Dynamics is part of Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics.
Biomechanics is the application of classical mechanics to biological systems.
In dynamics we model (describe) change by a system of differential equations.
In order to find the state of the thing we are modelling at any given time we need to solve these differential equations.
If you don’t know what a differential equation is, or how to solve one, that’s OK. This is degree level mathematics.
I am pretty sure that you don’t need a maths degree to be an excellent strength and conditioning coach.
The thing that is interesting about solving systems of differential equations is that the solution can be very sensitive to its boundary (starting) conditions.
For some ranges of the starting condition the solution can be very very sensitive to small variations in the starting condition - a very small difference can lead to a very different solution - this is called chaotic behaviour.
In other ranges of the starting conditions the solution can have convergent behaviour - even if the starting conditions are quite different (variable) the solution ends up being the same or similar.
Of course, change in movement can be modelled by differential equations, and so we can use this method to understand movement.
I assume, therefore, that the "theory" is that conclusions from a dynamical analysis are valid in giving insight into the movements upon which they are based.
However, this analysis is simply a classical mechanical analysis of a biological system. It is biomechanics. So, it seems that dynamic systems theory is a theory that we can use (a part of) biomechanics to understand movement.
This seems a needlessly grand way to express this.
The language of dynamical systems can be used to describe training (and this usage is not incorrect).
And the fact that some dynamic systems show convergent behaviour in some regions of their boundary conditions is helpful in understanding movement.
But this can be said much more simply, and without appealing to dynamic systems theory. For instance, this is just the principle that some systems can self organise under certain conditions.
Or even more simply, people can often naturally work out a fluid and efficient movement themselves, if we set them good movement challenges (tasks/exercises) that nudge them towards the skill we want.
Why is it therefore necessary to invoke mathematics and use mathematical terminology to express this concept?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A big problem with justifying training by appealing to DST is that no one really understands it properly (including, I would suggest, most of its proponents).
However, because proponents of DST seem so confident in their delivery, they can appear to have some advanced knowledge of training (this is why they like it).
This can be intimidating to coaches - they don't want to appear stupid by challenging something they don't properly understand.
I'm always surprised by how many (experienced) coaches think that the bar is supposed to bang against the thigh/hips during the pull.
Do they really believe it is possible to "knee" the bar upwards? Not to mention that this seems like a pretty painful strategy.
It is another example of people only being able to coach what they can see. In weightlifting, the knees come forwards underneath the bar, and then it pops upwards (due to the athlete jumping). To the untrained eye this can look like the bar being "banged" upwards.
One of @stevemagness's "Rules of Everything" is "We overemphasise the importance of what we can measure and what we already know".
Similarly, in skills coaching we overemphasise the importance of what we can see.
In Olympic weightlifting, one of the easiest positions to see is the so called “triple extension” that occurs at the end of the pull.
This leads many coaches to spend a great deal of time working on this position.
However, emphasising the triple extended position often leads to a bad result. The athlete spends too long at the end of the pull, when they should already be preparing to catch the bar.
To be effective in your coaching you need to know why errors happen.
In squatting, most errors are due to the fact that athletes are afraid they are going to fall over.
When we squat, we need to keep the projection of our centre of mass (the arrow in the picture), within our base of support (the pink area in the picture). If the arrow moves outside of our base of support we will fall over.
A common cue is "push the hips back to start the squat". As the athlete pushes their hips back, the projection of the centre of mass (PCOM) moves backwards. When the PCOM reaches the edge of the base of support (BOS), the athlete can't squat any deeper using this strategy.
#ForceVectorTheory. A force is, by definition, a vector. The name of the theory is thus a tautology and should really just be “Force Theory”. I thus propose the new name #TheoryOfTheMagicalHorizontalForceMuscle which more accurately captures the fundamental idea behind the theory
Biomechanics 101 - understand the distinction between global (relative to the world) and local (relative to the athlete) frames of reference. When people refer to “horizontal” forces they generally mean in the global frame #TheoryOfTheMagicalHorizontalForceMuscle
When an athlete wants to apply more “horizontal” force, they will have more body lean. The athlete is more horizontal relative to the global frame. #TheoryOfTheMagicalHorizontalForceMuscle