Friday, March 30, 2012

Jump Rope for Athletes

Jump ropes can be very inexpensive or more complex.
I love the jump rope as tool for strength athletes. I'm not talking about the type of jumping done by little girls on the playground, but an intense and skilled use of this great tool.
What's not to like about an activity that is cheap,time efficient, and space efficient? Jumpropes can be purchased for anywhere from a few dollars to more expensive ball bearing models. You can buy a piece of clothesline at the local hardware store and cut to length. Proper length would be stretching from armpit, under the feet, and to opposite armpit.
It takes little space to do a workout and can be done either indoors or out.
A few minutes of jumprope can a great cardio vascular workout. It raises the heart rate quickly and sustains it throughout the session. It can be done in short intense intervals with breaks in between or for several minutes of continous sustained jumping. Try jumping for even 5 straight minutes, it's a challenge, although I have had athletes who worked up to 10 minute sessions. Very tough.
The big advantage to strength athletes is that it is low impact when using good form (proper body alignment, legs slightly bent but minimal knee bend, bounce through the ankles)and is actually a low level plyometric type exercise that doesn't put the CNS to sleep and activates the fast twitch fibers.
It can be quite interesting and challenging as athletes progessively master more complex skills. It's not boring like long slow running or Gerbilizing on a treadmill.
Below is a short, impressive demonstration of what is possible, as well as some simpler lead up foot patterns. Get yourself a rope and have some fun...

Monday, March 26, 2012

Crossfit a Bad Fit?

Mike Burgener teaching the Snatch to a crossfitter

We had an earlier post on crossfit.......  
 http://www.haskestrength.com/2010/10/what-do-you-think-of-crossfit.html  It still expresses my thoughts on this popular training program pretty well.
Below is an interesting article I ran across recently. The author makes some great points.
A huge mistake that the general public and even some "coaches" make is thinking that if a program is "hard", it must be good. Difficulty of performance is not related to effectiveness however. I see many of these misguided programs doing things like repetitive plyometric type exercises to exhaustion, totally missing the point of the exercise and setting the trainee up for injury. Spectacular claims, unrealistic methods, and impossibly quick results will sell. The truth, that training is a long, slow, and incremental process, does not lend itself to flashy infomercials. The human body and the way that it will adapt to a stimulus does not change.

Recently, I have noticed an alarming trend in the training and fitness industry: instant gratification workout programs designed to beat up participants and leave them worn out. As an Athletic Trainer and Strength Coach, I am concerned.
Lately I cannot tell you how many sports programs are turning to the likes CrossFit, Insanity, or P90X to train their athletes. This type of workout plan is not effective in the development and training of our athletes. Don't get me wrong, I like the feeling of a hard workout, and the recovery afterwards, but these programs lack the organization vital to continued improvement and success.
These workouts are designed with a focus on today's workout, while development should be more about today as a stepping stone to tomorrow. When we recover from today's workout, we improve tomorrow. Continued success happens with recovery and adaptation. Without that, the body never fully recovers and eventually starts to break down.
The goal of any well-designed strength and conditioning program is to decrease injury and develop specific attributes to improve performance. In order to achieve those goals, the program needs to take each sport with their specific movements, planes of motion, muscle recruitment, etc., into consideration. After that it has to identify and correct individual weak links that could be a precursor to injury later in the season as well as common injuries in that sport. Proper programming is then composed into phases to allow the body to adapt to the exercises, learn the routines and the system, and allow progressive overload and continued adaptation to the program. They also utilize planned rest and recovery periods to limit overtraining.
CrossFit and Insanity workouts do not meet the above criteria. They also do not take individual sports and movements into account. This can mean that it will potentially help some sports and hinder others. They do not look at the individual and correct weaknesses--everyone has the same workout regardless. They do not have progressive overload built in, or work toward a specific goal.
The goal of Insanity is to lose weight and have a lean, muscular look while the goal of CrossFit is to get better at CrossFit. If your goals are to look lean or compete at the CrossFit games then these programs may work for you. If, however, your goal is to become a stronger, faster, more agile athlete for your sport then you need a different plan.
Athletes need to have a combination of strength, power, speed, agility, balance and recovery. Only a specific program can improve those areas. Athletes need to be in the weight room building strength through compound exercises such as squats, lunges, deadlifts, horizontal pushes and pulls, and vertical pushes and pulls. They can develop power through medicine ball throws, jumping, and Olympic lifts (depending on sport, age, and proficiency of movements). On the court or field they can work on their reaction, acceleration, deceleration, top speed, balance, and quick changes of direction.
Turning to CrossFit type workouts as the basis of your strength and conditioning work will leave your athletes woefully unprepared for the season. Your athletes may think they are working hard and getting "in shape" for their sport, but the truth of the matter is that they will lack the specific work that is vital to their success on the field or on the court.
However, what is beneficial to your program (depending on your goals) is the metabolic conditioning or circuit training aspect. As an adjunct to your strength and speed work this can help with mental toughness, team building, competitiveness, anaerobic capacity, and recovery. For most sports, it is important to go "all out" and then recover in a short period of time before going again.
Instead of choosing a one-size-fits-all program, think of what would be a better fit for the sport and the team goals. There will be more upfront time, but the rewards when the season rolls around will be more than worth it.

Tim Koba, ATC, CSCS, PES, LMT, is Manager for Athletic Performance and Athletic Training Services at Cayuga Medical Center at Island Health and Fitness in Ithaca, N.Y.



Training is not supposed to be detrimental to your health!

Thursday, March 22, 2012

David Rigert 65 years!

I don't know of any weightlifter of any nationality in the late 60's and early 70's who wasn't influenced by David Rigert of the former Soviet Republic. While his contemporary, the late Vasily Alexeev, recieved more widespread general public adulation; serious lifters everywhere knew and respected Rigert. His build, his demeanor, and of course his performances were legendary. No one personified what most of us think a lifter should look like better than Rigert. He also had a reputation for fighting with and beating up teamates,coaches, opponents, officials, and anyone else who dared to get in his way. He had, and still has, that look about him of someone you don't want to mess with. It is hard to believe that 40+ years have passed since I first picked up a barbell and was inspired by this "lifter's lifter". Never a master technician, he simply over powered weights with his ungodly strength and will.He is now the coach of the Russian national team and still has the power to intimidate lifters and opponents.
Long live Rigert.
(If his chain smoking doesn't eventually catch up with him, what will? Maybe a jealous husband?) lol
Below is a text that was written in Russian and translated by Google.

March 12 marked 65 years of head coach of Russia, the famous David Riegert. Fans of weightlifting to relate differently to coaching Riegert, but hardly anyone can admit that this is one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century.

Congratulations to David Adamovich on his birthday, we wish you good health, success in work and gold (finally) the 2012 Olympic medals.


Original Text:Поздравляем Давида Адамовича с юбилеем, желаем крепкого здоровья, успехов в работе и золотых (наконец) медалей Олимпиады-2012.Show alternative translations


Monday, March 19, 2012

Former Mr. Universe Turns 100 in India

Great story. More power to him.....

By MANIK BANERJEE Associated Press
KOLKATA, India March 18, 2012 (AP)
A former Mr. Universe who has just turned 100 said Sunday that happiness and a life without tensions are the key to his longevity.
Manohar Aich, who is 4 foot 11 inches (150 centimeters) tall, overcame many hurdles, including grinding poverty and a stint in prison, to achieve body building glory.
His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren gathered Sunday in the eastern city of Kolkata to celebrate his birthday the day before.
Hindu priests chanted prayers while a feast was laid out to honor Aich, winner of the 1952 Mr. Universe body building title.
Rippling his muscles and flashing a toothless grin, Aich says his ability to take his troubles lightly and remain happy during difficult times are the secrets to his long life.
That, and a simple diet of milk, fruits and vegetables along with rice, lentils and fish have kept him healthy.
He does not smoke and has never touched alcohol, he said.
"I never allow any sort of tension to grip me. I had to struggle to earn money since my young days, but whatever the situation, I remained happy," Aich said, sitting in a room decorated with posters and pictures of his many bodybuilding triumphs.
Aich, who was born in the small town of Comilla in Bengal, was a puny youngster. But he was attracted to exercising and building his muscles when as a schoolboy he saw a group of wrestlers in action.
In 1942, he joined the Royal Air Force under India's British colonial rulers and it was there that he began his relentless pursuit of body building.
Encouraged by a British officer named Reub Martin, who introduced him to weight training, Aich earned praise for his physique from his peers in the air force.
Some years later, however, he was thrown into prison when he protested against colonial oppression.
"It was in the jail that I began weight training seriously. This helped me prepare myself for the world championship," said Aich.
"In jail I used to practice on my own, without any equipment, sometimes for 12 hours in a day," he recalled.
The jail authorities were impressed with his perseverance and he was given a special diet to help build his stamina.
India's independence in 1947 led to Aich's release from jail. Dogged by poverty, Aich and his wife struggled to put their four children through school. There was little cash to indulge his passion for body building, but Aich took up odd jobs to earn a little on the side.
His 1950 win of a "Mr. Hercules" contest spurred him to set his sights on the Mr. Universe tournament in London.
In 1951, Aich came second in the contest, and stayed on in London to prepare for another shot at the title. He returned to India after winning the title in 1952.
What followed were a host of awards, including top positions in the Asian Body building Championships. Over the years, he also earned the more popular title of "Pocket Hercules" due to his 4 foot, 11 inch-frame.
Six decades later, Aich helps his sons run a gym and fitness center and spends his days guiding juvenile hopefuls to reach the heights of body building.
A minor stroke last year robbed him of the ability to lift weights, but he keeps a watchful eye on young body builders training in his gym.
Although his two sons did not take up body building, Aich says his mentoring has earned him rewards. It has produced India's eight-time national champion, Satya Paul. Another protege, Premchand Dogra, snagged the Mr. Universe title in 1988.
Among his regrets, says Aich, is that he never had a chance to meet his more famous counterpart, a fellow Mr. Universe winner, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But Aich says he's seen many of Schwarzenegger's action films.
"I like the incredible stunts he does in the movies," Aich said.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Rotation vs. Twisting

Hip drive, shoulder separation, not twisting!
Quite a while back we posted on the idea that rotational force is not the same thing as twisting. Rotation is movement around a circular axis, with the hips and shoulders turning in the same direction, although separation may be involved. Twisting is moving the hips and shoulders in the oposite directions, such as in seated bar twists, and creates much stress on the spinal discs. We proposed that twisting of the spine causes wear and tear and eventually leads to injury. in an earlier post......

Extreme range twisting is not what happens in throwing or most athletic events. Rotation is what happens as opposed to twisting. It is malpractice in my opinion that many coaches use twisting types of exercises in an effort to improve rotational force. Below is a recent post (on Testosterone.com)of an interview with Dr. Stuart McGill, a widely recognized expert on low back disorders and how to prevent and correct them........

Excellent, Stu. That's essential information for any physical therapist or corrective exercise trainer. Speaking of twisting injuries, there seems to be some debate on your position regarding dynamic rotational core training. Care to elaborate?
CW: So how do you recommend that T Nation readers train core rotation?
CW: Yes, that's the risk we take whenever we recommend an exercise. What might be ideal for one guy could be problematic for another. But throw us a bone and give us some recommendations.

This is labeled as "twisting", but is actually rotation and not harmful..

This is a recipe for disc degeneration, especially if done with weights...

Monday, March 12, 2012

Can the Scientists Keep Up?

Following is an interesting article that I saw recently. While I am personally and professionally against "doping" or drug use, I have enough knowlege and experience to know that the issues can be quite complex and aren't as black and white as politicians and reporters try to make it. It is not always clear as to what substances and in what amounts, should be legal or not. Nor is it always clear what tests are valid and when and how they should be administered. In some cases the lines between nutritional supplements, ergogenic drugs, and medicinal drugs are fuzzy and hard to determine. I have generally avoided wading into the philosophical discussions and am not well versed enough in chemistry to argue from that perspective. For me, as a coach, I stay abreast of the legal aspects. It is vital that I know what is permitted and what is banned and make sure my athletes are clear on that.

Can the scientists keep up?

Drugs and sport: The twists and turns of the long-running race between drug-taking athletes and boffins trying to catch them

THE idea of stimulating the body’s performance with all manner of concoctions is as old as mankind. The Inca chewed coca leaves to pep them up when doing strenuous work. Nordic warriors munched mushrooms before going into battle to dull the inevitable pain. Ancient Olympians chomped opium, among other things, to give them a competitive edge. It wasn’t until the 1950s that such practices became frowned upon.
The shift in attitudes was spurred by the emergence of modern competitive sport. Sports authorities, athletes appalled at ungentlemanly behaviour or, more cynically, those who lacked access to stimulants, cried foul. Any artificial enhancement was “unfair”, they complained, and must be eradicated. At the same time, rewards for the boost that drugs can provide ballooned. Sportsmen were increasingly prepared to go to any length to outdo their competitors, and devised novel ways to foil the scientists tasked with catching cheats. An arms race began, and has continued apace ever since, with many twists and turns along the way.
And they’re off
The contest between athletes and scientists was sparked in 1959 when Gene Smith and Henry Beecher, at Harvard University, showed that short-distance swimmers who were given amphetamines did indeed swim faster than those who received a placebo. It was the first study to show that drugs had any real physiological effect. Others reached similar conclusions.
The performance enhancement was small: just 2%. But this was enough to tip the scales, especially in highly competitive events where a photo finish decides the winner. So in 1964 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics and introduced testing to keep athletes in line. And where the IOC leads, other sports bodies follow. The Olympic games therefore provide a microcosm of the race between dopers and judges.
At the Mexico City games in 1968 the first athlete was nabbed for doping. His drug of choice was ethanol, found in alcoholic drinks and easily picked up in a urine sample. Of precious little use to swimmers or sprinters, it can help a pentathlete who needs, among other things, to aim a rifle accurately. Like other so-called depressants, ethanol slows down the pulse rate and reduces muscle tremors that can make a shot go off target. Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall, a Swede who tried to take advantage of this, was disqualified.
Various heart-control drugs have a similar calming effect, a boon to archers and shooters. But they are often not as easy to detect as ethanol. At the Munich Olympics in 1972, therefore, the IOC introduced some newfangled chemical tools: gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy. Gas chromatography works by vaporising extracts of urine and passing them through a long tube, along which some constituent compounds move more quickly than others. The mass spectroscope at the end of the tube then ionises the emerging substances and measures their characteristic mass-charge ratio. The result is a chemical signature that can be compared with signatures derived from urine samples spiked with known performance-enhancing drugs to see if an athlete has taken anything untoward.
This method enabled the IOC to catch seven athletes who had taken banned substances. Some had taken amphetamine, or one of two similar substances called phenmetrazine and ephedrine. Two cyclists were nicked for using nikethamide, which the IOC had banned, but which the International Cycling Union had not.
Gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy are powerful tools. But altogether different methods are required to detect anabolic androgenic steroids, which mimic the effects of testosterone and other hormones in the body. In the 1950s doctors started using them to treat patients with wasting diseases, because they help strengthen bones and rebuild tissues. The IOC realised that they also offered cheats a way to build up more muscle than was possible through training. Unlike stimulants, which must be taken in high doses to be effective, making them easier to spot, the chromatography-spectroscopy combo was blind to the tiny doses which were enough to make steroids count.
A breakthrough came in 1972, too late for the Munich Olympics. Raymond Brooks and others at St Thomas’s Hospital in London developed the immunoassay test. David Cowan, head of the Drug Control Centre at King’s College London and director of the anti-doping laboratory for this year’s London Olympics, likens it to a lock-and-key mechanism: the steroids in urine were the keys, and the locks were specific compounds known to bind with them, which were added to the sample. Even minuscule quantities of steroids were enough to trigger a reaction which could then be detected.
At the Montreal games in 1976 a total of 1,786 urine samples were analysed and 11 people were found guilty of doping. Eight were weightlifters using anabolic steroids. Three had won medals, which they were subsequently forced to return. Four years later in Moscow none of the 1,645 samples collected was found to contain steroids. But by the time of the Los Angeles games in 1984 it had become clear that the reason was not new-found abstemiousness. The old, detectable steroids had simply been replaced by new, undetectable ones. Rather than using artificial testosterone-like substances that could be spotted using the immunoassay test, athletes had switched to using natural testosterone instead. Because testosterone levels vary widely from one person to another, it was impossible to say whether an athlete was cheating or was simply blessed with naturally high levels of the hormone.
Rather than using artificial testosterone-like substances that could be spotted, athletes switched to using natural testosterone instead.
This changed when a research group led by Manfred Donike at the German Sport University in Cologne discovered that there is a natural ratio between testosterone and another, related hormone, called epitestosterone, in normal, healthy humans. When samples of urine stashed away after the Moscow Olympics were brought in for epitestosterone-ratio testing, it was clear that doping had taken place. No action could be taken because the stored samples were anonymous. But at the 1984 Olympics 11 athletes were found to be using testosterone or testosterone-like drugs that would not have been detected prior to Dr Donike’s findings. They were not all weightlifters. Suspicious ratios were also found in volleyball players, runners, wrestlers and discus throwers.
By 1988, though, athletes had found a way to sabotage the older techniques, which were still effective against users of drugs other than testosterone. Diuretics, which increase the amount of water bodies release through urine, dilute the sample and make substances in it harder to detect. This time, however, the IOC was ahead of the game. It warned athletes in Seoul that year that diuretics were out of bounds, and also figured out how to identify the most common diuretics. Four athletes were caught with such compounds in their urine. Whether actual performance-enhancing drugs were present could not be determined, but since diuretics were banned, disqualification followed.
By the 1990s anti-doping sleuths could detect depressants, diuretics, steroids and hormones. But when the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was founded in 1999 to thwart drug users in all sports, these were no longer the biggest worry. In the 1980s pharmaceutical laboratories figured out a way to manufacture erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone involved in the production of red blood cells. It can be used to boost the number of these cells in anaemic patients to healthy levels. But WADA officials knew that because red blood cells carry oxygen to muscles, having more of them increases endurance. The side-effect of thicker blood, though, is increased risk of cells clogging blood vessels, which can cause a stroke or heart failure—a chance many dopers would be willing to take in return for superior performance.
The plot thickens
During the 1990s no tests existed that could differentiate natural erythropoietin from the artificial kind. Looking at red blood cells was no use, because their level varies from person to person. Most people’s blood contains 40-45% red blood cells. But in some people the figure can reach 50% without any manipulation. A blood test revealing a 51% red-blood-cell count would be considered flimsy evidence; the suspect could be a lucky athlete endowed with thicker blood.
A year before the Sydney games in 2000, however, the IOC got a helping hand from the French national anti-doping laboratory and scientists from the Australian Sport Institute. The French researchers had developed a test that examined the molecular composition of various forms of the hormone. All EPO molecules are made up of the same protein backbone, but the French lab noticed that some side-chains differed between natural and artificial forms. The Australians, meanwhile, had devised a test that looked for changes in blood characteristics, in particular a raised number of young blood cells (reticulocytes) released as a result of EPO use.
In 2003 WADA discovered that a new version of EPO, known as CERA-Mircera, was being developed. Unlike earlier varieties, which needed to be taken three times a week and could be detected in urine, the new drug could be taken once a month and rarely made it into urine at all. “It was probably the greatest challenge the anti-doping research community had ever faced,” says Olivier Rabin, director of science at WADA. The agency therefore enlisted the help of Roche, the Swiss pharmaceuticals company that had developed CERA-Mircera for medical use. It took three years to work out how to detect it.
The solution was a screening procedure in which serum samples were mixed with antibodies that were biochemically programmed to latch onto anything that looked like EPO. These antibodies were bound with another substance which glowed green on contact with EPO. To make doubly sure that the glow was due to the presence of the drug and not some other effect, a modified version of the French side-chain test was used, though this took longer and was more cumbersome. “We knew athletes would challenge accusations and needed to be sure to make our findings robust enough to face legal challenges,” says Dr Rabin
The hard work paid off. At the Beijing Olympics of 2008, five athletes were caught and disqualified for using drugs that tinkered with EPO receptors. This was a turning-point. “It showed that by collaborating with the drug companies we could bring the days of playing catch-up with the cheaters to an end,” says Dr Rabin.
Even this, though, is not the end of the story. Working with drugs companies is no help against doping ruses which do not involve the use of drugs. Key among these is blood transfusion. An extra dose of red blood cells, providing extra endurance, is similar to what can be achieved with EPO—except that it is faster and less risky. Athletes can take blood from people with the same blood type, or from those with a compatible blood type.
Consequently, ways have been found to detect whether athletes have boosted their red blood cells through transfusion. Type-O blood in a type-A person, say, is a dead giveaway. And even if a type-A athlete has infused himself with type-A blood, it can still be identified as having come from a different person. This has prompted some athletes to infuse themselves with their own blood. Although this might, at first blush, sound futile, with the right tools and techniques it is possible to draw off blood and store it in a freezer for later use. The technique may weaken them temporarily but blood levels return to normal in a few days if they eat properly and rest. Months later, just before a major competition, athletes can tap their stash.
The latest technique, devised to combat this, and other forms of doping, is the biological passport. This involves frequent testing of athletes to keep track of nine key blood characteristics over a period of time. As a consequence an athlete’s typical biological markers are known. If his normal red-blood-cell proportion is 46%, say, and it is then found to be 50% during a competition, that would be a sign of foul play.
Building a better athlete
Even as blood doping becomes easier to detect, more problems loom. The biggest concern is genetic manipulation. WADA frets that athletes may start improving their bodies by tinkering with their genes. For instance, a virus could be used to smuggle a gene into the body which spurs the production of EPO or increases the production of muscle-building hormones. That could leave anti-doping detectives with the illusion that the hormone levels or blood-cell counts are simply the product of an extraordinary body.
But it turns out that the viruses that smuggle genes into the body leave behind markers which can be discerned. For now, then, genetic cheating can be detected. But this will probably not be the case for long. “I am certain that viruses will be invented that won’t leave traces,” says Patrick Schamasch, the IOC’s medical director. The key, he argues, is keeping track of the athlete’s overall physiological profile using a biological passport. “For decades we have been looking for the mere presence of substances,” he says, “but with these kinds of doping techniques available, this is no longer enough.”
But what if athletes had genetic enhancements applied early on in their careers, before enrolling in the biological-passport scheme, or even as children? “Regardless of age, when you have an extra copy of a gene inserted into your body it throws off homeostasis, and we can notice that things are not biochemically in balance,” says Dr Schamasch. Any such far-reaching intervention is bound to leave clues in the body.
When the race between cheats and their pursuers began in the run-up to the Mexico City games, Dr Rabin recalls, amphetamines were the big fear. “We overcame that. And now we fear genes, but we will overcome this too.” He can point to clear progress in the past six decades. “We are not yet ahead of the cheaters—but we are finally running neck and neck.”

Friday, March 9, 2012

Planet Fitness

Here in the U.S.A. we have a new commercial gym concept called Planet Fitness. They cater to those who are not comfortable in a competitive training enviroment and make things "comfortable". I always thought that if one wanted comfort they would stay home. You go to the gym to be challenged. Anyway, they have a series of commercials that satirize the knuckle head types that always seem to inhabit most commercial gyms. I'm not sure which I dislike the most, the knuckle heads or the mullets, but either way the ads are pretty funny. I really like the Iron Sport Gym repsonse at the bottom.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Joachim B. Olsen

A nice video clip of a great athlete training. Joachim, from Denmark, competed collegiately in the United States for the University of Idaho in the discus and shotput, later focusing on the shot.
Some great video showing nice form in the basic lifts. Nothing exotic or "special", just solid squats, presses, and pulls with heavy weights. My only input would be that his recieving  or "catch" postition for the power clean is painful to watch and likely contributed to the "slipped disc" (a vague term for low back injury and pain) mentioned in 2009. It has always been my belief that coaches of ahtletes who use weightlifting techniques in their training, whether throwers, football, rugby,...whatever, should know and coach weightlifting technique with as much precision as they do sport techniques. Injuries, chronic or acute, are not inevitable. Good lifting technique is the most efficient and forgiving on the body. If an athlete cannot show a good solid rack postition, then either develop it or stick with pulls.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

World's Strongest Kids

Saw this a few days ago. I wish I had a dollar for every child prodigy who never reached their potential as adults. I remember a family when I was growing up who had two boys who set national age group records in their track events. This is a true story, but I will not name them out of respect to their privacy. Their father was a local track coach and he trained them from the time they were able to walk, if not before. They also set national junior olympic and AAU (anyone remember them?)age group records in weightlifting. I worked hard and was able to set a school record in the discus my senior year of high school, and the following year one of these young men came in and shattered it as a mere freshman. The younger brother was an amazing javelin thrower. To make a long story short, neither even became a state champion, let alone a national champ. By their senior year they had been busted for marijuana and were no longer even training. Unfortunately, they were Todd Marinovich, long before Todd Marinovich. (Google him if you don't know who that is) They weren't allowed to eat any junk food or just play until their workouts were finished. While they were young, they complied. As soon as they got old enough, they couldn't wait to break out on their own.
I am not against structure, rules, and starting kids training at a young age. However, my experience has been that it has to be fun and not forced. My own children followed me to the weightroom from the time they could walk and it became their "playground". All were credible lifters and achieved high levels of success in other activities and sports as well. They were never forced to workout. Make training fun for youngsters and if they want to take some time for other activities, let them. Nothing will change an activity from play into work faster than forcing it. There are many highly successful athletes that have started at a young age and had long enjoyable careers. The difference in my opinion is the attitudes of their parents and coaches. If the parent is putting the child's welfare first and is not on a personal ego trip, then it will work. This clip is too short for me to draw any conclusions. The boys seem to be having fun and I hope they are. Best wishes to this family.