Exercise Selection

The speaker discusses the importance of exercise selection in strength and conditioning coaching. They mention various influences on their approach, such as functional movement systems and movement ability. They emphasize the need to consider individual differences, such as pain or motor inadequacy, when selecting exercises. The speaker also discusses the balance between a detailed, individualized approach and a more general program. They highlight the importance of meeting the needs and preferences of athletes while still working towards structural balance and progress. The speaker concludes by suggesting that a simple program executed well can be just as effective as a highly specific one. They also mention the importance of making the program stick and will discuss this further in the practical aspect. With exercise selection, I think we have to go all the way back to our movement course and going through variability. One of the big influences on me is functional movement systems, functional range conditioning, cost of restoration, and this idea of movement and what is foundational to leveraging what we do as strength conditioning coaches, squeezing as much from those movements as humanly possible. I think that's the relationship and the dynamic. I would throw one more in there is Gary Gray's GIFT Institute, and it's this concept of movement ability and then strength conditioning's emphasis of essentially taking that movement and squeezing out as much from that movement as humanly possible. And when we look at movement ability and movement motor learning and all these concepts we got from our movement course and all these great resources, one of the things that we need to look at is that it's a pretty big continuum we're working within right there. This idea of ultimate preparation for chaotic and open environments versus cyclical sports and just running a straight line for 100 meters, there's a pretty big distinction we need to consider when we're looking at programming for those two entities. And there's a pretty big distinction when someone has pain or there's a pretty big distinction when someone has a gross motor inadequacy that we need to process and digest, right? Like there's a lot of variables that we're going to look at with exercise selection and saying, all right, there's a lot to unpack here and there's a lot to look at and there's a lot to assess and interpret. Now on the other end, it could be as simple as, hey, let's base this off our general programming, right? So I can see this in two ways and I can see this going in a couple of different funnels. One is we have a pretty dialed in movement assessment, right, where we do a series of table tests, movement screens, and then potentially even some sort of force plate analysis or a internal external rotation force analysis, or even potentially looking at it from an abduction and flexion extension, et cetera, right? We can look at it from that inventory or we can look at it from, here's what I'm going to do with my programming and I'm going to regress and progress based off their ability and skill. And it goes into that top down, bottom up, it goes into this like, all right, what is our entry point here? What is our, what is our mode of operation? And a lot of times, there's not a really right or wrong answer here. And that's the hard part about this, is I can, for me personally, I say on both occasions, I have a rationale and reason being why I do what I do. On any given day with my training programs, I'm doing both. I am doing both of those methods. I'm doing either you assimilate to the program or I'm going to assimilate the program to you. And I think that's the part, if I'm being candid and I'm being open with discussion on this, is that's real and that is a really strong premise for what a training program really is and what it really comes down to. All of the heartache and the frustration of like seeing these amazing resources and this amazing, amazing variety of elements that we can implement on any given day. And the realization that it might actually come down to simply, I just need to get them in the program and get them going. So let's break down a dialed in exercise selection versus a, let's just get them working out and let's get them moving. So one of the things that I look at with any exercise is do they have this fractal relationship with the movements or the joints that are required to move during those movements, right? So if I look at it from a very simple, if they are asked to squat, let's say the squat is, we prefer more vertical torso and full flexion of the knee. And that is the way I like to teach squat. Really not the point to discuss the merits behind that, but more along the lines of, let's say that that is a requirement that I need them to do when I squat them. And then I find out on a table test, they lack knee flexion extension, right? They are, they only can get to, I don't know, 90 degrees knee flexion, and it can only get to about 170 degrees knee extension, right? For whatever reason, that's a pretty traumatic knee injury and then bad surgery. And then they have a lot of, a lot of restriction in the joint. So when I get to that squat pattern and I say, okay, let's go all the way down and they can't, it kind of makes that either definition of the squat inaccurate for what that person could do, or it may mean that I need to find another exercise that person could be successful with, right? And then I look at Erica, maybe instead of doing a heel elevated front squat, I do something along the lines of the front foot elevated foot squat, and then that vector change might allow for that full knee flexion. Or maybe I just say, hey, but I can be able to get to that range until I can start to break up the tissue in that knee to allow for full flexion. Whether I work with a massage therapist or I do some direct mobility, flexibility work in that knee, I'm going to do something like a partial lift. Maybe I do some inertial squatting, or maybe I do some TKEs or backwards leg drags, or maybe I do something along the lines of quarter work or quarter work. Or you do something along the lines of a trap bar deadlift or a more of a squat lift type of exercise. And then I start to do that with all of our exercises. Do they have internal external rotation of the hip and hip and shoulder? Do they have full abduction, adduction, flexion, extension of the hip and shoulder? And then I start to look at the joints that correspond with that. Can my knee and my elbow flex? Can my ankle and my wrist, can it flex and extend? Can it go into this pronation, supination type of position? Can it laterally flex? Can it do these things that I need to do? I don't know. And that's where it becomes really fun and interesting, right? You can start to really select an exercise inventory that that person could be successful with. And then it gives you a vector to work on some stuff, right? So it's pretty simple and logical to say if they lack range of motion in a certain joint, whether passively or actively, that should be a focal point for you to develop. So you can get a full exercise bandwidth. And that's something that as you start to break down when and where you could do that, all right, maybe you're working with a smaller athlete to coach ratio, right? Like I'm working one-on-ones a lot, so I can get a little bit more granular. I work with large groups, a little less opportunity to do that. Maybe you have a little higher profile person within that group, right? So let's say that you work in the NFL and you have a $250 million quarterback. Maybe you want to do that. Or maybe you work in the NBA where you have two players who are supermax contracts, and you might want to do that if they're comfortable with that, if they want to utilize your services. And as I start to think about the realities of doing a progression like that, you can go on the other end of the spectrum and saying, I can easily come with the cost of making someone feel inadequate or less than in the team, right? So everyone knows what that person makes. And when you're giving them quote-unquote special treatment, it makes them feel even that much less special. That is, it is that binary and transactional that the person who makes $250 million is simply worth more so they get more of your attention. We know how that translates to a team and group setting. If you don't, you will. It can only go so far. People are incredibly aware of the circumstances and situations and group dynamics. If someone gets preferential and special treatment, they feel like they're not as important or not as valuable, and maybe they don't respect or appreciate the program as much as they should. And that person who makes $250 million maybe doesn't want special treatment, maybe doesn't want to be treated as this white gloves, let's put it in our lab coats, type of dynamic. They may want to be just like everybody else, come in and get their workout and go home. And that in lies the rub. When we look at this very specific granular exercise selection-based programming, it might come at the expense of a relationship and dynamic within a group and team setting that is not ideal to long-term viability. We'll talk a little bit this morning in the practical. When we look at the next aspect to look at is looking from program centric, right? So let's say that we have a program that's built around a big four movement, push, pull, hinge, and squat. So I need them to do some sort of upper body push, upper body pull, some sort of lower body push, some sort of lower body pull. We can further classify these as vertical and horizontal, or potentially a bilateral or unilateral for push, or a knee dominant, hip dominant for lower body pull. And as I start to break this down, I look at it from, there's going to be some sort of regression to the mean with training age. So if I look at it from the training ages under one, the regression in the mean is going to be pretty simple, limited exercises. I call them high governor exercises. Like it's going to be really hard to screw these up. Whether it's an assisted movement or it's some sort of variation, like a power balance movement, or maybe it's a reverse patterning movement. So for example, of all of these things, where maybe we do the push, pull, hinge, and squat. So for a upper body push and pull, maybe we do from the knees on pushups, maybe we do bent legs on inverted row. And then for a lower body push, maybe we're doing a body weight squat or some sort of dowel supported split squat. And then let's say we look at, from a hinge perspective, we take the knee out of the equation. We just do a, or from a hip hinge or a knee dominant posterior chain, maybe we just bend the knee and just do some hip bridges, right? And we just keep it very simple. And that's our program. So we're going to do from the knees, pushup, bent knees, inverted row, dowel supported split squat, and then a hip bridge for push, pull, hinge, and squat. And then you start to think, okay, like everyone is fairly capable of this. I start to move them up to the right. Maybe I get them to the toes on pushups. Maybe get them to the heels on inverted rows. Maybe I get to load them up with a goblet squat. And then maybe I look at it from the hip hinge. I progress that into a physio ball or foam roll or slide leg curl. And we start to do that all the way through until we get to, okay, now we're doing, we're doing low incline bench press. We're doing pull-ups. We're doing, we're doing heels elevated front squat. We're doing a Nordic hamstring curl. And the time from A to B is based off the group success or even individual success. Like let's say that one-on-one wise, like just get them going and they just want to start and they don't want to do a whole dialed in inventory of movement selection. They just want to get into assimilated into the program. Awesome. And I think this is where the process of evaluating what is good and bad programming and what is a successful, a successful entry point and what is a successful exit from your programming. And the other part, it's bottom line. What actually works? What does that person want? You know, I don't get too, I don't get too worked up on exercises. I really don't. I think there's a means to an end and there's a conversation we need to have about cyclical versus asyclical and that the exercise variation and selection needs to be a lot wider and diverse based off of what their demands are during the sport. But on the other hand, simply put, you know, what is going to get me to point B in the most linear fashion from an exercise selection? And then how can I leverage those movement patterns to get me ultimately what I want? Like I need to have structural balance. So equal distribution of pushing and pulls. Prevent asymmetrical relationships from anterior, posterior, or potentially even from antagonist movements. I need to have a certain level of triplanar control and stability and even potential range, right? So can I move forward and back? Can I move side to side? Can I move in this rotational vector? I need to look at it from the level of, of if I'm working with a group, can I get the majority of the group doing a certain exercise well immediately versus I'm working one-on-one. Can I get the person doing something well over time? I need to look at it from the other level of, of what is the group value, right? And we've all been in that situation of you inherit a program or you get a bunch of athletes from other environments and they are familiar with certain things, like specifically in football, right? Let's look at someone from a college football perspective might be working with an athlete that has transferred two or three times already or they're exposed to several strength and conditioning programs as is. And they're like, damn, I really like Olympic lifts or I really like this high-low vertical integrated model or I could really like doing these drills. I thought that really helped. You know, I think it's best to think about how can you meet them where they're at and find success early with that as well as looking at it from, it's a great opportunity to evolve as a strength coach. I'm not just kind of like saying, like go with the wind and wherever that beautiful experience of life takes you, you just let it go. I think some sort of resemblance of a philosophy and a system is important. But on the other hand, it goes into, you know, hey, this person's deliberately telling you what they can be good at and what they're already good at. Why not get a win? Why not get something that you can immediately be successful with? And you start to let that ride. And as I look at asyclical sports like team sports and court sports and field sports and you start to break down, like what's a good program? Does it pass the shit test? Can you walk by and go, okay, that team's working really hard. That team's got really good technique and that team seems to be improving at something, right? Like that's sometimes really all it is, you know? And as I look through what exercises to use and what exercises to not use and I can go into this very granular, like let's get really in the weeds on exercises like damage person last left, left hip internal rotation. And then this right knee doesn't really fully flex and that left shoulder's not really getting where we want from an extension standpoint. Like, all right, pushups might be tough. We might need to look at more asymmetrical loading or split stance stuff or single leg stance in terms of knee dominant, lower body push. Maybe we need to look at a more unilateral approach of hip hinging. Maybe we need to look at improving range of motion, flexibility-wise, passive-wise in this aspect. All of that. We can get into that and it's great. It's fun. It's a blast. Trust me, it's there. And one of the things you'll learn is the more specific you get, the more wrong you could be. On the other end, you can go, let's just get them doing some push, pull, hinge and squat and I'll regress based off of what I see, which is gonna be a big part of the practical, by the way. Like they're just not grasping this pushup. So let me do knee dominant or let me do some sort of band assisted. Let me do something where they can be successful right now. Right now. I want them to have some sort of eye level of success. And you go, okay, like they're moving well. They're having success. They're making progress. Things are going in the right direction. Does it really matter? Does anything else really matter? Probably not. And as we break down, good versus bad training and everything else in between, you know, what you find is a lot of gray. And then what you also find is exercises and variations and ways to do things are important to a degree. But what really gets down to it is, am I going to be more successful doing a very simple blueprint done really well with a lot of detail versus do I do a very, very, very dialed in, sorry, I should say before a very general blueprint. And then this is a very specific program tailored to that person's individual needs. Done well over time, I think the results are going to be pretty much net the same. Now, we all kind of have this preconceived notion that there is a perfect unified program. And I think we should have that feeling. But the reality is, it's probably the perfect unified program that is coming down to less exercise variation and more exercise, whatever it is that we do choose, execution and becoming detailed and nuanced in that direction. Yeah, let's put a pause on this right there because I think that's a good stopping point. And I think there's a lot to dive into on the other end, looking at it from the perspective of, okay, well, we got our program, we know what we're doing. Now, how do we make that program really stick? And then I'll be the big part of the practical. So let's dive into that here next.