. The 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:38.940 biggest risk factor was this might affect your 00:24:38.940 --> 00:24:41.400 competitive season. Like we might put you in 00:24:41.400 --> 00:24:43.859 such a bad state that you have to drop out from 00:24:43.859 --> 00:24:46.420 all competitions within that competition period. 00:24:46.640 --> 00:24:48.980 So anyone that was a competitive athlete, I went, 00:24:48.980 --> 00:24:50.940 you're not coming on the study. So I'm using 00:24:50.940 --> 00:24:53.160 the term athlete loosely, but they were well 00:24:53.160 --> 00:24:56.119 -trained individuals. So the average back squat, 00:24:56.240 --> 00:24:59.019 one rep max. was double body weight and i think 00:24:59.019 --> 00:25:01.619 that's reasonably strong so that that was the 00:25:01.619 --> 00:25:05.220 protocol the conclusion the end point was back 00:25:05.220 --> 00:25:07.220 to what i said earlier about there had only really 00:25:07.220 --> 00:25:09.359 been one study before this one that had looked 00:25:09.359 --> 00:25:11.920 at tracking maximal strength across a period 00:25:11.920 --> 00:25:13.779 of time so i said okay well what we're going 00:25:13.779 --> 00:25:15.200 to do is we're going to measure them seven days 00:25:15.200 --> 00:25:17.980 after the protocol we gave them like a stock 00:25:17.980 --> 00:25:20.980 taper program it was just a very basic step taper 00:25:20.980 --> 00:25:23.279 um you can go back to normal training but you've 00:25:23.279 --> 00:25:25.619 got to follow this exercise selection and these 00:25:25.619 --> 00:25:28.519 kind of like loading parameters to standardize 00:25:28.519 --> 00:25:30.880 it, every single participant had improved one 00:25:30.880 --> 00:25:33.960 rep max at seven days. And I can't say significantly 00:25:33.960 --> 00:25:35.900 because we didn't use inferential statistics 00:25:35.900 --> 00:25:38.640 because it was a pilot study. And there are big 00:25:38.640 --> 00:25:41.019 problems by using inferential stats when you've 00:25:41.019 --> 00:25:42.940 got small sample sizes. We had, I think it was 00:25:42.940 --> 00:25:46.240 10, eight participants. So we just reported descriptive 00:25:46.240 --> 00:25:48.960 characteristics, but we use smallest worthwhile 00:25:48.960 --> 00:25:51.920 change to say, actually, from a coach's perspective, 00:25:52.140 --> 00:25:54.779 is this practically meaningful? Every single 00:25:54.779 --> 00:25:57.009 participant had... improve their one red mics 00:25:57.009 --> 00:26:00.470 to a meaningful level so we go okay that's functional 00:26:00.470 --> 00:26:03.769 overreaching but really we can't call it functional 00:26:03.769 --> 00:26:06.289 overreaching because we didn't test them immediately 00:26:06.289 --> 00:26:09.049 post and at seven days so we didn't experience 00:26:09.049 --> 00:26:12.309 the lag effect i don't care if i'm being honest 00:26:12.309 --> 00:26:14.829 at this point i don't care what labels we attach 00:26:14.829 --> 00:26:17.390 to it they got better As a coach, that's all 00:26:17.390 --> 00:26:20.069 I care about. We then tested them at 14 days, 00:26:20.109 --> 00:26:22.829 so another seven days afterwards. Most participants 00:26:22.829 --> 00:26:25.609 experienced another increase in strength. It 00:26:25.609 --> 00:26:27.549 didn't surpass the smallest worthwhile change, 00:26:27.690 --> 00:26:30.250 but it's still important in my eyes if an athlete's 00:26:30.250 --> 00:26:32.390 adding on an extra two or three kilos on the 00:26:32.390 --> 00:26:34.569 bar. If they're a powerlifter, for example, two 00:26:34.569 --> 00:26:36.329 or three kilos might be the difference between 00:26:36.329 --> 00:26:38.650 finishing first and finishing fourth, potentially. 00:26:38.789 --> 00:26:41.329 Some participants have returned back to baseline, 00:26:41.490 --> 00:26:43.490 so they'd not been able to retain that strength 00:26:43.490 --> 00:26:46.089 adaptation. Now, I think of it like... this what 00:26:46.089 --> 00:26:49.029 if i'd not tested them at seven days and tested 00:26:49.029 --> 00:26:52.109 them at 14 days those participants that are returned 00:26:52.109 --> 00:26:54.450 back to baseline we could say they're non -functionally 00:26:54.450 --> 00:26:56.529 overreached because we've not seen an improvement 00:26:56.529 --> 00:26:58.450 in performance but because we tested them at 00:26:58.450 --> 00:27:00.509 seven days we did see an improvement in performance 00:27:00.509 --> 00:27:02.769 they just couldn't retain it for much longer 00:27:02.769 --> 00:27:04.450 so they functionally overreach but then they 00:27:04.450 --> 00:27:05.910 lost it again so it comes back to this kind of 00:27:05.910 --> 00:27:09.009 like really individual super compensation kinetics 00:27:09.009 --> 00:27:11.450 effect that to me is where my research will go 00:27:11.450 --> 00:27:13.809 next is why why does that happen why do some 00:27:13.809 --> 00:27:16.859 people experiences a large magnitude of performance 00:27:16.859 --> 00:27:19.420 increase and can retain it for a while, whereas 00:27:19.420 --> 00:27:21.380 others will just decrease back. Why do others 00:27:21.380 --> 00:27:24.299 not experience an increase? Why has one participant, 00:27:24.400 --> 00:27:27.579 after five days of heavy bike squats, only seen 00:27:27.579 --> 00:27:30.000 a two kilo increase in one rep max? And then 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:32.440 you go, was it worth it? Probably not. But for 00:27:32.440 --> 00:27:34.579 those participants that experienced 10 kilos 00:27:34.579 --> 00:27:37.039 on the bar, that's huge. But why did they lose 00:27:37.039 --> 00:27:39.619 it seven days later? What could we do to either 00:27:39.619 --> 00:27:41.859 retain it if we feel we need to retain it? Maybe 00:27:41.859 --> 00:27:43.279 they've got a couple of competitions in quick 00:27:43.279 --> 00:27:46.339 succession. Or how do we then go, right, what 00:27:46.339 --> 00:27:48.920 do we do with your deload or your taper? I'm 00:27:48.920 --> 00:27:51.019 using those words specifically because a taper 00:27:51.019 --> 00:27:53.539 would be leading up to competition. The deload 00:27:53.539 --> 00:27:55.359 would be leading into another block of training. 00:27:55.519 --> 00:27:58.039 How do we now engineer your training where we 00:27:58.039 --> 00:28:00.119 don't just focus on the overreach, but we focus 00:28:00.119 --> 00:28:01.940 on the relationship between the overreach and 00:28:01.940 --> 00:28:05.059 the deload or taper? So whilst we could look 00:28:05.059 --> 00:28:07.299 at this study and go, well, you didn't use inferential 00:28:07.299 --> 00:28:10.319 statistics and you had a small sample size. I 00:28:10.319 --> 00:28:12.859 tell you, please, please, if anyone wants to 00:28:12.859 --> 00:28:14.359 question. that they can come on board and be 00:28:14.359 --> 00:28:16.539 my head of recruitment because we were recruited 00:28:16.539 --> 00:28:18.559 for a year and participants were just going, 00:28:18.720 --> 00:28:20.440 oh, I'd like to take part in the study. Tell 00:28:20.440 --> 00:28:23.519 me more. No, I don't want to. Why would they? 00:28:23.640 --> 00:28:27.519 Why would they? Yeah. We had a very specific 00:28:27.519 --> 00:28:30.279 personality of participants wanted to do this 00:28:30.279 --> 00:28:32.619 study. Did you have any females participating? 00:28:33.339 --> 00:28:36.359 We didn't. But to be honest, that was intentional. 00:28:36.519 --> 00:28:38.200 And the reason why it was intentional was because 00:28:38.200 --> 00:28:40.359 the whole study was a four -week period. So what 00:28:40.359 --> 00:28:44.130 I was conscious of. was that then we would have 00:28:44.130 --> 00:28:46.430 to start each female at the same point of their 00:28:46.430 --> 00:28:49.589 menstrual cycle that could be problematic so 00:28:49.589 --> 00:28:53.490 i in my other research will do research on the 00:28:53.490 --> 00:28:56.190 menstrual cycle with female athletes and i and 00:28:56.190 --> 00:28:59.009 i hated that i needed to dismiss females from 00:28:59.009 --> 00:29:02.069 this study we have actually got we've finished 00:29:02.069 --> 00:29:04.069 collecting data now we've got a similar -ish 00:29:04.069 --> 00:29:06.650 study where we include females as well but for 00:29:06.650 --> 00:29:09.390 this pilot study we wanted to try and remove 00:29:09.390 --> 00:29:12.089 as many unnecessary working parts as possible 00:29:12.089 --> 00:29:13.589 that seems that as i said that by now sounds 00:29:13.589 --> 00:29:16.569 absolutely awful but it's the reality of a controlled 00:29:16.569 --> 00:29:19.029 environment study males are very very simple 00:29:19.029 --> 00:29:21.150 testosterone is going like this over a period 00:29:21.150 --> 00:29:23.690 of time and but because we didn't do this in 00:29:23.690 --> 00:29:25.190 the end but the original study was going to be 00:29:25.190 --> 00:29:27.390 using blood markers as well it was going to be 00:29:27.390 --> 00:29:29.609 very very problematic to have females on and 00:29:29.609 --> 00:29:33.049 going we need to now find a reliable way to track 00:29:33.049 --> 00:29:36.569 where you are in your cycle standardize it knowing 00:29:36.569 --> 00:29:39.109 that cycles are not standardized between athletes 00:29:39.109 --> 00:29:41.480 and with the same athlete over period of cycles 00:29:41.480 --> 00:29:45.220 in itself, it was just easier for us to go. let's 00:29:45.220 --> 00:29:48.160 just use the guys for this study. But then like 00:29:48.160 --> 00:29:50.660 a pilot study should do, look at the results 00:29:50.660 --> 00:29:53.240 and go, does this need refining before we then 00:29:53.240 --> 00:29:55.480 apply it in a randomized control trial fashion? 00:29:55.779 --> 00:29:58.160 That will eventually at some point be the next 00:29:58.160 --> 00:30:01.240 stage of this. But I think that the pilot achieved 00:30:01.240 --> 00:30:03.380 what it wanted to achieve. I have a question 00:30:03.380 --> 00:30:08.000 on the smallest worthwhile difference. How did 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:10.740 you go about that? The calculation for that is 00:30:10.740 --> 00:30:13.140 actually really simple. It's 0 .2 multiplied 00:30:13.140 --> 00:30:15.920 by the standard. deviation score for the sample 00:30:15.920 --> 00:30:18.500 and there are yeah there's no clever statistics 00:30:18.500 --> 00:30:20.519 or anything like that it's something that coaches 00:30:20.519 --> 00:30:23.819 are using more and more now to identify with 00:30:23.819 --> 00:30:26.099 different outcome measures what is practically 00:30:26.099 --> 00:30:29.099 meaningful now the more data we've got the better 00:30:29.099 --> 00:30:31.200 that calculation will be because it's effectively 00:30:31.200 --> 00:30:33.779 working on the standard deviation but we we had 00:30:33.779 --> 00:30:37.119 quite a heterogeneous pool of participants our 00:30:37.119 --> 00:30:39.779 inclusion criteria was quite robust so for example 00:30:39.779 --> 00:30:41.960 you couldn't come on the study unless you could 00:30:41.960 --> 00:30:44.259 score 1 .5 times your own body mass that was 00:30:44.259 --> 00:30:46.859 like the minimum threshold there was a minimum 00:30:46.859 --> 00:30:49.079 number of years you must have trained and so 00:30:49.079 --> 00:30:52.059 we we had although it was a small sample almost 00:30:52.059 --> 00:30:54.859 hesitant to say clones but very very similar 00:30:54.859 --> 00:30:57.960 people and there are a lot of really good videos 00:30:57.960 --> 00:31:00.240 on youtube about how to calculate small if worthwhile 00:31:00.240 --> 00:31:03.299 change for coaches and we use that for setting 00:31:03.299 --> 00:31:06.440 targets for athletes as well so we've we've tracked 00:31:06.440 --> 00:31:09.059 you as an individual athlete across a period 00:31:09.059 --> 00:31:12.019 of time for us to see a meaningful improvement 00:31:12.019 --> 00:31:14.519 so not just like a daily fluctuation or measurement 00:31:14.519 --> 00:31:17.220 error we need you to improve this particular 00:31:17.220 --> 00:31:21.619 metric jump pull push by x percent or by x kilos 00:31:21.619 --> 00:31:23.460 we calculated our smallest worthwhile change 00:31:23.460 --> 00:31:27.259 at six kilos so if our athletes at seven days 00:31:27.259 --> 00:31:29.880 were to improve their one rep max by six kilos 00:31:29.880 --> 00:31:31.579 that's smallest worthwhile change but we can 00:31:31.579 --> 00:31:33.339 also do it on a group level as well so you can 00:31:33.339 --> 00:31:35.480 do it by individual level athlete or you can 00:31:35.480 --> 00:31:38.339 do it by group level athlete as well so did you 00:31:38.339 --> 00:31:41.880 say all the athletes crossed this threshold at 00:31:41.880 --> 00:31:45.200 seven days yeah every athlete had or no sorry 00:31:45.200 --> 00:31:47.039 i beg your pardon all but one there was that 00:31:47.039 --> 00:31:49.180 one athlete that only got a two all right day 00:31:49.180 --> 00:31:52.119 five and then yeah but see this this is really 00:31:52.119 --> 00:31:54.440 interesting though because we've got some athletes 00:31:54.440 --> 00:31:57.859 that had increased by 10 kilos i think 12 kilos 00:31:57.859 --> 00:32:00.859 was the greatest increase i think the the athlete 00:32:00.859 --> 00:32:04.279 that increased by two kilos was absolutely delighted 00:32:04.279 --> 00:32:06.920 and and you kind of just go yeah but that wasn't 00:32:06.920 --> 00:32:09.119 practically meaningful but this was an athlete 00:32:09.440 --> 00:32:12.500 that had competed in weightlifting at a reasonably 00:32:12.500 --> 00:32:15.599 high level, was a very, very strong guy and had 00:32:15.599 --> 00:32:18.480 been trying to improve his bike squat. for months 00:32:18.480 --> 00:32:20.799 and months and months and it just wasn't happening. 00:32:20.880 --> 00:32:23.079 That two kilo increase for him was just mind 00:32:23.079 --> 00:32:25.099 -blowing. I've never seen someone so happy. I 00:32:25.099 --> 00:32:26.799 didn't want to crush him by going, yeah, that's 00:32:26.799 --> 00:32:29.140 only two kilos. Who am I to do that? But then 00:32:29.140 --> 00:32:30.859 the other athletes that were improving by 10 00:32:30.859 --> 00:32:33.380 kilos, you go, no, you've got 10 kilos on the 00:32:33.380 --> 00:32:34.779 bar. And I'm like, yeah, cool. I'm happy with 00:32:34.779 --> 00:32:37.000 that. So it was like, there's such a disconnect 00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:39.799 between, again, this metric of smallest worthwhile 00:32:39.799 --> 00:32:43.180 change, but then the athlete is an actual human 00:32:43.180 --> 00:32:45.740 being and their background is a strength trainer 00:32:45.740 --> 00:32:47.920 as well. Yes, we need to... be data driven to 00:32:47.920 --> 00:32:49.900 understand what's happening but as a coach we 00:32:49.900 --> 00:32:53.359 don't rely wholeheartedly on one data point to 00:32:53.359 --> 00:32:56.619 dictate what we do i think You raised an important 00:32:56.619 --> 00:32:58.680 point there about if we were to add two kilos 00:32:58.680 --> 00:33:01.059 on one of the three lifts in powerlifting. One 00:33:01.059 --> 00:33:03.119 of the reasons why I'm saying we wouldn't follow 00:33:03.119 --> 00:33:05.579 this protocol in the real world is because we 00:33:05.579 --> 00:33:08.119 removed all training from the program other than 00:33:08.119 --> 00:33:10.220 the bike squat because we wanted to make it as 00:33:10.220 --> 00:33:13.000 monotonous as possible, but also to remove peripheral 00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:15.940 things that we couldn't control. So for example, 00:33:16.079 --> 00:33:19.099 you know, we've got 10 athletes and five of them 00:33:19.099 --> 00:33:21.980 are only doing my protocol and then five of them 00:33:21.980 --> 00:33:23.900 are going to the gym in the evening and training 00:33:23.900 --> 00:33:26.759 arms. or bench pressing, that's still additional 00:33:26.759 --> 00:33:29.279 training load that we would need to factor in. 00:33:29.359 --> 00:33:31.519 So for us, in that controlled environment, it 00:33:31.519 --> 00:33:33.619 was easy to just go, please don't train. And 00:33:33.619 --> 00:33:35.700 again, that... is one of the issues when you 00:33:35.700 --> 00:33:38.220 recruit high -level athletes for training studies 00:33:38.220 --> 00:33:40.500 is you're telling them to stop doing what they 00:33:40.500 --> 00:33:42.440 do every day. I want you to come and I want you 00:33:42.440 --> 00:33:44.839 to take part in this study. We've no guaranteed 00:33:44.839 --> 00:33:47.000 outcome of getting better. It might even get 00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:48.799 worse, but you've got to stop doing your normal 00:33:48.799 --> 00:33:50.420 training. And they go, well, I can't do that 00:33:50.420 --> 00:33:51.940 because I've got competition coming up in a few 00:33:51.940 --> 00:33:54.700 months' time. Why would I do that for you? So 00:33:54.700 --> 00:33:57.480 as a sports scientist, we ask a lot from high 00:33:57.480 --> 00:33:59.980 -level athletes. And that's why when you look 00:33:59.980 --> 00:34:02.759 at most studies that are using competitive athletes, 00:34:03.059 --> 00:34:05.680 their observation... So for me as a sports scientist, 00:34:05.799 --> 00:34:08.420 I go in and I watch what's happening and I record 00:34:08.420 --> 00:34:12.019 some of the results, not me going in to an Olympic 00:34:12.019 --> 00:34:14.340 level athlete and going, I just kind of want 00:34:14.340 --> 00:34:16.059 to fuck about and find out because the athlete 00:34:16.059 --> 00:34:17.840 and the coach will go, why would you do that? 00:34:18.039 --> 00:34:21.219 If I win a gold medal, that will change my life. 00:34:21.340 --> 00:34:23.440 The sponsorship money alone will change my life. 00:34:23.539 --> 00:34:25.760 Why would I do your study that will potentially 00:34:25.760 --> 00:34:28.420 ruin my season or even career? And this is the 00:34:28.420 --> 00:34:30.860 problem that we have in some of the higher level 00:34:30.860 --> 00:34:33.739 kind of studies in terms of recruitment. I agree. 00:34:33.920 --> 00:34:36.800 Would you bring it together in some kind of conclusions 00:34:36.800 --> 00:34:39.639 for coaches, what they could and should take 00:34:39.639 --> 00:34:42.460 from the study? I think there's a level of pragmatism 00:34:42.460 --> 00:34:45.579 that coaches can utilize from the findings of 00:34:45.579 --> 00:34:48.659 my research in its total, not necessarily the 00:34:48.659 --> 00:34:52.039 pilot. The reason why I said pragmatic is I think 00:34:52.039 --> 00:34:54.440 now there is a lot of stigma attached to this 00:34:54.440 --> 00:34:57.320 big term overtraining and we can unnecessarily 00:34:57.320 --> 00:35:00.739 worry about it. And I feel like I'm almost being 00:35:00.739 --> 00:35:02.360 condescending because again, I've already mentioned 00:35:02.360 --> 00:35:04.050 a few. times coaches were already doing this 00:35:04.050 --> 00:35:06.469 but just because an athlete is reporting that 00:35:06.469 --> 00:35:09.309 they're fatigued and that they feel sore or that 00:35:09.309 --> 00:35:11.110 maybe they're bored with the training program 00:35:11.110 --> 00:35:13.670 doesn't mean that we automatically have to stop 00:35:13.670 --> 00:35:16.789 and pivot and deload if they are in a training 00:35:16.789 --> 00:35:19.730 block where we have a window of opportunity we 00:35:19.730 --> 00:35:21.730 might not get many across the season a window 00:35:21.730 --> 00:35:24.670 of opportunity to layer on as much stimulus as 00:35:24.670 --> 00:35:27.530 possible the unfortunate reality of that is you 00:35:27.530 --> 00:35:30.349 will feel tired you will feel sore but we know 00:35:30.349 --> 00:35:33.519 this from practice practitioner experience. We 00:35:33.519 --> 00:35:35.360 know there's actually some really cool research 00:35:35.360 --> 00:35:38.539 out there from, in particular, someone that I'm 00:35:38.539 --> 00:35:40.840 doing some work with now, Ketchy Anya Dakey Danes, 00:35:40.840 --> 00:35:44.230 has done a lot about how the coach... can steer 00:35:44.230 --> 00:35:46.889 the adaptations and you go well how how do they 00:35:46.889 --> 00:35:48.949 do that and it's the relationship between the 00:35:48.949 --> 00:35:50.949 coach and the athlete so let's say that i'm working 00:35:50.949 --> 00:35:53.349 with two athletes i'm really paraphrasing catchy 00:35:53.349 --> 00:35:56.050 research here but with one athlete i go we're 00:35:56.050 --> 00:35:58.309 going to do a two -week block and you're going 00:35:58.309 --> 00:35:59.650 to be doing a lot of volume you're going to be 00:35:59.650 --> 00:36:01.809 doing a lot of high intensity work you are going 00:36:01.809 --> 00:36:03.989 to feel sore and you're not going to find this 00:36:03.989 --> 00:36:06.449 experience pleasant i know based on my knowledge 00:36:06.449 --> 00:36:08.550 of physiology of strength and conditioning of 00:36:08.550 --> 00:36:10.809 having done this before with other athletes that 00:36:10.809 --> 00:36:12.909 when we get to the end of it and we ramp every 00:36:12.969 --> 00:36:15.250 everything down you will be cruising you will 00:36:15.250 --> 00:36:18.150 absolutely fly you need to have that trust in 00:36:18.150 --> 00:36:19.889 me right then we've got another athlete and we 00:36:19.889 --> 00:36:22.139 go I'm going to try this 14 -day block. It's 00:36:22.139 --> 00:36:23.639 going to be tough. I saw it on the internet and 00:36:23.639 --> 00:36:25.039 I have no idea what's going to happen. You might 00:36:25.039 --> 00:36:26.980 get injured. Anyway, let's do it, right? Who 00:36:26.980 --> 00:36:28.500 do you think is going to get better? Who do you 00:36:28.500 --> 00:36:30.780 think has got more chance of positively adapting? 00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:32.420 It's going to be the first athlete. We've got 00:36:32.420 --> 00:36:35.340 trust. They know the process. There's no unnecessary 00:36:35.340 --> 00:36:38.139 stress about, oh, what's happening? Am I going 00:36:38.139 --> 00:36:40.119 to get injured? Am I going to get hurt? So hashtag 00:36:40.119 --> 00:36:41.940 overtraining on Instagram. It says I'm going 00:36:41.940 --> 00:36:46.139 to be broken. And we as a coach have a very powerful 00:36:46.139 --> 00:36:48.599 position of steering the adaptations. Now, that 00:36:48.599 --> 00:36:49.940 doesn't mean that we can give... someone in a 00:36:49.940 --> 00:36:52.460 really bad program and go this will still be 00:36:52.460 --> 00:36:54.420 favorable and they'll get better we still need 00:36:54.420 --> 00:36:56.320 to obviously use a common sense approach but 00:36:56.320 --> 00:37:00.519 for me it all comes down to the coaches is one 00:37:00.519 --> 00:37:02.940 of if not the most important players in this 00:37:02.940 --> 00:37:05.260 whole game one because they prescribe the training 00:37:05.260 --> 00:37:08.219 but two because they can control the relationship 00:37:08.219 --> 00:37:10.780 with and it's reciprocal but they can leverage 00:37:10.780 --> 00:37:13.340 the relationship with the athlete to at least 00:37:13.340 --> 00:37:15.719 give them an understanding of why they are doing 00:37:15.719 --> 00:37:18.300 an impact cycle and also when athlete is involved 00:37:18.860 --> 00:37:22.340 they apply themselves differently to the plan. 00:37:22.559 --> 00:37:26.619 So if you want this hard stimulus to be applied, 00:37:26.880 --> 00:37:28.960 they actually have to do the work. So they have 00:37:28.960 --> 00:37:32.579 to give their best to make it impactful. Absolutely 00:37:32.579 --> 00:37:34.940 correct. I'm a big fan of a constraints -led 00:37:34.940 --> 00:37:37.360 approach to programming. And what I mean by that 00:37:37.360 --> 00:37:40.019 is that I try to get the athlete as involved 00:37:40.019 --> 00:37:43.800 as possible in the programming, organizing the 00:37:43.800 --> 00:37:45.719 building blocks of the program. What would be 00:37:45.719 --> 00:37:48.840 your key message for coaches? I think in all 00:37:48.840 --> 00:37:50.980 honesty, I've probably answered that in the sense 00:37:50.980 --> 00:37:53.639 of being pragmatic. So understanding that, you 00:37:53.639 --> 00:37:55.980 know, within context of where we are within the 00:37:55.980 --> 00:37:58.260 training program, the reality is that some athletes 00:37:58.260 --> 00:38:01.300 will be tired and they will be sore at some point 00:38:01.300 --> 00:38:03.559 if we are to induce an effect and adaptation. 00:38:04.019 --> 00:38:06.320 Sometimes we can immediately worry about that 00:38:06.320 --> 00:38:08.719 and we scale training back. But as we've seen 00:38:08.719 --> 00:38:10.739 from the pilot and the discussion that I had 00:38:10.739 --> 00:38:12.340 about some of the other literature and experience 00:38:12.340 --> 00:38:15.219 as a coach, is that if we push through it and 00:38:15.219 --> 00:38:17.610 we understand that is part of the program. process 00:38:17.610 --> 00:38:20.250 oftentimes we will see a favorable outcome it's 00:38:20.250 --> 00:38:22.230 just about understanding the athlete it's about 00:38:22.230 --> 00:38:24.449 understanding the adaptation it's about understanding 00:38:24.449 --> 00:38:27.110 the time course to peak and if we can do that 00:38:27.110 --> 00:38:29.769 as a coach we're absolutely loving life all right 00:38:29.769 --> 00:38:32.090 two short questions to finish the first one is 00:38:32.090 --> 00:38:34.909 what is your favorite lift favorite lift um as 00:38:34.909 --> 00:38:38.570 as an snc coach probably feel semi -pressured 00:38:38.570 --> 00:38:40.969 to say the bike squat because we know that the 00:38:40.969 --> 00:38:43.929 bike squat has got the most transferability to 00:38:43.929 --> 00:38:45.710 performance. And we can do the most with it. 00:38:45.750 --> 00:38:47.510 We can load it in different ways. We can use 00:38:47.510 --> 00:38:49.610 different velocities and we can chase all number 00:38:49.610 --> 00:38:52.349 of outcomes from jumping to being able to run 00:38:52.349 --> 00:38:54.530 faster, to being stronger, to gaining muscle 00:38:54.530 --> 00:38:56.909 mass. I'll be honest, right? I'm going to go 00:38:56.909 --> 00:38:58.730 with preacher curl because I just don't think 00:38:58.730 --> 00:39:01.550 there's any shame in training arms. And I'm not 00:39:01.550 --> 00:39:03.309 going to justify any more than that. That's what 00:39:03.309 --> 00:39:05.349 I'm going to go with. I respect that. It's accepted. 00:39:05.510 --> 00:39:08.539 All right. people can find you online if they 00:39:08.539 --> 00:39:11.559 want to follow your work or even contact you 00:39:11.559 --> 00:39:14.360 or ask a question? Probably Instagram. So my 00:39:14.360 --> 00:39:19.769 handle is Lee, so L -E -E -3. E -L -L. I'm not 00:39:19.769 --> 00:39:22.329 very active on social media. I tend to share, 00:39:22.369 --> 00:39:24.409 if I get a study published, I'll share something 00:39:24.409 --> 00:39:26.170 on there, but it's probably where I have most 00:39:26.170 --> 00:39:29.409 conversations in kind of like direct private 00:39:29.409 --> 00:39:32.510 messages with coaches and with people in general. 00:39:32.650 --> 00:39:35.489 So anyone is welcome to drop me a message and 00:39:35.489 --> 00:39:37.869 I'll always respond given time. Other than that, 00:39:38.050 --> 00:39:40.590 you know, I'm on LinkedIn, I'm on ResearchGate. 00:39:40.670 --> 00:39:43.130 Similarly, I don't tend to post a great deal, 00:39:43.250 --> 00:39:45.570 but I'm always contactable. Awesome. Thank you 00:39:45.570 --> 00:39:48.110 so much for today. My pleasure. Thank you. Thank 00:39:48.110 --> 00:39:48.230 you.