Many of the ideas in this article are pulled from, or directly inspired by, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter. It’s not a book you would typically associate with sports performance, touching on and relating topics such as number theory, music, art, recursive loops, language, artificial intelligence, and consciousness.
However, in his process of uncovering some deep-rooted (and mind blowing) relationships between the above topics, the author touches on some extremely relevant facets of logic that seem to explain many problems the field of athletic development is currently facing.
Consider some of the most cliché issues that currently plague the field:
- Social Media arguments where it seems that everyone is somehow simultaneously correct and incorrect.
- Programming that works for some athletes, but not others.
- Disconnectedness of different “specialists”: strength coach, event/sport coach, physiotherapist, nutritionist, and the athlete themselves.
- Obsession with finding the next best exercise/method/system/etc. to take training to the next level
The central of argument of this article is that all of these issues (and really, just about any other issue you’ll come across in this field) stem from the same overarching idea:
The general framework this field operates from is far too flat, isolated and straightforward for the multidimensional, multi-leveled, looping, interacting system of the human body. I understand that this in itself sounds a bit cliché, so let me phrase it like this: By focusing so strongly on “human-level” perspectives and the physical, quantitative, measureable realm of performance, we are ignoring higher level meta-concepts that should govern our approach to problem solving in performance.
Training is a Game of Chess
Consider how often we talk about training and performance concepts in terms of spectrums and continuums. The strength/speed continuum, speed jumpers vs. power jumpers, knee vs. hip dominance, and really any time we bring up the concept of there being no black and white, only gray middle ground.
Even the way many of us conceptualize improvement seems to come in the form of a sliding scale: on one end of the spectrum you have a 50 meter javelin thrower/11 second 100 meter sprinter/14 meter triple jumper, and on the other end you have the 90 meter throw/sub 10 second 100 meter sprint/17 meter triple jump. As you slide from left to right on the scale through incremental improvement, you slowly close in on your goals.
I see big problems with this, and it starts with a key point.
How you conceptualize sports performance is the foundation on which everything else lies. If the foundation of how we fundamentally view movement / performance / improvement as is off base, overly simplified, or missing key pieces, everything else is going to be off. And let’s be clear: it’s also much deeper than right versus wrong. I hope the following idea can make this concept a bit clearer, as well as introduce key concepts.
Consider a game of chess: there are two sides interacting with each other, you versus the opponent. It’s a bit of a feedback loop kind of interaction where your move will affect your opponent’s move, which will affect your next move. The game as a whole is the highest “level.”
There are also “sub-interactions” happening: your pieces protecting each other, your opponent’s pieces protecting each other, your pieces attacking their pieces and vice versa, and even pieces just getting in the way of each other.
There is a synergy between individual pieces that create “functional groups” of pieces, and there is a synergy between these “functional groups” that ultimately creates the game as a whole. There are lower levels that create higher levels, and the synergy is constantly changing.
At each “level” there are different rules that must be followed. For example, at the lowest level you have pieces that can only move in pre-specified directions. At the highest level, the rule is that the game is over if the king is in checkmate. There are also “rules of thumb” at any given level: while there are no hard set rules for how to set up individual pieces as functional groups, there are strategies such as protecting the king, spacing the board to give room for offensive and defensive tactics, and sequencing moves. In other words, there are hard-set rules, and there are “best practices”/strategies and they change from level to level.
What’s interesting, and very relevant to the purpose of this metaphor, is that each level can be viewed as being independent from other levels, or as intimately linked. For example, just because your king is about to be placed in checkmate (highest level), doesn’t suddenly change its ability in only being able to move one space at a time (lowest level). They are independent in the sense that rules of each level are “sealed off” from each other. But they are intimately linked in the sense that the low level rules govern the high level outcome, and the high level goal of checkmate is what led to the intermediate levels of strategy and organization through the lowest level of how each piece is allowed to move. The same way there is a feedback loop type of interaction between you and the opponent at the highest level, there is a circular, looping sort of interaction between levels.
Levels of Sports Performance
My argument is that sports performance is much more like a game of chess than it is like a system of spectrums and continuums. As mentioned earlier, the big picture problem is that many issues in this field stem from trying to understand performance in far too straightforward of a way.
In a paradoxical sort of way, this oversimplification actually overcomplicates things. To give an example besides chess, imagine trying to understand a book only through the “level” of the letter. All meaning is lost when you ignore the higher levels of words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters.
“Athletic movement is more like a game of chess than a spectrum of quantification measures”
In sports performance, how many of us think the answer lies in finding the perfect exercise, or workout, or periodization scheme?
How many of us think the answer is in building muscle, or gaining mobility, or perfecting sport technique?
How many of us get caught up in understanding functional anatomy while ignoring higher-level principles of biomechanics?
And how many of us, while being stuck in a certain level of thinking, become flustered as to why the heck real, meaningful improvement comes and goes?
To be a bit more concrete and specific I’ll give my own, personal thoughts to the levels that can go into training for sports performance:
- The Paradigm (e.g. the muscularly-driven paradigm versus the energy transfer paradigm)
- Movement Concepts (in the energy paradigm: asymmetry, collisions, rotation, speed/rhythm/relaxation… In muscle-driven paradigm: rate of force development, maximal strength, proximal stability… In both paradigms: functional anatomy)
- Technical Concepts (sport specific, but I’ll use javelin throwing: strong block leg, hip/shoulder separation, timing)
- Movement Skills (Energy Paradigm: Coiling core, “flap”, fascia utilization, and transformation of gravity/momentum into elastic energy… Muscular Paradigm: inter/intra muscular coordination, neural drive, application of motor learning principles)
- Movement Capacity (structural integrity of soft tissue structures, relative stiffness, passive mobility/active mobility/eccentric control, full range of motion at every joint, including rotational ranges of motion and spinal segmentation)
- Training Concepts (Principles of overload: isolated to integrated, simple to complex; fatigue management, progressive loading, neuromuscular/tendon adaptation, movement variability, frequency/intensity/volume)
- Exercise Selection (Food for thought: how does taking into account all levels change your views on exercise selection? Have you ever reflected on what paradigm you are working out of? At what “level” does your training system operate from?)
- Desired Adaptation (This in itself is multileveled but understand that there are levels even below exercise selection – think neuromuscular, muscular, molecular, and systemic levels of the body. And remember, “strength” is not found at this level)
Now, one big point I’ve made in previous writing is that there are two sides to every exercise. You’ll have the prescribed movement or drill, and then you have the athlete who is performing the drill.
On one level, it’s necessary to understand that every athlete is different: unique anthropometry, anatomical idiosyncrasies, unique states of biochemistry, unique neurotype, and unique movement patterning/skills.
On a higher level, however, every athlete is the same. That is, every athlete has feet, hinging knees, ball and socket hips, a segmented spine, shoulders, a brain, and the same internal system of biochemistry driving their state of life.
But go a level higher, and you realize that every athlete is again different with their lifestyles, nutritional habits, sleep patterns, etc.
I would liken this to the same way that position, velocity, and acceleration are all different levels that give different information on location of an object. Only looking at position can’t tell you the direction an object is moving, or the rate at which the motion is changing.
That is: Every athlete has a different starting point, but we all have the same physical, emotional, and biochemical capacities to change. We also all have the ability to affect our capacity to change through choices in lifestyle and nutrition.
Again, just like in a game of chess, there are two sides to every move, with a lot of different levels interacting.
Stepping Outside of the System
It’s important to make clear that the entire construct of “strength and conditioning” or “athletic development” is itself a system with varying levels containing rules and best practices. What’s interesting is that even within this system, various “subsystems” have been created. Whether it’s the Triphasic system or 1×20 system or any of the countless strategies and methodologies that have been created in the quest for elite level performance.
Taken even a step further, these subsystems have been based off of research (an entirely different system) and first hand experience using strategies based off the fundamental aspects of the higher-level strength and conditioning system.
And really, this could go even deeper: research that’s based on other research, coaches combining various methodologies to create “sub-subsystems,” and any other combination of basing ideas off of ideas that are based on other ideas that are based on this system that may or may not be optimal for creating elite athletes.
While I’m definitely trying to be a bit facetious in how I describe this to show a point, it’s really not too extreme to say that we have become many steps removed from what’s right in front of us as performance coaches: The intrinsic functions of the human body.
“Never dive into another form of training so deep that you become removed from what is always right in front of you.. the intrinsic functioning of the human body”
We smother ideas in jargon, we use ambiguous language, we fail to connect dots that are begging to be connected, and we’ll override obvious observations of elite athleticism because of preconceived notions that are born from a paradigm of training that is on its last breath.
To understand this issue on a deeper level, there is a great example provided by Hofstadter: There is a key distinction between thought processes that operate within a system and thought processes that think about the system. (Look up the “MU Puzzle” by Hofstadter for the actual example). It’s the difference between how machines can be programmed to solve problems versus how human intelligence can solve problems.
In my opinion, understanding this difference is where we can bridge the gap between the “science” of coaching and the “art” of coaching.
The first mode of thinking he calls the “mechanical mode” of thought processing. In this, you have a given starting point, a desired endpoint, and you have a given set of operational rules to follow to reach your goal. As a simple example, imagine you have the number 2, and your end goal is to get the end result of 99. The operational rules are that you can 1) multiply by four, 2) add ten and 3) divide by two. Is the end result possible with this starting point and operational rules?
In the mechanical mode of thinking you are operating only within the system, meaning it’s going to be a long trial and error process of various combinations of adding 10, multiplying by 4, and dividing by 2 until you reach 99. But if the end result is not possible within the system, you could go on testing indefinitely.
This brings us to the “intelligent mode” of thought processing. This mode is where we step outside of the system, and think about the rules instead of arbitrarily following them. Applying this mode of thinking in the example above, it is clear that because operating only with even numbers will yield only even numbers, 99 is an impossible outcome in that system. However if you were given a starting point of the number 9, the end goal would be possible.
To bring this back to athletic performance, it is necessary to step outside of whatever training system you are operating from and reflect on the logic of your training scheme in relation to the athletes you are working with. If you are working from a system within a system, you’ll have to zoom out even further. The method/workouts/training scheme/exercise/etc. is not the reason an athlete succeeded in your program.
Maybe this is still all a bit cliché, so let me frame it like this: sets/reps/circuits/complexes/exercises/functional movement patterns/barbells/dumbbells/kettlebells are all man-made, systemized constructs and products. They are organizational tools meant to systemize movement, not aspects of movement themselves. The food-for-thought question, to see just how deeply embedded into the system you are, is what are you left with if you strip away the man-made constructs?
Syntax and Semantics
A huge problem comes about from the language we use to describe training for athletic performance: That is, many of the words we use to describe training ideas (think strength, mobility, periodization, etc.) have so many preconceived notions attached to them that they become meaningless to talk about. How I conceptualize a squat is not how you conceptualize a squat is not how he/she conceptualizes a squat.
On top of that, many of the words we use are really too vague to elicit deep meaning from. What is strength? What is mobility? It may seem a bit ridiculous and navel-gazey to even think about these questions, but these words leave far too much room for faulty interpretation and application.
What is strength made of? We know it’s not a true physiological property. There is no sequencing of genes that encode a huge squat. It is a result of a specific synergy of neural adaptations, muscular adaptations, sequencing, and many, many other factors. Plus, this doesn’t even take into account strength’s role in higher levels of athletic performance.
This is a key point: language has an intrinsic tendency to condense all levels into one. Strength is made of many lower-level constituent parts. But at the same time, strength is a constituent part of higher-level ideas in performance. (This is why I personally don’t buy into the muscularly-driven paradigm). It’s the same idea as understanding that atoms make molecules, and molecules make cells while also intuitively understanding the clear separation of levels between physics, chemistry, and biology.
This leads to the idea of syntax. Really, this is just an overtly pretentious way of describing periodization, but as I mentioned there is just far too much baggage associated with that word for any meaningful discussion. Plus, I would argue this idea goes a bit deeper.
Understanding the idea that elite performance is made of parts that are made of parts that are made of parts allows us to take a much more logical view of training organization (I previously wrote a whole article that goes deeper on this topic).
That is: Technical concepts (which are based off movement concepts that are based on which paradigm of movement you subscribe to) come to fruition through movement skills. These movement skills are based entirely on the athlete’s movement capacity, as the brain can only use what the body has to solve problems. Movement capacity is attained through targeted exercise selection (organized coherently through training concepts) based on the desired adaptation.
Perhaps it is more logical to describe from the bottom level to the top: Specific adaptations drive an increased movement capacity that can be utilized in movement skills, which are integrated by the athlete into sport-specific technique. In this example, the governing “meta-concepts” were left implicit.
From this framework, it is easy to see why some systems succeed and others fail. The same way you need optimal sequencing to sprint fast, squat heavy, or throw far, you need optimal sequencing in the targeted application of training ideas. It’s only through proper sequencing of letters that we get words. It’s only through proper sequencing of words that we get meaningful sentences. It’s a universal and intuitive idea that, in this field, has become lost in the world of semantics.
Conceptualizing Improvement
One of the major implications in this separation of levels comes in how we can better view improvement in sport.
I brought up the idea that often times improvement is viewed in a “sliding scale” sort of way, where incremental improvements in some arbitrary marker will slowly bring you closer to your goal.
I disagree with this model and I’ll use the example of guitar playing to give a better illustration of why:
Consider learning how to play the guitar. When you first start playing guitar there are some fundamental aspects you’ll have to learn: How to hold the guitar, getting comfortable pressing down on the strings, learning how to rhythmically strum, and learning the hand positions to play basic chords.
Then you have some higher-level concepts that can make you an even better guitar player: You learn scales, chord progressions, new strumming patterns, and very likely you’ll learn how to play Wonderwall.
Eventually you start to notice patterns in how different chords and scales fit together, and the different emotions and moods they portray. You notice that different rhythms fit better with these different moods. You notice that whether you understand it or not, there is actually a strong, coherent science to the art of music.
But what happens if you take someone who has reached a certain level of guitar playing, who knows all of the hand positions, strumming patterns, scales, and even a few songs, and give them a guitar that has been tuned to drop D tuning instead of standard tuning? All of the skills and knowledge they have are no longer meaningful. You can use the same exact hand positions, press the same exact frets, and strum the same exact way, but with the new tuning, the end result will sound horrendous.
A very similar concept can be seen in athletics. The same way that the tensioning of the guitar strings completely changes the end result of the same exact motions on a guitar, the fascial tensioning of an athlete completely changes the end result of any given movement. It’s why you cannot just focus on “copying” an elite athlete’s technique: they are, quite literally, tuned differently (feet-hips-spine-fascia).
“You cannot copy an elite athlete’s technique, as their body is tuned just as a guitar in a very specific, alternate setting such as C6 or Modal D”
This brings up an extremely important point: Reaching high-level athleticism isn’t, per se, “harder.” It’s just different. Certain songs can only be played with certain tunings on a guitar.
And the funny thing about it is that the actual movements of guitar playing are actually really, really simple. If you can wiggle you fingers and bend your wrist, you can play guitar.
On the same note, the actual movement in most athletic events is really, really simple. All you really have to do is flex your hips, bend your spine, and swing your arms. Even the most technical sport event in the world (javelin throwing… sorry pole vaulters) really just requires that you rotate your hips, bend your arm, and stick your leg out.
The key lies in the timing, rhythm, and coordination of those movements. Covering that aspect up with getting stronger is really just getting better at being worse.
Focusing only on weight room principles, periodization schemes, and/or technical concepts completely misses the point that there are humongous, elephant-in-the-room kinds of opportunity of improvement sitting right in front of you. There are certain characteristics that elite athletes possess, and the biggest secret in sports performance is that you can possess those characteristics too, through rethinking the possibilities of improvement and the way you train.
To relate this back to the example on mechanical vs. intelligent modes of thinking, we can step outside of the system and realize instead of putting our “2’s” (who will never reach the end goal of 99) through the ringer, we can take the time to turn them into “9’s”.
Right versus Wrong
This is the last big point I want to make in regards to this idea of “levels” in athletic performance.
We’ve all seen (or maybe even participated in) those wild social media arguments where people are tearing each other apart because everyone is so sure that they are right with their ideas.
- And a lot of the time it weirdly, paradoxically seems that everybody is right.
- (Sometimes there are just idiots.)
This comes back to a fundamental principle of the logic of levels in which you can be completely right on one level, but totally wrong on another. In guitar playing this could be hitting all the right frets to play a chord in the wrong tuning. In chess, this could be sacrificing your queen to set up checkmate. Or a great example from Hofstadter: in the human brain, neurons will always fire perfectly, obeying the laws of physics within brain, but can still lead to consciousness-level misconceptions in understanding the world.
In training, it could be any number of hot button topics, but the point remains that meaning, rightness, and wrongness can all coexist on many different levels within the same concept. Therefore, any given opinion on any given topic is quite irrelevant without seeing the bigger picture connectedness to higher and lower levels.
Tying it All Together
I understand that this article was a bit scattered and very conceptual in nature. I also understand that it may seem unnecessarily complicated to approach sports from this perspective.
But the fact is that there are Capital-T Truths in regards to the way the human body functions, adapts, and performs, and it’s only through breaking things down to their constituent parts and organizing them accordingly that we can cut through the fluff that plagues this field. It’s the oversimplification that overcomplicates things.
And the truth is that by rearranging our foundational understanding of the hierarchy of training ideas, paired with observation, experimentation, and critical thinking, we can connect the dots in a way that, at the level of applied practice, actually makes training much, much simpler for our athletes.
Without a strong, coherent connectedness between ideas at each level, and between all of the moving parts and players of sports performance, individual methods and ideas are insignificant.
In other words:
Zoom in. Zoom out.
Think critically. Think creatively.
Think twice.
Connect the dots.
Repeat.
About Kevin Foster
Kevin is a former Division I javelin thrower for the University of Connecticut. He is currently training to compete post-collegiately for the 2020 Olympic trials while working as a private trainer and consultant.
He runs the Javelin Anatomy Instagram page whose mission is to break down and simplify the anatomy and physics that go into the javelin throw in a logical, critical, and holistic manner. Follow the page @javelin.anatomy to learn more about the science of javelin throwing and training. For any questions or feedback, email javelin.anatomy@gmail.com.
Free Training Guides!
Sign up for the newsletter, get your FREE eBooks, and receive weekly updates on cutting edge training information that will help take your knowledge of athletic performance to a new level.