Conditioning – enough? ofp vs ifp

Membership › Forums › Ask MP › Conditioning – enough? ofp vs ifp

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 11, 2017 at 10:47 AM #3243
    JonA
    Participant

    hey i have two questions about conditioning:

    1) im doing the 150 shuttle and goose cones 12 weeks with my team. we started this week. we did both sets of exercises in the same practise. it took us about 15 minutes in total. it doesnt seem like a lot. if we do them an separate days it feels like even less. can we add more conditioning on top like the triangle? or can we double the 150 shuttle and goose cones (we practise twice a week)

    2) i didnt coach the crossovers to my team. we mostly used ifp for our direction changes. the reason i didnt coach it is a) ifp felt more natural to accelerate out the cuts and b) given a), i couldn’t explain to them why we want to drill ofp patters and crossovers. i couldnt give them a reason why we should be doing ofp. from the crossover content: “A crossover is the most effective way to execute 180 degree changes of direction.” but why it is more effective than ifp especially since ifp feels more natural to me?

    February 11, 2017 at 4:00 PM #3244
    Zi
    Moderator

    1) ESD Energy System Development is called that way because we want to be specific with the kind of biochemical reaction that we train. Simplistic view is aerobic and anaerobic. The programs on MPFPT are all meant to mimic repeated bouts of (near) max effort energy system which is anaerobic. You will expend anaerobic energy very fast and would need the rest to regain it. Hence the work:rest ratios. Also, the ability to do lots of reps does not come overnight. Running yourself to the groumd so soon and/or so often just puts you back into the aerobic system thus defeating the purpose of the program.

    Not to mention overdoing will increase risk of injury due to fatigue and high volume of high impact stress.

    2) The ofp gets you one step ahead of an IFP 180 turn: considering both feet at the same points on the ground, doing ofp gets you one stride while ifp simply gets you turned and the back leg at 90° behind. Also, you have another tool in ways to move. Also, acl risk reduction cause turning 180 meams your full momentum has to reverse directly backwards and jabbing with all that force is asking for trouble.

    2a) people love to do what they are good at. Improving what you are not good at is what will make you better. Why hammer hard for 1% gain when you can get 10% doing something else?

    In any case, when actually playing these movements arent as exaggerated and you will be using a proportion of ifp and ofp all the time. We want to train specifically so that when we need to perform, we have the capacity to do it.

    April 6, 2017 at 11:33 AM #3597
    scratchacross
    Participant

    I have the same problem with the crossovers. Its hard to teach it if you are not convinced that it is faster. Or is it less about speed but more about injury prevention or because you can commit with your hips later?
    Can you do a video of two athletes doing shuttles for speed where one is using the crossover? That would be great!

    April 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM #3598
    Tim
    Keymaster

    Its about getting the most out of the “loading effect” from the change of direction (loading the OFP leg, “load to explode”), getting the most out of the glute max (our primary engine in hip extension) and therefore covering as much ground as possible prior allowing you to turn the free leg hip and set up for an aggressive getaway step. It is absolutely fast and more efficient. It take discipline however. The only time i’d teach otherwise is if we were training small court hard surface athletes like tennis and basketball.

    Great idea about that video!

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.