Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:40:10 EST From: Mcsiff@aol.com Subject: Interview with Tudor Bompa Scott asked for comments on this interview with Tudor Bompa: My comments appear after each relevant section. ------------------------ T: What are some of the most common mistakes that athletes make with regard to training? Bompa: This question is really big! I'll try to provide a brief answer. The first problem is the influence of bodybuilding on strength training for sports. Many people believe that strength is proportional to size. T: Not true? Bompa: Completely incorrect! Hypertrophy is necessary only in very few sports, such as linebackers in football, shot putters in track and field, the super heavy-weight category in wrestling, or if an individual is far too slim. In such a case, the periodization of strength has to include three to six, or even nine weeks of training for hypertrophy. For any other athletes, bodybuilding methods are completely useless! [Mel Siff: If Bompa is referring to muscle size, then strength most definitely is proportional to size or more accurately, cross-sectional area, although strength is not LINEARLY proportional to cross-sectional area. In other words, if you increase muscle size or cross-sectional area by 50 percent, you will not increase strength output or torque produced by a given limb by 50 percent. Research has also shown that strength founded on a basis of optimal hypertrophy decays less quickly than if the strength increases are due largely to improvement in neural efficiency. In this regard, some research has indicated that there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy (MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious - other words, one cannot simply dismiss the role played by an optimal amount of muscle (and connective tissue) hypertrophy is all general and sport specific strength training.] Bompa: Sports do not require mass! Sports require power, quickness, and fast application of force. Bodybuilding methods do not result in increasing power. On the contrary, bodybuilding methods make the athletes much slower. And this is a no-no in most of the sports that require quickness and acceleration in force application. [Mel Siff: I am sure that Bompa doesn't really mean what he emotively said above - if you have no "mass" whatsoever, you aren't alive - and if you don't have a certain minimum amount of muscle mass to efficiently stabilise and move your skeleton, you will be bedridden! By the way, sports require the ability to function efficiently under static, slow, dynamic and ballistic conditions, not simply fast conditions. It is also misleading and unscientific to classify ALL bodybuilding methods as "making an athlete slower" - it would be interesting to see any extensive research which validates his claims here. In other articles, Bompa has derided Weightlifting methods as a means of supplementary sports training, so there is not much more left than to simply train with the sporting movements themselves.] T: Okay, what's another major mistake you see? Bompa: The fallacy of Olympic weightlifting exercises! There are several strength coaches with Olympic lifting backgrounds. Unfortunately for them, they can't adjust their knowledge to the needs of strength training for sports. Strength training programs for sports must recognize that almost each sport involves different and specific muscle groups. These muscles are called "prime movers" or the muscles performing the actual technical moves. Therefore, strength training exercises have to target the prime movers. The Olympic lifting exercises are rigidly targeting only certain muscle groups, often not very important for many sports. [Mel Siff: While I certainly agree that some coaches really overdo the use of the "Olympic lifts" and the power clean as the answer to all training needs, it is shortsighted to throw out the really useful litfing babies with all the dirty bathwater. There are appropriate and inappropriate applications of Weightlifting exercises and their derivatives, but that is not an intrinsic fault of "Olympic Lifting" methods, but often more an indictment of the coach whose abilities are rather limited. Once again, Bompa makes what is known philosophically as an "allness" error - he proclaims that ALL Olympic and Bodybuilding exercises generally are useless for general or sports supplementary training, but this means that he has proof that each and every Weightlifting and Bodybuilding method ever devised is useless. It would be interesting to read his huge collection of scientific and practical evidence which validate his claims. His reference to "prime movers" is rather outdated and misleading - that concept is a highly simplistic traditional one and ignores the fact that no muscle acts solely as the "prime mover" throughout the full range of any multidimensional movement - all motor output is the result of the synergistic action of several or many muscles, as has been stressed by Basmajian (see "Muscles Alive") and many others. He should also read the very interesting work being done by Zajac and colleagues on human movement being not only the result of a single "prime mover", but also of the contribution from muscles which do not even directly attach to the moving limb (see end of Ch 3 of Siff M C, "Supertraining"). In stating that "the Olympic lifting exercises are rigidly targeting only certain muscle groups, often not very important for many sports", he seems to be ignoring the many studies (often with EMG) which show that a very large percentage of the muscles in the human body are involved in stabilising or moving the body. Since the muscles heavily involved in Weightlifting are those of the thighs, calves, back abdominal region, shoulders and arms, would he be so kind as to let us know which sports do not involve the use of those muscles? He also errs seriously in stating that the Olympic lifting exercises (and by implication, all of their hundreds of variations and derivatives) "rigidly target" only certain muscle groups - he seems to be unaware of increasing numbers of studies which show that the same external motor action may be produced by different muscles and sequences of muscle action. This work dates at least as far back as the work of the renowned Russian scientist, Bernstein, whose research Bompa, as a fellow Eastern worker, should be very familiar with. ] T: Give us an example of what you mean. Bompa: Take judo for instance. Once I listened to a presentation regarding strength training for judo. The speaker was your typical Olympic lifting coach. He went over snatches and the clean and jerk! When the organizers asked my opinion, I simply said that the whole idea is wrong because judo involves primarily the flexor muscles of the hips, abdominals, and trunk, not the extensors normally targeted by Olympic lifting moves. The lifting coach became very upset when he heard me say this and left the room! [Mel Siff: As someone who took part in martial arts such as judo and grappling, I found that any weakness in extensors, flexors, rotators, adductors and abductors, soon showed up when fighting against an able opponent. Is he unaware that many of the throws in those contact sports also involve powerful extension of the hip and knee joints? In Weightlifting, while many actions involve dynamic extension of many joints, a great deal of rapid and powerful stabilisation also involves the flexors. It is simplistic and often highly misleading to analyse any sporting action only in terms of so-called "prime movers" or even any form of "movers", because all biomechanics and physical therapy takes into account the action of mobilisers and stabilisers. Bompa: The exact same thing happened with swimming. An Olympic lifting coach once again suggested (what else?) the clean and jerk and the snatch. [Mel Siff: What else? Well, there are only several hundred variations of the two "Olympic" lifts (in Ch 8.4 of "Supertraining", I provide a list of over 100 of such variations. Maybe that was a deficiency of that specific coach in referring to only the two lifts, but that offers no valid reasons for summarily dismissing ALL "Olympic" training methods.] Bompa: I pointed out that he was really missing the actual prime movers used in swimming, the arms flexors. The coach's exercises were targeting exactly the opposite group of muscles, the extensors. How difficult is to understand such a basic concept in sports training? Personally I'd use power cleans only for few sports such as linebackers in football and Greco-roman wrestling. I'd use clean and jerks for basketball players, performed with a medicine ball or a power ball. [Mel Siff: Once again, he is basing his argument on that very simplistic, misleading concept of "prime movers". Now, let's examine swimming strokes, which Bompa categorises all to be managed by the arm flexors. Since all of the different strokes involve the arms in different directions, he is making a serious biomechanical error. Since when is arm flexion the "prime" muscular action in freestyle and backstroke? (more accurately, we should refer to flexion of a given joint, not a limb, like the "arm"). If we examine the definition of what "arm flexion" (shoulder flexion) is this refers to the action of the arms being swung upwards from the sides to above the head (i.e. in backstroke) , whereas arm (shoulder) extension refers to the action of moving the arms from near or above the head past one's sides (as in crawl or freestyle). Anyway, in all of the strokes, the arms and hand hardly follow a very simple linear or circular trajectory, but move in much more complex multijoint patterns especially during the pull. What about breaststroke? What about the elements of adduction and abduction involved in this stroke? Then, of course, we must not forget the role of the legs during the crucial starting and turning phases of competition. It would appear that this analysis of swimming biomechanics and the definitions of functional anatomy warrants some attention.] Bompa: This leads to another problem. The Olympic lifting coaches are using their own periodization, specific to Olympic lifting. Well, how much common sense does one need to have in order to understand that the Olympic lifting coaches have to adapt their training methodology to the periodization of that particular sport and not the other way around? [Mel Siff: Here I would agree. Each sport and each individual in a given sport at each different stage of competence may require a very different model and scheme of periodisation. As I have mentioned before, I am even loath to design a highly deterministic periodisation scheme, but prefer to use what I call "cybernetic periodisation" which allows one to rely on subjective and objective feedback (e.g. using Ratings of Perceived Exertion and Ratings of Technique) to continually modify the programme (see Siff M C "Supertraining" Ch 6).] T: Are there any strength-training exercises that all athletes should be doing? Bompa: Certainly, especially as they target the ankle, knee, and hip muscles. Most sports performed on the ground [all team sports, track, martial arts, etc.] use knee extensors and flexors, and gastrocnemius and soleus for the ankle actions. Therefore squats, leg curls, and toe raises are very popular with most sports. Although many coaches do use squats and leg curls, toe raises aren't utilized as much as the other two exercises. Somehow they miss the fact that ankles play a very important role in any type of sprinting, quick changes of direction, and any agility actions. In many cases, the gastrocnemius and soleus are stronger than the quadriceps! This is why improvements in quickness and agility will come faster after these two muscles get stronger. [Mel Siff: It has to be pointed out that the calf raising or plantarflexion action of the isolated ankle joint produces a relatively small torque and vertical thrust, as can easily be measured on a force plate. However, if the ankle extension is accompanied by knee, hip and back extension, the vertical thrust is considerably greater. In other words, the use of isolated joint exercises like calf raising may do little to enhance "functional" drive during the sprint, jumps and allied motions. It would be interesting to see research evidence that the gastrocnemius and soleus are stronger than the quadriceps in many cases. In all force plate and dynamometric measurements that I have taken or seen, knee extension in the uninjured subject always produces greater torque than ankle plantarflexion. Very often, apparent strength deficits are due more to inadequate emphasis on neural or skill components of training.] T: How about abs? Bompa: Yes, this is equally true with regard to abdominal muscles. Abdominal curls with all variations and rotations are very necessary for all sports. A strong back is also crucial in many sports. Therefore, back extensions should be considered..... [Mel Siff: Presuming that he is referring to supine curls, abdominal curls are by no means the most powerful way of increasing "functional" strength of the abdominal musculature and, if one is using an exercise program which involves variants of the "Olympic" and power lifting movements, the need for any supine ab curls generally becomes superfluous. Anyway, loaded standing cable crunches from a back extended position are far more demanding and effective than ab crunches. Incidentally, normal back extensions rely more on the hip extensors than the back erectors, which play a largely stabilising role in this exercise. Why not clean pulls, "Romanian deadlifts", power cleans, deadlifts, snatch pulls, good mornings, etc, then? These exercises all use the spinal erectors dynamically and statically during different stages of the action. T: What are some of the techniques you've used to blast through training plateaus? Bompa: An athlete doesn't reach a plateau very quickly. It takes time - several years of training at a high level - before something like that can even be considered. In my career of many years I've rarely seen athletes reaching a plateau in strength training. This situation is mostly discussed in bodybuilding and at times in football. Nevertheless, let's try to discuss some possibilities for breaking through training plateaus. Here are five: 5. Use more eccentric (negative) contraction techniques. Eccentric contractions require a much higher tension in the fast twitch muscles. Eccentric training shouldn't be used before the athletes have a better background. Unfortunately, many coaches can hardly wait to use everything they know; in this way they themselves are contributing to reaching a plateau...... [Mel Siff: May we see the research which shows that eccentric muscle contractions (actually, muscle physiologists now prefer that these now be called "actions", not contractions) require a much higher tension in the fast twitch muscles. Since the fast, slow and other muscle fibre types all form part of a whole, terminating in common tendons at both ends, how can the tension be different in each different type of muscle fibre, especially since research shows that in some regions the slow and fast fibres are closely intermingled (p56 of "Supertraining")? ] T: Fair enough. I've read that in Bulgaria, Olympic athletes train five times a day, seven times a week and that Russian powerlifters bench press up to 21 times a week. What do you think of this training frequency and would these types of programs be beneficial to a natural trainer? Bompa: I just wish that people wouldn't compare apples to oranges. In order to discuss this we have to better qualify what Bulgarians and Russian Olympic weightlifters were doing in the time of the communist system. Yes, the Bulgarian Olympic lifters were training from 9:00 AM to 5:00 or 6:00 PM, 45 minutes on and 30 minutes off, except for the lunch break of some two hours. The Russians weren't powerlifters. They were Olympic lifters and what they were doing is something they've adapted to progressively over several years. Most of these athletes had a background of eight to ten years before they were doing that kind of training. [Mel Siff: My research, coaching and teaching brought me into close contact with professional classical and modern dancers, who always laughed when we discussed the idea that this style of Bulgarian or Russian lifting training is regarded by many as being so demanding or special - they basically said: "So what is great about that? - we train all day like that, often 6 days a week from early morning until later afternoon or early evening - they are professional athletes and so are we? That is simply what our jobs entail and that is the only way in which you can become world class." Yes, like the Eastern weightlifters, they worked in several sessions per day, punctuated by regular rest intervals. You don't have to be a weightlifter to train like that, just someone who does nothing else but sport all day! In fact, if you have the ability to train like that is a series of shorter punctuated alternating high and low intensity intervals, as well as using regular restoration methods, you may even find it less stressful than training as most of us do at some stage in the middle or at the end of one's normal day. You do not need eight to ten years of prior training to be able to train like that - just the ability to do nothing else other than devote most of your day to sport and a coach who knows how to design training modules throughout the day to suit your specific capabilities and needs. Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/ And who is Bompa??? Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:58:44 -0500 From: "Dmitry Voronov" Subject: Re: Interview with Tudor Bompa Bompa claims to be the father of periodization. In reality, he didn't invent anything but he just taught what he learned in the Eastern Bloc. He's originally from Romania. It might have even been novel in Romania but it was not his idea, I don't care what he says. He lives in Toronto and teaches at York. He has trained 11 Olympians including 4 gold medalists so however out of date his teachings are (even though they are still novel compared to what most people do), I give him credit for recognizing that olympic lifts are not the be all and end all of physical development even though he is an Olympic coach (and if you've ever met one, you know that it's as rare as a blond Geisha girl). Even though it's definitely not complete, I think his Serious strength training book is a good source for a thorough understanding of what periodization is about. I'd recommend Poliquin Principles but I'd like to see at least a 6th grader proofread it first. I'll bet Poliquin learned most of his stuff from Bompa. He probably wasn't even born yet when Bompa was already preaching periodization. Dmitry