013 Rate of force development

Hello and welcome to the High Performance Physiology Podcast. I'm Chris Beardsley, I'm here with my co-host Rob Marceri and we're going to talk about rate of force development and the concept of explosiveness today. So essentially, rate of force development is often referred to, I'm explosiveness as well, they're often referred to as qualities that athletes need in order to be competitive, but they're rarely defined very accurately. A rate of force development sometimes is given a definition, but explosiveness generally is not and that does lead to confusion. So what we're going to do, I'm just going to chat through very quickly the physiology of rate of force development and try and get into this idea of what explosiveness actually is and then we'll talk a little bit about training programs that will improve those qualities, although I'm going to be a little bit, we're going to be a little bit sort of up front now and say that essentially, you don't really need to target them directly the way that most people think you do and the same way that you don't really need to target power in the way that most people think you do. So essentially, when we say rate of force development, what we're saying is the rate at which force increases during a maximal effort contraction. So essentially, if you have a high rate of force development, you get up to a high rate of force quicker than somebody who doesn't have that same ability. So ultimately, that sounds like a very good thing and it sounds like it will contribute to athletic performance and indeed it does. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that when you look at the underlying adaptions, because obviously rate of force development itself is not an adaption that you can obtain, it's an outcome that we can measure you increasing in. So the same way that strength is not as adaption, strength is an outcome that you increase and the adaptions underpin that. Similarly, when you look at rate of force development, it must have underlying adaptions. Now, essentially, when you go and look at those underlying adaptions, what you discover is that for the very early part of the contractions, say the first, you know, maybe 50 milliseconds, ultimately, that is pretty much determined by the same adaptions that determine maximum speed. And once you get past that early kind of 50 milliseconds, also, you start to blend essentially the adaptions that govern maximum strength and the adaptions that govern speed. So essentially, there isn't anything unique to rate of force development that we can't get from training for either speed or strength in our normal training programs that we're already doing. Now, just to be clear, what generally, you know, kind of has been found in context of that early sort of first, 50 milliseconds is that it's pretty much rate coding or motune fire frequency. That's the important factor for rate of force development. After that, it's basically pretty much everything that governs both the speed and the strength kind of adaptions. So essentially, the reason why rate of force development on the one hand is, you know, kind of very useful is of course, it does allow us to achieve high rate of force, sorry, a high level of force, relatively quickly. But of course, it doesn't really have anything unique behind it in terms of adaptions. So if you say to yourself, okay, I'd like to train to increase rate of force development, then basically you could just train to increase speed and strength and you would get an increase in rate of force development. There isn't a way of avoiding that or preventing that from happening because the same adaptions are underpinning all of those qualities. Now, that's essentially rate of force development, relatively quick explanation. In terms of explosiveness, ultimately, the problem here is we don't have a good definition. So either you can say, well, I just meant rate of force development, in which case you could say, well, why do we, why are we using the word explosiveness then if you've already got perfectly serviceable terminology that you can use that actually does have a definition. But ultimately, if you mean something different, then okay, maybe it means sort of something more like power or speed or strength or whatever. Well, we already have good definitions for all of those things. And ultimately, essentially strength and speed both have their own unique adaptions beneath them and power is something that is just a combination of strength and speed. And so again, it is subservient to those two. So again, you kind of back to the square one, which is to say that the only really kind of major qualities that we have to focus on are simply strength and speed. Now, of course, all of that is going to be, you know, kind of dependent on the specific movement that we're doing. There are other biomechanic factors like before we jumped on the podcast, they were just chatting through how the proximal to distal sequence can be really interesting in this particular context. But ultimately, where we get to, well, this is that essentially if a program is already focused on the adaptions that underpin maximum strength gains and the adaptions that underpin maximum speed gains, there is actually no need to consider rate of force development or the concept of explosiveness separately. They're automatically going to be covered by the programs that are designed to improve these two major qualities. So that's basically the physiological introduction, very short one this week. There's not really very much to say Rob, over to you, we were talking before this podcast about programs that you're writing programs that you're, you know, kind of developing for use with your athletes and how they improve maximum strength and speed. As just as a way to introduce this topic and for people who maybe haven't caught all of our podcasts before, can you just give us a brief explanation of how you're writing programs that allow you to simultaneously increase maximum strength and maximum speed at the same time, you know, for, you know, long periods of time throughout a training year, for example. Oh, yeah, for sure Chris. So I mean, like Chris said, there's not going to be as much to say on this one. What I'm designing a program that someone, you know, might typically think, you know, is it aimed to improve rate of force development, like Chris said, I'm just improving strength or speed. So we'll just take the example of a combat sports athlete. You've talked about those quite a bit. And then you use the proximal to distal sequencing there, which Chris and I have mentioned plenty of times now in the podcast, more proximal muscles need higher force production capabilities, more distal segments are going to wind up meeting more towards the maximum speed and things. So if you're looking at maybe what someone would say, a typical program would be for a fighter to improve rate of force development. A lot of times you're going to see things like Olympic lifting variants, power cleans, power snatches, poles, things like that. And I don't typically program any of those for my athletes. I like them myself. I love Olympic lifting. They're great. You know, exercises, if your goal is Olympic lifting, and if you need someone who needs to be more explosive and have, you know, more overall power, you know, for a fighter, you need to have exercises that are a lot more specific with the proximal muscles. For example, if you take a hip thrust, even an RDL, things like that, the force production there is going to be way higher than it will be in like a power clean or something like that. Power clean, you're working with a lower load and kind of a like mid speed. It's not super fast either. So it's not really going to improve strength to a really relevant degree. And it's not really going to improve speed much. So in my opinion, I would use something like a hip thrust, focus on strength, low reps, few sets, and then, you know, cap it there for the hip. And then if I'm thinking of, you know, step four, the ankle, step four, the upper limbs and that again, a power clean and exercise that people typically think of for RFD isn't really giving me anything interesting there in terms of maximum speed. So I'd much rather use jumps, light throws, things like that to improve the speed end of things so that, you know, I'm not just kind of like sitting in the middle, getting good at a specific exercise, when I don't even need that exercise in my program. I'm like, in a little bit lift, maybe fun. We only need them if you're going to compete in the Olympic lifts. People probably get mad at that. You know, I say I don't use them, but kind of is right. Let's kind of just, let's add the physiological perspective there to fill to fill in some of those details. So yeah, you're absolutely right. The interesting thing is that people look at the output of those exercises, like the Olympic weightlifting derivatives. They look at the output and they go, the power output is enormous. It's way higher than you're going to see in any other exercise. Or they look at the rate of force development and they go, wow, this rate of force development is really, really high. You know, this is really interesting. This exercise must stimulate really big gains in power and in rate of force development. And the track that they've fallen into is mistaking the outcome for the adaption. They've gone because the outcome is high, it must stimulate gains in the outcome. And that's not how the body works. What is an interest in outcomes? If you look at a standard sort of force velocity chart, you'll notice that smack bang in the middle, there is a maximum point for power output. That's because when you multiply force by velocity, you get power. So by definition, they value in the middle of those two is going to get a kind of middle, approximately middle of force, middle of velocity. Can I give you maximum power outputs? That as we explained in our power episode is terrible. for increasing either strength or speed. You're as far away from everything as you can possibly be. Away from the speed, and as you can be, far away from the strength and as you can be, you're not really going to kind of, at the same time, being far away from the speed. So you're not really, very good at improving anything that is underpinned by its own specific adaptions. Power is underpinned by the false-time velocity. So it's basically, you can't get an improvement in power without increasing strength or speed. You can't get an improvement in race or rate of false development without increasing either strength or speed either. So ultimately, when people are getting confused about these Olympic weightlifting derivatives and they're going, "Oh, well, no, they're amazing because look at how high the power outputs are. Look at how high they're rate of false development is. They're mistaken because they're confusing outcomes with adaptions." And so you're not programming those. So as you've said, you're programming some heavy strength training for the hip because you're focusing on the proximal to distal sequence. How does the rest of the kind of program fit around that? I mean, are you are you doing high velocity stuff before that? Yeah, typical, you know, typical program setup that we've always mentioned. So starting with the high velocity end of things, moving down the heavy strength stuff, we'll repeat it over and over, but you know, if thrust, audio, whatever you might choose in this scenario, we've covered like the heavy rotational work for the core. Again, everybody thinks because, you know, upon JK, etc. is moving fairly fast, you need to train only fast, but certainly not the case there. So that heavy core work is going to be great. And then just following that up, standard strength, hypertrophy stuff. And again, you know, like for an athlete, we're not talking like anything hyper-specific, just the normal basics, presses, pull downs, really for whatever muscles you think are important for the athlete. And you know, for most people, it's going to be just most of the major ones. It's not anything super fancy that's being done. And like we just said for like RFD specifically, there's really nothing fancy. It's really the same basic program setup, same basic weekly, you know, frequency two times a week, maybe three if you don't have much else going on. And then, normal keeping a few reps shy failure and all those things load and maybe moderate reps, not going crazy with anything for, you know, high reps and high volumes. And yeah, I just, I mean, I had a, I did have a child, I think I recently, and he was asking me about the Olympic lifts. And if I did them myself and years ago, I did, and I know currently, but I do like them. And he asked my opinion on them actually for, you know, improving power and that. And then said for that purpose, I didn't think they didn't really much of anything. And he said, well, why is it called a power clean? One, I don't know, man. Mark Tings is one thing. Mark Tings is the one that's being. Mark Tings is the one that's being improved very well. I'm not as a funny comment, but. No, it's fascinating. I mean, it probably tells us more about human psychology than it tells us about, I don't think, else really. But. Yeah, not much about training. Yeah, if we give something a name that sounds like it does something important, then, you know, some people at least will believe that it does. So, yeah, but yes, essentially, we're kind of just describing here, one of the classic programs that we've described previously, you know, built around heavy strength training with the high velocity stuff done before it, because of course, we do that first because there's, you know, we want to avoid any fatigue from anything else before we do that high velocity stuff, because high velocity work is very negatively affected by fatigue. And actually, this is a useful opportunity just to reiterate an important point, which is that the effects of fatigue mechanisms pretty much all fatigue mechanisms would tend to produce a reduction in movement velocity. Some of them also increase, sorry, some of them also decrease muscle fiber force, but pretty much all fatigue mechanisms will have a negative effect on muscle fiber shortening velocity and on movement velocity as a whole. Rate coding, motine fire and frequency, which is essentially one of the major adaptions underpin speedcans and has been linked to the rate to force development, especially in the early phase of rate to force development, is very, very linked, very closely linked to movement speed, especially muscle fiber shortening velocity. So if we see movement velocities reduce, that will imply that we've reduced rate coding. And as a result, we are unlikely to be stimulating an increase in rate coding, because the thing that stimulates increases in rate coding is almost certainly hitting high levels of rate coding in the exercise that we're doing. So, ultimately, any kind of fatigue present is going to stop us from triggering that adaption. So, this is a really, really important point, because if people are programming in ways where they're trying to increase rate to force development, whether they're calling that rate to force development, or whether they're calling it explosiveness, doesn't really matter, they are going to want to make sure that the part of their workout that is doing that, or that they hope is doing that, has minimal fatigue in it. So, this is one of the reasons why high velocity stuff at the beginning of a workout is so effective for that particular adaption, is because we're coming in completely fresh, hopefully, if our training week is a bit blunt appropriately, and that's a separate conversation. But, hopefully, the athletes are arriving in a fresh state, and they're able to go through a basic warm-up and then start doing some high velocity jumps, throws, that kind of thing. And that should be the time in which our rate to force development and our speed gains are being achieved, by means of multiple adaptions, but in the case of rate to force development, does I say, definitely getting some increases in rate coding, the motunet firing frequencies. So, yeah, really important point that our fatigue is very, very negative for those adaptions. Yeah, it's, I think it's, this is what it's important to be operating for more of an adaptions-based model, versus methods and all these things. People love these, all kinds of fancy programs, and we said it a million times, they love the novelty and all that. We can just look at my adaptions. I know it's going to cause them if I then know what is going to mess them up. Just don't do that. It makes things pretty simple. It's nice thing is it makes programs too simple, and then people are afraid that, you know, no one's going to buy into this. It's too easy. It can't be this, I've had people tell me it can't be this simple when I write them a program and I give it, you know, X number of weeks and let me know how I feel, and then when they jump higher, they run faster. One of my volleyball girls who's a play semi-pro, she's jumping like inches higher than she ever was. She's so much better than all these girls in the quarter-no train, and I'm like, I told you, it looks hilariously simple on paper, but that is all you need. Just don't overthink it. I think there's two, there's two sides to it, isn't there? The side that you've mentioned, which is that people expect, anticipate something more complicated. And then the other side of it is that they expect and anticipate a lot more volume and a lot more work. And when it comes to speed, especially in applying to all of these concepts that we're talking about today, whether it's right to force development, explosiveness, speed, power, any of this stuff, all of these things are going to be very negatively affected by fatigue, not just within session, but also from previous sessions. And that requires not just a conversation about the strength training program, but also about any conditioning that's being done, and also about any sports practice that's being done. The reality is, in maybe the case that sports coaches may not appreciate that they need to have the same conversation with you or us in the case of the same listening coach, because the same thing applies to the skill. So if a sports coach is trying to improve a skill, they are going to want to make sure that they don't have any residual fatigue at the start of that session, because skill development also requires, I actually had some questions about this in my last Instagram Q&A. People are asking, well, what is the best approach for motor learning? What's the best approach for learning a skill? If I'm trying to enhance my ability to do these athletic activities, what should they do? Treat them like speed training. So avoid fatigue is the first thing that you would do. Now, there's a few other things you can do. You can look at external focuses of attention, in addition to the classic coaching approaches that probably skills coaches are already doing, but they can look at external focus of attention, they can look at avoiding fatigue. So the reality is that even though you may sometimes feel like you're talking to a brick wall, when you're trying to persuade the sports coach to do less because it's interfering with your ability to improve speed, the reality is they should be having the same conversation with you to try and do less so that they can improve skill. Because the idea that we can just kind of throw tons and tons of volume at the athletes and that they can recover from anything and that they can make improvements in inequality while being in that fatigue state is nonsense, they can't. The reality is we know that you can't learn motor skills in a fatigue state and you can't improve speed in a fatigue state. So I think this is a really important point because your comment there is totally true where you said like people want more complex programs, but I think they also want more work. They do, they want to feel like they're being worked today. Yeah, they do. And it's like, you have improving under fatigue, you know, like you're not, you're not doing that. You can't do that on these qualities. Yeah, you can't do that on these qualities. It's like it's just, and let me just clarify exactly why that is. So a lot of people go, well, you know, I can gain muscle mass when I'm really fatigued, so why can't I gain, you know, kind of an increase in rate coding when I'm in a fatigue state? Well, This is why if you look at the way hypertube works, if you activate the fiber and it's short and slowly you're going to stimulate it to grow. Now that gives you kind of a whole range of possible motunits to run after and actually create adaptions in. And if you get some CNF degree, you get some muscle damage in the top motunits of that pool, then okay you're going to lose some possible gains there and that's a problem. But you're still going to get some stimulus lower down the motunit pool and as long as you're not really advanced bodybuilding you're probably going to see some kind of movement forward on that front. So it's not the end of the world if you're training in a fatigue state. I mean it can be if you kind of really dig yourself into a really big fatigue hole but you know it's not the end of the world if you kind of slightly over the edge of being accumulating fatigue over time. The problem with neural adaptions is that you kind of need to hit your max level of whatever the quality, whatever the kind of thing is that you're trying to improve. So if you're trying to improve motunit equipment you kind of need to hit your current maximum level of recruitment. If you just hit like 95%, it probably doesn't do anything or isn't stimulate the adoption. Same thing with rate coding. So like if you're not hitting your maximum level of rate coding what's the incentive for the brain to actually upgrade you to a high level of rate coding? There isn't really one. So it's neural adaptions and the same with skill. If you're practicing a movement and the brain has a really solid motor program for a throw and you kind of then practice a slightly worse one because you're slightly tired then the brain is going to go why are we doing this? I'm just going to go back to the one that you learned last week or established last week and use that instead. So your current throwing session isn't doing anything for your actual mechanics improvements. Even if your coach is trying to help you improve them it's probably not changing anything because your brain is just going to revert back to the better one that they had last week. Whereas if you can get that throw practiced in an unforetive state and get the coaching and get the external focus in your mind and everything is pulling together. Now you've got a chance to actually increase your coordination and getting better mechanics. So this is really really important this binary idea of either I get the adaption or I don't is very very prevalent in the neural side of things. Where it's not so much in the peripheral side of things you can kind of get some benefits even when you're in a very fortitude state. I think that's one of those situations where the sports coach, having the strength and conditioning coach, probably need to be having a conversation where they're both trying to get each other to do less whereas the reality is at the moment I don't think that's what's going on. You know I always thought that the skill thing was funny because I take it back to like just years and years ago when I was sponsored skateboarding like if I wanted to learn a new trick I wasn't going to start trying a new trick. When I was an hour is into a day of skating and my legs were jelly like that would just think about that that would make absolutely no sense. You're going to try at the beginning of the day when you feel good and I would think if people just sat for a second and thought on that maybe I you know if you want to learn anything at all you're going to do it when you feel terrible and everything feels awful like no it just it makes absolutely no sense. Then you have guys like field athletes all that stuff they're doing it all the time and you know if you really just have there for a second you'd probably come to the conclusion pretty quick. I think it's confused because so I've been I've been thinking about this mode to learning question and I've been thinking that there's probably and this is me just kind of putting this out there so you know this is this is this is what goes on inside my head when people aren't looking. So I've been thinking about how if you're if you're training if you're if you're coaching a complete beginner to do an exercise that they've never done before. You know the chances are that you are going to have to give them some internal focus of attention cues. Now sure there are people out there who can you know not do that but generally speaking say for example you've got when I say internal focus attention I'm being in the strict sense of the word I'm not saying mind muscle connection which is a subset of the internal focus. So mind muscle connection is like when you're squeezing a muscle internal focus is where you're literally just thinking about apart your body moving. So at the very earliest stages of learning a movement you might say to a someone who's learning to bench press you know I want you to tuck your elbows a little bit more that's an internal focus of attention because you are thinking about apart of your body. You know an external focus attention will be to aim the bar towards a particular point in space. So ultimately we've got this kind of very early stage where internal focus attention where you're literally just moving apart of your body in a particular way. I think that if somebody is at that stage of a learning process on a movement that simple because obviously you know skateboarding that you're describing the moves are not simple. You know what I'm talking about here is where somebody is literally talking about a simple free way to exercise like a bench press barbell square which have complexities to them but require a like at least a sort of a process of you know learning the fundamentals to start. I think that maybe that internal focus attention stuff probably is learnable with some degrees of fatigue. I would think so. I mean and I've certainly coached clients in just regular strength training exercises with those kinds of cues you know later on in a session if I've done something that I deen more important first. You know you're like it and pop clients just trying to grow muscle over and they want to learn to squat and I think you and Jake actually taught about it a little bit and I definitely points those later in a session and they still get better you know but like you said maybe those internal cues initially not impacted so much. Yeah I think that is probably where the internal focus attention and the movement of the it's a very kind of you know large scale motor pattern and it's not you know hugely dependent on a very fine degree of motor control or very high de-relaccuracy but I don't think the same will be true about say shooting free throws for example. No like a baseball. You know throwing throwing something or doing anything really. The complexity there is just too great to and and the movement is too quick to really start to see you know improvement something. This is me just thinking aloud about how there is there does seem to be some room for maneuver in that motor learning process in certain very very basic tasks but I would expect that once you got the athlete to the point where they were doing the movement the squat or the bench press or the deadlift and it looked pretty much correct as far as you could tell and they were now in the process where they needed an external focus attention and they were making improvements in coordination on that basis. I would expect now that if they got fatigued you wouldn't see any coordination improvements. So what I'm arguing for not arguing for because I still don't feel very you know convinced by this as a model. I'm just putting this out there. I just have this kind of idea in my mind that maybe there are kind of two sort of scenarios in motor learning whereby maybe there's a kind of a gross motor pattern that can be learned with a bit more room for maneuver, wriggle room if you like on the fatigue front and then there's that refined level of coordination where the athlete is gradually iterating and improving and iterating and improving hopefully based on their own external focus of attention to make the movement better and that's where fatigue is going to stop us from making those improvements. Is this making sense? Yeah I think you know I mean thinking about it I guess that in terms of cues I use and things like that within a session and ways I've structured them it would make to me perfect sense. It's just I'm not necessarily saying that the internal and the external focus attention are necessary here in this context. I'm just trying to use them as a marker to say if someone's if someone's in the zone where an internal focus is getting you to make progress I suspect that they're probably capable of making progress you know even if they're fatigued. Yeah. If an internal focus would be useless to you because they've already way past that point and you need the next one. Then I think probably that's the scenario where you wouldn't make gains in coordination if you were you know in a fatigue state. It just feels to me like an interesting marker to to designate these two zones because I think yeah there's going to be these people who who've never done a particular simple movement like a squatter of inch press not that simple but you know in terms of athletic activities it's simple enough. Probably do make some progress when we give them an internal focus and as a result they probably are improving with a fatigue state in terms of their coordination. So I'm not saying that we can never ever ever improve a coordination pattern in a fatigue state but as far as athletes are concerned we might as well be true because ultimately you know we're never going to be in a scenario where those kind of individuals are you know being sort of you know expected to make serious improvements in their athletic ability by using internal focus as a potential or you know so we're getting a terrible pile like you did love because otherwise people will say that we said that you can just never improve if you're even a little bit fatigue then it's in plus one which is not well so the thing is the thing is in motor learning research if you get someone to do throws for accuracy then it does apply you can't make the improvement in coordination if you're in a fatigue state so if you've got a if you're throwing something for accuracy remember the study yes amazing study it's an amazing study yeah when you're throwing like a handball into a can or a target that kind of thing and so ultimately if you pre-fartig the arm before you do that practice session the next time you come back you're actually worse than you would have been if you'd not done that practice session so. It's like for slightly more complex things where you've got a speed element involved. I think maybe you probably can't improve coordination even if you're a total beginner. I'm just trying to create a model like live here as I'm trying to just kind of get my head around it. I do think there are certain very specific beginner-related scenarios where someone doing a slower movement that is a little bit simpler, potentially will see an improvement in coordination. That is to me very, very fascinating. How you would test the quality of that move, the thing is though, with throwing the accuracy thing you can test by the accuracy, how many objects do you get into the kind of the hoop? Whereas testing the accuracy of say a bench press or something is very much more difficult, so what am I measuring? What precisely am I measuring here? That's not something that motor learning is very good at doing. When I say motor learning is not very good at doing, it means that motor learning research is kind of community potentially is not as good at doing that. We don't have the measurement tools. Where was I? The reason we introduced this was because we were saying that the sports coach and the strength coach potentially should be both negotiating with each other to try and bring the athletes overall workload down a little bit or at least modify it so that it isn't creating the post-work-app T that then interferes with each other's skilled development sessions or speed development sessions. What's cool? We went off piece a little bit there, but do you have any programs that you've seen recently? You mentioned, of course, the Olympic way lifting. That was a big element of the programs that you were criticising earlier. Do you have any other programs that you wanted to note that you've seen that you think are unhelpful for developing speed, explosiveness, RFD, anything like that? Yeah, I know what I mentioned before we hopped on here was the idea of specifically for combat sports athletes using a snatch group deadlift as the movement that's going to improve the maximum strength and of things for power of the hip and stuff like that. I think just in general, you know, I love deadlift and I love snatch group deadlift. There's nothing wrong with them. I think you can probably do a lot better movements from those athletes. I mean, there's going to be ones we're using a lot more low like a hip thrust, first of all, and there's a lot less fatigue. You can give you take something like a snatch group deadlift like that. It's going to be very, very taxing. I mean, there's a lot going on there. You're hitting a much larger range. This is a snatch group from the floor. Yeah, from the floor. Oh, wow. Yeah, not something I would typically be using much. If you do it with an RDL or something, it's certainly not quite as bad, but you're pulling all the way from the floor like that. I don't really see the application there for, you know, like I said in this instance, there was a combat sports athlete. I much rather use something that isn't going to leave them toast for, you know, the skill session, the training session and the week exactly as a whole, exactly, things like that. I mean, you know, and again, I give us the idea that somehow that movement is improving power of the hip and it's just not going to efficiently do that. And even in that case, or you know, or they, it's more of a kind of all round kind of exercises and it really doesn't do any one thing really well. It just does a whole bunch of things in a mediocre way. Okay. Well, if I have like a very limited equipment, maybe, and I was like training on my home gym and I wanted some kind of exercise just to do, I personally might do it because I like them. Yeah. Honestly, I would start looking at combinations of things like audio, not audio. Sorry. I actually prefer, I prefer stiff leg deadlifts. Well, you can kind of start to think about, well, maybe I programmed some rack pulls for various applications, maybe some stiff legs, you know, and again, it's like you're looking at limited equipment. There's a different conversation there. This is actually starting to sound like we could do another episode next week on transfer of specific exercises to, uh, special, watching applications. I think that would be really cool follow up to this, to this episode. If we're a good one, where there's a lot, a lot to talk about. Yeah. Let's do that. Cool. So let's stop here for today. Thanks, everyone, for listening to us again, even though we did go off piece the number of times. Hopefully that was useful. We will be back next week with a discussion of transfer of exercises to, um, uh, yes, sporting applications, probably focusing on combat sports if Rob has anything to do with it. So we'll see you then.