Great question. Let me answer it this way: Hip ABD PAILs are before capsule PAILs because the injured tissue takes priority in this specific case. Recall the primary intent of this training work is to perform the required work needed to build the Architectural Base of Connective Tissue within the adductors.
Super stuffJohn thanks and lastly how many exposures on average would you want him doing weekly on this type of protocol, and for how many weeks. Thanks again.
Great question. In this specific example of NHL athlete in-season, this would be done daily. Recall this training is a feedback mechanism that dictates future training, so once specific tissue-based capacities are met, then he will progress into Phase II. We will get into those specific tissued based capacities once we release Phase II so that you can see the progression. As always, thanks for the great questions!
This is excellent - great article and love the way the phase 1 exercises are put together. On the PAILs for adductor group, is the RAILs purposely left out phase 1 and if is there a reason for this? And on the hip joint pails, is this for the hip in IR or what was foind in an FRA? Thanks again.
Thanks, Oliver! Petr is on the length loading progression of connective tissue, and RAILs do not stimulate the connective tissue architecture; thus, it is not being performed in phase I - great question!
You are correct; the hip joint PAILs would be done in hip IR, ER, or possibly both IR & ER, pending the results of FRA.
Yes, there is benefit to starting with input 2 before ME PAILs/RAILs. Recall, if you are doing PAILs contraction, you are at tissue length and are thus stimulating connective tissue architecture changes - i.e. changes in the length-tension curve. Obviously, there will be information flow that will be generated from that work as well, and that should, in theory, make the ME PAILs/RAILs "better" as the athlete should have more awareness of how to drive force into the tissue you want to train.
I’m thinking from the perspective of having 300 athletes in the college setting where the only contact I may have with them prior to their first attempts at Inputs 1 and/or 2 and Afferent/Efferent is through a playlist of instructional videos. Say I manage to accomplish the logistical feat of assessing PROM and & AROM for IR and ER of the shoulder and hip and give a corresponding daily routine to each athlete. Seeing this program makes me wonder if there’s value to having an athlete with zero experience with PAILs and RAILs spending three weeks with primers and Input 2 PAILs > 2min like in this program even though, technically, they would fall under Input 1 (ME PAILs and RAILs - workspace) per the assessment. I wonder if this would act as a kind of GPP for their next phase (Input 1), making that phase far more effective because of the time they spent getting the feeling of what it’s like to send signals at end range and, therefore, would have a better chance of accurately finding and applying 60-80% or even ME? Thoughts?
Erik - I am not sure what your question is but hopefully, this helps: this tissue-specific training is not for 300 athletes but for one athlete with a specific injury and injury history. The injury is a connective tissue in nature, and we are showing how you could start the treatment/training process of building the architectural base of connective tissue in a specific athlete as we use current athletes as feedback loops to learn from.
Let’s say I have an athlete who does not have adequate PROM for shoulder internal rotation. Instead of starting with ME PAILs & RAILs to increase capsular space, do you think there would be any benefit to beginning with input 2 (>2min PAIL and/or RAIL contractions in different zones) in order to increase awareness of what PAIL and RAIL contractions feel like so that when ME PAILs and RAILs are programmed to increase capsular space, they have a higher probability of doing it correctly. Seeing this program for this specific tissue for this person made me think that the input 2’s he was spending time on in Phase1 probably gave him a much better sense of what his input 1’s (ME PAIL’s and RAIL’s) should feel like. So in my situation, where the odds of athletes really grasping what input 1’s should feel like because if the large group setting, I’m wondering if you think there is any validity to using input 2’s as a phase not to build connecting tissue but to increase awareness of PAIL and RAIL contractions before they get programmed in the next phase. Perhaps the PAIL and RAIL contractions wouldn’t have to be as long as 2 min and so, perhaps it would be more like an extended primer. I hope that makes sense. New to this system and still trying to figure out how to work with it in my context if 300 athletes.
Thanks so much guys for this!
Why is hip capsule PAILs after the Hip ABD PAILs?
Great question. Let me answer it this way: Hip ABD PAILs are before capsule PAILs because the injured tissue takes priority in this specific case. Recall the primary intent of this training work is to perform the required work needed to build the Architectural Base of Connective Tissue within the adductors.
Makes sense, thanks John!
Super stuffJohn thanks and lastly how many exposures on average would you want him doing weekly on this type of protocol, and for how many weeks. Thanks again.
Great question. In this specific example of NHL athlete in-season, this would be done daily. Recall this training is a feedback mechanism that dictates future training, so once specific tissue-based capacities are met, then he will progress into Phase II. We will get into those specific tissued based capacities once we release Phase II so that you can see the progression. As always, thanks for the great questions!
Brilliant thanks again!
This is excellent - great article and love the way the phase 1 exercises are put together. On the PAILs for adductor group, is the RAILs purposely left out phase 1 and if is there a reason for this? And on the hip joint pails, is this for the hip in IR or what was foind in an FRA? Thanks again.
Thanks, Oliver! Petr is on the length loading progression of connective tissue, and RAILs do not stimulate the connective tissue architecture; thus, it is not being performed in phase I - great question!
You are correct; the hip joint PAILs would be done in hip IR, ER, or possibly both IR & ER, pending the results of FRA.
Yes, there is benefit to starting with input 2 before ME PAILs/RAILs. Recall, if you are doing PAILs contraction, you are at tissue length and are thus stimulating connective tissue architecture changes - i.e. changes in the length-tension curve. Obviously, there will be information flow that will be generated from that work as well, and that should, in theory, make the ME PAILs/RAILs "better" as the athlete should have more awareness of how to drive force into the tissue you want to train.
Great article! Thank you!
I’m thinking from the perspective of having 300 athletes in the college setting where the only contact I may have with them prior to their first attempts at Inputs 1 and/or 2 and Afferent/Efferent is through a playlist of instructional videos. Say I manage to accomplish the logistical feat of assessing PROM and & AROM for IR and ER of the shoulder and hip and give a corresponding daily routine to each athlete. Seeing this program makes me wonder if there’s value to having an athlete with zero experience with PAILs and RAILs spending three weeks with primers and Input 2 PAILs > 2min like in this program even though, technically, they would fall under Input 1 (ME PAILs and RAILs - workspace) per the assessment. I wonder if this would act as a kind of GPP for their next phase (Input 1), making that phase far more effective because of the time they spent getting the feeling of what it’s like to send signals at end range and, therefore, would have a better chance of accurately finding and applying 60-80% or even ME? Thoughts?
Erik - I am not sure what your question is but hopefully, this helps: this tissue-specific training is not for 300 athletes but for one athlete with a specific injury and injury history. The injury is a connective tissue in nature, and we are showing how you could start the treatment/training process of building the architectural base of connective tissue in a specific athlete as we use current athletes as feedback loops to learn from.
Let’s say I have an athlete who does not have adequate PROM for shoulder internal rotation. Instead of starting with ME PAILs & RAILs to increase capsular space, do you think there would be any benefit to beginning with input 2 (>2min PAIL and/or RAIL contractions in different zones) in order to increase awareness of what PAIL and RAIL contractions feel like so that when ME PAILs and RAILs are programmed to increase capsular space, they have a higher probability of doing it correctly. Seeing this program for this specific tissue for this person made me think that the input 2’s he was spending time on in Phase1 probably gave him a much better sense of what his input 1’s (ME PAIL’s and RAIL’s) should feel like. So in my situation, where the odds of athletes really grasping what input 1’s should feel like because if the large group setting, I’m wondering if you think there is any validity to using input 2’s as a phase not to build connecting tissue but to increase awareness of PAIL and RAIL contractions before they get programmed in the next phase. Perhaps the PAIL and RAIL contractions wouldn’t have to be as long as 2 min and so, perhaps it would be more like an extended primer. I hope that makes sense. New to this system and still trying to figure out how to work with it in my context if 300 athletes.
Hi Erik,
A couple of points:
1. A lack of PROM is not always a capsular space issue (although it is related) therefore Input 1 may not be needed.
2. Inputs are specific to the behaviours that are being changed with training for each individual.
3. PAILs/RAILs can be used as an afferent/efferent input to prime the CNS or the tissues for future training within the session.