Coordinative Specificity: Triangulating On The Target III

“Needs analysis” is a 3-headed monster, but a necessary first step in planning training. Here’s the final part in our series about getting an accurate fix on your performance target — with the focus now on coordination.

“Power is nothing without control.”
— Pirelli Tyre

To briefly summarize what we’ve covered so far:

• Specificity is not a 1-dimensional entity. It actually has at least 3 dimensions — mechanics, energetics and coordination — each of which has a few nuances to it. None are overly complicated, and each offers some time-tested ideas that we can lean on for answers.

• We need to scout our performance target from all 3 angles in order to be sure important signals aren’t lost in the noise. Otherwise, the simulation trap is waiting for us. I try to avoid falling into that trap at all costs. It’s too crowded already, plus it’s like a black hole (once you’ve been pulled in, it seems to be tough to get out).

Rethinking a basic issue like specificity involves checking one’s assumptions. As noble as that task may be, it pretty much guarantees that you’ll be visiting your “discomfort zone” as well as losing popularity with lots of folks. The good news: you’ll get a much clearer picture of your target and also discover some useful things about the people that you’re working with (like who’s serious about training and who isn’t).

Specificity³: Coordination
Throughout this series, I’ve tried my best to convince you that we can’t rely on outward appearances when analyzing task demands. What we really need are objective criteria. The 3-dimensional specificity paradigm I’m proposing is simply a framework for those criteria. Mechanics, energetics and coordination are perspectives we can use to get a fix on a 3-D target — effectively triangulating on it. Certain things may not be visible from any single vantage point, so in order to be sure we don’t miss something it’s important not to rely on just one or two of them.

Unfortunately, many people seem to take a 1-dimensional approach to specificity. They often lock onto one viewpoint without giving much thought to the others. Moreover, some folks are unclear on the concept in the first place because they have fallen into the simulation trap or accepted some half-truth as fact; and never rechecked their assumptions.

It’s no wonder this can be a challenging issue.

In parts I and II, we’ve considered mechanical and energetic criteria as well as their practical implications. Now let’s focus on coordination. We’re going to peek inside a black box — the human head — but don’t worry. That isn’t such a scary exercise after all when we use science as our guide. As we’ll see, this brings us to the bigger issues of motor learning, skill acquisition and expertise.

Don’t Let The Jargon Throw You
What is “coordinative specificity” anyway — and why use such an uncommon term in the first place? If you follow the international literature, especially some classic resources authored in Eastern Europe, you’ll find discussions about developing athletes’ coordinative abilities (Drabik 1996; Harre 1982). Think of these as the basic elements of technical skills that we use when performing motor tasks:

• Adaptive ability — modification of action sequence upon observing or anticipating novel/changing conditions and situations
• Balance — static and dynamic equilibrium
• Combinatory ability — coordination of body movements into a given action
• Differentiation — accurate, economical adjustment of body movements and mechanics
• Orientation — spatial and temporal control of body movements
• Reactiveness — quick, well-directed response to stimuli
• Rhythm — observation and implementation of dynamic motion pattern, timing and variation

In those same resources, you’ll find coordinative abilities discussed in the context of agility, which really comprises an athlete’s entire movement skill set (yes, there’s more to it than just changing direction or speed). These abilities are believed to be most trainable in preadolescence, which is considered a critical or sensitive period for skill development. This window of opportunity begins to close during adolescence, during which the focus should progress from basic movement competencies and fitness qualities to specific skills and abilities — i.e. from general to special preparation. There is a biological basis for this, which I’ll briefly touch on in a moment.

That’s why it’s so important to think like an educator when training athletes, particularly regarding their developmental status. We need to task our students with the right things at the right times and sequentially steer them toward their ultimate performance target. Teach developmentally-appropriate content, and get your students fluent in “sport generic” prerequisites — i.e. coordinative abilities — first. These provide the platform on which “sport specific” skills can then be built.

So let’s be clear: Progressing toward specific performance targets is the name of the game, with progression being the central concept. There’s no doubt about that. But the key is to approach training as a long-term curriculum that begins with a broad base and gradually zeros in on a long-range goal. Like any developmental curriculum, early-specialization or fast-track programs rarely succeed.

Expert and nonexpert involvement in other activities. Source: Starkes J.L. & Ericsson K.A. (Editors) Expert Performance in Sports. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2003; p. 99.

Put On Your Motor Learning Hat
Consider the movement skills involved in a target activity from a motor behavior standpoint. There’s a classic paradigm called practice specificity that we can lean on here (its origin is tough to trace; refer to Magill 2006, Schmidt & Lee 2005 and Schmidt & Wrisberg 2007). It states that the demands of a training task should correspond to the target activity with respect to its sensorimotor, processing and contextual effects. In many cases, this can be accomplished without emulating a task’s outward appearance. Our goal is to maximize the acquisition, retention and transfer of motor skills; not to imitate a target activity’s movement patterns. Time after time, that leads to the simulation trap. Instead, we want to task the system with functional problems where we’re focused on certain criteria and not just on kinematics.

In other words, we need to direct our attention to things we can’t always see clearly; and not just focus on the things we can see easily.

Right, no problem...at least until you have to explain what you’re doing to coaches or parents. Needless to say, that’s easier said than done. They usually want their kids doing “sport specific” drills and probably aren’t interested in hearing about some triangulation nonsense.

Here’s an analogy I’ve had some success with when dealing with that issue: Think of training in terms of upgrading a computer system. The hardware and software must work together, which is why you get optimal results by improving both of them in a coordinated way. Now the unique thing about athletes is that:

• They don’t come with factory-installed software programs. We’re each born with a template, and software upgrades are a work in progress starting from birth (unfortunately, so are downgrades in the case of detraining or debilitation).

• Their hardware is upgraded by their software. We don’t have to buy the new programs and peripherals separately. If we reprogram the software correctly, the hardware issues largely take care of themselves.

• The whole remodeling process is shaped by task demands (this is the essence of the SAID principle, i.e. specific adaptation to imposed demands). We can’t install our new operating system from a CD or the web. Instead, it involves a time-consuming process called learning; hence the value of a good teacher and sound material.

• Movement is one of the essential tasks that their on-board computers coordinate. Consider the problems this presents. The operating system must manage the momentum of a complex machine as it moves over various terrain, navigates through traffic, and manipulates all sorts of objects. It supports itself on a single limb (when walking), and repeatedly launches itself as a projectile (when running and jumping). Its center of mass is regularly outside its base of support when changing velocities. External forces — especially gravity — constantly disturb its balance.

So the practical question becomes: What are we tasking each student’s operating system to do? Specifically:

• Are we challenging it with skill-based problems, in keeping with the SAID principle?
• Are these problems developmentally appropriate, progressing from generic to specific?
• Do criteria — mechanical, energetic and coordinative — take precedence over appearances?

In my experience, a good first step toward being able to answer yes to each question is simply: Don’t get cute. Keep things low-tech for the most part and prompt your athletes (rather than some gizmo) to solve the problem. Chances are you won’t find them sitting on guided-resistance machines or counting reps while playing the game, regardless of where it is on the endurance-power continuum. Of course there are exceptions, but life tends to be a free-weight sport.

 

Gravity Is Trying To Put You On The Ground
For that matter, gravity is trying to defeat pretty much everything that you do — and it’s relentless. I know this seems like a pedantic point, but it actually puts running and jumping (along with every other athletic skill) in a new light when you think about it.

So take a minute and think about it. Trust me, we have a teachable moment here.

Now consider the implications for training:

• Get on your feet and get moving. Focus your time and effort on exercises that involve some sort of technique. As a rule of thumb, if it doesn’t require skill (and good coaching!) it probably doesn’t deserve high priority.

• The issue is one of guided vs. unguided resistance, not machines vs. free weights. I’m a big fan of certain machines, e.g. cable-pulley stations that allow you to do all kinds of useful exercises by redirecting the load. The real key is whether you have to control, direct and stabilize the load (note that controlling it doesn’t mean moving slowly; refer to part I of this series for more discussion about this issue). There are other examples of machines that serve useful roles, as long as there is a clear and compelling reason. But generally speaking, free weights of all kinds — not just the ones made of iron — are where it’s at.

• You don’t necessarily have to move the load in multiple planes, as long as it’s free to move in all planes (in biomechanics speak, this is referred to as unlimited degrees of freedom). If you’re doing a traditional barbell exercise where the action is more or less uniplanar, it can be very “functional”; likewise, a multiplanar exercise with some combination of frontal/sagittal/transverse action may not be very “functional” at all — especially if an apparatus is guiding you through the movement path and our specificity criteria aren’t being met. Again prompt your athletes to control, direct and stabilize the load with sound technique, rather than try to move in all planes for its own sake. [How’s this for a paradox: maybe the fact that the load isn’t moving in multiple directions is what makes it functional!]

• If I haven’t insulted your intelligence enough already, here’s a pop quiz: In which direction is gravity pushing? We can move in all planes. That’s a fact. But the principal force that governs everything we do is acting in only one. I’m not implying that you should just do single-plane exercises and be done with it; in fact, it’s a good idea to vary them according to some kind of matrix. But focus on real-world movements and don’t go overboard with the multiple-plane thing. Even if the action occurs mostly in one direction, there’s probably still plenty going on in others. [Think about how this helps resolve the paradox in my previous point.]

• Use balance or stability training methods with discretion. Balance is one of the coordinative abilities and is clearly important. The problem is that many people are using questionable methods for balance training and/or adding instability to exercises where it’s not safe or appropriate. The more instability you introduce into a task, the lower an athlete’s force output tends to be (note that EMG activity is not a proxy for force production). Even when a balance exercise prompts a lot of muscle activation, much of this tends to involve protective co-contraction (e.g. to keep from falling) rather than power output. So it’s important to be clear about the goal of such tasks and to be careful about using them when strength training — particularly if they involve inflatable/labile surfaces.

OK that won’t make me too popular with the functional training crowd (as if they liked me very much to begin with), but hopefully you get the idea.

Developmental Issues
As I mentioned in part I, there are 3 essential steps involved in preparing any sound strategy, including a training program:

1. Zero in on the performance target. This gets into the issue of specificity.
2. Assess the situation. This must be done with regard to students’ developmental status.
3. Select tactics for achieving generic as well as specific goals and objectives. This gets into the issue of planned variation in means and methods, i.e. periodization.

Even if you’ve mastered steps #1 and #3, you can get into big trouble if you skip step #2: Recognize the situation. When training athletes — i.e. when helping them acquire new movement skills — developmental considerations are the central situational issue. We have to know where our students are developmentally and which aspects of the curriculum are (or are not) appropriate at a given time.

Long-term skill acquisition has an interesting biological basis. A remarkable pruning process occurs in the brain before and during adolescence, in which unused connections between neurons are eliminated. Meanwhile, connections that are used regularly are reinforced, making them faster and more efficient. The process is guided by genetics (nature) as well as experience (nurture), and may be the ultimate example of the use-it-or-lose-it principle.

Nerve proliferation and pruning in childhood and adolescence. Source: Wallis C., et al. What makes teens tick? TIME 163(19): 56-65, 2004.

As is the case in academics, aspiring young athletes progress further by learning a systematic physical education syllabus, not by trying to skip ahead. Fundamentals must be learned and automated properly in order to master complex skills later on — just like the three Rs (reading, ’riting, ’rithmetic) are prerequisites for advanced academic skills. Competence should always precede performance.

Brain maturation from ages 5-20. Source: www.nimh.nih.gov.

The Language of Movement

In the introductory part of this series, I proposed viewing locomotion — and running and jumping in particular — as a basic language of movement. This is the common skill set that many sports share; and it makes many so-called sport specific issues look a bit subtler in the scheme of things. We definitely need to identify truly specialized needs in order to maximize our athletes’ performance and minimize their injury risks. But it’s important to consider these sport generic demands first.

“Language of movement” is not just a buzzterm. Both movement and speech are acquired skills; and in both cases, the learning process involves the brain’s motor centers. [Those centers reside just above the earhole in the brain maturation figure above — notice any changes occurring there?] Achieving fluency requires sequenced development that begins with prerequisites, and progresses toward more advanced and applied content. This is why we need to take the term “student-athlete” literally and use educationally-based strategies in our training programs. Consider it a badge of honor if your micro-, meso- and macrocycles can be accurately described as lesson plans, syllabi and curricula, respectively.

Why do I keep railing about this topic? Because our schools rarely teach running and jumping mechanics to our children. That’s a frank observation, and I’m not trying to be an iconoclast or play the blame game. It’s just a fact that our national standards for physical education don’t address the basic mechanics of these skills (NASPE 2004). In my opinion, those mechanics need to be taught for all the reasons discussed above. I’m really looking forward to the day when that starts happening because it’s a big blind spot with big implications for health and performance.

The Curriculum
An impressive body of evidence supports the “10 year rule” for achieving mastery (Charness et al. 2006, Starkes & Ericsson 2003). The acquisition of expertise in a wide range of performance domains, including sport, involves up to 10 years — or 10,000 hours — of regular, guided, deliberate preparation.

The benefits of such overlearning are well documented. This presents a daunting practical challenge because it involves an average of about 20 hours per week, every week for 10 years! Consider the time and effort that must also be devoted to restoration/regeneration measures in order to prevent overtraining, and preparation becomes a full-time job. Many dedicated athletes only train about half that much, and it’s not necessarily because they’re taking shortcuts. School, work, rules and life in general make such a commitment virtually impossible for most amateur athletes. Yet it’s very hard to reach elite levels without investing massive time and effort.

Not everyone aspires to be an elite athlete, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to get the most out of their investment. Therein lies the value of approaching preparation as a long-term curriculum.

Here’s an example of how to plan long-term training in a series of progressive stages (Balyi 2004, Charness et al. 2006, Starkes & Ericsson 2003):

• Years 1-2: Fundamental. Training tasks involve deliberate play rather than performance-oriented activity, while emphasizing basic movement competencies and fun. The skills introduced in this stage should be simple but challenging for youth athletes.

• Years 3-4: Novice (“learning to train”). Training begins to involve structured practice. The program still emphasizes basic movement competencies and mechanics, while starting to target the development of motor abilities.

• Years 5-6: Intermediate (“training to train”). Training begins to involve deliberate practice, with balanced emphasis on competency-based and performance-based tasks. The program continues targeting the development of movement techniques and motor abilities.

• Years 7-8: Advanced (“training to compete”). Development of specific techniques and abilities gets high priority, while applying these in complex tactics and competitive situations.

• Years 9-10: Elite (“training to win”). Mastery of specific strategies, skills and abilities gets top priority. The program focuses on achieving sports performance expertise.

Movement mechanics and techniques, as well as basic fitness qualities — i.e. general preparation tasks — are priorities during the early stages. The intent is to automate these so the athlete can progressively focus on tactical and strategic targets — i.e. special preparation tasks — as he/she advances toward the elite level. Practitioners should introduce age-appropriate movement skills such that athletes can practice them at each level with the expectation of achieving proficiency at others (Bar-Or 1995; Drabik 1996; Malina, Bouchard & Bar-Or 2004). As athletes master each skill, they should subsequently review and maintain it while progressing to newer, more complex tasks.

The bottom line: think like an educator. From our day-to-day decisions about content and management to longer-term developmental and planning issues, it’s all about being a teacher. Training is synonymous with learning!

So There You Have It
That’s it, my hare-brained take on the coordinative specificity side of our triangulation scheme. As an addendum, I’m including some evidence-based teaching guidelines below.

This whole triangulation concept is just a revised approach to needs analysis, the first step in exercise prescription (Kraemer 1983). Dr K originally proposed a 2-pronged (mechanical and energetic) analysis of the target activity. We’ve simply added a third prong (coordination) and updated the criteria used in each. The intersection of these 3 prongs of specificity is the sweet spot. That’s where we’ll find the special preparation tasks that closely correspond to a target activity.

In closing, we’ve covered a lot of ground in this series, but the basic concept is straightforward. We need to select our training tactics with respect to the target as well as the situation:

• Our target (specificity) is a bit cagey, so we’re triangulating to make sure we don’t miss it. That’s orienteering 101.
• Our situation (developmental status) requires us to think like teachers, being sure to task our students appropriately and guide them toward their long-range target. That’s education 101.

If this idea makes sense, you’ve got it!

Acknowledgments 
Thanks to Walt Cline, John Gray, Loren Landow and Mike Napierala

Resources

1. Balyi I. Long-term athlete development: trainability in childhood and adolescence. Olympic Coach 16(1): 4-9, 2004.
2. Bar-Or O. (Editor) The Child & Adolescent Athlete. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1995.
3. Charness N., Feltovich P.J., Hoffman R.R. & Ericsson K.A. (Editors) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise & Expert Performance. New York NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
4. Drabik J. Children & Sports Training. Island Pond VT: Stadion Publishing, 1996.
5. Harre D. (Editor) Principles of Sports Training. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1982.
6. Kraemer W.J. Exercise prescription in resistance training: a needs analysis. NSCA Journal 5(1): 64-65, 1983.
7. Magill R.A. Motor Learning & Control (8th Edition). New York NY: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
8. Malina R.M., Bouchard C. & Bar-Or O. Growth, Maturation & Physical Activity (2nd Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
9. National Association for Sport & Physical Education. Moving Into the Future (2nd Edition). New York NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
10. Schmidt R.A. & Lee T.D. Motor Control & Learning (4th Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
11. Schmidt R.A. & Wrisberg C.A. Motor Learning & Performance (4th Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.
12. Starkes J.L. & Ericsson K.A. (Editors) Expert Performance in Sports. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2003.

* * * * *

 

Motor Learning Guidelines

Certain strategies for teaching motor skills yield superior results. Some are straightforward, whereas others may seem counterintuitive. For example, according to the principle of practice specificity, the sensorimotor, processing and contextual demands of training tasks should correspond to the target activity in order to maximize the acquisition, retention and transfer of motor skills. However, an optimal level of “contextual interference” in the form of varied or random practice tends to enhance learning, albeit at the expense of short-term performance.

Following is a summary of evidence-based guidelines for teaching movement skills. These are much more than a checklist. You’ll find that they challenge some conventional beliefs and involve some interesting decisions:

• Physical vs. Mental Practice. Active physical practice is generally superior to mental practice. The practitioner can usually achieve optimal learning effects by skillfully combining them, however, with the latter being especially useful for pre-performance preparation. Purposeful, structured practice activities can be supplemented with “off task” imaging and cognitive rehearsal. Regardless of how dynamic a task is, the key objectives are information processing, decision making and problem solving. Optimal arousal, motivation and focused attention are necessary to achieve the desired learning and performance goals.

• Amount of Practice. The benefits of overlearning skills are well documented. According to the “10 year rule” for achieving mastery, the acquisition of expertise in a wide range of performance domains, including sport, involves up to 10 years — or 10,000 hours — of regular, guided, deliberate preparation. More practice is generally better, but its content and structure are also vital.

• Whole vs. Part Practice. Two criteria should form the basis for this choice: number and interdependence of skill parts, and athlete’s developmental status. “Part practice” is preferable for tasks that are highly complex, but low in organization. “Whole practice” is preferable for tasks that are low in complexity, but highly organized. There are advantages to each method because functional tasks tend to reside in the middle of this continuum, and skill acquisition involves learning the parts as well as uniting them into a cohesive whole. Given the limits on athletes’ attention capacity, it is usually appropriate to use variants of part practice such as task segmentation or simplification. If these are impractical, the practitioner should cue athletes’ attention on specific part(s) when practicing whole skills.

• Augmented Feedback & Instruction. Extrinsic feedback is beneficial when a skill is complex or the athlete is a novice, and essential when intrinsic feedback is limited or difficult to interpret. Frequent feedback is important during the early stage of learning, but can be detrimental if the athlete becomes dependent on it. The practitioner’s instructions should combine demonstration/modeling and verbal instruction; focus on (but not be redundant with) intrinsic feedback; provide information on proper performance as well as error correction; progress from qualitative to quantitative information; and gradually decrease in frequency.

• Practice Distribution. Motor skill learning generally improves with shorter, more frequent practice sessions. There are practical considerations, however, in terms of limited time and possible trade-offs with amount of practice. “Distributed practice” tends to improve long-term acquisition and transfer of continuous skills, as well as acute performance. “Massed practice” tends to improve acquisition and transfer of discrete skills, but can reduce acute performance.

• Practice Variation. It may be advantageous for novice athletes to begin with “blocked practice” involving one version of a task until they master the basic technique. The practitioner should then introduce “varied practice” — i.e. changing task order or conditions — to help athletes develop specific schemas. This may seem paradoxical because blocked practice usually improves acute performance, but reduces learning, retention and transfer. Varied practice can reduce acute performance, but significantly improves long-term skill acquisition.

excelsiorsports@gmail.com
Prepare To Be A Champion!

Copyright © 2010 Excelsior Sports. All rights reserved.