There can be a belief that the only muscular adaptation is hypertrophy – an athlete got bigger so they’re stronger. While muscle size can certainly indicate increased strength, this is not the only way that muscles change and adapt to training stimuli. Furthermore, the other common idea is that greater size must inherently make a player slower. Added weight should do, but not when the comparative physical improvement.⠀
⠀
Another way to improved physical ability that is often dismissed because it’s invisible to the naked eye is muscle contractility. When subjected to an adequate stimulus paired with adequate recovery, individual muscle fibers can begin producing more force and can contract more quickly. This is independent of changes in the size of these fibres and/or the overall muscle i.e. strength but not size. Changes in muscle fibre type can also lead to increased strength and power that, once again, does not need to result in bigger muscles. ⠀
⠀
The assumption that because someone is big, they must be strong but not fast is simply untrue. You only need a second considering that stature and physical performance of NFL running backs to realise this. While those players carry a lot of weight, this is far from dead weight. Adama’s muscle properties for example we could expect to show great contractile properties suggestive of his strength and power. Pick another person of a similar height and weight, we’ll probably find that they are far weaker. Adama is physically capable, not solely looking the part.
The idea that greater size or weight is always bad is a myth that runs deeply through football, but is based on crass ideas. That then leads into coaches prescribing no-strength training programs 😖 and making unnecessary weight cuts that reduce athletic skill rather than improve it. We must educate both coaches and players to correctly consider these concepts when programming and training.
Comments