DaveH

56 minutes ago, DJR313 said:

Bump.  Black jerseys still suck.

Legend. 

7 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

As far as I can tell, we all agree that no one was trying to get anyone hurt. Precautions were taken, mistakes were made, lessons learned.  And yet...4 pages

Welcome to the internet?

2 minutes ago, Touchdown Tommie said:

You do not have control over ALL variables....just not possible. I agree that this should not happen again, but to just throw stones at the staff saying they should have known this was going to happen or they should know better it just ridiculous. Things happen and sometimes you do not know they are going to happen until they happen. It is tough that two kids had their body react they did. Frost coming out saying they did evaluate the players and dialed it back a little, they had training staff in with the kids and coaches, etc should be enough for you to know they took precautions toThey will learn from it and move forward.

I think you have enough control to not land people in the hospital. That's all.

I'm sure they'll learn. They have to. 

3 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

Lots of accidents could happen in the weight room that could send people to the hospital. Again, you don’t know what precautions were taken and the kids weren’t showing signs until a couple days later. They even mentioned they were taking precautions by backing off. What else could they do? Seriously, what else do you want them to do? 

Not put kids in the hospital and, instead, design a program that allows them to train productively.   I really don't think it's that big of an ask and they'd probably agree. 

10 minutes ago, Touchdown Tommie said:

And they can land in the hospital playing the game football. Do you honestly believe they did not take precautions? I mean, seriously? Even as a high school coach our staff take precautions in the weight room, on the field, etc. I think it is safe to assume that college coaches at this level would take the same if not better precautions.

I struggle to see how the game of football, where there are risks you can't really mitigate, is the same as training, where you certainly have control over all the variables that affect the outcome and can mitigate these risks. 

These are not the same things. 

20 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

But yet you can come out and definitively say that they shouldn’t have done the program? Again, you don’t have the full details to know what precautions were taken. 

 

I feel like you can’t say one without the other. 

I feel like if it could land people in the hospital, it's probably a bad idea.  And we pay these guys a lot of money to know this. 

Bottom line is, this was a very bad mistake and should never happen again. There is just no excuse for it. It's not as if guys get rhabdo all the time and it's a completely normal outcome of hard training

4 hours ago, dspanther05 said:

Man, Nebraska could have saved $375,000 a year and just posted on Huskerboard asking for a work out program for the football team.  I didn't realize how many experts there were in running a S&C program at a Major D1 college.program.  I knew this place was full of expert level head coaches (myself included).  This truly is the best board on the Internet.

Isn't that what this board is for? Opining on things that you are not qualified for is a past time on the internet

Just now, ladyhawke said:

What else do you think they could've done? 

I don't have the details of the training so I can't really say what specifically I'd do differently. Nor am I really qualified to do that.

I would say that I really don't think this situation should be a variable when designing a program. The state of D1 strength and conditioning in general needs to improve such that we shouldn't be left wondering if a workout will land people in the hospital. 

1 minute ago, ladyhawke said:

In the article I cited Coach Frost said: ""The workout that got them in trouble was a 32- to-36-minute weight workout. All they were doing is lifting. The workout was supposed to be longer than that, but Zach (Duval) cut it down to try and break the kids in, and I think the majority of the team reacted just fine, but there were a couple of kids who reacted poorly to it."  Then he also added: ""Zach Duval, my strength and conditioning coach, he’s been through transitions like this about five times and I have complete trust in him," Frost said. "When we got in we were a little concerned about the conditioning of the team, so they did some baseline testing, some body composition work, and actually, for how Zach would normally roll out the conditioning program, he actually backed off that quite a bit, and we still had a problem. So there was a lot of attention paid to how this would go, and as much as we tried to be attentive to how they needed to start, we still made a mistake."

  It sounds to me like they were trying to be very careful and mindful of the current state of the players, don't you?

Sure it sounds like they tried but think about it this way.

If something would have really gone bad and a player was unable to play again or his life was otherwise permanently effected, would the answer of "well, we tried" be good enough? When it comes down to it, there's really no excuse. Hopefully they learned something. 

10 minutes ago, 307husker said:

Damage and destruction are not clinical terms and have little value in differentiating between what would be expected with high intensity training and the medical condition of Rhabdomyolisis.

Good call.

7 minutes ago, 307husker said:

Football training isn't worth developing rhabdomyolysis, but, IMO, the nature of football training at a high level necessitates risking developing rhabdomyolysis...  

I hear ya. I guess I'm not so sure about the necessity of the risk I guess. I'd think you'd be able to program at any level without a significantly elevated risk of hospitalization.  Maybe part of this is programming for individuals vs programming for the whole team at once. You're sort of assuming, by programming for the whole team or at least wide swaths of people, that they're at similar levels of training already. Due to time constraints that I'm sure exist here, programming individually may not be practical, but maybe it is.

3 minutes ago, ladyhawke said:

Wouldn't it depend on the current fitness level of the student(s) athlete involved?  This was a good explanation of what happened: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/nebraska-coach-scott-frost-confirms-two-husker-players-were-hospitalized/article_d5929674-53a7-5d90-803e-6b4e9205ee60.html

Yea, I think it would for sure.

18 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

My understanding is that they are doing circuit training with no breaks between lifts.   I'm guessing they are doing 3 cycles of 10 for squats. 

Sure, I just thought it was funny that the guy in the tweet called them "heavy"

16 minutes ago, SUHperman said:

Bunch of UCF players commenting on this off-season circuit. 

 

 

Interesting..

I think that if you're able to do three sets of 10 reps on a squat, it wasn't that heavy. Or you're squatting high.

9 minutes ago, 307husker said:

I don't understand your perspective fully.  The only way to guarantee that rhabdo does not occur would be to avoid vigorous physical conditioning.  

There is no way for either the staff or the athletes to know where the line is between good hard work, and overwork...

ALL physical training causes some degree of muscle fiber damage.  It's simply a matter of how much is done and whether the body can respond productively to that damage.  Rhabdo isn't really a binary diagnosis.  There are highly variable levels of CK levels in the blood signifying muscle breakdown.  At some point the number on the lab chart reaches the threshold to officially dx Rhabdomyolysis and significant concern for kidney function becomes the overwhelming priority for the health care providers.

I generally agree, but I think maybe they found a hint where this line lies for some. I hope they have some copious notes with regard to what led up to this.

That being said, I don't think productive training requires knowing where this line is. I have a feeling that approaching this line doesn't really help elicit the adaptation you're looking for and more than staying a good distance away.

I'd only additionally mention that while yes, some muscle damage is a result of productive training, muscle destruction is not. The -lysis in Rhabdomyolysis almost literally means death or at least leading to cell death. It would be good to stay away from that  

9 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Geez a couple of you need to chill out. The staff recognized a problem and has taken the appropriate action. Calling this unacceptable is like missing the forest before the trees. Football is a rough sport.  Concussions, CTE, neck spine injuries, heat stroke.  Are these dangers not also “unacceptable “?  Stuff like this happens. It’s part of the risk. Now if it continues to happen and a pattern develops, then we can start freaking out.

 

Here's the difference.

You must accept some of the risks you cited if you want to play high level football. There's no real way around it that I can see

You do not need to and should not be expected to accept the risk of rhabdo if you want to train. You don't need to train so hard that parts of you *literally* die.

1 minute ago, 307husker said:

 It will certainly serve as a reminder to all involved that Rome wasn't/can't be build in a day.

True!

It's almost like training is a process full of many individual sessions.  Each designed to help produce the desired adaptation.... hmm..

1 hour ago, GSG said:

The status update box just worked for me finally after a few days. Not sure what's going on but it seems fine now!

Thanks for the update. This is sort of odd. We'll have to keep an eye on it.

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Were there any incidents of this nature when they began at UCF?

I haven't looked for any, so I'm not sure. However, unfortunately it's not as simple as this workout = rhabdo.

Just now, ScottyIce said:

 

So it was a workout that he had scaled down 20% and his UCF guys were doing the regular one with ease. Don't you see the real problem here?

yea, the real problem is that guys were put in the hospital instead of being able to train more today.

2 minutes ago, 307husker said:

It could, or it could be problems with a couple of individuals.  I'm sure that they're taking it very seriously.  Being hooked up to IV's for a couple of days, or having your players hooked up to IV's isn't something that a person brushes off without due consideration.  

 

Absolutely.

Just now, Football Guy Bob said:

Bad programming that won Duval strength coach of the year?

I don't think I'd necessarily correlate an arbitrary award to being a good programmer.

Just now, ScottyIce said:

I'm not saying rhabdo is okay, but they were doing a simple 32 minute lift session. Perhaps they haven't been working hard enough prior?

You don't get rhabdo from "simple" lifting sessions.  

3 minutes ago, 307husker said:

Performance athletics isn't always healthy and rhabdo is a tricky thing.  Unfortunately, there isn't always a clear line between working hard and working too hard, especially in a group environment with highly competitive and "invincible" college age athletes.  

 

The pitchforks and feathers need to be put away IMO, Duval, Frost and Co. hopefully learn a bit from this and are better for it in the future. 

I'm not trying to kick the guys out of town. I just hope they take this as seriously as they should. Not only is this a bad look, it could be indicative of bad programming or bad supervision

The thing here is that the idea that these guys could get even remotely *close* to rhabdo suggests that the programming is inappropriate. How many players did not technically have rhabdo, but were close?

These kids are hand picked athletes, so as usual their natural ability will cover up the BS that is prescribed to them.

Sure, I get it when some CrossFit hero at your local box gets rhabdo because his dime store coach doesn't know what he's doing. But we pay these guys a TON of money. We should expect better and so should their parents. 

Just now, teachercd said:

Years ago the idea of not giving water was "smart" of course now we know that 10/10 doctors recommend water.

 

I had this a-hole that forced himself on my coaching staff a few years ago...he hated water breaks, thought it was "weak" and all that crap.

Wow. That's next level stupid for sure.