6-30-2022
5:30 AM at school FB S&C / Practice ....they basically did yoga rolling around on the floor or something.
====================
1:00 PM
CVHS. Art.turf w/ turf shoes.
(4) 10m flys; 5-6 min rests
Times were not stellar, but we haven't done flys forever (maxV).
Also I don't know if the spongy art.turf is faster than (hard ass) grass ....its def. slower than a track I'm sure.
So I don't know about this going forward. ** (see edit below)
Then lifted 'lower' at the Globo:
BELT SQT: 90x8x3
RDL: 155x8x3
WALKING LUNGES: 35's x8r x 2s
LEG EXT: 3x10
STRAIGHT LEG CALF RAISE: 3x12
PLANKS:
LEG RAISES:
TORSO TWIST MACHINE:
====================
Shit on Twitter:
Banta, the guy retweeting this, is supposed to be a sprint guru, and an esteemed HS track coach of some sort.
He tends to way over complicate programming.
My beef is with all the basic terminology here, (the horrible form being celebrated is a whole 'nother issue)
which coaches of this caliber should be familiar with.
"One of my favorites", reaffirming this is even a common 'thing'.
Those aren't push presses, they are like bad split jerks, which the immediate hop into with out finishing the clean, and the way they are being done, it looks like conditioning-with-barbells-ala-CrossFit .... being done in machine gun like fashion there.
Never mind the "hang clean". They are some kind of power-muscle-clean thingie.
This is stellar example of why the Olympic lifts and the more technical variants sucks for general S&C work in other sports ....
....just do some trap bar jumps, or barbell jump squats man.
=========================
**EDIT:
https://www.newswise.com/articles/is-fi ... ural-grass
Highlighted the interesting parts down below:
#1: D2 - college freshman aint that fast.
The fastest here were only 5.0. The +/- in the study was around 5.3 +/ 0.3.
High schoolers and most FB coaches don't know what 'fast' even is
and/or how to measure it or compare.
#2: hand timing is fucked (still fucked).
#3: art.turf isn't "fast", its good for changing directions
This is what I was guessing, as you want fast ground contact times at or nearing top speed.
You don't was a spongy absorbing surface. You want hard.
There is also a stretch shortening cycle rebounding effect that turf probably blunts.
Agility Times Are Faster on Field Turf than Grass, But No Difference on 40-Yard Dash, Reports The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Newswise — Do college football players perform better on the modern field turf artificial playing surface than on natural grass? The answer is yes for performance on a standard agility drill, but not for 40-yard dash speed, reports a study in the October issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, official research journal of the National Strength and Conditioning Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.
"It appears that straight-ahead sprint speed is similar between field turf and natural grass, but change-of-direction speed may be significantly faster on field turf," according to the new research, led by Gradyon L. Gains, B.A., of Truman State University, Kirksville, Mo. Agility Times Average Three Percent Faster on field turfTwenty-four Division II college football players were timed on two standard drills: a 40-yard dash and the "proagility" shuttle test. Both drills are a standard part of skills assessment for football players and other athletes.
The athletes performed each test two times: once on field turf and once on natural grass. Times were compared to see if performance was affected by the playing surface. There was no significant difference in 40-yard dash times: average 5.34 seconds on field turf and 5.33 seconds on natural grass.
However, time on the proagility shuttle was significantly shorter on field turf: average 4.49 seconds, compared to 4.64 seconds on natural grass. "This represented a 3.0 percent faster agility time on field turf," Gains and coauthors write.
On the 40-yard dash, athletes were timed using both a hand timer and an electronic timer. The hand-timed sprints were significantly faster than the electronically times sprints, on both field turf and natural grass. "This reinforces the need for standardization of the timing technique in short sprints," the researchers write. Field turf, a "third-generation" artificial playing surface, has gained wide acceptance as a preferred playing field for American football. With older artificial surfaces, straight-ahead sprint times were faster than on natural grass. Few studies have looked at how newer artificial surfaces—especially field turf, which was developed to more closely mimic natural grass—affect performance times.
In the new study, college football players have significantly faster change-of-direction times on field turf than on natural grass. However, straight-ahead sprint times are similar on field turf than on natural grass.
The lack of difference in 40-yard dash times was somewhat surprising—since field turf produces less slippage between the shoe and surface, it might have been expected to produce faster sprint times. The results could be affected by differences in the shoe sole and stud configuration used for the tests, Gains and coauthors suggest. The reduced slippage with field turf might potentially lead to an increased risk of injury with change-of-direction moves, "although evidence for this is currently lacking," the researchers write.
