nsca cscs chapter 16 — exercise technique for alternative modes and nontraditional implement training

nsca cscs chapter 16 — exercise technique for alternative modes and nontraditional implement training

The use of alternative modes and nontraditional implement
exercises has become increasingly popular in the
strength and conditioning profession. Whenever implementing
these types of training methods into training
programs, one should consider some basic and specific
guidelines to ensure that these methods are used safely.
General Guidelines
With the use of alternative modes and nontraditional
implement exercises, the general guidelines are not
very different from those used with traditional resistance
training methods. A stable body position that
allows the athlete to achieve and maintain safe and
proper body alignment during the performance of the
exercise is needed in order to appropriately stress the
skeletal muscle system. Freestanding ground-based
exercises typically use a position in which the feet are
placed slightly wider than shoulder-width. With the use
of instability devices, the body position may need to be
modified in order to ensure that stability is achieved.
The grip used with alternative modes and nontraditional
implement exercises is typically one of the traditional
grips presented in chapter 15. The choice of grip is based
on the demands of the particular exercise. Additionally,
with many nontraditional implements, the grip can be a
limiting factor in the performance of the exercise.
As with more traditional exercises, the breathing
pattern often recommended with these alternative
methods is for the athlete to exhale through the sticking
point (concentric portion) and to inhale during the less
stressful portion (eccentric portion) of the movement.
For example, athletes doing the dumbbell chest press on
a stability ball would inhale as they lower the dumbbells
to the chest and exhale as they push them away from the
chest. With structural exercises (those that load the axial
skeleton), breath holding may be warranted. However,
when one is lifting loads greater than 80% of maximal
voluntary contraction or lifting lighter loads to failure,
the Valsalva maneuver (forced expiration against a
closed glottis) may be unavoidable (32). The Valsalva
maneuver allows for an increase in the intra-abdominal
pressure that augments the stability of the spine, which
may be beneficial for performing nontraditional exercises.
For example, with the log clean, the athlete may
perform the Valsalva maneuver during the pull and catch
portion of the exercise. The athlete would then exhale
after assuming an erect position. Chapter 15 presents
more information on the Valsalva maneuver.
Bodyweight Training Methods
Bodyweight training methods are among the most basic
methods for performing resistance training. Specifically,
with these types of exercises, the body weight of the
individual is used to provide resistance (37). Activities
such as push-ups, pull-ups, chin-ups, sit-ups, and
squat thrusts are typically mentioned in the context of
bodyweight training. However, activities such as calisthenics,
gymnastics, and yoga could all be classified as
bodyweight training methodologies (37). As noted by
Behm and colleagues (10), gymnastics was classically
a part of the physical education system; and this type
of training strongly promotes the development of the
core musculature, which, when strengthened, appears
to reduce injury potential. Bodyweight training appears
to offer a low-cost training method that allows for the
development of relative strength levels.
One of the issues related to bodyweight resistance
training is the fact that the resistance load is limited to the
individual’s body weight. As such, bodyweight training
tends not to significantly affect absolute strength levels
(37). To increase the intensity of bodyweight exercises,
one can do several things, including increasing the
number of repetitions or changing the movement pattern.
While increasing the number of repetitions will change
the workload, it will shift the targeted outcome from
strength toward strength-endurance, which shifts the
targeted output away from the development of strength.
Simple modifications to bodyweight exercises may obviate
some of these limitations. Changing the movement
pattern, for example, by elevating the legs while doing
a push-up, will increase the resistance encountered. Suspension
devices with bodyweight exercises could also be
by increases in muscle activation patterns (51). Snarr and
Esco (72) report that muscle activation is significantly
greater in push-ups performed in a suspension device
when compared to traditional push-ups performed on
stable ground.
Core Stability and Balance
Training Methods
There is increasing interest in training the core in an
attempt to improve overall health, rehabilitate from
injuries, and enhance athletic performance (10). To
target core stability and balance, interventions ranging
from traditional ground-based free weight exercises
to training on unstable devices have been advocated in
the applied literature.
Anatomical Focus
The term core is commonly used in the popular media
and in some training journals (10) to refer to the trunk,
or more specifically the lumbopelvic region of the body
(81). However, interpretation of the scientific literature
appears to make an accurate or consistent definition of
the core tenuous at best (10, 82). Typically, the anatomical
core is defined as the axial skeleton and all the
soft tissues with proximal attachments that originate on
the axial skeleton (9, 10). It is important to note that the
axial skeleton includes the pelvic and shoulder girdles,
while the soft tissues include the articular cartilage and
fibrocartilage, ligaments, tendons, muscles, and fascia
(10). Ultimately the soft tissues act to generate forces
(concentric muscle actions) and resist motion (eccentric
and isometric muscle actions).
The muscles that are typically associated with the
core allow for the transference of torques and angular
momentum during the performance of integrated kinetic
chain activities, such as kicking or throwing (81). In fact,
Willardson (81) suggests that increasing an athlete’s
core stability will result in a better foundation for force
production in the upper and lower extremities.
Isolation Exercises
Isolation exercises typically consist of dynamic or isometric
muscle actions designed to isolate specific core
musculature without the contribution of the lower and
upper extremities (10). For example, common exercises
performed to isolate the core are the prone plank (68)
and side plank (78). There is evidence that these types of
isolated exercises can increase muscle activation, which
has been suggested to result in improvements in spinal
stability and a reduction of injuries (56). While evidence
suggests that these types of activities result in improvements
in performance in untrained individuals and those
recovering from an injury, there is limited support for
the idea that these types of training activities translate
to improvements in sport performance (65, 81). In fact,
in a recent systematic review, Reed and colleagues (65)
report that isolated core training is not very effective at
improving sport performance. Additionally, according to
Behm and coworkers (10) and Willardson (81), there is
strong evidence that ground-based free weight exercises
(e.g., squat, deadlift, push press, snatch, and exercises
that involve trunk rotation) offer a greater benefit to
actual sport performance compared to isolated core
training. Ground-based free weight activities appear to
offer activation of the core musculature that is similar
to, or in most cases greater than, that with traditional
isolation exercises designed to engage the core (35, 60).
Isolation exercises may have the greatest benefit for
injured athletes who are going through the rehabilitation
process and are not able to adequately load traditional
ground-based free weight exercises (81).
?? Ground-based free weight activities appear
to offer similar or, in most cases, greater
activation of the core musculature when
compared to traditional isolation exercises
designed to engage the core.
Machines Versus Free Weight Exercises
When free weight training methods are compared to
machine-based training methods, each has advantages
machinebased
training, the stability provided by the machine
may result in a better ability to target specific muscle
groups; but in the context of sport performance, muscle
rarely if ever functions in such an isolated fashion (10).
With regard to the stabilizer muscles, it is generally
accepted that activation of these muscles is greater
during free weight training when compared with
machine-based training (33). In partial support of this
belief, Anderson and Behm (2) state that the activity
of the back stabilizers was 30% lower during a Smith
machine squat when compared to a free weight squat.
Additionally, there is scientific support for the contention
that machine-based strength gains exert a negligible or
a possible detrimental effect on the muscle activation
pattern in athletic movements (2, 15, 57). However, if
instability is increased via performance of ground-based
free weight training on unstable surfaces or devices,
greater decrements in force production, the rate of force
development, and power outputs have been noted (23,
49). Therefore, based on these data, it appears that free
weight ground-based exercises offer the ideal combination
of specificity and instability, especially when
one is focusing on strength and power development.
Ultimately, sufficient instability for the development of
sport-specific adaptations can be stimulated via the use
of traditional ground-based free weight strength training,
and there appears to be no need to add increased
instability to these types of exercises (10).
?? Free weight ground-based exercises offer
the ideal combination of specificity and
instability, especially when one is focusing
on strength and power development.
Instability Devices
Instability-based exercises are typically considered those
that are performed on unstable surfaces or devices commonly
found in strength and conditioning facilities. The
increased popularity of training on instability devices
seems to have stemmed from their use by physiotherapists
in the rehabilitation process. These devices are
used to promote postural disequilibrium or imbalance
requiring a greater stabilizing function of the core musculature
(10, 81). If perturbations are applied during
use of these devices, a balance challenge can occur that
requires activation of the core musculature in order to
induce postural adjustments to remain upright (19).
Numerous instability devices are available to the
strength and conditioning professional; the most
common are the Swiss, physio, and pezzi gymnastics
balls (10). Other instability options include hemispherical
physioballs with one inflated dome side and a flat
rubber side, inflatable disks, wobble boards, balance
boards, foam tubes, and various foam platforms. Natural
surfaces such as sand can also create scenarios that
introduce instability into an athlete’s movement pattern,
creating an increased balance challenge that results in
increased core muscle activation. Many strength and
conditioning professionals believe that performing
instability exercises trains the target agonist muscle
group while simultaneously increasing core muscle
activation (10). While there is some evidence to suggest
that core muscle activation may be increased, it appears
that this increase occurs in conjunction with reduced
force generation by the agonist muscle (9, 23). During
training with instability exercises, the overall agonist
force-generating capacity (8) and overall power output
(23) may be less than 70% of what can be achieved
when the exercise is performed under stable conditions.
Additionally, there can be a significant reduction in the
rate of force development that is achieved during the
exercise (60). Training with a reduced force production,
power output, and rate of force development may not be
the most advantageous method for preparing athletes, as
these factors have a large impact on many aspects central
to successful sport performance.
Overall, there is limited research that suggests the
performance of resistance exercises on unstable devices
by athletes results in significant performance improvements
(21, 73). The lack of performance benefit noted
in the literature might be expected based on the principle
of diminishing returns, as it is very likely that trained
athletes require a much greater adaptive stimulus in
terms of force production, movement velocity, and rate
of force development to realize performance gains than
can be provided by instability exercise devices (10, 47).
Therefore, the performance of static balance activities
on instability devices may be considered an introductory
training step to improve balance and core stability before
the implementation of dynamic or explosive groundbased
free weight exercises, such as the Olympic lifts,
that are performed on stable surfaces (10).
?? Ground-based free weight exercises (e.g.,
squats, deadlifts, Olympic lifts) involve a
degree of instability that allows for simultaneous
development of all links of the kinetic
chain, offering a much better training stimulus
for the development of core stability and
the enhancement of athletic performance
than do instability device–based exercises
(10).
When used in the rehabilitation setting, unstable
devices have been shown to reduce low back pain and
improve the efficiency of the soft tissues that stabilize
the knee and ankle joints (9, 10). Since several muscles
related to the knee joint originate in the lumbopelvic
region, the core of the body could be considered an
important contributor to the prevention of anterior
cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries (58). In fact, several
studies provide evidence that using instability devices
may reduce the likelihood of ACL injuries (58), especially
after rehabilitation from an ACL injury (59). For
example, Fitzgerald and colleagues (28) reported that
activities that challenge the rehabilitating athlete using
perturbations stimulated by tilt boards, roller boards,
and other balance devices make a successful return
to competitive sport activities five times more likely.
Additionally, Caraffa and colleagues (18) suggest that
the addition of balance training to traditional training
methods results in a reduction of ACL injuries in amateur
soccer players. However, in a systematic review,
Grimm and coworkers (31) contest this contention and
suggest that these types of interventions do not reduce
ACL injury risk. In contrast, ground-based free weight
activities seem to have a more balanced effect leading
to improvements in performance while increasing core
strength and balance abilities. Ultimately, the use of
instability-based exercises to train the core seems to be
an effective method for returning the injured athlete to
competitive-based training.
Variable-Resistance
Training Methods
Resistance training practices include three methods
for applying overload to the body: constant external,
accommodating, and variable resistance (30, 54). The
most common method for applying resistance during
training is to use a constant external load, which is best
represented by traditional resistance training methods
(e.g., free weights). In this scenario, the external load
remains constant throughout the range of motion, better
represents real-life activities, and allows for a more
realistic skeletal muscle coordination and movement
pattern (36, 54, 63). On the other hand, accommodating
resistance (sometimes referred to as semi-isokinetic
resistance applications) generally allows for the speed
of movement or isokinetic resistance to be controlled
throughout a range of motion (54, 75). Stone and
coworkers (75) suggest that these types of devices have
poor external validity. Additionally, these devices are
unlikely to provide an adequate training stimulus when
compared to more traditional methods such as those
involving constant-loaded free weight movements,
particularly when those movements are performed with
multijoint movement patterns.
With traditional resistance training exercise, the
external load remains constant, but the forces exerted
by the muscle vary in accordance with the mechanical
advantages associated with the joints involved in the
movement (3, 13, 30). In order to combat the changing
mechanical advantages and inertial properties associated
with constant-loaded resistance, there has been a concerted
effort to develop innovative training devices that
allow the applied resistance to be varied in conjunction
with changes in joint angle (30). These variable-resistance
methods attempt to alter the resistance so the
muscle maximizes force application throughout the full
range of motion (29). For example, in the back squat the
greatest muscle force production occurs at the top portion
of the movement, while the smallest forces are produced
at the bottom. Thus variable-resistance methods would
be used to reduce resistance at the bottom of the squatting
motion and increase resistance as the athlete ascends
from the bottom position. Another consideration is that
during the concentric effort of a movement, a large portion
of time is spent decelerating (30). Overall it has been
suggested that variable-resistance methods may be able
to match the changes in joint leverage (85), overcome the
mechanical disadvantages associated with specific joint
angles (24, 69, 70, 79), and provide for compensatory
acceleration (69, 70).
With the use of a variable-loaded resistance model,
the methodology most commonly seen in modern
strength and conditioning facilities is the application
of chains or rubber bands (30, 54). The combination of
chains or bands with traditional free weight resistance
training methods has been shown to alter the loading
profile typically seen during these constant-loaded activities
(30, 41). Specifically, the chains or bands allow for
the resistance to be varied across the range of motion
achieved during the activity.
??With use of a variable-loaded resistance
model, the most common methodology
used in modern strength and conditioning
facilities is application of chains or rubber
bands (30, 54).
Chain-Supplemented Exercises
One increasingly popular method of applying variable
resistance is the addition of chains to traditional resistance
training activities such as the bench press or back
squat (4, 13, 39, 54). This method of force application
is most popular among powerlifters (69, 70), but has
become increasingly popular among strength and conditioning
professionals working with a variety of sports
(22). Despite the increasing popularity and the belief that
these methods provide a training advantage, these beliefs
are largely unsubstantiated in the scientific literature (13,
14, 39, 54). Some studies, however, demonstrate that the
application of chains to traditional resistance training
methods such as the bench press can be advantageous
(6). Careful inspection of these studies reveals that the
means by which the chains are applied to the free weight
exercise may influence their effectiveness. Specifically,
these studies used a method in which the chain was
suspended from the bar without touching the floor until
the athlete had reached the lowest position in the squat
or until the bar had reached chest height in the bench
press (6). While some research seems to support this
methodology, much more research is needed to explore
the various methods of applying chains to traditional
resistance training methods.
Determining the Load to Use With Chains
To determine the load used with chains, the absolute chain resistance at the top and that at the bottom portion
of the movement are summed and then averaged. For example, if athletes wanted to train at a 5-repetition
maximum (5RM) load in the bench press, they would first determine the 5RM load without the chains. Then,
if their 5RM is 120 kg (264 pounds), they would subtract the average chain resistance from this load. If at the
bottom position the load is 0 kg and at the top the chain load is 11.1 kg (24.4 pounds), the average is 5.55 kg
(12.2 pounds). Thus, the athlete would add 114 to 115 kg (251.8–253.0 pounds) to the barbell to achieve the
appropriate loading.
Determining Resistance With Chains
The resistance provided by chains is largely dictated by
the structure, density, length, and diameter of the chain
and must be quantified before the chain is used in a resistance
training setting. Additionally, the number of links
in a chain will affect the amount of resistance provided
by the chain (13, 55). To quantify the loading provided
by chains, Berning and colleagues (13) developed a
practical chart that related chain link diameter and length
to the resistance load provided by the chain. This chart
was later modified by McMaster and colleagues (54) to
show the relationship between the chain mass, length,
and diameter (table 16.1).
As a means of deciding on the barbell resistance
to use in conjunction with chains, the absolute load is
determined for the top and the bottom portion of the
movement (4). The average of these two loads is then
calculated and used to modify the barbell load in order
to allow the athlete to train in the prescribed range.
As a general rule, Baker (4) recommends that the use
of chains be reserved for experienced intermediate- and
elite-level athletes who have stable exercise technique,
as the addition of chains provides a loading challenge
that can affect the athlete’s technique.
Applying Chains to Free Weight Exercises
Generally, the application of chains to traditional resistance
training methods allows for a linear increase in the
applied resistance (54). Ways to apply chains include
letting them touch the floor from the fully extended
position during the movement (13) or hanging them
from lighter chains (figure 16.1), which allows them to
touch the floor only upon reaching the lowest portion
(figure 16.2) of the movement pattern (i.e., bottom of
the squat or at chest level during the bench press) (4, 6).
Baker (4) suggests that the second method may affect
the velocity of movement in three distinct ways. Firstly,
the total barbell–chain complex comes into play only at
the top of the movement (i.e., extend portion) when the
chain links have been lifted off the floor. At the bottom
of the movement, the links are in full contact with the
floor, providing a reduction in load and allowing the
athlete to accelerate the barbell at a faster rate. Secondly,
it is possible that a within-repetition postactivation
potentiation effect may occur in response to a greater
neural activation. Specifically, when the chains pile on
the floor and the mass of the barbell decreases, a greater
neuromuscular activation may occur, allowing for an
enhancement in movement velocity. Finally, it is possible
that the decreasing resistance at the bottom portion of the
movement may cause a more rapid stretch–shortening
cycle. Baker (4) suggests that this happens in response to
the eccentric unloading that occurs when the chain links
pile on the floor at the bottom of the movement and a
quicker amortization phase occurs when the athlete shifts
from eccentric to concentric muscle action.
Resistance Band Exercises
The use of resistance bands to augment traditional barbell
resistances has become increasingly popular among
strength and conditioning professionals (4, 27, 46, 77).
There is some research support for the use of resistance
bands combined with traditional resistance training exercises
(1, 74, 79). For example, Wallace and coworkers
(79) suggest that using bands to substitute 35% of the
total load during a back squat can acutely increase peak
power by approximately 13%. Additionally, Baker and
Newton (5) suggest that the use of bands may result in a
postactivation potentiation effect within each repetition.
Support for this contention comes from the work of
Stevenson and colleagues (74), who demonstrated that
the use of bands to account for 20% of the training load
resulted in an acute increase in the concentric rate of
force development when compared to a constant-loaded
condition. While these data seem to suggest that the addition
of bands to traditional resistance training methods
may offer some benefit, especially to power or rate of
force development, there is research contesting these
findings (24, 41). For example, Ebben and Jensen (24)
report no differences in integrated electromyography and
mean ground reaction forces when resistance bands are
used to apply 10% of the total loading during squats.
Currently, minimal research on the use of resistance
bands, especially longitudinal studies, has been conducted
to determine whether the acute effects noted by
some authors translate into superior strength and power
gains over time. More research is also needed to determine
the optimal methodologies for using bands in the
development of athletes.
Determining Resistance With
Resistance Bands
In working with resistance bands, it is important to
understand that their composition varies depending on
the type of thermoplastic or elastomer used to produce
them (54). The composition of resistance bands is
important because it can exert an impact on their overall
stiffness, density, yield, and tensile strength (54, 55,
77). Ultimately the tension (resistance) generated by a
resistance band is determined by the overall stiffness of
the band and the extent to which the band is stretched
(deformation) (55). Specifically, based on Hooke’s law,
the tension generated by a band is equal to its stiffness
(k) multiplied by the deformation (d):
Tension = Stiffness (k) ? Deformation (d)
As the band is stretched (i.e., increased deformation),
there is a linear increase in the amount of tension
placed on the band. However, several studies suggest
that resistance bands exhibit both curvilinear and linear
deformation regions (1, 55, 62).
When using bands in conjunction with traditional free
weight training exercises such as the bench press or back
squat, the strength and conditioning professional must
be aware that there can be a 3.2% to 5.2% difference
between two supposedly equal bands that could result
in an 8% to 19% difference in mean tension between the
bands (55). A basic length–tension relationship can be
seen in table 16.2, and tension can be predicted based
on the length of the band with the use of a prediction
equation.
Similar to how resistance is applied with the use of
chains, the use of bands requires the coach to determine
how much load is provided by the free weight and how
much is provided from the bands throughout the range
of movement (4). Specifically, the coach must determine
the load of the band at the bottom and top portions of
the movement and create an average of these two loads.
Based on the recommendations of Baker (4), an athlete
who wants to train at a 5RM load of 150 kg (330 pounds)
with bands would subtract the average of the two band
positions (i.e., top and bottom) and reduce the load on the
bar by that amount. So if the band exerts a zero resistance
load at the bottom of the movement and a load of 26.6
kg (58.5 pounds) at the top position (i.e., lockout in the
bench press), based on the length of the band achieved
as it is stretched, the athlete would subtract 13.3 kg
(29.2 pounds) from the total weight on the bar without
the bands to get 136 to 137 kg (299.2–301.4 pounds).
Applying Resistance Bands
to Free Weight Exercises
To apply bands to free weight resistance exercises,
one can use a multitude of methods. The band may be
attached to the barbell and either a customized attachment
point on a squat rack or heavily weighted dumbbells
(4). When the bands are applied, the highest tension
and the total resistance load are provided to the athlete
at the top position. Conversely, at the bottom position
the applied load is reduced, as the bands will no longer
be stretched and thus no longer apply resistance to the
barbell. For example, in the squat at the lowest point (i.e.,
bottom position, figure 16.3), the bands are slack and do
not actively create tension on the barbell, thus adding
no additional resistance to the exercise. As the athlete
ascends from the bottom position and approaches the
lockout position, the bands will impart a larger stretch
resistance and the athlete will experience the full load of
both the bar and the bands (figure 16.4). It is important to
note that as the athlete ascends from the bottom position
the stretch load gradually increases. Conversely, as the
athlete descends, the stretch load gradually decreases.
Nontraditional Implement
Training Methods
Traditionally, resistance training interventions used in
most modern strength and conditioning facilities have
relied heavily on barbells, dumbbells, and various
resistance training machines. More recently, strength
and conditioning professionals have begun to incorporate
nontraditional implements in order to add greater
variation to the preparation of athletes. Nontraditional
implements can include items that are typically associated
with strongman training such as tires, logs,
kettlebells, stones, weighted sleds, and other weighted
implements (39). While nontraditional implement
training is increasing in popularity, there is currently
relatively little research directly exploring the efficacy
of these types of training methods.
??While nontraditional implement training is
increasing in popularity, there is currently relatively
little research directly exploring the
efficacy of these types of training methods.
Strongman Training
Strongman implement training has recently seen an
increase in popularity as a proposed tool for enhancing
sport performance (11, 53, 66, 80, 84, 86). Some of the
most common strongman exercises are tire flipping, log
(or keg) lifting, and farmer’s walks. While research on
these types of exercises is limited, some evidence suggests
that they can be used to introduce a high-intensity
stimulus resulting in an elevated blood lactate response
(12, 44, 86). Additionally, it has been suggested that these
types of exercises create a greater degree of instability
that effectively challenges the athlete in different ways
compared to traditional resistance training activities (53).
Tire Flipping
Tire flipping typically employs truck or heavy-equipment
tires that can be modified via placement of an
extra load in the center to address individual strength
needs (39, 80). The selection of the appropriate tire size
is dependent on numerous factors that the strength and
conditioning professional must consider when designing
a specific program for an athlete. Thought must be given
to the tire’s dimensions, including the height, width, and
weight (16). As a general rule, the tire should not be taller
than the athlete’s upright standing height: The taller the
tire, the harder it is for the athlete to flip because of the
mechanical disadvantage and the greater overall lifting
distance required. Additionally, the width of the tire can
affect the athlete’s ability to perform the flip. For example,
narrow tires are generally considered harder to flip
for taller athletes because of the limb length and depth
requirements. Conversely, wider tires are more difficult
for shorter athletes because of their shorter arm lengths
(16). Another consideration is the tread on the tire; worn
treads are more difficult to grip, and pronounced treads
potentially contain cuts, debris, or exposed metal that
could put the athlete at risk for injury (16, 80). Once the
correct tire is selected based on the individual athlete’s
strength levels, appropriate exercise technique should
be used to minimize risk of injury.
Three basic techniques can be used to flip tires;
these include the sumo, the backlift style, and shoulders-
against-the-tire technique (16, 80). The sumostyle
flipping technique uses a traditional wider sumo
deadlift stance coupled with the arms positioned in a
narrower grip. This type of technique is typically used
by powerlifters when deadlifting. With this technique,
once the tire has been raised to hip or chest height, the
hands are rotated so that a forward pressing action can
be performed with the arms to flip the tire (16, 80). The
backlift style is performed with a narrower, more conventional
deadlift stance, ending with a forward pressing
motion. This technique is initiated with feet placed in
a hip-width stance, plus bending at the knees and hips,
allowing the athlete to grab the base of the tire and pull
in a fashion similar to that with a deadlift (80). As the
tire is raised, the hands are repositioned so that a forward
press can be used to flip the tire (16).
Currently no research has directly explored the overall
safety of either tire-flipping techniques. However, some
authors suggest that the sumo style is the safest, while
more recently shoulders-against-the-tire has become the
preferred technique in the practical literature (16). The
tire lies on its side, and the athlete addresses the tire by
kneeling behind it. The feet are placed in a hip-width
position with the ankles dorsiflexed. In this position the
athlete places the chin and shoulders onto the tire. This
placement of the tire on the shoulders is similar to that
seen in a traditional barbell front squat (see chapter 15).
The tire is gripped with a supinated grip with a width that
is largely dependent upon the size of the tire (i.e., wider
tire = narrower grip). In this position, the athlete continues
to dorsiflex the ankles so that he or she is on the balls
of the feet while raising the knees from the ground. At
this point the athlete’s center of gravity should transition
toward the tire, placing the majority of the athlete’s body
weight onto the tire. The athlete then raises the chest and
contracts the musculature of the lower back (16) (see the
photo of the starting position in the exercise technique
section near the end of the chapter).
Next, the athlete initiates the flipping movement by
extending the knees and hips followed by plantar flexing
the ankles in order to push the tire forward and up. As
this occurs, the shoulders and hips should rise at the same
rate, ending in a triple extension, from which the athlete
moves forward by taking two or three small steps. Once
the tire reaches hip height, the athlete forcefully flexes
the hip of one leg and strikes the tire with the quadriceps.
The striking of the tire with the leg allows achievement
of a forceful upward momentum (16). As this occurs, the
athlete switches the hands into a pronated position. After
reorienting the hands, the athlete runs the feet toward the
tire while forcefully extending the arms to push the tire
over. Photos of all of these positions can be found in the
exercise technique section near the end of the chapter.
Technique
Points to remember:
• Select a surface that is acceptable for tire flipping.
• While kneeling behind the tire, place the chin and anterior deltoid on the tire.
• Use a supinated grip with the arms extended but not locked out to grip the tire.
• Dorsiflex the ankles and raise the knees off the ground in order to get onto the balls of the feet.
• Raise the chest and contract the lower back musculature.
The movement technique:
• Extend the knees and hips and plantar flex the ankles while pushing the tire forward and up.
• Move forward explosively toward the tire by taking two or three steps.
• Flex one hip and forcefully strike the tire with the quadriceps of that leg.
• Immediately after striking the tire, reorient the hands into a pronated grip.
• Move the feet forward while extending the arms in order to flip the tire.
Common Technical Flaws and Their Corrections
• Flaw: Placing the feet too close to the tire when initiating the movement. When this occurs, athletes often
have to round their back and position their knees close to their chest in order to initiate the movement.
Correction: Have athletes move their feet away from the tire and instruct them to raise their chest while
contracting the musculature of the lower back.
• Flaw: Hips rise faster than the shoulders during the initial pushing motion. This flaw is very similar to
what can be seen during traditional deadlifting with incorrect technique. Correction: Instruct athletes
to keep their hips low and drive the tire forward rather than lifting it. Additionally, encourage athletes to
keep the hips slightly below the shoulders during this movement.
• Flaw: A lifting motion is used instead of a pushing motion. With heavier tires, this motion reduces the
lifting speed; the tire will lose momentum as it is elevated to hip height, forcing the athlete to “muscle”
the tire over. This is an extremely dangerous position, as the tire can easily fall onto the athlete, and
should be corrected immediately. Correction: The athlete should be encouraged to drive the tire forward
and move forward with the tire as it is elevated. One cue is to strike the tire with the quadriceps at hip
height and continue a forward movement pattern.
Spotting the Tire Flip
In general, spotting the tire flip requires two spotters who are positioned on either side of the athlete. Spotters
should do the following:
• Assist the athlete by pushing on the tire when needed.
• Pay close attention to ensure they can assist if the athlete loses grip on the tire.
• Be aware of the area around the athlete; in particular, the landing area needs to be monitored to ensure
that the flipping path is clear of people and apparatus.
the ankles in order to push the tire forward and up. As
this occurs, the shoulders and hips should rise at the same
rate, ending in a triple extension, from which the athlete
moves forward by taking two or three small steps. Once
the tire reaches hip height, the athlete forcefully flexes
the hip of one leg and strikes the tire with the quadriceps.
The striking of the tire with the leg allows achievement
of a forceful upward momentum (16). As this occurs, the
athlete switches the hands into a pronated position. After
reorienting the hands, the athlete runs the feet toward the
tire while forcefully extending the arms to push the tire
over. Photos of all of these positions can be found in the
exercise technique section near the end of the chapter.
Log Lifting
One of the classic exercises that is a part of strongman
training is the log lift, which is essentially a version of
the clean. Other traditional lifting movements can also
be performed with logs, such as cleans, presses, jerks,
rows, squats, deadlifts, and lunges (39, 64, 83). Logs
are typically designed to have weight added to them
while offering a midrange grip support to accommodate
a pronated grip position (64). Weight is typically added
with the use of traditional plates, which eliminates the
need for having a variety of logs (39). Information on
how to effectively load log-based exercises is limited,
but training loads may be based on traditional exercises.
For example, Winwood and colleagues (83) used 70%
of a 1RM for a traditional clean and jerk with log training.
While the connection seems logical, it is likely that
athletes will not be able to lift the same load as they
could in the comparable traditional exercise because of
the mechanical difficulties associated with lifting the
log apparatus (39).
In another type of log, water can be used to provide
the resistance (39, 64). Ratamess (64) suggests that with
this type of log, the fluid inside will move, resulting in
an increased activation of the stabilizer muscles. While
this may seem logical, no scientific papers appear to
have explored this contention.
While log-based training seems to be increasing in
popularity, little research has explored the effectiveness
of this training method or how best to apply this type
of training in the preparation of athletes in various
sports. Therefore, significantly more scientific inquiry
is required to provide true understanding of the efficacy
of log-based training.
Farmer’s Walk
Another commonly used strongman exercise is the farmer’s
walk, in which the athlete holds a load at the sides
in each hand while walking forward (53, 80). Winwood
and colleagues (83) suggest that exercises such as the
farmer’s walk are useful training tools because they
involve unstable and awkward resistances that have both
unilateral and bilateral motions. Additionally, it has been
suggested that the farmer’s walk develops total body
anaerobic endurance, back endurance, and grip strength
(80). McGill and colleagues (53) suggest that the farmer’s
walk may enhance traditional resistance training
programs because this exercise challenges body linkages
and stabilizing systems in a different way than traditional
resistance training. The farmer’s walk can be performed
with static loads (e.g., a heavy dumbbell) or variable
loads (e.g., water-filled objects) (80). Regardless of
the type load used, it appears that the farmer’s walk
offers a unique activation pattern of the core, although
there is very limited research in the scientific literature
supporting the use of this exercise as a strength and
conditioning tool. Additionally, no available research has
examined the safety of the farmer’s walk, which makes it
difficult to recommend safety precautions. Thus athletes
should follow generally accepted safety principles and
precautions: Only advanced athletes who possess high
levels of strength should attempt this exercise. While
this training modality may be popular in strength and
conditioning environments, more research is required in
order to determine its efficacy.
Kettlebell Training
Recently, strength and conditioning professionals have
become interested in the use of kettlebell exercises (7,
17, 48). While seemingly a new phenomenon, the use
of kettlebells dates back hundreds of years to when they
were a popular training method in various Eastern Bloc
countries (38). The word kettlebell comes from the Russian
word girya, which refers to a cast iron cannonball
with a handle on it (20). In Western literature the term
kettlebell is used to refer to a weighted implement consisting
of a ball with a handle, which is probably better
termed a kettleball (20).
Along with the increasing interest in the use of kettlebell
training has been an increase in the amount of scientific
inquiry into the efficacy of using these implements
with athletes and general populations. The majority of
the scientific evidence supporting the use of kettlebells
highlights their potential usefulness as a tool for general
physical or fitness development (26, 40, 76). In these
studies the most common exercise employed is the kettlebell
swing, which can be performed with either one or
two hands (40, 52, 76). While kettlebell swings appear
to have a positive impact on cardiovascular fitness, it
is important to note that this activity does not offer the
same level of cardiovascular benefit as treadmill running
or more traditional aerobic exercise (40).
Currently, limited research explores the efficacy of
kettlebell training as a strength development tool. When
used with clinical and recreationally trained populations,
kettlebell training has been reported to increase muscular
strength levels compared to no training (43, 61).
Additionally, when a battery of kettlebell exercises (i.e.,
swings, goblet squats, accelerated swings) is performed
across a six-week training intervention, there appears to
be an increase in muscular strength and vertical jump
performance in recreationally trained men (61). However,
these strength gains are significantly lower than
those typically seen with traditional weightlifting-based
training methods. Specifically, Otto and colleagues (61)
reported that six weeks of weightlifting training resulted
in a 4% increase in vertical jump performance, while
kettlebell swings increased jumping performance by only
0.8%. Additionally, back squat strength was increased
by 13.6% after six weeks of traditional weightlifting
training, while the kettlebell training resulted in only a
4.5% increase (61).
Based on the contemporary body of scientific knowledge,
it appears that kettlebells are probably best used
as general preparation exercise and that more traditional
training methods such as weightlifting are more effective
for developing maximal strength and jumping performance
capacity. However, further scientific research
is needed to develop a better understanding of the role
that kettlebells may be able to play in the development
of athletes.
Types of Kettlebells
When working with kettlebells, one must consider the
type of kettlebell, as there are two major types: the cast
iron (figure 16.5) and the sport kettlebell (figure 16.6)
(20). The cast iron, or fitness, kettlebells are cast from
iron and range in size depending on their weight. The
sport or competition kettlebells are made from steel and
have universal design and measurements. Specifically,
the size of the kettlebell does not change regardless of the
weight, and the various weights are indicated by different
colors (20). Besides the structural differences in the size
and dimensions of the cast iron and sport kettlebell, the
other difference is that the cast iron kettlebell is less
expensive and probably more prevalent in strength and
conditioning facilities.
Considerations for Selecting Kettlebells
The first major consideration in the selection of a kettlebell
is the type of load provided. The two basic types
of kettlebells are the fixed and the adjustable (20). With
fixed-loaded kettlebells, such as cast iron or competition
kettlebells, the load stays constant; thus a set of kettlebells,
which range across several loads, is required in
order to provide training variety. Adjustable kettlebells
are either plate loaded or shot loaded. In actuality, a plateloaded
kettlebell is simply a handle that is attached to
weight plates and is not really a kettlebell even though
it is classified as one (20). In contrast, a shot-loaded
kettlebell is a hollow version of the more traditional
kettlebell. Historically, these kettlebells were filled
with sand, water, lead, and even mercury (20). If this
type of kettlebell is only partially filled, the shot moves
around in the ball, causing an increased training stressor.
While popular in the early 20th century, especially with
circus strongmen such as the famous Arthur Saxon and
Eugen Sandow, this type of kettlebell is not popular in
contemporary strength and conditioning.
The second consideration relates to the handle, as it is
the major interface between the athlete and the kettlebell.
With cast iron kettlebells, the handle diameter changes
slightly as the weight increases. For example a 20 kg (45
pounds) or heavier kettlebell has a handle between 33
(1.3 inches) and 35 (1.4 inches) mm; a smaller kettlebell
may have a smaller handle diameter. Additionally,
to facilitate the types of exercises that use kettlebells,
the spacing between the handle and the top of the ball
is standardized in good kettlebells. Typically, the space
between the bottom of the handle and the top of the ball
is 55 mm (2.2 inches), and the length of the handle is
186 mm (7.3 inches) (20). With regard to handle surface,
some kettlebells come with smooth painted handles;
others have polished steel handles, which have no paint
and are basically bare medal. The polished steel handle
tends to allow for a better grip because it holds chalk
better and does not get as slippery as painted or polished
handles do when athletes sweat on them (20).
Unilateral Training
When employing training methods, one can use unilateral
or bilateral training interventions. These types of training
methods can be performed with the upper body or lower
body, depending on the targeted outcomes. Common
lower body unilateral training exercises include lunges,
step-ups, and the single-leg squat, which is sometimes
referred to as the Bulgarian split squat. This exercise
isolates one leg and is typically used in the preparation
of athletes from numerous sports. Typically these types
of exercises are integrated into training programs with
varying degrees of emphasis (50) in an attempt to reduce
bilateral asymmetries (45) or as a rehabilitation tool
(25). They are often used to reduce a bilateral deficit,
where there are asymmetries in force production between
unilateral and bilateral movements (42). It has also
been demonstrated that bilateral movements exhibit a
bilateral facilitation in which there is an increase in
voluntary activation of the agonist muscle group (8,
67). Trained or stronger individuals tend to exhibit a
bilateral facilitation, while untrained, injured, or weaker
athletes exhibit a bilateral deficit (10). Therefore, based
on the bilateral facilitation response, trained individuals
should not use unilateral methods for the development of
strength. In contrast, unilateral training methods may be
useful for strength development with untrained, weaker,
and injured individuals (10).
?? Trained or stronger individuals exhibit a
bilateral facilitation during bilateral exercises,
while untrained, injured, or weaker
individuals exhibit a bilateral deficit (10).
Conclusion
In designing strength and conditioning interventions, one
can use a variety of methods to apply overload. The use
of alternative methods and nontraditional implements is
increasing in popularity. When choosing to implement
these methods, strength and conditioning professionals
should consider the benefits and weaknesses of these
types of training interventions. Additionally, the level
of the athlete dictates whether use of these methods is
warranted. For example, a novice athlete or untrained
individual may derive a large benefit from doing
bodyweight or core stability exercises. Conversely, the
trained or elite athlete may experience greater gains with
traditional ground-based free weight exercises. With
the advanced athlete, the use of variable resistance may
also allow for a greater training stimulus to be applied to
traditional training methods. If choosing to employ alternative
methods or nontraditional element–based training
methods, strength and conditioning professionals must
always ensure that they teach proper exercise techniques
as well as constantly monitor their athletes in order to
ensure that a safe training environment is maintained.