Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Body Mass and Acceleration.

WarHeel

By WarHeel,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
Posted

Happy Friday eve, all!

 

Yesterday a thread went on lock down due to some lackluster comments with some harsh responses. The heated debate was whether adding “mass” would make an athlete less agile/speedy.

 

I am here to argue that when the “right” mass is added to the frame of an athlete that is extra mass is neglible.

 

The game of football is a game of short, explosive plays, lasting only a few seconds at a time. Therefore, ideally we would like our atheletes to be able to perform as such. There is no need for these gentleman to perform for hours at a time without rest in between plays. Players should be able to produce quick, explosive movements, in a relatively short amount of time. We are talking seconds, people!

 

“Because the sprinter only has to perform a couple of seconds, the added weight is trivial. “

 

 

The video above has a wonderful breakdown of body types of different styled athletes of similar sports. Whilst NFL athletes are not “sprinters” (not all at least) the same anatomical and physiological rules apply. 

 

Obviously everyone has their optimal body mass to quickness ratio but my argument is that the amount of mass added with the return “loss” in quickness is indeed trivial. These athletes perform sport-specific exercises and lifting to improve every aspect of their game including quickness and adding a few pounds of pure type 2b fibers are not going to get in the way of a few seconds of on the field performance.

 

Thoughts? I welcome a good clean debate.

 

Signed,

A Doctor of Physical Therapy. Expert in human movement. YouTube extraordinare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted

I believe you Warheel. It just makes sense, but...from a purely logical standpoint, I could see where adding 20 pounds on a wide receiver going 50 yards could make a difference that is seemingly negligible, but remember that other athletes are trying to optimize their bodies also. It seems to me that it all depends on the individual. Some can handle more, or less, and be affected positively, negatively or not at all by varying degrees. So I don't think it's a cookie cutter approach, and it would seem like there has to be a certain amount of guess work just like in medical practice in general. That's why they call it "practice." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyberjag Newbie

Cyberjag

Posted
Posted

I appreciate the video, and watched it because it was short.  I don't understand why you feel the need to engage on this topic though.  I really doubt that anyone who's interested in training or an honest discussion on the impacts of bulking up is going to pay attention to what that other person had to say.  Hell, in some cases bulking up can make you faster.  But what do I know, I'm an endurance guy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
46 minutes ago, Asurfaholic said:

What abou endurance? How does that extra mass weigh down a player over the entire course of a game? 

Two types of Type II fibers. A and B. A are built for more endurance and B and quick and explosive fibers that fatigue quickly. Football atheletes would do well to have a combination of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted

I think it was WOW who showed his ass and made it personal--but he has a point.  When the microwave  bell rings, the bigger he gets the longer it takes him to get up the stairs and reach the Hot Pocket his mom made for him from his cozy lair in her basement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Cyberjag said:

I appreciate the video, and watched it because it was short.  I don't understand why you feel the need to engage on this topic though.  I really doubt that anyone who's interested in training or an honest discussion on the impacts of bulking up is going to pay attention to what that other person had to say.  Hell, in some cases bulking up can make you faster.  But what do I know, I'm an endurance guy. :)

No harm in throwing a little education the public’s way. Some people enjoy insight into these things and there’s nothing wrong with a friendly debate. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, top dawg said:

I believe you Warheel. It just makes sense, but...from a purely logical standpoint, I could see where adding 20 pounds on a wide receiver going 50 yards could make a difference that is seemingly negligible, but remember that other athletes are trying to optimize their bodies also. It seems to me that it all depends on the individual. Some can handle more, or less, and be affected positively, negatively or not at all by varying degrees. So I don't think it's a cookie cutter approach, and it would seem like there has to be a certain amount of guess work just like in medical practice in general. That's why they call it "practice." 

As stated above, there will always be an optimal mass to agility ratio. No one in their right mind is saying adding 50 lbs to a guy and expecting him to move faster is rational. But it is indeed possible to add mass and actually improve ones speed and agility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted

That was kind of what I was trying to get at yesterday. It's a lot more complex than just making a broad and absolute statement. The kind of muscle that is being added matters, body mass conversion matters, etc, etc. Thanks WarHeel for steering this in a more reasoned and fact based debate(which I was trying to do with the locked thread).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Salescall Newbie

Salescall

Posted
Posted

As an interesting side note to the topic... My son was invited to Western Carolina's football prospect Junior day a couple of weeks ago. They have software built into their weight stations that measures power, strength and quickness, and tracks all the stations simultaneously. The athletes compete against each other while lifting to see who has the best combination of speed, strength, and power. The weight coach described what they do to maximize each athletes speed, strength and power. Said that it wasn't just about one - they had to be great in all areas. Certainly a lot different than when I was in school. Here's a pic. Hope it works. My 1st time trying to upload a pic.

IMG_1350 (002).jpg

IMG_1350 (002).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • kungfoodude
      The Hurricanes are never getting over the hump untill they spend money in the net

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      I agree. Two holes FTW!
    • csx
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By csx · Posted

      Canales has his msjor issue not doing the obvious regarding running Dowdle but with an average QB we would be in the playoffs with an average QB. 
    • kungfoodude
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      1. fug TikTak, I ain't clicking that stupid poo. 2. This is really very situationally dependent. Coaching is a huge part but sometimes you step into a scenario where a lot of building needs to happen that is largely out of your control. Recent examples(Last season's hiring cycle): 1. Ben Johnson Johnson chose the OVERWHELMINGLY best open coaching job due to a combination of solid ownership, a solid front office and the most talented roster of the open jobs from that cycle. Negatives were, insanely stacked division. Results have so far indicated that this coaching change has been a massive boost. 2. Mike Vrabel Vrabel went a different direction. He went to a franchise that has solid ownership, a mediocre front office and one of the worst rosters in the NFL. However, he has a track record of NFL head coaching success AND lucked into one of the easiest schedules in NFL history(I believe 3rd easiest). Even with that caveat, a clear indicator that coaching has been a huge boost. 3. Pete Carroll Carroll chose one of the NFL's most volatile franchises. Notoriously bad ownership, very bad front office and a terrible roster. But, Carroll is a HOF caliber NFL HC with success at every stop. At the moment, coaching has not been able to overcome the apparent obstacles. In fact, it's been a complete disaster to the extent that Carroll has already fired multiple coaches. One could certainly argue that pethaps Pete has lost his touch but regardless, this coaching change didn't result in a turnaround and Carroll's future there seems in doubt. 4. Aaron Glenn Glenn's first HC opportunity was a doozy. Near worst ownership, a mediocre front office(at best) and a talented core group of players on an underwhelming roster. This experiment has been quite the ride to date. Glenn's personnel decisions have seemingly led to multiple close game losses(2-5 in games decided by one score or less) and the FO decided to have a roster firesale prior to the trade deadline for a wealth of draft capital. The question will be if Glenn will be given the time to actually see this future draft capital realized, now that a significant chunk of the talented core is not longer there. Coaching has not made a difference but is the franchise now setting him up to fail further? 5. Liam Coen Coen picked a mixed bag. Terrible ownership, a remade front office he essentially had a hand in selecting(or at the miminum influenced) and a middling roster. The early results show promise even if the roster shows significant flaws(and Coen shows visible frustration with his "franchise" QB every Sunday). Could be close to turning a 4 win team into a playoff berth. Coaching has mattered. 6. Brian Schottenheimer This was resoundingly viewed as a bad hire but it's also under challenging circumstances. Bad ownership in the sense that the ownership is also the front office, a future Tepper dream I assume. Very talented but very flawed roster. The initial results have been...interesting. A Cowboys team that was a bad 7-10 after a previous streak of three 12 win seasons is now....mediocre? Couple that with wild roster changes prior to the start of the season and up to the trade deadline and it makes for an incomplete picture. It's not much progress but it doesn’t appear to be regressing either. TBD. 6. Kellen Moore Moore chose the most challenging of all openings. The Saints are in the midst of a simulateous roster teardown and attempted rebuild. Decent ownership, a mixed bag in the front office(great at evaluating draft talent, less so in free agency and in salary cap management). The Saints have been awful but, they were expected to be awful. To that note, they were net sellers before the trade deadline. It was reported that Moore secured an agreement that this is long term building effort prior to taking the position so his status seems safe even while the team flounders week to week. Difficult to grade this now as the entire scenario seems to be a long term strategy. TBD.
×
×
  • Create New...