Evolutionary Athletics

Make sure you subscribe to my FREE Newsletter - Click Here Now for EXCLUSIVE members only content!

EA: Thanks for agreeing to the interview Roger. First tell everyone a bit about who you are.

RN: Thanks for having me, Alex.

As for me, there’s not much to tell. I’m a college student going into my senior year up here in Anchorage, Alaska and am majoring in psychology, though I’m still somewhat up in the air about what I’m going to do when I graduate. I spend my time enjoying the outdoors (for around four months per year), playing video games, reading, hanging out with my friends and family, and of course, obessing over sports science.

I spend far too much time reading, writing, and talking about training, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. The human body is an amazing machine and seeing just how far it can be pushed is a compelling quest.

Beyond my interest in the topic and my presence on a number of sports training boards, my only real involvement in the field is that I train as a short sprinter. I picked it up a few years ago at 18 after never having done a sport before and haven’t regretted a moment of it. I’m not fast, far from it as a matter of fact, but I enjoy the learning process and am consistently improving.

EA: Now considering your “lack” of credentials why should we listen to you?

RN: You know, that’s a good question.

I don’t have a degree in the field, or even a certificate, but I’ve spoken regularly with several top professionals and have read dozens of books, hundreds upon hundreds of studies, and tens of thousands of total pages in an effort to learn everything possible. When I find something that interests me, I study it obsessively, and training is no exception. Despite my relative lack of experience and total time spent in the field, I’ve crammed a lot of learning and interaction into a very short period.

I’m also a fairly smart guy, but I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it. ;D

If you were going to listen to me, the one and only one reason you should is because I back up my writing with citations from people who do have doctorates in field. By properly citing the research backing what I write, I can lend my material credibility. From there, it’s just up to me to put everything together.

EA: This is a big question, Can you outline your training philosophy for the readers?

RN: Damn, that is a big one. I don’t think I can get all of it across here, but I’ll give it my best shot. To make things easier, I’ll give an example of how I’d start with someone looking to become a general athlete from scratch. And by a “general athlete” I mean someone who can perform capably in nearly any test of athleticism, feats like swimming or distance running notwithstanding.

The first thing I’d look to do would be to develop active flexibility through every major joint while simultaneously building strength over the entire ROM. To do this I would use a combination of medium duration (20-30 seconds) yielding isometrics done at the end range of the ROM combined with various activation drills. Most of the movements used for isometrics would be unilateral in nature to help teach balance and general proprioceptive ability, and most of the activation drills would focus on teaching the athlete to coordinate the muscles stabilizing the pelvis. The ISOs would be done 2-3 times per week and intra-session volume would be controlled via looking for drops in performance. The activation drills would be done daily. Once the correct firing patterns, range of movement, and general base of strength had been laid, I would start moving into more specific training.

With the base laid, it would be time to expose the system to reactive-based movement, while maintaining strength and activation patterns, of course. We’d start with something low intensity and cyclical, like RFIs, maybe even something as simple as jumping rope. As proficiency allows, we would move to more intense drills, before finally moving from bilateral RFIs to unilateral RFIs. The whole time, relaxation and easy of movement would be stressed. Once the athlete demonstrates proficiency in single leg RFI work, it’s time to start getting into real training.

Having established a healthy ROM, developed strength at all muscle lengths, taught the right muscle activation patterns, and ingrained relaxation and general movement efficiency, it would then be time to start exposing the body to higher levels of force. At this point, I’d start with low, bilateral depth drops into a general athletic stance. As ability allowed, the drop height would gradually increase and then new stances would be used. Other stances could include deep squats, split squats, or single leg depth drops. Once the athlete showed themselves to be able to absorb force in multiple positions and muscle groups, it would then be time to train them to put that force back out. This process is pretty much the same as the above, but instead of depth drops, we’d be using depth jumps. When that progression had run its course and the athlete was now able properly absorb and put back out large amounts of force, it would be time to move into sport-specific training.

At this point, the athlete would already be fairly impressive and would be able to handle actual sporting skills. At this point, training would consist largely of the activities the athlete wanted to perform well in. Sprinting, approach jumps, throwing, and the sporting movements themselves would become the primary training. When results slowed, the athlete would step back and teach their system to absorb more force through depth drops or overload methods and would then come back to their sporting movements. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Once more, damn, that was a big one. Sorry for rambling. I’ll try to sum it up a little better.

-Build strength, ROM, and proper activation patterns

-Learn to relax and move easily under low force conditions

-Learn to absorb high forces

-Learn to generate high forces

-Practice your sporting skills

Beyond that, I really try to stress quality over quantity. I also like autoregulation as a means of determining volume and I don’t think one can put a price on attitude or determination.

Again, sorry for rambling, and I hope that was clear enough.

EA: Excellent answer Roger.

A while ago you wrote an E-book about your training perspective. How has you philosophy changed since then and why? Additionally, to piggyback on that question, how has your philosophy changed since you began studying sport science?

RN: Thanks Alex. Truth be told, the hardest part was making it so short. Ha-ha….

As for the E-book, it was more of an E-pamphlet. Since then though, I don’t think my philosophy has changed much. Some things are more clear than others, but all of the same building blocks are still there. The e-book didn’t really go over my philosophy either. It was meant as somewhat of a primer to teach people not so much how to train, but how to look at and understand the various components that comprise training. I strongly subscribe to the “teach a man to fish” school of thought, in that the best way to help anyone is to teach them to do it on their own.

How I’ve changed since starting up on sports science is an entirely different story though. Though it was hardly science at the time, I first got interested in training through ads in “Slam” magazine for strength shoes and Air Alert. I’m not proud of it, but I still have a pair of Jumpsoles gathering dust somewhere out in my garage. At that point, I knew nothing except what the programs told me and I figured higher reps and more work were what lead to improvements.

Thankfully, I was able to reason that high rep programming didn’t make sense and that the Jumpsoles only seemed to be hindering my workouts. Seeking out answers, I stumbled across Louie Simmons and Joe Defranco and I took their word as law. Strength training was all there was and squats were king. But again, as I learned more, I could see that there was more out there. This revelation was largely caused by being introduced to the writings of Kelly Baggett (who has since influenced me directly for years, often through blunt words and solid advice) and seeing the science behind them.

It was at about this point that I stopped listening to coaches just because they were experts and set out to understand the underlying mechanisms behind everything.

After a few years of scouring textbooks, journals, and any other sources of information I could come by, I arrived at roughly where I am now. Whereas before I was only looking at bits and pieces of the picture, I now try to look at both the big picture and each little piece of the puzzle that makes it up. Basically, before I took the words of coaches because they were supposed to be experts, but now all I do is ask “why” and try to understand every little thing as fully as possible. As one would expect, this has lead to a marked shift in how I train and think.

No more 100 rep sets or senseless preoccupations with squats for me, thank you. Now everything I do is strongly (more or less) backed by fact and reason.

EA: It seems you get in more internet wars than almost anyone I know. I think it may be time to start another. Are there any sacred cows you would like to slay? What common training ”truths” drive you nuts?

RN: Wow, you’re not just looking for a good interview, but a controversial one too, huh?

Nah, seriously though, I do get into e-scraps every once in a while, but I can’t help it. I don’t like seeing bad information passed around to people who don’t know better. One bad piece of information can ruin a kid for life. High depth jumps or 50 rep rhythm squats for example.

As for sacred cows, I’ve openly called out most of them by now, but there are a few I wouldn’t mind looking at again.

For one, I really don’t like the “no high intensity ab work” thing that somehow proliferates in sprint training circles. Somehow people think that hundreds of un-weighted crunches are good enough for the abs and hip flexors, yet they need heavy weights for every other muscle group. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. The abs and hip flexors need tension and volume overload to adapt just like the rest of the body.

Along that same line, I don’t like the continuous pushing of p-chain work and the constant advice to arch one’s back hard. Both of these things set athletes up for having poor pelvic control and stability and a weak anterior chain. Instead of falling into the trap, people need to be focusing on keeping their pelvis neutral and training all sides of the body in a balanced manner. The front of the body is just as important as the back, and unless there’s balance, people will always  be short of their potential.

And not to keep beating a dead horse, but I can’t stand the “squat or go home” guys. If you listened to the average Westside disciple you’d think squats not only build up the glutes, hams, quads and abs, but cured cancer and paid off your mortgage too. As a matter of fact (and I know I keep bringing up the abs here, but they’re very important to proper athletic function), the mere claim that the abs are adequately trained by squats and DLs is downright stupid. The abs act to help stabilize the pelvis, often poorly, but that’s all. They’re not a primary mover. Claiming squats, GMs, and DLs train the abs is the equivalent of saying that

decline sit ups train the spinal erectors.

Besides that, I don’t like the general misconceptions floating around about strength as it relates to athletes. People need to understand that the athlete who squats more isn’t necessarily stronger. As far as most athletes are concerned, there’s never any reason to display maximal strength in a 1RM bilateral lift. The demands of sport are just far too different from a maximal squat. As it matters to athletes, strength should be thought of as the levels of intramuscular tension they’re able to generate, not their performance in an unrelated drill like the squat. Training at and around one’s 1RM is risky and provides no benefit over other, less stressful, more specific types of training.

I’ve got more. Believe me, I’ve got more, but I think I”ll stop complaining for now. Just trust me when I say there are tons of misconceptions out there and most of them can be picked apart with a little bit of knowledge and a little bit of sound reasoning.

EA: What is the most common mistake that you see young/new athletes making in their strength and conditioning programs and how would your approach address the issue?

RN: The number one problem I see in most athletes, not just the new or young ones, is that they oftentimes focus too much on the amount of weight lifted while paying no heed to ROM or correct muscle activation patterns. Hell, I was guilty of this not more than a year ago. The fix is relatively simple though.

All you need to do is remind them that just lifting more won’t make them run faster or jump higher, but strengthening the right muscle groups and instilling the right activation patterns will. In otherwords, make sure they know and understand that lifting a lighter weight or dropping from a lower height correctly will help them out more than lifting heavier or dropping from higher if they are done incorrectly. With the ego on most young males, these reminders have got to be pretty much constant too.

As for the largest programming error, I’d have to again go back to the lack of balance between posterior and anterior chain development. Yes, the muscles of the posterior chain are responsible for almost all of the drive in most athletic movements, but they can’t function correctly if the pelvis isn’t properly stabilized by equally strong abdominals and hip flexors. And not only will developmental balance between the front and back of the body lead to better performance, but it will help reduce the chances of injury as well.

EA: If you had one piece of advice for most athletes that would improve their training what would it be?

RN: If I could only give one piece of advice I would tell them to learn everything they can about what they’re doing. I believe very strongly in educating one’s self about how and why things work the way they do out in the world, and training is no exception.

For actual training specific advice, I would tell them that there are no magic bullets. Athletes are built through long term programming, not one-off special exercises. Results take time, and what nets the most results today may impede progress in the future.

EA: You have been accused of over complicating the training process. How do you respond?

RN: Funny enough, I would agree with that accusation, at least as it refers to me in the past. I did used to over complicate some things, but I’m getting a lot better about it now. Some people may still think the way I view training is overly complicated at times, but I think I’ve reached a good balance between detail and simplification. Any attempt to try and condense or streamline things further would involve omitting important information.

EA: Could you briefly outline your current training program and discuss why it is set up the way that it is?

RN: My current training is nothing special. I’ve been doing two main training sessions on Monday and Friday with a supporting session on Wednesday. On Monday I have been doing slight downhill overspeed running. On Wednesday I’ve been doing a session of RFI drills longer than 15 seconds in duration combined. And on Friday I’ve been doing longer full speed sprints, usually 150s. Volume is controlled through autoregulation. And depending on how I feel, I also include a small volume of yielding isometrics after about 2 sessions per week. On off days I try to do a little activation and dynamic mobility work.

It’s set up like this because I’m trying to get my top speed and speed endurance in place for the upcoming track season (it starts late in Alaska) while simultaneously building a little extra strength. Everything’s at high intensity too, so I take plenty of time off between more draining sessions.

After the season if over I’ll probably start rebuilding from the ground up.

EA: Considering all of your reading, who have been your influences?

RN: Throughout the years I’ve had a number of major influences, but perhaps the biggest one of all was Kelly Baggett. It was his writings that turned me on to the science behind training and without him I’d probably still think it was all about squatting and deadlifting your way to athletic success. Years of personal exchanges with Kelly have also been the prime factor in doing away with my overanalyzation. Harsh, informative, or both, his words have always pointed me in the right direction.

Another major influence for me was Brad Nuttall and the Inno-Sport system. The system provided me with an entirely new way of looking at training organization and it did the same for understanding how to label and piece together various training methods and modalities. Without this framework of classification, general programming would be much harder. But perhaps even more important than the system itself are the brilliant people I’ve met while learning about it. Funny enough, you’re one of those people Alex, and without your writings on T-Nation I probably never would have found the Inno-Sport system. You’re also largely responsible for my focus on correct muscle activation, though Chris Korfist and the other guys at WGF also played a part.

I also like the writings of Charlie Francis. And though I don’t follow his system, his insights on sprinting have been invaluable and the information I’ve gleaned from his forum has been irreplaceable, especially that from a certain gold medal winning 400M coach who chooses to remain publicly anonymous.

And to avoid leaving anyone out, I’d also like to include the many members of the DB forum. Nowhere else on the web can such a knowledgeable membership base be found, and without our interactions, I don’t know where I’d be.

EA: Rumor has it you have invented an exercise called “flying Nelsens”. Could you describe the exercise and discuss it’s purpose?

RN: Haha, I did invent the exercise, but I did not coin the name. I would’ve chosen something less clunky.

Anyways, the exercise involves a special platform that allows athletes to perform band resisted jumps while standing parallel to the ground. Through the design of the platform and the band resistance, the jumps are actually p-chain dominant. Also, there is both an overspeed and an accommodating resistance component to the exercise due to the bands. All in all, it’s a very unique means of training and should theoretically do very well in developing strength specific to sprint acceleration.

I say theoretically because my platform broke shortly after I built it. Unfortunately I’m a better thinker than a carpenter. There have been positive results reported from others who saw my design, replicated it, and used it with their athletes though. Either way, the platform still has a lot of potential and I may get around having one welded together when the I get the time and money.

EA: You’ve also developed a plyo progression called HARTT. Tell us a bit about what HARTT is, how you came up with the idea, and how you would integrate it into a training program.

RN: First of all, HARTT stands for Horizontally-loaded Absorptive and Reactive Torsion Training and the name was given partially tongue-in-cheek. While the words do describe what it is, I made it overly complex because I thought it would be funny.

That having been said, HARTT was a progression of jumps and landings designed to teach athletes how to absorb and generate force coming at them from odd angles and during rotation, much like they would encounter in their sports. What it basically consists of is jumping a set distance horizontally and landing in a specific way. As the athlete progresses, they would add distance to their horizontal jump to increase the landing force, and they would also start landing in different positions, such as on one leg or in a split position. Later, rotation would be added in, as would a rebound back to the starting position. All of these things would combine to increase the athlete’s ability to change direction out on the playing field.

By limiting the intensity, HARTT could be used by athletes of nearly all levels of preparation and would be a sure way to help reduce injuries. It could be incorporated by including 1-3 variations for a few sets and a few reps a few times per week. Sorry to be so vague, but the volume is largely up to the individual. As long as the progression is followed and the volume is kept manageable, it can be added into nearly an program.

EA: Is there anything you would like to add that has not been touched upon?

RN: Well, as much as I like pointless rambling, I don’t have much here. I can think of one thing that’s commonly overlooked though.

Of course coaches need to worry about the physical development of their athletes, but I feel they need to worry about their mental and emotional development as well. In my opinion, a good athlete should be an informed athlete and as long as they’re capable of it, an athlete should know why they’re doing what they are. The reasoning behind this is that if an athlete knows and understands what they’re doing, they’re much more likely to have confidence in the system, and if they have confidence in the system, they’re much more likely to give their effort to it completely.

Without true effort and hard work, even a perfect training program would fall short, and athletes need to understand that. Their coach can only take them so far. After a point, it’s up to them to want it badly enough.

EA: Thank you for your time. This has been an informative interview.

RN: Thanks again for having me, Alex. I really enjoyed it.

Roger and Andrew Darqui are planning on launching an sports performance training website tentatively titled Pure Dedication Athletics in June 2009. Keep your eyes peeled.

1. Hassan Barnett says:

   December 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm

   i will try this wen i workout…well except for the substitute barbell placement, it looks like the guy’s wrist in the video is going to snap off