5

As strength coaches, we can sometimes fall victim to using terms that are too technical for the client to understand.

I'd like to know if a compendium exists that revolves around external cuing, "push the ground away" vs "extend your knees",or "show the logo on your chest" vs "you are hip dominant".

External is almost always superior for a number of reasons, but I have yet to see a comprehensive resource for coaches or trainers to turn to.

| improve this question | |
  • what do you mean by "external" – John Apr 21 '17 at 6:55
1

I think that it's best practice to use the ideas and analogies that have been time tested, but it's also important to try to come up with your own. With some insight to how best to communicate with your client, perhaps you are the best compendium after all, however, that would depend on several factors, including knowledge, your client and your own experience in the field.

That said, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a compendium that revolves around external cuing.

| improve this answer | |
  • This answer has little or no value. – Eric♦ Dec 24 '14 at 17:18
  • Eric, I disagree. To my knowledge there isn't a compendium of external anecdotes and one-liners for a coach. Your own analogies are the next best thing and do exist. – Lloyd Moore Dec 26 '14 at 10:05
  • Your own analogies can be bad and are too dependent on experimentation. I recall a story in which coaches used to tell their running athletes to flick their toes behind them as they run to kick up dirt, as that is what they saw on elite level athletes. However, that was misappropriated correlation, not causation-fast runners did that as a result of their speed-kicking up dirt didn't make them faster in itself. Coaching cue libraries (of a sort) exist, as I'm going through a certification program that has specific cues attached to each movement right now. – Ellocomotive Jan 3 '15 at 2:34
  • Coaching libraries "of a sort" is not a definitive library per se, and there is no cure for coaches that give bad advice. The specific cues that you talk about are more likely to come from good coaches or those people knowledgeable about coaching. Your own analogies can be bad, but why are they too dependant on experimentation? An overwhelming amount of information and data in sports comes from emperical data. Surely this ranks as experimental information over time. The story you recall is an example of bad advise, nothing more. – Lloyd Moore Jan 3 '15 at 18:17
  • That bad advice is precisely what I want to avoid, and exactly why I asked the question. There is a whole body of work dedicated to the science of cuing, like the work of Nick Winkelman or Dr. Wulf's work. Here's an example of a small library: samleahey.com/science-of-coaching-cues When I talk about experimentation, I say that it's based on trial and error. Chances are someone came up with something better than me, and that's what I want. EXOS' movement library typically has coaching cues attached to it. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. – Ellocomotive Jan 7 '15 at 23:19
1

Not for free. There is no publicly-available comprehensive list of cues to describe particular motions.

Why?

Because it is worth money and requires a lot of work and research to do well.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.