I'm going off what
@Ironmanfootball said he heard. Any criticism of what they're doing is based off what he said he heard. It seems pretty specific to be made up, but what I've said is in response to
if it's true.
All of those reasons are bad. There are no good reasons to do conditioning drills which aren't sport-specific.
This is going to come off as snarky, but I legitimately wish you guys would read the
NSCA's Essentials of Strength & Conditioning and/or the
NCSF's Advanced Concepts of Strength & Conditioning as it's clear you both have an interest in the subject and it would be more fun to chat with you about it.
Where qualified S&C coaches disagree is typically on how to implement a training rubric. Let me give you an example:
If I tell 50 coaches that I want a training program for a group of collegiate volleyball players that consists of the following:
- A general warm-up
- A sport-specific dynamic warm-up
- 2 speed / power movements at a certain % of 1RM
- 2 lower body compound movements at a certain % of 1RM
- 3 isolated, multi-planar movements
- 2 core / trunk / ab exercises
- A metabolic conditioning circuit
- A cooldown
The cool thing about this field is that it's as much an art as it is a science. All 50 coaches will give me a unique training program that is unlike any of the other coaches' programs,
but they'll all still be correct. Because the rubric itself is correct. It contains a solid warm-up, proper order from power / explosive exercises down to more isolated and gross movement patterns, and a stretch / cooldown session. I may like certain exercises over others, or more hamstring training because of my personal experience seeing it weak in athletes, or whatever. I get to make the program "mine" while still being by the book.
The point about running 300's for conditioning is that it literally has no place in a training program for volleyball or football because as
@Ironmanfootball correctly pointed out, it trains a completely different energy system than is optimal. You're really pushing into the oxidative/aerobic training system here which is more apt for swimmers, soccer players and cross-country runners.
When you study exercise physiology, you can see that the anaerobic pathway trains both anaerobic and aerobic systems, so we can make our football players in better shape without needing to waste time and calories by having them run like soccer players. It's inefficient. Additionally, and this is well-supported in the research, conditioning drills which require specific motor patterns increase the likelihood of someone getting injured after they're tired. Think about it - some of these linemen are literally over 300lbs. Have you ever trained guys this size? Do you think any of these guys know how to properly run a 300? These dudes aren't Santana Moss - they don't run track. They'll be
dying by 100, with 2/3 to go. They weigh too much and don't regularly train in that energy system well enough to do that properly and safely. It absolutely would increase the risk of an injury because their running mechanics breakdown and they flounder.
As I've said from the beginning, I can't *prove* a direct causal link between a coach's program and a kid getting hurt. But I can tell you that the
risk of injury goes up when the training rubric isn't based on our best understanding of strength & conditioning.
So many coaches implement so many bonehead training programs that we're all just "used" to it because hey, back when you were in school, sure, your baseball coach made you run 2 miles before practice, what's the big deal? That's dumb. It wastes time, exhausts the nervous system, and sets everyone up to be tired before making them practice a sport that is highly explosive and technique-oriented, making worse baseball players and increasing the risk of injury.
So yes,
if it's true that they're making our football players run 300's, that's dumb and worth criticizing. There's really nothing controversial about it.
