Client screening/ assessments

gymfreak

Here is a question for both fitness professionals and gym bunnies alike.

I'm doing a PT course at the moment and last nights topic of discussion was client screening, and more specfically assessments that should/could be done with clients at the start of a program.

Now, before anyone says anything I thought a lot of the tests/assessments that we went through were useless, they provided information..yes, but not neccessarily information that is useful. We went through a few flexibility assessments, muscular endurance (sit up and push up test) and then BP/Height/Weight/ Body Composition..with a view to look at fitness tests next time (Kasch Step Test and Beep Test) and then we are skipping the strength tests...cos they're not really relevant:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So my question for all ye fitness professionals and hobbyists is..

What tests/assessments do you carry out on a client/yourself?
What do you hope to get from these assesments?

Obviously I know that people will probably assess each client differently according to what the clients' goals are...but I'd be really interested to hear.

Hanley

1) bodyweight/air squat = looking to see if there's anything obviously broken (thoracic mobility, hips and ankles)

2) lunge/reverse lunge = what are their knees doing, what's their "general movement" like

3) wall slide = what's external rotation/control like, any side to side differences etc

4) KB swing = do they know what a hip hinge is

5) Plank = can they hold one for 30s

I don't even bother with overhead squats for the most part as 99% of people can't do the above with any decent form or technique initially.

From there it really depends - if they hit a good squat it's usually fair to say linear hip/ankle/thoracic mobility is good. If they don't, I elevate heels first looking for any ankle issue, then maybe head over to the wall to see what happens on a wall squat, if they hit that fine wall overhead squat.

I think a VERY important distinction needs to be made between familiarity with a movement, and an inherent movement deficiency. If someone goes from a broken air squat to a fixed goblet squat in 5 minutes, I'd consider it more of a technique thing than anything.

...but what do I know!!

EDIT: Qualifying this by saying that's the standard assessment for EVERYONE, along side weight, measurements, BF% tests and a PARQ etc.

Hanley

Good thread. Very excited to see where this goes.

cmyk

Mine depend entirely on the type of client, their goals, the time we have together, and their starting point.

ooglybuns

As above, hugely dependant on the client you are working with.

A 45y/o overweight male will need to be screened for health issues more than an 18y/o rugby playing lean male.

Postural/mobility stuff that hanley talked about would follow that. I do also include some flexability measurements if i find mobility issues.

Then obviously their goals come into consideration. i.e. you wouldn't test for speed or leg power on a marathon runner.

gymfreak

ooglybuns wrote: »

As above, hugely dependant on the client you are working with.

Thanks for the replies!!
And yes, I realise it is dependant on the client and I did mention that above..I was actually just hoping to generate a discussion on the types of assessments that people do and also on they types of assessments that they do that are solely based on goals. I have a keen interest in the area..and,,,I suppose as quite a number of people know, the information given on PT courses isnt all that current and sometimes not that valuable at all. Was hoping to gain some insights from people who have had experience with a range of clients!

Postural/mobility stuff that hanley talked about would follow that. I do also include some flexability measurements if i find mobility issues.

Would you mind specifying some of the flexibility measurements that you find useful? I know we tried out a quad flexibility test, back ext, behind the back thing, shoulder elevation, straight leg raise and sit and reach. Just wondering what tests people ACTUALLY use, if any.

Then obviously their goals come into consideration. i.e. you wouldn't test for speed or leg power on a marathon runner.

Yup, I agree. Was hoping people would be more specific

ooglybuns

For me the obvious ones that stand out for your general client would be height, weight, BMI, body fat%, measurements (neck, bicep, chest, waist, hip, thigh), some manner of cardio test and some manner of strength test.
But a lot of that revolves around the fact that the more info you have, the more you can point to something that improved and keep people motivated. People do not like how slow the real body transformation process is so decent improvements in some metric can be usefull.

So looking at postural examination and what you might find
Lordosis - are hip flexors tight, are hamstrings weak?
Posterior pelvic tilt - Hams&Glute flexibility
Winged scapula - external shoulder rotation
just to name a few.

Yup, I agree. Was hoping people would be more specific[/QUOTE]

The problem with being more specific is that the list of possible fitness tests is huge and all can be relevant in specific situations.
http://www.exrx.net/Testing.html
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/index.htm
Just a couple of the lists i use for referance regularly.

That turned into a longer post than i intended - hope it makes any sense i feel like i rambled

cmyk

ooglybuns wrote: »

The problem with being more specific is that the list of possible fitness tests is huge and all can be relevant in specific situations.

This is what I meant earlier and didn't mean to be smart, just had a short break. Carrying on from that, the majority of my clients are fat loss clients so I don't general do any 'formal' testing...I just get them straight into some basic bodyweight movements (and progressions/regressions of movements) that will give me an indication of where they may have issues...which I guess is a form of assessment of sorts.

If I see something that's a major issue and the movement pattern doesn't resolve itself after some coaching and some mobility work/stretching...i'll just refer them out, it's a fine line between spotting a simple restriction or something more serious you could potentially make worse.

There are too many trainers that pick up 'fixes' for issues on the internet and apply them across the board, without having a real knowledge of what's going on under the surface. Having said that, of course there are some common issues that you'll see repeated over and over.

gymfreak

Thanks ooglybuns, ya didnt ramble on at all. I was looking for that level of information.

Thanks cmyk, with reference to the statement that the majority of clients are fat loss clients..that is the kind of detail that I was thinking in my head!

I was wondering..
with fat loss clients, after a general movement screening does anyone assess their fitness (albeit have them do a few mins of a bike and assess from observation).

Or with someone who regularly cycles and runs but is looking for a more structured program from you...what kind of movement screening would you do...would you assess their fitness? Do you feel that their is a need? Would you test their strength?

I just thought it would be kinda cool if people could perhaps generalise a type of client and the screening and assessments they do. for that type of client.. A kind of sharing of different approaches.

Any takers?

Or do you think too much thought is wasted on screening/assessments...that input would be interesting too!

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

Or do you think too much thought is wasted on screening/assessments...that input would be interesting too!

LOL

sav1980

Interesting thread. Someone mentioned that of the general tests they take BMI and bodyfat %. I'm just wondering if BMI is relevant if you know someones BF %? I mean is fat % not a better indicator of where someone is at than their BMI, considering that BMI can be misleading in so many instances. Would you need to know both?

Will Heffernan

sav1980 wrote: »

Interesting thread. Someone mentioned that of the general tests they take BMI and bodyfat %. I'm just wondering if BMI is relevant if you know someones BF %? I mean is fat % not a better indicator of where someone is at than their BMI, considering that BMI can be misleading in so many instances. Would you need to know both?

BMI measures exactly what it is supposed to measure. It's the fact that it used inappropriately that is the problem. If I am having cardio thoracic surgery which is often the case and I am requiring a cardiopulmonary bypass machine where my body fluid volume is an issue then knowing my BMI is essential. If I am having general anaesthetic it is also a key measurement. If however you are trying to decide whether I am fit and healthy then BMI is pretty useless.

nice_guy80

max horizontal pull ups
max press ups
flexibility measure on the legs

Banks

Hanley wrote: »

1) bodyweight/air squat = looking to see if there's anything obviously broken (thoracic mobility, hips and ankles)

2) lunge/reverse lunge = what are their knees doing, what's their "general movement" like

3) wall slide = what's external rotation/control like, any side to side differences etc

4) KB swing = do they know what a hip hinge is

5) Plank = can they hold one for 30s

I don't even bother with overhead squats for the most part as 99% of people can't do the above with any decent form or technique initially.

From there it really depends - if they hit a good squat it's usually fair to say linear hip/ankle/thoracic mobility is good. If they don't, I elevate heels first looking for any ankle issue, then maybe head over to the wall to see what happens on a wall squat, if they hit that fine wall overhead squat.

I think a VERY important distinction needs to be made between familiarity with a movement, and an inherent movement deficiency. If someone goes from a broken air squat to a fixed goblet squat in 5 minutes, I'd consider it more of a technique thing than anything.

...but what do I know!!

EDIT: Qualifying this by saying that's the standard assessment for EVERYONE, along side weight, measurements, BF% tests and a PARQ etc.

Why do you use KB swing over an RDL pattern as an assment? Speed of movement and technique for a beginner with the KB swing makes it difficult for them in my opinion and I wouldn't let one of my clients KB swing without having a good RDL pattern. Any rationale behind it?

Hanley

Banks wrote: »

Why do you use KB swing over an RDL pattern as an assment? Speed of movement and technique for a beginner with the KB swing makes it difficult for them in my opinion and I wouldn't let one of my clients KB swing without having a good RDL pattern. Any rationale behind it?

Sorry fair point - the swing is done after about 10 minutes of wall drills with a dowel/no weight. So yeah no swing until ability to hinge is established. And then only still with light weights!

Banks

Good stuff, just wanted to clear it up for the OP.

Danye

Sorry to jump in on the OP's thread but if a PT or coach doesn't conduct a screening should the client be wary of the standard of the coach?

Should it be common practice that a client is put through some sort of movement assessment / screening before being given any programme?

ooglybuns

If I see something that's a major issue and the movement pattern doesn't resolve itself after some coaching and some mobility work/stretching...i'll just refer them out, it's a fine line between spotting a simple restriction or something more serious you could potentially make worse.

There are too many trainers that pick up 'fixes' for issues on the internet and apply them across the board, without having a real knowledge of what's going on under the surface. Having said that, of course there are some common issues that you'll see repeated over and over.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you completely. But a lot of those trainers should not be working and a lot of the qualifications out there are worth no more than the paper they are printed on. I work with students training to be gym instructors and am always amused by how many of them want to go straight into PT. And am also amused by how many of them get clients.
Most of what i talked about in terms of functional screening comes from experience and working with people that knew what they were talking about. Something that a lot of PTs could benefit hugely from.
Also, learning to screen for a wider variety of issues not only helps you to be a better trainer, it also allows you to keep the clients that you would have previously referred out, and therefore make more money.

ooglybuns

Danye wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on the OP's thread but if a PT or coach doesn't conduct a screening should the client be wary of the standard of the coach?

Should it be common practice that a client is put through some sort of movement assessment / screening before being given any programme?

I would be suspicious.

Will Heffernan

Danye wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on the OP's thread but if a PT or coach doesn't conduct a screening should the client be wary of the standard of the coach?

Should it be common practice that a client is put through some sort of movement assessment / screening before being given any programme?

Personally...I wouldn't worry about it any more than I would recommend you choosing a trainer based on the fact that they screen.

A coaching eye is something that takes years to develop.

You want to take a guess how many coaches you see working at the Olympics producing medallists that are in there 20's? You want to know what the average age of elite coaches are (I have no idea...but I think I would make a pretty good guess)? How many Olympic medallists do you think have coaches that are younger than them do you think?

When you are working with a good trainer or coach you are always being assessed. Personally I work on a need to know basis...I wouldn't even tell an athlete/client what was 'wrong' with them unless it was actually imperative that they know in order to correct the problem. In most cases it doesn't help them anymore than getting to the end of testing and saying 'I am not sure whether you realise this or not....but thanks to my keen eye and all the interwebz I've read and all the super awesome courses I've done I can tell you that you can do no pull ups.' You can be pretty certain that people know even before they test that they know they can do no pull ups....in 20+ years of coaching and testing I've never seen someone surprised by the fact that they couldn't do a pull up...never had anyone drop from the pull up bar and say...'I really thought I'd get 10 reps...that's amazing.'

The other thing to remember is the 'WHO CARES' factor. Personally within reason I don't care what peoples mobility as like...as long as it is balanced...it's imbalances that are the problem and a lot of screening 'tests' don't take account of that. I can't touch my fingers tips together behind my back either right arm over and left arm under or vice versa...the thing is I am equally crap on both sides...this lack of mobility has roughly zero effect on me functionally. I could spend months trying to improve it...what return would I get on my investment of time?

I could go on and on....and I most likely will at some stage but in answer to your question...no, you shouldn't link use of screening with a coach or trainers competence as there are far more important factors to consider.

Danye

ooglybuns wrote: »

I would be suspicious.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Personally...I wouldn't worry about it any more than I would recommend you choosing a trainer based on the fact that they screen.

in answer to your question...no, you shouldn't link use of screening with a coach or trainers competence as there are far more important factors to consider.

Two conflicting opinions here. I suppose it would be no harm getting screened but it's not essential?

On a personal level I think I would prefer to be screened and sort out any issues I might have and try to correct these as best as possible.

Will Heffernan

Danye wrote: »

Two conflicting opinions here.

I should of said do IF and Starting Strength

I suppose it would be no harm getting screened but it's not essential?

I do 'screen' people but often not until after I've been coaching them for a little while.

I can and have coached people through screens previously as in just shown them how to pass.

I have faked results in screening before myself...in a sit and reach test I can do it properly and get a minus 6cm deficit score or game the screen and get plus 12cm....so my 'hamstring' flexibility (I say 'hamstring' because I think most people realise that isn't what we are reeeeeally measuring) is either atrocious or awesome. It is actually neither....the score should actually read 'irrelevant' because that is what it is.

The way that I actually screen is through testing...my testing is always the same...it has always been the same...well since time began in 1992 and continues to be the same to this day....so every compensation, every imbalance, every anomaly a human being can have I've seen and seen a LOT. I watch you test and look and look hard...I notice whether you start to fatigue early, whether one shoulder gives out before the other, whether you are strong enough to get to within an inch of the bar doing an inverted row 30 times in a minute after only getting your chest to the bar 5 times in the first 5 seconds....and hence know that you have heaps of lat strength but very little scap control...I notice all of that...so you haven't had a 'screen' but pretty much every muscular flaw you have I've noticed...I notice whether you sit to the left or right squatting...I notice all of it....and all good trainers and coaches notice it whether you notice it or not.

On a personal level I think I would prefer to be screened and sort out any issues I might have and try to correct these as best as possible.

Everybody has issues....but it is like everything else here...most people stumble around in the dark tripping over the miniature...is 5 reps better than 8 reps....should I eat 3 meals or 6 meals a day....does IF cure cancer...if I do starting strength will I rule the world. People here are totally ripped off....the majority of people here should train more and train harder....they should eat less and better....they should spend less time arguing and navel gazing on boards and more time actually out doing stuff like the people that they want to be or imagine they are...you know...those jakt hot boys and girls with abs and a tan.

Worrying about whether you trainer does a completely worthless screen for you or not is the least of your worries...you should be more concerned whether he or she has the motivational and or marketing skills to get you up off your butt.

Anyway...what the hell would I know.

LivingInColour

Danye wrote: »

On a personal level I think I would prefer to be screened and sort out any issues I might have and try to correct these as best as possible.

Are you sure? Say your goal is to 'get bigger and stronger'; if you have a few 'minor' issues that aren't going to stop you achieving that goal, would you rather spend a few months sorting those out...or a few months 'getting bigger and stronger'. If you're training solely for aesthetics and you're not a professional athlete (loosely as that term is used nowadays), what's the point in getting hung up on little things that will have little to no impact on your day to day training? If anything, it would just give you something else to use to complicate your training instead of just keeping it simple.

nice_guy80

most people forget about the principle of KISS when it comes to training and sports

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

Hanley

This whole screening thing is just another magic bullet to fix all your problems. It's novel, doesn't require much hard work, and you can sell a fantastic innovative program off it.

All far more attractive than the alternative - hard work.

Danye

LivingInColour wrote: »

Are you sure? Say your goal is to 'get bigger and stronger'; if you have a few 'minor' issues that aren't going to stop you achieving that goal, would you rather spend a few months sorting those out...or a few months 'getting bigger and stronger'. If you're training solely for aesthetics and you're not a professional athlete (loosely as that term is used nowadays), what's the point in getting hung up on little things that will have little to no impact on your day to day training? If anything, it would just give you something else to use to complicate your training instead of just keeping it simple.

Well I mean if I had some sort of issues would it not be better to fix them first and then look to get "bigger & stronger" if that was my goal?

I wouldn't try to build a house on weak foundations that potentially could cause more hassle in the long run.

I'd make sure the foundations where solid first.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

most people forget about the principle of KISS when it comes to training and sports

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

I'm not quite sure what this post has got to do with what we're talking about here?


On a side note I only asked the question out of curiosity of how necessary a screening was deemed to be if at all necessary? Going by the first few posts it seemed as though it was an integral part of a trainers / coaches job but I've seen a few coaches who wouldn't have done any screening and was curious as to why some people would insist on it and why others wouldn't.

gymfreak

I kinda assumed the the whole client screening/assessments would be quite like teaching....in that obervation is generally the primary tool.

Thanks for all the inputs so far..it's interesting to hear the various views.

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

I kinda assumed the the whole client screening/assessments would be quite like teaching....in that obervation is generally the primary tool.

Thanks for all the inputs so far..it's interesting to hear the various views.

I haven't offered my opinion yet...don't make up your mind just yet

cmyk

Will Heffernan wrote: »

A coaching eye is something that takes years to develop.

Though I'm years behind you, this is pretty much what I've learned over the last few. If you don't have an eye for coaching and movement in the first place, how are you ever going to properly decipher any screening you do? Most of the other trainers (and I include myself in this when I started), screen and then simply read off the script with regard fixing the issue(s).

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Worrying about whether you trainer does a completely worthless screen for you or not is the least of your worries...you should be more concerned whether he or she has the motivational and or marketing skills to get you up off your butt.

This is exactly what I tried to say earlier, most of my clients come to me for fat loss/muscle gain etc., they don't want to spend the first half an hour finding out how much shoulder internal rotation they're missing. You're goal is to get them straight on their path to their goals, and more often than anything it's getting them some degree of training effect, and teaching them a hierarchy they can understand that puts them on that path.

A good coach will fix issues along the way of course, but isn't that what separates the good from the bad?

Needless to say that hierarchy changes when you're dealing with athletic performance, which is why so much of this 'depends'

gymfreak

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I haven't offered my opinion yet...don't make up your mind just yet

You ready to offer it yet? The more insights the better!!

And I know this is going to either be a 'it depends' or else a ...'well, you see it's a continuum'..lol

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

You ready to offer it yet? The more insights the better!!

Anything I'd have to add would just seem condescending.

And I know this is going to either be a 'it depends' or else a ...'well, you see it's a continuum'..lol

Let's just go with that.

gymfreak

I suppose another factor to consider in regards to both screening and assessments is the clients previous experience of either. I presume that the more unfamilar a client is with a movement..the less accurate the result might be. In that the client is trying to come to terms with a new movement pattern

And interestingly enough the same thought goes for fitness testings aswell. Did the beep test today...well twice actually and scored an extra 10 shuttles higher the second time...it wasn't that I'd gotten any fitter in the 15mins between the two tests..it was just that I was more familar with it and how it'd feel the second time around...and a lot more confident as a result. It was just a pause-for-thought for me..thought Id share

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

I suppose another factor to consider in regards to both screening and assessments is the clients previous experience of either. I presume that the more unfamilar a client is with a movement..the less accurate the result might be. In that the client is trying to come to terms with a new movement pattern

And interestingly enough the same thought goes for fitness testings aswell. Did the beep test today...well twice actually and scored an extra 10 shuttles higher the second time...it wasn't that I'd gotten any fitter in the 15mins between the two tests..it was just that I was more familar with it and how it'd feel the second time around...and a lot more confident as a result. It was just a pause-for-thought for me..thought Id share

Bingo

Eeeeeeeep....I knew you had it in you

Will Heffernan

This is from last year....I have it at home and will send it to you if you like...especially now you are getting all sciency and stuff.

J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Sep 29. [Epub ahead of print]

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN AND ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE.

Parchmann CJ, McBride JM.

Appalachian State University, Department of Health, Leisure & Exercise Science, Neuromuscular & Biomechanics Laboratory, Boone, NC 28607.

Tests such as the functional movement screen (FMS) and maximal strength (1RM) have been theorized to assist in predicting athletic performance capabilities. Some data exists concerning 1RM and athletic performance but very limited data exists concerning the potential ability of FMS to assess athletic performance. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if FMS scores or 1RM are related to athletic performance, specifically in Division I golfers in terms of sprint times, vertical jump height, agility T-test times and club head velocity. Twenty-five NCAA Division I golfers (15 men, age = 20.0±1.2 yrs, height = 176.8±5.6 cm, body mass = 76.5±13.4 kg, squat 1RM = 97.1±21.0 kg) (10 women, age = 20.5±0.8 yrs, height = 167.0±5.6 cm, body mass = 70.7±21.5 kg, squat 1RM = 50.3±16.6) performed a FMS, 1RM testing and field tests common in assessing athletic performance. Athletic performance tests included 10 m and 20 m sprint time, vertical jump height, agility T-test time, and club head velocity. Strength testing included a 1RM back squat. Data for 1RM testing was normalized to body mass for comparisons. Correlations were determined between FMS, 1RM's and athletic performance tests using Pearson product correlation coefficients (p ≤ 0.05). No significant correlations existed between FMS and 10m sprint time (r = -0.136), 20m sprint time (r = -0.107), vertical jump height (r = 0.249), agility T-test time (r = -0.146) and club head velocity (r = -0.064). 1RM in the squat was significantly correlated to 10m sprint time (r = -0.812), 20m sprint time (r = -0.872), vertical jump height (r = 0.869), agility T-test time (r = -0.758) and club head velocity (r = 0.805). The lack of relationship suggests that FMS is not an adequate field test and does not relate to any aspect of athletic performance. Based on the data from this investigation 1RM squat strength appears to be a good indicator of athletic performance.

mushykeogh

I love a good screen, which one you use depends on what your looking for. But if you look hard enough, you can find a whole host of imbalances wrong with pretty much anyone you will ever screen.

I dont mind admitting that i use them because it gives me something a bit more definite about whats going on with an individual.
That said, every warm up is a screen, every squat, row and wriggly worm press up will tell you whats going on too. Depends on how much knowledge/ faith you have in yourself for picking them up and sorting them.
As an injury predictor, Good, as a performance indicator, not the be all and end all. Plenty of people can ace a screen and perform pants, and very often your top performer will be as imbalanced as fook in a screen.

gymfreak

Will Heffernan wrote: »

This is from last year....I have it at home and will send it to you if you like...especially now you are getting all sciency and stuff.

J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Sep 29. [Epub ahead of print]

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN AND ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE.

Parchmann CJ, McBride JM.

Appalachian State University, Department of Health, Leisure & Exercise Science, Neuromuscular & Biomechanics Laboratory, Boone, NC 28607.

Tests such as the functional movement screen (FMS) and maximal strength (1RM) have been theorized to assist in predicting athletic performance capabilities. Some data exists concerning 1RM and athletic performance but very limited data exists concerning the potential ability of FMS to assess athletic performance. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if FMS scores or 1RM are related to athletic performance, specifically in Division I golfers in terms of sprint times, vertical jump height, agility T-test times and club head velocity. Twenty-five NCAA Division I golfers (15 men, age = 20.0±1.2 yrs, height = 176.8±5.6 cm, body mass = 76.5±13.4 kg, squat 1RM = 97.1±21.0 kg) (10 women, age = 20.5±0.8 yrs, height = 167.0±5.6 cm, body mass = 70.7±21.5 kg, squat 1RM = 50.3±16.6) performed a FMS, 1RM testing and field tests common in assessing athletic performance. Athletic performance tests included 10 m and 20 m sprint time, vertical jump height, agility T-test time, and club head velocity. Strength testing included a 1RM back squat. Data for 1RM testing was normalized to body mass for comparisons. Correlations were determined between FMS, 1RM's and athletic performance tests using Pearson product correlation coefficients (p ≤ 0.05). No significant correlations existed between FMS and 10m sprint time (r = -0.136), 20m sprint time (r = -0.107), vertical jump height (r = 0.249), agility T-test time (r = -0.146) and club head velocity (r = -0.064). 1RM in the squat was significantly correlated to 10m sprint time (r = -0.812), 20m sprint time (r = -0.872), vertical jump height (r = 0.869), agility T-test time (r = -0.758) and club head velocity (r = 0.805). The lack of relationship suggests that FMS is not an adequate field test and does not relate to any aspect of athletic performance. Based on the data from this investigation 1RM squat strength appears to be a good indicator of athletic performance.

Now THAT is interesting!

Also here's another question for the audience....was talking about the beep test to someone yesterday and a bit of a 'lightbulb' moment occured. The beep test is to measure cardio-respiratory endurance,,but at some stage does it not become a test of speed. Like could someones speed fail before their heart and lungs give up???
Any inputs??

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

Now THAT is interesting!

It isn't really but as always...I am glad you are willing to fake enthusiasm for my benefit.

Also here's another question for the audience....was talking about the beep test to someone yesterday and a bit of a 'lightbulb' moment occured.

That's like 3 times now that has happened since I've known you.

The beep test is to measure cardio-respiratory endurance,,but at some stage does it not become a test of speed. Like could someones speed fail before their heart and lungs give up???
Any inputs??

It is not so much a cardio-respitory endurance test as a 'running efficiency' test.

Have a think about that for a second and tell me your thoughts.

gymfreak

That's like 3 times now that has happened since I've known you.

IT's okay, it happens regularly enough

Will Heffernan wrote: »

It is not so much a cardio-respitory endurance test as a 'running efficiency' test.

Have a think about that for a second and tell me your thoughts.

Now we're speaking running mechanics..as in the ability to change direction properly/efficiently like the spider test. By getting the foot placement right you lessen the distance to an extent and you havent wasted time changing direction...suppose that means for people unfamilar with turning mechanics or unfamilar with the test..they might come to a dead stop at the end of each 20m..then have to change footwork and start sprinting again...where as those familar might bounce into the turn with good footwork and not come to a dead stop but ready to continue moving...

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

Now we're speaking running mechanics..as in the ability to change direction properly/efficiently like the spider test. By getting the foot placement right you lessen the distance to an extent and you havent wasted time changing direction...suppose that means for people unfamilar with turning mechanics or unfamilar with the test..they might come to a dead stop at the end of each 20m..then have to change footwork and start sprinting again...where as those familar might bounce into the turn with good footwork and not come to a dead stop but ready to continue moving...

After you've done the test a few times you get better at it not necessarily because you've got 'fitter' but because you've got more efficient. You've become accustomed to the pacing/timing so you're not accelerating too hard off the mark and waiting for the 'beep' at the turns. Your turning technique can improve.

The beep test as opposed to a timed 3km run for example both primarily measure cardio-respiritory fitness...they are both obviously running tests...but tax you in a different way...the constant acceleration and deceleration throughout the beep test makes it 'different'. An individuals 'strength' plays a bigger part in a beep test. This is what you need to think about and what is part of your question...if you lack the strength endurance to accelerate yourself back up to speed you won't make consecutive turns and fail the test. You fail because of muscular fatigue but you get that muscular fatigue because you cardio-respiritory system can no longer supply the musculature with enough fuel to maintain performance.

gymfreak

Will Heffernan wrote: »

After you've done the test a few times you get better at it not necessarily because you've got 'fitter' but because you've got more efficient. You've become accustomed to the pacing/timing so you're not accelerating too hard off the mark and waiting for the 'beep' at the turns. Your turning technique can improve.

The beep test as opposed to a timed 3km run for example both primarily measure cardio-respiritory fitness...they are both obviously running tests...but tax you in a different way...the constant acceleration and deceleration throughout the beep test makes it 'different'. An individuals 'strength' plays a bigger part in a beep test. This is what you need to think about and what is part of your question...if you lack the strength endurance to accelerate yourself back up to speed you won't make consecutive turns and fail the test. You fail because of muscular fatigue but you get that muscular fatigue because you cardio-respiritory system can no longer supply the musculature with enough fuel to maintain performance.

:eek: Thanks!

That was actually simple and informative.

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

:eek: Thanks!

That was actually simple and informative.

Could talk about it all day.

So if you wanted to get better at the beep test....what qualities do you need to work on.

Pretend you are training COH? How would you improve his beep test theoretically?

gymfreak

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Pretend you are training COH? How would you improve his beep test theoretically?

I would ask him to eat less pizza..therefore making him a tad leaner and possibly quicker.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

So if you wanted to get better at the beep test....what qualities do you need to work on.

*Strength

*Speed

*Agility- accelerating, deaccelerating, turning mechanics

*Anaerobic fitnes

How wrong/incorrect is that?

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

I would ask him to eat less pizza..therefore making him a tad leaner and possibly quicker.

Exactly...and this is how you need to start thinking. In this case it is straight forward...you have a client COH who is a fat crippled mess with and great strength and power base who specifically wants to get better at his beep test in 8 weeks time.

What I would be thinking is this...what is going to give him the greatest return on investment time wise?

What changes would you ask him to make....what training would you have him do and why?

This isn't a right or wrong answer....some answers are more right than others but that is neither here now there.

What would you do after you assessed him and he got to Level 6 and collapsed in a heap?

*Strength

*Speed

*Agility- accelerating, deaccelerating, turning mechanics

*Anaerobic fitness

How wrong/incorrect is that?

These are all components....what are you going to do with and about them?

gymfreak

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Exactly...and this is how you need to start thinking. In this case it is straight forward...you have a client COH who is a fat crippled mess with and great strength and power base who specifically wants to get better at his beep test in 8 weeks time.

What I would be thinking is this...what is going to give him the greatest return on investment time wise?

What changes would you ask him to make....what training would you have him do and why?

This isn't a right or wrong answer....some answers are more right than others but that is neither here now there.

What would you do after you assessed him and he got to Level 6 and collapsed in a heap?

Okay, so he already has a good strength and power base, so these arent the priorities. He needs to work on the things that will allow him to take best advantage of his strength and power.

So a top priority would probably to have him drop some fat...so nutrition is going to come into play on this one.

He'd also need to do some agility drills to get his feet working again and him moving efficiently.

Now..this is where I'm staring to get lost...

I want him to get the most bang for his buck..just need to figure out what the rest of the 'bang' is.

The term muscular endurance is coming to mind..even though I dont really understand what it means..but I'm taking it to mean repeated hard efforts..ie building up the muscular endurance in his legs so that he can continually repeat the effort...as what would be needed in a beep test?

Wouldnt musclular endurance come into play if he had to run a set distance over time and keep a set pace...like I'm thinking those con blocks on the treadmill or bike..that's muscular endurance right?

Lastly, would he need some anaerobic work..like sprints??


Pretty interested to hear the response...you have me thinking

COH

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Pretend you are training COH? How would you improve his beep test theoretically?

A taxi

gymfreak wrote: »

I would ask him to eat less pizza..therefore making him a tad leaner and possibly quicker.

F*ck you

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Exactly...and this is how you need to start thinking. In this case it is straight forward...you have a client COH who is a fat crippled mess

I'm not crippled at all :mad:

with and great strength and power base who specifically wants to get better at his beep test in 8 weeks time.

Gas if I actually did a beep test tomorrow, allowed piggy to train me for it in 8 weeks and retested.

What I would be thinking is this...what is going to give him the greatest return on investment time wise?

Long term slow yielding bonds, and caffeine.

I'd be thinking

Of course you would.

What changes would you ask him to make....what training would you have him do and why?

Yes

This isn't a right or wrong answer....some answers are more right than others but that is neither here now there.

The answer is a screen and an ice pack so.

What would you do after you assessed him and he got to Level 6 and collapsed in a heap?

A heap of excellence even

These are all components....what are you going to do with and about them?

Indeed.

Will Heffernan

gymfreak wrote: »

Okay, so he already has a good strength and power base, so these arent the priorities.

Yep...you aren't going to get much more return on investment there.

He needs to work on the things that will allow him to take best advantage of his strength and power.

Yep...his 'strengths' will acceleration and deceleration.

So a top priority would probably to have him drop some fat...so nutrition is going to come into play on this one.

Why? You're right but why will it help?

He'd also need to do some agility drills to get his feet working again and him moving efficiently.

Correct. Work on his turning mechanics.

Now..this is where I'm staring to get lost...

I want him to get the most bang for his buck..just need to figure out what the rest of the 'bang' is.

If we all but our heads together...as a group...as gang of coaches...I am sure we can work out where that bang is going to come from. We could do it for anyone who wanted assistance...we could be known as the gangbang squad or something to that effect...let me see if that name is available on google....

The term muscular endurance is coming to mind....even though I dont really understand what it means...

What it means depends on what it is in reference to. What we will say it means in this instance is the muscles ability to sustain sub maximal effort over an extended period of time. How does that sound and do you know what I mean?

but I'm taking it to mean repeated hard efforts..ie building up the muscular endurance in his legs so that he can continually repeat the effort...as what would be needed in a beep test?

That's close enough.

Wouldnt musclular endurance come into play if he had to run a set distance over time and keep a set pace...like I'm thinking those con blocks on the treadmill or bike..that's muscular endurance right?

Yes. Precisely.

Lastly, would he need some anaerobic work..like sprints??

Yes but again why?

gymfreak

Why? You're right but why will it help?

The more mass he carries around will make him fatigue quicker as the heart has to work harder to pump blood around? Obviously lean muscle mass is beneficial..but there arent any benefits to carrying around extra bodyfat really.

If we all but our heads together...as a group...as gang of coaches...I am sure we can work out where that bang is going to come from. We could do it for anyone who wanted assistance...we could be known as the gangbang squad or something to that effect...let me see if that name is available on google....

That would be productive...people HATE being productive..so probably wouldnt work:P

What it means depends on what it is in reference to. What we will say it means in this instance is the muscles ability to sustain sub maximal effort over an extended period of time. How does that sound and do you know what I mean?

Yes..sounds good and I understand..whoop!

gymfreak wrote:

Wouldnt musclular endurance come into play if he had to run a set distance over time and keep a set pace...like I'm thinking those con blocks on the treadmill or bike..that's muscular endurance right?

Yes. Precisely.

In that case, I'm not a fan of muscular endurance..it's not a very comfortable activity.

gymfreak wrote:

Lastly, would he need some anaerobic work..like sprints??

Yes but again why?

It would improve his ability to work at near maximum speed/maximum effort. His body would get better adapted to cope with the specific demands....?