Coaching and Cueing - When Enough is Enough

[mgil]

Not sure where to start this thread; this sub-forum seemed to be the most appropriate.

Based on some interesting conversations I've had with lifters off-forum, this seems to be a common issue:

When someone requests coaching, the coach makes it a point to fix something, even when nothing is wrong.

I've had a few folks come to me for all the lifts. Several times, I've just said, "Looks fine" when the set is done.

OTOH, I've heard reports of people going to coaches, and them changing things like stance or grip that lead to more form issues and/or injury. In some cases, the coach is correcting corrections on subsequent sessions, e.g. a coach changed a grip on OHP with no real reason other than to "fix" something and then had to change it back based on lifter feedback/performance. Even worse, the coach will change something to do with form, and then place the subsequent issues on the trainee, e.g. a coach tells the trainee to narrow their deadlift stance, the trainee does so but increases lumbar flexion as a result with no increase in performance and additional recovery problems, and then the coach simply tells them "it takes time to get used to it" as opposed to telling them to go back to what they were doing prior that had no real issue.

This isn't limited to certain "models" of coaching either. It just seems like there are a lot of coaches out there that expect for everyone else's execution of a movement to look like a singular example.

[TimK]

@JordanFeigenbaum talked a bit about this with @MikeTuchscherer on the most recent RTS podcast. How a few years ago at seminars he would be trying to correct and cue every little detail of the movement to get it to fit "The Model," vs nowadays where it's more common to just give people a thumbs up unless they are doing something egregiously wrong.

[mgil]

@JordanFeigenbaum talked a bit about this with @MikeTuchscherer on the most recent RTS podcast. How a few years ago at seminars he would be trying to correct and cue every little detail of the movement to get it to fit "The Model," vs nowadays where it's more common to just give people a thumbs up unless they are doing something egregiously wrong.

Good to hear! I'll have to check out that podcast. Thank you!

[Austin]

See: Commission Bias

[brkriete]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[Allentown]

See: Commission Bias

This is probably really big.
You are paying someone with the expectation they will fix you.
They are under pressure to fix you because that's what they are charging you for.
I don't want to pay somebody $100 for a thumbs up. They want to make sure I am getting my $ worth.

Which I am now seeing might not be what you are talking about, and I can't find the name for what I am talking about or a good definition of what you are talking about, but I thought I heard a "Hidden Brain" about it?
Or it was in Thinking, Fast and Slow?
Man, who knows.

[Griff]

To be fair... cueing might be necessary if your programming requires you to execute most of your work sets to/past the point where your form goes to shit.

[cwd]

I can also imagine a good coach encouraging a lifter to try particular technique variations (stance, grip, etc) to see which works best for them.

But not with the attitude that there's just one right way.

[KyleSchuant]

When someone requests coaching, the coach makes it a point to fix something, even when nothing is wrong.

Like Austin said, commission bias. Thanks Austin, I knew the concept but not the term.

A while back there was a study showing that patients of leading cardiologists were more likely to die than patients of resident cardiologists - even controlling for the particular pathology. In discussions about this, two things came out to explain it,

1. Leading cardiologists were more likely to ignore the clinical practice guidelines. "But I wrote the CPGs!" Yes, and you wrote them for a reason. Follow them.

2. What I call the Expert Effect, but Austin has better-identified as "commission bias." They were more likely to order an intervention of drugs or surgery when it might have been better just to leave them be.

This second one, I understand this. You're the leading cardiologist standing there looking at a patient in a bed, someone in pain and distress. To each side of you are a couple of resident cardiologists, and a bunch of student doctors, and some nurses, and the patient's family looking at you hopefully. You don't really want to say, "I dunno, let's wait a few days and see." You want to suggest something, perhaps even something new and revolutionary. Which might kill them.

I fight this urge all the time. Once the person's movement is basically right, you can tinker with it endlessly, but it's not going to make much difference to how safe and effective the lift is, and anyway simply practising it for a few more sessions will often sort things out without your saying anything. But they're paying me, and...

A few years back I had this guy Cam come along, he'd been squatting high-bar up to 140kg or something, he wanted to do low-bar - but every time he tried it, it hurt. "Cam, you already squat 140. Why change?" But he insisted. So I had a look at his low-bar, got it more or less right - and it still hurt. "I think it's just not for you. High-bar." He didn't come back. Had I told him to low-bar and fiddled for months trying to get it right, he might have become a paying client.

I don't think money is what motivates the endless fiddling, though. It's the desire to feel like an expert, and to demonstrate your expertise. And so then you get what Gilchrest has talked about.

As a side note, I think this is also what motivates S&C coaches and globogym PTs alike to get people to do circus act shit. If you just teach them a few basic movements and get them right, after a month or two there's not much for you to coach, you're just there for the odd maximal rep that goes wonky, and programming. But if you get them to do different crazy stuff every session, you've always got something to "fix."

[Austin]

See: Commission Bias

This is probably really big.
You are paying someone with the expectation they will fix you.
They are under pressure to fix you because that's what they are charging you for.
I don't want to pay somebody $100 for a thumbs up. They want to make sure I am getting my $ worth.

Which I am now seeing might not be what you are talking about, and I can't find the name for what I am talking about or a good definition of what you are talking about, but I thought I heard a "Hidden Brain" about it?
Or it was in Thinking, Fast and Slow?
Man, who knows.

Mike has written about this before too:

[quikky]

Mike has written about this before too:

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

[SeanHerbison]

When someone requests coaching, the coach makes it a point to fix something, even when nothing is wrong.

I've had a few folks come to me for all the lifts. Several times, I've just said, "Looks fine" when the set is done.

I have to admit I've been guilty of that in the past. I used to think that if it wasn't what I considered technically perfect, then that meant there was something worth "fixing". I've since come to realize that as long as it's within reason, the mental effort of focusing on a small new thing can easily outweigh the assumed benefit. (Now if only I could convince myself of that with my own lifting.)

Nowadays I'm more likely to say something along the lines of "That looks pretty good. If you'd like, you can try [insert small change here]. It's not critical, but it may work a bit better for you."

Mike has written about this before too: [Instagram post]

I saw that, and while the concept wasn't new, it was a succinct, memorable way of thinking about it. I love finding things like that. It makes sorting out and connecting ideas so much easier.

[Stenson]

I'm not a coach, but I've definitely been guilty of overcueing myself in the past. These days "stay tight" and "keep your weight over midfoot" is about all I ever tell myself. Minor technical errors tend to work themselves out when I'm able to do those 2 things.

[quikky]

There is also a personal preference component to form. If someone simply likes a certain way to perform a movement and it increases their compliance and training enjoyment, it might be counterproductive to try and fix it, even if their way does not exactly match the model of perfection. There is obviously a limit on this personal deviation, but trying to jam everyone through the same form "hole" is not the best idea, in my opinion. What definitely should be fixed is things that cause pain, present a potential safety issue, or produce a poor training effect. The rest is kind of a giant gray zone.

[SeanHerbison]

What definitely should be fixed is things that cause pain

Eh, that's another thing my thinking has changed on. I don't think there are nearly as many things that inherently cause pain as I used to believe. Knee cave for example. I had greatly reduced knee pain once I figured out how to keep my knees from caving in, so I figured that was the cause and would apply to everyone.

But there are way too many people squatting with huge knee cave (and deadlifting scared cat-backed, etc) for it to be that simple. I'm now fairly convinced that you can easily do more damage than good, because you've given them an expectation that poor form will cause them pain, and expectations can easily manifest as reality.

Not that I don't try to fix things like that, I just generally frame it in terms of efficiency rather than pain-prevention now.

[mgil]

...I just generally frame it in terms of efficiency rather than pain-prevention now.

That's a good tactic.

[quikky]

What definitely should be fixed is things that cause pain

Eh, that's another thing my thinking has changed on. I don't think there are nearly as many things that inherently cause pain as I used to believe. Knee cave for example. I had greatly reduced knee pain once I figured out how to keep my knees from caving in, so I figured that was the cause and would apply to everyone.

But there are way too many people squatting with huge knee cave (and deadlifting scared cat-backed, etc) for it to be that simple. I'm now fairly convinced that you can easily do more damage than good, because you've given them an expectation that poor form will cause them pain, and expectations can easily manifest as reality.

Not that I don't try to fix things like that, I just generally frame it in terms of efficiency rather than pain-prevention now.

I should have worded that part more carefully. What I meant was things that literally cause pain. For example, someone grabs the bar very narrow with elbows cranked up in a low bar squat and they complain of elbow pain. Or, someone benches with a wide grip and complains of shoulder pain, whereas a narrower grip makes the pain go away. Stuff like that.

Not: "Doing X will lead to pain in Y, so don't do X or you will get pain in Y, something something nocebo something something priming for pain something something."

[cwd]

I often cue myself "do this gracefully" or "make it look easy". It seems to be as good a cue as any.

[SeanHerbison]

I should have worded that part more carefully. What I meant was things that literally cause pain. For example, someone grabs the bar very narrow with elbows cranked up in a low bar squat and they complain of elbow pain. Or, someone benches with a wide grip and complains of shoulder pain, whereas a narrower grip makes the pain go away. Stuff like that.

I guess my point was more making the distinction between, one hand, what causes pain for one specific person at one specific time (which is what I think you mean here) and, on the other hand, saying that those things will likely cause pain for most people (which is what I thought you meant at first).

If someone is currently in pain, and changing their form can alleviate that right away, then yes, I'm going to try to do so. But if I see someone without pain using form that, in the past, I may have fixed in order to prevent future pain (like elbows cranked up or using a wide grip), I no longer bring up the potential pain aspect of it.

[quikky]

I should have worded that part more carefully. What I meant was things that literally cause pain. For example, someone grabs the bar very narrow with elbows cranked up in a low bar squat and they complain of elbow pain. Or, someone benches with a wide grip and complains of shoulder pain, whereas a narrower grip makes the pain go away. Stuff like that.

I guess my point was more making the distinction between, one hand, what causes pain for one specific person at one specific time (which is what I think you mean here) and, on the other hand, saying that those things will likely cause pain for most people (which is what I thought you meant at first).

If someone is currently in pain, and changing their form can alleviate that right away, then yes, I'm going to try to do so. But if I see someone without pain using form that, in the past, I may have fixed in order to prevent future pain (like elbows cranked up or using a wide grip), I no longer bring up the potential pain aspect of it.

Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

Edit: I think the confusion came up when I originally said "things that cause pain", which I meant that literally, i.e. there is pain present, not things that might cause pain.

So, "Oh, your elbows hurt after squats? Let's drop your elbows a bit and maybe widen your grip a bit and see if that helps." vs. "If you do that with your elbows you will get elbow pain".