Place your promotion here
How to Incorporate Dynamical Systems Theory into your Coaching
The rise in popularity of integrated strength and coordination training appears to have been received in different ways by strength and conditioning coaches. Some of these include:
- Coach only ever appears to program Bosch cleans,
stick sprint drills, and step-ups with perturbations. - Coach doubles down on fundamentals (squat,
deadlift, etc.), believing that the sport takes care of all strength-skill
integration. - Coach doesn’t really understand principles
behind dynamical systems theory but throws in a few of the drills they’ve seen
other coaches program.
Having personally been all of these coaches at some stage,
the aim of this article is to offer my current perspective on where co-ordination
training should fit in the strength and conditioning program, while also
offering an accessible process for less experienced coaches to begin
incorporating dynamical systems theory into their practice.
Firstly, what is dynamical systems theory? This is a
framework for understanding the behaviour of complex systems in nature. If it
were to be distilled into a few key points in relation to strength and
conditioning, one might say that according to dynamical systems theory;
- strength is inextricably tied to coordination. Although a squat and a sprint
utilise many of the same muscle groups, the coordination patterns required to complete these movements are fundamentally different. Therefore, it cannot be taken for granted that there will be meaningful performance transference from a squat to a sprint, - individuals have particular stable co-ordination patterns they prefer to adopt in order to achieve a task (known as attractor states),
- movement is shaped by the constraints of a task
With this in mind, the next step is to consider the elements of the sport in question that you as a strength and conditioning coach should be looking to improve. In AFL obvious qualities include speed (acceleration and maximum velocity), change of direction, jumping, and tackling. Do your players run like sprinters? Do they cut like a wide receiver? Can they jump like a high jumper? Can they tackle like a wrestler? Likely not, and it would be unrealistic to expect them to do so. However, all of these cases present a technical benchmark for these qualities, which can be strived for. Improving strength and coordination specifically in the context of these movements is where “transference” to on-field performance can really begin to be
As an example, let’s look more closely at the change of direction. Leaving aside, for now, the important cognitive component involved in agility, what are the key characteristics of a fast change of direction instance? An experienced coach with a keen eye may have an intuitive sense for what these are (see Jonas Dodoo in sprinting <https://simplifaster.com/articles/sprint-training-jonas-dodoo/>). However, for less experienced coaches a quick literature search is a useful starting point. For example, Marshall et al. (2014) identified five biomechanical factors associated with cutting time – peak ankle power, peak ankle plantar flexion moment, range of pelvis lateral tilt, maximum thorax lateral rotation angle, and total ground contact time. Perfect, here are five attractor states you can start to direct athletes towards in your change of direction coaching and look to build strength around.
Without delving too deeply into periodisation and
programming considerations, I believe Steffan Jones’ triphasic performance training model proposes an excellent
framework for the integration of strength and co-ordination training. This
model weaves together principles from triphasic training and Bondarchuk
exercise classification while also incorporating a skill stability paradigm in which attractor states are strengthened
statically, dynamically, and ballistically.
Assuming most coaches understand how to incorporate triphasic training and GPP
in order to build strength capacity, let’s focus on the skill stability
paradigm in the context of one of the aforementioned change of direction
attractor states.
If we consider the ‘range of pelvis lateral tilt’ during a change of direction instance, there is an association between faster cutting speeds and minimisation of contralateral pelvis drop from initial foot contact to peak knee flexion. In other words, neuromuscular control of the pelvis facilitates high-speed dynamic locomotion. So in a skill stability paradigm, how can this attractor state be reinforced statically? Realistically, there are endless possibilities, however, I have chosen a T
For dynamic attractor state reinforcement, a change of direction hop drill can be used. A light medicine ball is held on the opposite side of the body to the hopping foot. This asymmetrical loading acts to increase pretension of the pelvic and trunk muscles prior to ground contact, preventing the excessive contralateral hip drop. Again, no explicit cueing about the pelvic position is given, the athlete must simply hop at a 45o angle and aim to maximise hop distance. This is an example of the constraints of a drill shaping the desired movement behaviour.
Finally, for ballistic attractor state reinforcement, the athlete should perform a full speed change of direction drill. Again, I believe a constraints-led approach is preferable over an instructive approach here. For one, the athlete is likely not interested in the minutiae of the biomechanics of cutting. Secondly, high-intensity activities like full speed changes of direction are largely subconsciously regulated and cues that require conscious cognitive processing often serve to hinder performance and aren’t optimal for motor learning. The drill should have a clear intention (i.e. complete change of direction circuit in as fast a time as possible), permit some guided exploration (allow the athlete to be exposed to new, potentially more optimal co-ordination patterns), and provide knowledge of results (did the athlete perform faster? slower?) The athlete requires this information to implicitly learn which co-ordination patterns facilitate superior performance. I would have the athlete perform a few unloaded repetitions of the drill. I would then incorporate a constraint like an aqua bag, which increases the demand for pelvic muscle co-contraction, essentially guiding the athlete towards the desired attractor state. Then the athlete would perform a few more unloaded repetitions to allow the effectiveness of any co-ordination pattern alterations to be evaluated.
So there you have a basic framework for how co-ordination training can be integrated into a strength and conditioning program. Remember, although Bosch drills are great, they are hardly worth implementing without a clear rationale. I would encourage coaches to come up with and explore different constraints that will elicit desired movement behaviours when it comes to attractor state reinforcement.