In this installment we continue the discussion with Dr. Yessis. We hope that this sheds some light on some of the myths out there surrounding specific exercises.

Tony Schwartz:

A critique of specificity is that the speed of many sports skills cannot be replicated off the field of play. Therefore, we should not try to replicate these skills at all. What are your thoughts on this argument?

Dr. Yessis:

The idea that the speed of an on-field sport action cannot be duplicated is completely incorrect. But even if you can't duplicate the speed, then you can still develop more strength in the correct range of motion. Using the squat to improve the Olympic lifts is a good example of this. The squat does not replicate the whole skill of a clean or snatch, but it does replicate a part of it. This is why the squat is a staple in most Olympic lifting programs. However, the squat will not improve top-speed in sprinting (except in the case of a novice athlete) because it does not replicate the range of motion that occurs there. Going back to Olympic lifting, the Russians looked at the effects of different specialized exercises on the speed of the Olympic lifts. What they found is that a particular specialized exercise would improve a particular segment of the Olympic lifts. This shows that specialized exercises have very specific effects. Because of this, the coach must be able to determine the weaknesses of an athlete and be able to prescribe the exact exercises which will correct these weaknesses. Prescribing the wrong exercises will not just make the athlete stagnate, but may also severely hurt his performance. As I said before, coaches say things like "we've got to get him throwing more towards the plate." Well where is he throwing? First base? This type of talk doesn't tell you what you what the athlete's weakness is, much less how to correct it. These coaches simply create terminology to cover up their lack of understanding. Furthermore, the players realize these coaches aren't making them any better, but they can't question the coach or they jeopardize their own jobs.

TS:

A very pervasive thought among coaches is that special exercises will disrupt the motor skill. Why is this false?

DY:

Let me be very clear on this, specialized exercises definitely alter the motor skill. But that isn't a reason not to do them. On the contrary, it is a very good argument for why they should be incorporated into the training of all athletes. I would argue that if it's not going to disrupt the skill, then why do it? Swinging and running faster is a disruption of the skill, but what athlete wouldn't want this disruption? Most athletes need to have their technique changed in some way in order to optimize performance. It is true that a change in technique may make the athlete perform worse initially, but over the long-term they will greatly improve. This is why technique needs to be corrected in the off-season, never in-season. This will insure that the new motor patterns are ingrained and will allow the athlete to perform at a higher level than he did in the previous season. Once the technique has been corrected, you can then use specialized exercises to improve speed and strength in a range of motion specific to the sport. This type of work will be done mostly right before the season begins. The point is, we are trying to make athletes better. If they continue to do the same thing year after year, then they aren't going to get any better. An example I like to use is the Model-T. When the Model-T came people were very pleased with it. And why not, there was nothing wrong with it. But it could have been better. Luckily the engineers that worked for car companies did not have the same attitude that many coaches have, or we would all still be driving around in Model-Ts! The engineers had to disrupt the initial model, but the end-product was far superior to the initial model.

TS:

Interesting analogy. I never thought of it that way. Along the lines of disrupting the motor skill, I have also heard coaches claim that making the athlete cognitively aware of his technical deficiencies will cause the athlete to over-think the action and therefore make the action slower. What are your thoughts on this?

DY:

Learning anything is a process. You definitely need to think when you first learn something. But over time these processes become automatic, so that by the start of the season the skills should be intuitive. Again, in the short-term it may negatively impact performance, but the long-term results will speak for themselves. And again, because of the potential short-term negatives you don't change technique in-season. The athlete should have technique down before the season begins. Your smartest athlete is your best athlete, even if coaches don't believe it. An athlete needs to understand what and why you are doing something in order to learn most effectively. But once the season starts the questions should be answered and the athlete should be left to perform. That is what I attempt to do in my Explosive Running and Kinesiology of Exercise books, as well as my other books. I give you the "why" behind the various exercises and methods. The books are simple to read, but you have to read and apply the concepts in them to see the benefits. If you really read the books and correctly apply the concepts then you will without a doubt improve your performance. But people still have a hard time comprehending and accepting these concepts since they have never really thought about technique. People always think that if they just bench and run more they will be better athletes. These are the types of misconceptions that I hope we can begin to change.

TS:

I hope so as well. So few coaches are utilizing the important tool of specialized exercises in favor of more running or bench pressing, it is truly sad for the athletes. But even among coaches who do use specific exercises in the training of their athletes, many believe that these exercises should be reserved only for the elite athlete. Why do you believe this line of thinking is outdated?

DY:

Specialized exercises were originally developed in Russia for elite athletes, and should be primarily used as such. However, in the U.S. we do not teach technique the right way. A typical technique unit in the U.S. is 2-3 days in P.E. For example, a typical tennis unit would consist of covering the forehand on Monday, backhand on Tuesday, and the serve on Wednesday. After this they start the tournament. This is not how you teach technique. Technique is much more complex than what can be learned in 2 or 3 days. Because of this situation, most U.S. athletes needs to improve their technique, and specialized exercises can be a great way to do this. Athletes learn and correct part of the skill and are then able to incorporate it into the whole skill. The intensity of these exercises is less than that for an elite athlete, but some of the exercises are the same. Additionally, specialized exercises will comprise a smaller percentage of the total training volume for a beginner than they will in the training of an elite athlete.

TS:

Great information. Thank you for your time Dr. Yessis.

DY:

Thanks for having me.

For more info on specificity and the training of athletes check out DrYessis.com for books like "Explosive Running" and "Explosive Basketball."