Speed Training and Non-Dominant Swings

[iacas]

A few months ago I "watched" while a Twitter conversation involving Phil Mickelson, Peter Kostis, and Dr. Sasho MacKenzie took place.

It started here:

Phil Mickelson chimed in with what many people believe is the answer:

Someone chirped at Phil, but Phil replied and referenced a study from the 1980s that likely led to the understanding many (including myself) have had:

The mid-80s are a long ways back… I don't have to tell you here that.

Then Mike Carroll, or "@fit_for_golf," replied:

Here's the whole thread if you'd rather read it that way: https://twitter.com/Fit_For_Golf/thread/1300875083506790400.

And then Dr. Sasho MacKenzie replied:

That video is here:

Dr. MacKenzie gives a few reasons why The Stack System doesn't have players doing non-dominant swings:

1. No evidence or studies that the same workload split to include non-dominant swings is helpful.
2. Acceleration governed by the ability to decelerate is untested (Phil's reason).
3. There is a better way to train deceleration.

Thus, I think Phil may be operating on some outdated information. So, while I generally side with Mike and Sasho, it's important to note that the lack of evidence in support of non-dominant swings is not the same as evidence supporting only doing dominant-side swings.

But, the Stack System is working for a LOT of people, as are the dominant-side-only swings using SuperSpeed as proposed by FitForGolf (Mike).

[Wanzo]

I never liked doing the opposite swings so was glad to drop them when mike said that in his Twitter thread.  I actually think I injured myself a bit doing them one time.  It seems it’s not really conclusive if they make an impact.  

[ChetlovesMer]

7 hours ago, Wanzo said:

I never liked doing the opposite swings so was glad to drop them when mike said that in his Twitter thread.  I actually think I injured myself a bit doing them one time.  It seems it’s not really conclusive if they make an impact.  

I never really liked them either. I also don't really think they help with speed. I will say I keep doing them (although a reduced amount) because I've noticed I'm a ton more flexible one direction than the other direction. I think some of that is attributed to the lack of balance in my swing work. So, I try to include opposite side swings just to help me maintain some balance in my flexibility. Just for everyday life and what not. 

But what do I know? I'm not a doctor and we all know where I went to school. 

[boogielicious]

I always found the non-dominant swings awkward because of injuries I had that make that side a shorter swing. It uses up a lot of energy too. I do like balancing both sides in stretching and strength work though. But that is more total body fitness work.

[ChetlovesMer]

Just now, boogielicious said:

I always found the non-dominant swings awkward because of injuries I had that make that side a shorter swing. It uses up a lot of energy too. I do like balancing both sides in stretching and strength work though. But that is more total body fitness work.

Hey brother. We were posting similar ideas at the same time. 
It really is true: Great minds think alike. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by ChetlovesMer
type-o

[Ty_Webb]

I saw this discussion on Twitter. I'm (quite clearly) not an expert, but I can see it being possible that opposite side swings help a little bit. I suspect that it doesn't help as much as doing more dominant side stuff. Given that you only have a certain capacity for exertion in a given time period, it makes sense to focus on the thing that is going to help you the most, which is the dominant side.

Having said that, Phil walks the walk of hitting it far, especially given his age. He absolutely bombs it. He must be doing something right.

Side note - I do remember reading that what determines how good someone is as an F1 driver is their ability to handle deceleration. Supposedly Schumacher was able to carry more speed into corners because he could brake harder than others. F1 cars can brake harder than people can physically handle, so the limiting factor on slowing down is the driver. Or so I read anyway.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Side note - I do remember reading that what determines how good someone is as an F1 driver is their ability to handle deceleration. Supposedly Schumacher was able to carry more speed into corners because he could brake harder than others. F1 cars can brake harder than people can physically handle, so the limiting factor on slowing down is the driver. Or so I read anyway.

That's not a thing, no.

When they talk about braking later they're not talking about your body's physical ability to withstand it.

[Ty_Webb]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not a thing, no.

When they talk about braking later they're not talking about your body's physical ability to withstand it.

Isn't memory a funny thing. I vividly remember reading that somewhere, but I guess I didn't (or if I did then the author was wrong). Just read into it a bit and it seems clear I was off.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Isn't memory a funny thing. I vividly remember reading that somewhere, but I guess I didn't (or if I did then the author was wrong). Just read into it a bit and it seems clear I was off.

It's one of those things that sounds believable. So maybe that was someone's pet theory, you read it, and it stuck in your head.

Like the value of non-dominant speed training has been to some. 😄

[iacas]

So, last night I saw a couple of tweets:

I replied, and got a few more replies to my reply:

If it feels a bit disjointed, it's because several tweets were deleted for whatever reason:

The one Tweet included a link to a roughly 40-minute video that I also watched this morning.

Twitter doesn't make it easy to reply to a tweet with a whole thread, so I'm posting here and will respond on Twitter with a link to this. I'm happy for the conversation to continue on Twitter, but posting all of this on Twitter would have been too much.

---

Before I begin, too, I was a SS affiliate through at least two iterations of your affiliate program (I see it's now on at least a third version), still own four sets of sticks plus some of the CW sticks, and have used SS with > 100 juniors, adults, my daughter, and myself.

Toward the end of my SS usage, I switched to dominant side only swings, and I now use a combination of The Stack and Mach 3 stuff.

I watched the two videos shared by SuperSpeed.

First, to clear up any misconceptions, I'm not saying NDS (non-dominant side) speed training is not beneficial. I'm questioning whether it's needed and how much gains over DS-only training are available.

NDS training, in my experience, is:

• awkward^
• dangerous*

^ the awkwardness can be overcome, eventually, but many golfers are initially embarrassed or self-conscious, will swing quite slowly, etc. It's a hurdle, and an appreciable one IMO. It's a barrier to entry that's not found in other speed training systems.

* I've had numerous students hit the mat with the SuperSpeed stick, have the club slip from their hands, begin to fall over or spin/twist a little uncontrollably, etc. and they've all been during NDS. I've had a few minor injuries (wrists twice, a knee IIRC, and an ankle because of the awkwardness — the golfer rolled his ankle on the edge of the mat doing an NDS step swing). Just like beginner golfers will whiff or hit the ground two feet behind the golf ball, people new to speed training will make some really, really bad (and thus slightly dangerous) NDS swings.

On to the videos…

In the first video, the 9-minute one, with one student and then an undisclosed number of other participants, wherein golfers did NDS-only training… I believe this simply shows that speed training leads to gains in speed. In both cases, particpant(s) did NDS training exclusively, and saw gains in speed. Data about a control group, a group who did DS-only swings, and a group who followed your traditional DS+NDS protocols weren't included (or at least not noted).

All that video and those studies say to me is "speed training produces gains in speed." It doesn't say whether NDS training is "extra" beneficial or provides added benefits.

And, if their study shows that NDS-only training is really beneficial, then isn't it logical to suggest that DS-only training is really beneficial? Have they almost proved the point counter to the one they've always maintained: that you must do BOTH for the maximum benefit?

To the second video, at about 14 minutes in, we start to get to discussion about NDS with baseball pitching. I won't pretend to know a ton about how modern MLB pitching workouts go, but I will say that releasing the ball (i.e. changing the forces and masses in the system), generating peak speeds at a much later point in the motion and when the body's orientation is quite different compared to golf (in golf it may be equivalent to trying to hit a ball that's waist high in the follow-through at peak speed), and doing so one-handed (nobody throws two-handed) has some very obvious differences than a golf swing. Rotationally, the golf swing strikes me as more "symmetrical" than a baseball pitching motion, and differs in significant ways. So, I'm unsure how much weight to give baseball pitching studies.

Dr. Tyler Standifird notes that exercise experts work in both directions with various exercises. Like with baseball, that doesn't really resonate with me, either. Imagine doing bicep curls with only your left arm, or lunges with only your right leg. Of course you wouldn't "only" train your left arm or your right leg to do things. Most training (lifting weights, explosive moves with elastic bands or throwing a medicine ball, etc.) don't have a deceleration phase, or it has one that's drastically different than what exists in a golf swing, occurs at a very different point in time, etc.

In the Jon Rahm segment of the SS video (wherein Jon is throwing a medicine ball against a wall), again, like baseball and other types of regular "gym" exercises… he's throwing the ball. Releasing it. Thus, he does not have to decelerate nearly the same levels of force or torque that he generated on the acceleration side, so he can't train "both sides" of his body just doing the normal motion.

It's like the point I made above about throwing a baseball: when you release the ball, the system changes, and the deceleration requirements change. Witness how short a follow-through is in golf when the shaft breaks and the clubhead flies off. The golfer didn't suddenly become much stronger: the loss of the weight at the distal end of the system drastically reduced the forces and torques.

The SS video then talks about their "Good" training protocol, a mixture of DS + NDS swings, and shows that people swing faster when they follow the standard six-week protocol. Unfortunately, there's no effort made to compare these results to DS-only swings or NDS-only swings, so this doesn't present a case one way or the other beyond just saying that with which we all agree: speed training is beneficial. The video cite an 18% change in the deceleration phase… but that number lacks context because it's not compared against a control group or a group that did DS-only swings. In fact, it seems to mirror the results of the NDS-only swing study from the shorter video.

In fact… SuperSpeed again point out that the NDS-only study increases the swing speed of the player, but seemingly miss the irony of demonstrating how swinging only one sided seems to provide similar benefits. This again shows that speed can be increased substantially by training only one side, and suggests there are limited (if any) benefits to DS+NDS. This golfer gained 6.5% clubhead speed… training only one side. (This is likely the same golfer as in the shorter video.)

Dr. Tyler Standifird concludes with "It's not that you can't gain speed with dominant-only training, but, you can do so much more and create such a more long-term healthy stable swing, stable base, when doing those non-dominant swings."

Yet, scientifically, I've seen no evidence of this within a golf context. Just statements like the above, which seem to be more hypotheses rather than tested results. If SuperSpeed has done a controlled long-term study, I haven't seen it, and I'd implore you to share that. I imagine they would have to do something like this:

1. 30+ golfers over a few years doing the full DS+NDS protocol.
2. 30+ golfers over a few years doing DS-only protocols (roughly half as many swings).
3. 30+ golfers over a few years doing NDS-only protocols (roughly half as many swings).
4. 30+ golfers over a few years doing DS-only protocols (same number of swings as group 1)
5. 30+ golfers over a few years doing NDS-only protocols (same number of swings as group 1)

Has SuperSpeed done such a study? Or have they always operated from the position that NDS is essential, and thus only ever really shown that "speed training increases speed?"

On to the Dr. MacKenzie video… I'll be briefer here, as we have already discussed this briefly.

Mirroring what I just said, Dr. MacKenzie has seen no evidence to suggest that an NDS+DS program will increase clubhead speed more than a DS-only program. Again, SuperSpeed has managed to show evidence that NDS-only training and DS+NDS training promote speed gains, but they've never released results that I've seen that show NDS+DS produce MORE gains than DS-only (or NDS-only).

Dr. MacKenzie further states that his own research indicates that if you replace DS reps with NDS reps, speed gains are reduced. I will point out that I've not seen this in a peer reviewed study, so I'm taking it on faith that he's being truthful here, but I have no reason to doubt his assertions in this case.

Dr. MacKenzie continues to say that he's seen no evidence that "you can only accelerate as fast as your body will allow you to decelerate" is true, despite what Phil Mickelson said awhile ago. It sounds good in theory, but it is as yet untested, and anecdotally (my anecdotes, not Sasho's) it doesn't hold up - I might accelerate so fast that the club decelerates by hitting me across the back like Greg Norman back in the day.

Dr. MacKenzie says that there is a better way to train deceleration: by training DS sided swings. The training should, as he says, stimulate the same muscles in the same way and exceed what's required in the actual act of hitting a golf ball. He then lays out the logic behind his stance there (NDS swings aren't as effective because they are slower, they train the wrong type of loading, etc.). I've not seen any discussion from SuperSpeed or Dr. Tyler Sandifird about any holes or flaws with the logic expressed by Dr. MacKenzie.

---

At the end of the day, my bullet list is:

• Speed training of any kind is beneficial. Nobody seems to be arguing any differently. Whether it's DS-only, NDS-only (as demonstrated by SS), or NDS+DS, speed training promotes more speed.
• I've not seen anything resembling a good study that shows that NDS+DS is substantially better than DS-only. If SS has it, I've not seen it. Relating the golf swing to throwing a medicine ball or a baseball doesn't do much for me. They're too different. SS's own video about NDS-only swings speak to how much benefit you can get from training only one direction. It argues against their position that you must train both, IMO.
• I've not seen a response from SS in response to Dr. MacKenzie's video.
• Even if it was studied and determined that you could gain an extra 10% (i.e. going from 5% gains to 5.5% gains) by adding NDS swings, I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze: the added time, the awkwardness, the mild danger/injury potential.

[ChetlovesMer]

This is pretty interesting stuff. 

I've personally gone to using the SS system with a bit of a NDS hybrid. 
I do about 1/3 to 1/4 of the NDS swings that SS recommends. I like to keep some of them in there because I actually think I get a mechanics benefit. 

Doing the NDS swings forces me to think about the movement a bit. I think those thoughts help me when it comes to maintaining some of my form when I swing a club for "real". Maybe I'm wrong, but I actually find myself thinking hard about my priority pieces when I'm doing DNS swings. My feeling is those thoughts help reinforce my priority pieces. 

I can also tell you that I've gone to a 10 finger grip when doing my NDS swings. When I was using a traditional, or as close to traditional grip as I could do with my non-dominant hand, I would often feel like I just ripped my thumb off. I didn't think that was a good thing. So, now I grip 10 finger when doing NDS swings. It makes my thumbs a lot happier. 

[boogielicious]

I’m all for skipping non-dominant side. My flexibility that direction in worse due to surgeries. I found it awkward.

[tstandy]

First off I just want to say how much I enjoy engaging in these types of conversations. I think it is great for research and data when we can open up to the possibilities of things not being quite what we think and find ways to help golfers improve. At the end of the day I think our goal is always the same, to help players enjoy the game more!

I understand also that I might not be able to say anything that would sway some of you in some of your thoughts, but I thought it was worthwhile for me to put up my theories behind some of these ideas so that individuals studying this topic could see it from all sides and make a decision for themselves.

Now onto some of my thoughts in response to your comments.

My study was not meant to cover all bases of this research question, just to try and add a little more information as we have discussions especially for the comments that non dominant speed training is useless and does not have any effect on dominant side speeds. I do know there are others doing studies, Erik, you mentioned Chris Finn and his conversations with Mark on his blog. I don’t know how Chris did the study, but I am always interested in the methods. In order for research to be replicated it has to be undertaken in exactly the same fashion. My study did not include anything but SuperSpeed swings from the non-dominant side. My guess is that Chris’s study had other strength, flexibility and balance exercises that he puts into his great programs to train golfers. I am curious to see his results as well and wonder about if he got rid of all non dominant side training for the dominant side only group, or how he matched total time spent training etc… his study will add to the knowledge we have, but I don’t see it as a replication of my study. Will be good to see it come out.

On that note, I think research is the way that we get to know answers to questions. Test the hypothesis, you mention that Dr. MacKenzie does not show any data to support his theory that the NDS would add anything to speed in his research, and you state that you have no reason to doubt his suggestion and you take it on faith. I would love to see his study of all groups training with his system randomized etc. with people and not models to see data to back up that statement. SuperSpeed is asked a lot to show this data, but are others asked and held to the same standard? Maybe his system is a control of the dominant side? I think I saw as of last that his golfers gain on average 6 mph, from a recent video. If I pool together all the results I can from many of our users, they are right around a 7 mph average gain.

Research is growing in the world of golf, but until we have tons of studies related to golf I think we have to lean more towards other rotational sports like baseball to try and understand golf. Not identical movements but both athletes utilizing the ground passed through the body, keying in on rotation of the core to pass velocity out to the distal point of release.

On that same idea of using other research in sports and the strength and conditioning world. The idea of triphasic training is something that is heavily researched and supported. Meaning we need to train muscles isometrically, concentrically and eccentrically. No matter how they will be used in the sport, there are benefits to getting all types of muscle contractions. I think a lot of great golf trainers use this principle for high force low velocity, medium force medium velocity, power training etc.. but when it comes to high velocity training, like overspeed training, some would suggest that this is no longer important. My theory is that if in many other sports they train this way and it is encouraged to do for all parts of the force velocity curve, what is it about high velocity contractions that make this well researched principle not hold true. You can google scholar search the idea of triphasic training and see a lot of great research showing its benefit. I think this is incredibly beneficial if Overspeed training is the only training being done by players. I think it is important to remember that our goal at SuperSpeed is to create protocols that can stand on their own, and if they aren’t doing any other training then this would be a great time to give them some non dominant training. I know you have talked about injuries/awkwardness in these swings. I have only had two participants stop training in my studies. One was due to a previous back injury that they have all the time, they still pop 800 mg ibuprofen to play golf, which I didn’t know when they signed up, haha hope he gets some help! I referred him to some great PTs in the area. The other actually felt pain swinging from the dominant side, but felt no pain from the non dominant.

To further this, I have seen the exact same thing you describe as a deterrent occur on the dominant side as well. For anyone who has never done golf specific speed training in the form of golf swing reps you may very well see them losing their balance, spinning out, stepping weird, hitting the mat etc. None of these items typically continues session to session over the course of the protocol as that player is getting more used to how their body reacts to the new movements and they get better and better at performing the swings/drills. I would argue that those experiencing the most awkwardness especially on the non dominant side may be the ones that need to do it the most for all sorts of reasons outside of just making that side faster. If they have a coach with them, even better. The coach can further ensure the space is correct to swing, they have the proper footwear, they wear a glove or two gloves, they perform a dynamic warmup, and they are cued as to how to best make the swings ie 6 inches above the ground. When I gave a study to current users of SuperSpeed we found that pain was basically no existence IF they did the dynamic warm up before every session. If they skipped it they reported higher pain. This is why we are adamant on performing the warm up!

Deceleration is a very common term thrown around. I don’t want to go too deep into this, but I would just state that when I refer to “deceleration” in the golf swing, I am not referring to post impact slowing down and stopping the club in the follow through. Instead I am talking about the pelvis slowing down its angular velocity so that the muscles attached to it and the trunk have a better opportunity to engage and contract at a high velocity during the next part of the swing. I am referring to the kinematic sequence of pelvis peaking and then slowing, trunk peaking and then slowing etc.. all leading up to hitting the ball. Because these muscles have attachment to the segment next to it, there is a benefit to having a little more stability in that adjacent segment for maximum velocity transfer. I don’t really care about what happens post impact with the ball in my research, it might be important, but not something I have looked at.

Sasho mentions that non dominant swings will be much slower compared to the dominant creating which wouldn’t greatly affect deceleration. In our experience, non dominant swings start off slower and then can quickly catch up to the dominant side speeds as the player learns how to coordinate the movement and more efficiently create speed on that side. Many of the SuperSpeed users actually surpass their speeds on the dominant side.

I agree 100% that we need more research, we need to be transparent in our methods and in our variables. That way we can compare the research and start to get a better picture of the outcomes. Again I think Chris Finn suggests somethings in his research that may be different than mine, and I can look at his methods and results and start to try and understand why the difference may be apparent. Until I know for sure how he carried out his study I cannot be sure. I do know from some of his previous research that he looked at very high rep ranges of swings with SuperSpeed, which I have never done at all, and which the protocols no longer contain. So that would be an example of a research methodology that is different, which would lead to different results. I am looking forward to these types of studies.

As always, enjoy the dialogue and hope I have helped at least show some of the theories and data behind my thoughts on this question. Excited to keep exploring and helping everyone find more answers.

[TourSpoon]

I wonder if anyone has done a scientific study using a control group, a dominant side only group, and a dominant/non-dominant side group. You can throw in non-dominant only but now you are getting a lot of groups to measure and I don't think that in actual practice people would exclusively train non-dominant. 

When I first heard the concept of non-dominant training, I never thought it referred to deceleration of the actual golf club, but to the hips and pelvis structures that help to harness force and leverage. I don't enjoy the non-dominant training and mainly do it for balance of the body. I have no doubt that non-dominant only would beat a control group as a faster body is a faster body. But how does it stack against dominant only, or both sides? For my purposes, I would really be interested in how a both sides approach would compare to a dominant side only program and if it would be statistically significant. 

 

[tstandy]

Ya I think we will see these studies coming out. I do think when we compare we need to make sure we compare apples to apples. The study I completed was speed training on it's own, not as a part of a larger strength and conditioning program targeting club head speed but just overspeed training only.

As far as a statistical comparison from my study I did run an effect size calculation, which is a way in research, specifically meta analysis data, that we can make comparisons to other studies. The effect size of clubhead speed gains for non dominant swings only was higher than many of the other research studies on developing club head speed in golfers. Which I think is a good place to start.

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I understand also that I might not be able to say anything that would sway some of you in some of your thoughts, but I thought it was worthwhile for me to put up my theories behind some of these ideas so that individuals studying this topic could see it from all sides and make a decision for themselves.

Perhaps not, but I'd suggest that's largely because… as you would plainly admit… there's nothing "new" here and no study, no data, no "proof" here beyond what's already been shared and published.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

My study was not meant to cover all bases of this research question, just to try and add a little more information as we have discussions especially for the comments that non dominant speed training is useless and does not have any effect on dominant side speeds.

I don't think I've said it's useless. I have two issues with the NDS stuff, as I noted above:

On 12/1/2022 at 1:49 PM, iacas said:

First, to clear up any misconceptions, I'm not saying NDS (non-dominant side) speed training is not beneficial. I'm questioning whether it's needed and how much gains over DS-only training are available.

NDS training, in my experience, is:

• awkward^
• dangerous*

It's not useless. Any speed training seems to have benefits. I just question the added benefits (particularly given the downsides) to NDS over DS-only.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

Test the hypothesis, you mention that Dr. MacKenzie does not show any data to support his theory that the NDS would add anything to speed in his research, and you state that you have no reason to doubt his suggestion and you take it on faith.

I believe I said that Sasho has never seen any data. I'm saying I believe that he has never seen any data.

On 12/1/2022 at 1:49 PM, iacas said:

… Dr. MacKenzie has seen no evidence to suggest that an NDS+DS program will increase clubhead speed more than a DS-only program. Again, SuperSpeed has managed to show evidence that NDS-only training and DS+NDS training promote speed gains, but they've never released results that I've seen that show NDS+DS produce MORE gains than DS-only (or NDS-only).

Is this untrue? Or is it not true because you've never really tested DS-only stuff with the same workloads, or done a comprehensive study with the groups outlined above?

That's what I take on faith: basically, I'm saying I don't believe Dr. MacKenzie is lying that he's seen data and is ignoring it.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

Research is growing in the world of golf, but until we have tons of studies related to golf I think we have to lean more towards other rotational sports like baseball to try and understand golf. Not identical movements but both athletes utilizing the ground passed through the body, keying in on rotation of the core to pass velocity out to the distal point of release. 

I would suggest that golf is fairly different, as well, from baseball hitting. Hitting in baseball involves a much heavier weight (the bat) where NDS swings are not nearly as awkward. The implements are shorter, too, and baseball players whiff fairly often. The shorter implements swung at chest height make baseball a bit safer as well. The baseball swing is also, IMO, significantly simpler. Some of that complexity has no role in speed training (we don't care a ton where the clubface would be pointing), but not all of it, particularly when it deals with making a backswing, using the legs more, doing it more bent over than in baseball… etc.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

On that same idea of using other research in sports and the strength and conditioning world. The idea of triphasic training is something that is heavily researched and supported. Meaning we need to train muscles isometrically, concentrically and eccentrically.

I'm not an expert in the field, but I have two "questions" to that. I put the word in quotes for a reason, because they are:

• DS training, I believe, does accomplish eccentric and concentric training. I'm not sure how DS or NDS does isometric, because my understanding is that isometric involves stuff not moving, but again, not an expert here.
• We're not doing anything crazy here with speed training. So while I understand the role of other sports and other types of training, we're not doing the equivalent of 5 sets of 20 dumbbell curls with the right arm, and 2 sets of 4 with the left arm to create a major imbalance. Nor are we doing something like throwing a ball and changing the system as I wrote above with some rotational exercises where the load only really exists in one direction.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I think this is incredibly beneficial if Overspeed training is the only training being done by players. I think it is important to remember that our goal at SuperSpeed is to create protocols that can stand on their own, and if they aren’t doing any other training then this would be a great time to give them some non dominant training.

I think Stack System's goals are the same: train for speed even if the players aren't doing anything else, and they disagree with you on DS-only vs. DS+NDS swinging. So again, my sticking points with any of the NDS are that they are awkward and dangerous (only mildly so of each), and I don't know that there are appreciable gains. And I have never seen a true study that says there are those appreciable gains.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I know you have talked about injuries/awkwardness in these swings.

Not so much injuries… as "danger." Given the awkwardness I've had players swing the NDS way almost uncontrollably. They've hit things with the SuperSpeed sticks they aren't supposed to hit.

I used the word "injury" once above, and I was thinking more that they might injure themselves if they hit something. I've had two players hit the radar that they were using (which is why I now have a PRGR that sits well behind them), which if it sent a piece of plastic flying in some direction could injure (small chance, but still non-zero).

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

To further this, I have seen the exact same thing you describe as a deterrent occur on the dominant side as well. For anyone who has never done golf specific speed training in the form of golf swing reps you may very well see them losing their balance, spinning out, stepping weird, hitting the mat etc.

I agree. Odds are undoubtedly higher on the NDS side, though.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I would argue that those experiencing the most awkwardness especially on the non dominant side may be the ones that need to do it the most for all sorts of reasons outside of just making that side faster.

I can understand that point, and agree in general… but some of the kids (almost exclusively what I'm talking about here) are awkward from both sides. The golf swing is an awkward motion in general.

Where I slightly disagree may be that (and I haven't given it a lot of thought) reducing awkwardness in learning to swing NDS would be best done with… a heavier club and slower swings, which would allow for recruiting of more of the core/trunk muscles and less use of the wrists, elbows, etc.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

The coach can further ensure the space is correct to swing, they have the proper footwear, they wear a glove or two gloves, they perform a dynamic warmup, and they are cued as to how to best make the swings ie 6 inches above the ground.

They can, but again… that's adding layers, steps, complexity. And… my main point remains: what added benefits does this truly add?

Nobody's ever really done a good study that shows there are appreciable differences.

Let's say that DS-only swings (maybe 50 DS 3x/week) following a protocol gets the player a 5% boost in speed. Maybe DS+NDS for 50 swings 3x/week gives the player a 5.5% boost in speed… I could see a player thinking the juice isn't worth the squeeze in that case: an extra 0.5% but they have to do NDS stuff that they don't like, that requires two gloves perhaps, etc.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

Deceleration is a very common term thrown around. I don’t want to go too deep into this, but I would just state that when I refer to “deceleration” in the golf swing, I am not referring to post impact slowing down and stopping the club in the follow through. Instead I am talking about the pelvis slowing down its angular velocity so that the muscles attached to it and the trunk have a better opportunity to engage and contract at a high velocity during the next part of the swing. I am referring to the kinematic sequence of pelvis peaking and then slowing, trunk peaking and then slowing etc.. all leading up to hitting the ball. Because these muscles have attachment to the segment next to it, there is a benefit to having a little more stability in that adjacent segment for maximum velocity transfer. I don’t really care about what happens post impact with the ball in my research, it might be important, but not something I have looked at.

That's a good clarification. I'd wonder how much "stability" we really create doing only SuperSpeed type training, over a person finding an actual fitness professional to do a more thorough workout built on speed, strength, stability, balance, etc.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

Sasho mentions that non dominant swings will be much slower compared to the dominant creating which wouldn’t greatly affect deceleration. In our experience, non dominant swings start off slower and then can quickly catch up to the dominant side speeds as the player learns how to coordinate the movement and more efficiently create speed on that side. Many of the SuperSpeed users actually surpass their speeds on the dominant side.

Yeah, I've always been able to swing pretty fast lefty, too. But I don't think that was a major staple of Dr. MacKenzie's argument.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I agree 100% that we need more research, we need to be transparent in our methods and in our variables. That way we can compare the research and start to get a better picture of the outcomes.

It's puzzling, if I'm being honest, in how adamant SuperSpeed is about the NDS+DS protocols given the lack of actual research in this specific area. SS isn't new: why hasn't a real study been done here? I understand the difficulty in arranging it, but SuperSpeed as a company isn't all that new. One like the above, with enough participants and enough variations to test the various things, or at least:

- Control group who does almost nothing, or who just tries to swing their drivers fast or something.
- NDS+DS
- DS-only (same # of swings as the previous group)

SuperSpeed is the one group majorly pushing NDS+DS, with Mike Carroll and Dr. MacKenzie suggesting that DS-only is at least "good enough" even if it's not 100% as effective.

56 minutes ago, tstandy said:

As always, enjoy the dialogue and hope I have helped at least show some of the theories and data behind my thoughts on this question. Excited to keep exploring and helping everyone find more answers.

Thanks for coming here and sharing your thoughts.

[tstandy]

Let me just say I am new to the world of these blog forums, I have jumped in a few on MyGolf Spy recently, and I am not good at responses, so I'll just dump it all in here Erik. My goal is to just try and recognize those things that we won't agree on, which I think is fine, but try and offer a little education on those things that seemed to grap your interest a bit.

Just one more follow up. Again, I think you bring up some great points in what you are talking about in this response Erik. First, I do think that both of us are saying that on their own both DS and NDS do have the potential to create speed in golfers. I wanted to make sure it was clear that I believe speed training either Dominant only, ND only or a mix would all create speed gains in golfers. My study was meant for those who say that NDS would NOT result in any speed gains in golfers. This has been stated in forums, videos and social media yet no one had actually done any type of data collection. I would say my study answers that question unequivocally, but you are correct does not answer if in the long term it is superior to any other type of over speed training. I have not done the studies you are suggesting but do have plans to do many more studies related to speed in the coming years. I do think that Sasho should be asked to produce some of the data that he discusses in the video. I will say that I am proud that I am willing to share all the data that I collect out of my lab.

The main point I wanted to discuss was the idea of the triphasic training, because dominant side only swings do not cover all the ways a muscle can contract. There is extensive research related to this topic, I will utilize some ideas from a review on this topic done about 10 years ago that has been cited by almost 1500 articles since its publication. 

For this scenario I am going to discuss the trunk rotations in particular, but the same things would be going on at various regions of the body. Let’s take a right-handed golfer, on the downswing, when we are really producing the highest velocities, the golfer would perform a right to left rotation around the thoracic trunk region. This would require the right external oblique and the left internal oblique to create a concentric contraction as they shorten to create the torques necessary to cause rotation. As the rotational speeds start to decrease this is where the eccentric contractions of the opposing muscles would start to take place, so this would now be the left external oblique and the right internal oblique. IN order for this slowing to occur, the net torque must be greater in the left to right rotators, to create the slowing effect we see in the kinematic sequence, again occurring prior to impact with the ball. So, on right-handed speed swings, yes you have concentric and eccentric contractions, but you do so with different muscle groups. When I switch around to the left to right rotations with the NDS, then the left external oblique and the right internal oblique would now be utilized concentrically while the right external oblique and the left internal oblique would switch to eccentric contractions. In this scenario the NDS would be required to work out the muscles of the trunk in all fashions of the triphasic training. Doing dominant only would be akin to only doing the up-ward phase of the bench press, the concentric portion of the exercise; it is in the down phase of the bench press that these muscles are worked eccentrically. During the up phase of the bench press there would be a slight slowing of joint velocities that would have to occur prior to getting to the top of the exercise, but this would be accomplished not by an eccentric contraction of the pectoralis muscles, but instead a very brief eccentric of the posterior muscles of the shoulder. During the down phase, the eccentric demands would be increased dramatically on the pectoralis muscles.  In a golf swing the heavy demands of the right to left rotators eccentrically can only be accomplished by doing a rapid left to right rotation that would require a high force output eccentrically by the right to left rotators.

The above relationships occur at all of the other areas of the body. The ability of the agonist and antagonist muscles are imperative in the golf swing. The resulting angular acceleration is going to be a result of the summation of the torques produced by both agonists and antagonists, or co-contractions. As such the ability to activate muscles in various contraction types becomes so important to generating accelerations and decelerations, again prior to impact of the golf swing. The kinematic sequence clearly shows that the very best players in the world are slowing down segments as they move through the kinematic sequence. The only way to do this is with a net torque that now actually leans towards greater activations of the antagonists, i.e. the left to right rotators in a right handed golf swing. There is a great article by Cormie et al that outlines “Muscle function required in natural human movement rarely calls for the use of these muscle actions in isolation. The successive combination of eccentric and concentric actions forms the most common type of muscle function” this is the idea of the stretch shortening cycle that can really enhance the abilities to generate rapid muscle contractions. This would look something like the right to left rotators being stretched and activated eccentrically in the backswing and concentrically in the downswing. In theory the more ability these muscles have to create eccentric force would enhance their ability to tap into the stretch shortening cycle in the golf swing. While the backswing of a right handed golfer does require some eccentric force from the right to left rotators, it would be much much greater in the downswing of a NDS, as the velocities achieved on the downswing are much greater than a backswing. As such the eccentric demands on the right to left rotators are much greater in the downswing of a NDS and then the ability of these muscles to provide eccentric contractions during a DS would be enhanced.

That is just one example of the importance of the eccentric training of these muscles, the same review of power training outlines an additional importance of the eccentric training phase. The authors point out one way to increase velocity of movements is to tap into motor unit recruitment that would grab high-threshold motor units. One suggestion for enhancing the abilities of people to recruit these high-threshold motor units is through eccentric training, again the NDS of golf training would be the eccentric training of the muscles responsible for the concentric movements during a DS. Additionally another way that research has shown velocity can increase is with enhanced abilities of the antagonist muscles utilized during the movement. I would again argue that training these muscles in all contraction types would enhance their abilities to contract quickly and efficiently. And so they should be trained in various ways, this would be the left to right rotators being trained concentrically in a NDS at max velocity.

I am excited to do a study this winter on kinematic sequence changes following speed training, looking at the true “decelerations” occurring because of the overspeed training. In this way I am excited to continue to produce data to show how overspeed training works. I am passionate about diving into the actual forces and kinematics produced because of overspeed training.

My final thought would be simply that there are others in the world of training and biomechanics who do support the role of non-dominant training. SuperSpeed did not come up with this idea themselves. I have had conversations with high level trainers who are working with some of the top players in the world who utilize non dominant speed training. I have used this myself with high level players with much success. I am fortunate to have a colleague in my department who was trained at one of the premier strength and conditioning programs in the country who I have spoken with extensively on this topic. I have talked to some of the brightest minds in the world of strength and conditioning and they have suggested that one of the very best ways to heighten the CNS response to training is to do non dominant side speed training. Additionally, I would say that TPI has the most biomechanical data on high level golfers and has worked with many of the top players of the world who also would be on the side of non-dominant speeds to maximize gains and encourage health in the golfer. So, I do think it is quite misleading to say that SuperSpeed is the only ones who promote this type of training when there are many other PhD individuals and specialists who would argue with the importance of ND speed training.

I can agree that we will certainly have to wait for impartial individuals to do large scale studies the correct way. These people must have no biases to jump into these arguments and must have the skills necessary to carry out a study. I am looking forward to those studies. But I did want to jump in and share some of the thoughts from your above response that seemed to pique your interest as to why I believe this type of training is necessary, or that if it isn't detracting should be included for golfers who are training speed. 

 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

My study was meant for those who say that NDS would NOT result in any speed gains in golfers.

I don't think anyone's saying that. Not here, anyway.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I do think that Sasho should be asked to produce some of the data that he discusses in the video.

I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's saying two things:

• He's never seen data that supports NDS+DS > DS-only given similar workloads.
• He may consider his data proprietary. He's certainly not immune to publishing data — he's published a decent amount of papers, etc. — but… this is getting too close to me speaking for him, so… I'll stop.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

The main point I wanted to discuss was the idea of the triphasic training, because dominant side only swings do not cover all the ways a muscle can contract. There is extensive research related to this topic, I will utilize some ideas from a review on this topic done about 10 years ago that has been cited by almost 1500 articles since its publication.

I'm not a biomechanist, a trainer, etc. So let me ask you this.

I understand that "training" in general (i.e. whether for overall strength, for a balanced workload, etc.) that there are advantages to training all three phases.

But if we're only ever going to swing muscles in a golf swing to the ball, and that's all mostly one type of phase or contraction… what's the benefit of, say, the isometric phase if that phase is never really used much during a golf downswing? Especially if that time may be spent training the types of contractions that actually occur during a downswing?

Maybe that's a dumb question, but… Hockey players don't really practice shooting left-handed, runners don't practice running backward (much), long jumpers don't practice jumping off their non-dominant leg… etc. And those aren't all examples of the different contraction types, I get that.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

For this scenario I am going to discuss the trunk rotations in particular, but the same things would be going on at various regions of the body. Let’s take a right-handed golfer, on the downswing, when we are really producing the highest velocities, the golfer would perform a right to left rotation around the thoracic trunk region. This would require the right external oblique and the left internal oblique to create a concentric contraction as they shorten to create the torques necessary to cause rotation. As the rotational speeds start to decrease this is where the eccentric contractions of the opposing muscles would start to take place, so this would now be the left external oblique and the right internal oblique. IN order for this slowing to occur, the net torque must be greater in the left to right rotators, to create the slowing effect we see in the kinematic sequence, again occurring prior to impact with the ball. So, on right-handed speed swings, yes you have concentric and eccentric contractions, but you do so with different muscle groups.

So why train the muscles to do the "opposite" of what they do in a golf downswing? Why train the right external oblique and the left internal oblique to eccentrically contract and the left external oblique and the right internal oblique to concentrically contract? Is that time better spent training them in the way that they'll be used during a golf downswing?

I understand what the NDS stuff does — what I'm questioning (and what others are questioning) is whether that's of significant added benefit over DS-only training, particularly given the small downsides.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

In this scenario the NDS would be required to work out the muscles of the trunk in all fashions of the triphasic training. Doing dominant only would be akin to only doing the up-ward phase of the bench press, the concentric portion of the exercise; it is in the down phase of the bench press that these muscles are worked eccentrically.

A bench press isn't necessarily about speed, so maybe I'm being dumb, but I see examples like that as being of limited use. I see the possibility that there's a difference between "general training" or even "strength training" versus training for only one specific thing (particularly if that involves speed).

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

The kinematic sequence clearly shows that the very best players in the world are slowing down segments as they move through the kinematic sequence.

Of course.

But they're doing so in a DS swing the way they're used in the golf swing, not the opposite way they're used in an NDS swing.

If a left side muscle acts concentrically to speed something up, then I am not sure I see the point of training the opposite muscle to act concentrically as it must in an NDS.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

This would look something like the right to left rotators being stretched and activated eccentrically in the backswing and concentrically in the downswing. In theory the more ability these muscles have to create eccentric force would enhance their ability to tap into the stretch shortening cycle in the golf swing.

Okay, that makes sense. But… then those muscles are already acting both eccentrically and concentrically because the golfer has to make a backswing. No?

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

While the backswing of a right handed golfer does require some eccentric force from the right to left rotators, it would be much much greater in the downswing of a NDS, as the velocities achieved on the downswing are much greater than a backswing.

Again, of course (and I'm saying that in an agreement form, not a "you're talking down to us" form)… but what value is there in basically training the muscles to make a faster DS backswing?

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

That is just one example of the importance of the eccentric training of these muscles, the same review of power training outlines an additional importance of the eccentric training phase. The authors point out one way to increase velocity of movements is to tap into motor unit recruitment that would grab high-threshold motor units. One suggestion for enhancing the abilities of people to recruit these high-threshold motor units is through eccentric training, again the NDS of golf training would be the eccentric training of the muscles responsible for the concentric movements during a DS. Additionally another way that research has shown velocity can increase is with enhanced abilities of the antagonist muscles utilized during the movement. I would again argue that training these muscles in all contraction types would enhance their abilities to contract quickly and efficiently. And so they should be trained in various ways, this would be the left to right rotators being trained concentrically in a NDS at max velocity.

I feel like this is your main point, and the point on which I honestly don't know much, as I'm not a biomechanist. I'm saying only that I don't know that it's been proven or demonstrated that the gains, in reality (not "in theory") as it applies to a golf swing, are substantial and would overcome the two small negatives (or any others).

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I am excited to do a study this winter on kinematic sequence changes following speed training, looking at the true “decelerations” occurring because of the overspeed training. In this way I am excited to continue to produce data to show how overspeed training works. I am passionate about diving into the actual forces and kinematics produced because of overspeed training.

We're grateful for that, and the time you've taken to reply here.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

My final thought would be simply that there are others in the world of training and biomechanics who do support the role of non-dominant training.

I'll stipulate to that, yes. That's why it's a conversation, and not just you (SuperSpeed) alone on an island. 😄 

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

Additionally, I would say that TPI has the most biomechanical data on high level golfers and has worked with many of the top players of the world who also would be on the side of non-dominant speeds to maximize gains and encourage health in the golfer.

I'm separating out general training (medicine ball throws to both sides, etc.) which I agree with and see value in with speed-training specific to golf. I'm not talking in any of this stuff about general health and wellness and body balance, etc.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

So, I do think it is quite misleading to say that SuperSpeed is the only ones who promote this type of training when there are many other PhD individuals and specialists who would argue with the importance of ND speed training.

I don't think I said that SS is the only ones promoting NDS training, and if I did, it was a mistake and I'd like to correct it above with a note if I did indeed say that. I don't think I did, and I didn't completely re-read my post, but I searched for the word "only" and didn't see it.

Apologies for the mistake if I did.

6 minutes ago, tstandy said:

I can agree that we will certainly have to wait for impartial individuals to do large scale studies the correct way. These people must have no biases to jump into these arguments and must have the skills necessary to carry out a study. I am looking forward to those studies. But I did want to jump in and share some of the thoughts from your above response that seemed to pique your interest as to why I believe this type of training is necessary, or that if it isn't detracting should be included for golfers who are training speed. 

Again, thank you for your time. It's appreciated.