Nature, freedom, and assertion : the philosophical foundations of organizational reform.

The dissertation explores a postulate common to both Max Weber and Hans Blumenberg that modern organizations gain their intense motivational power from the anxieties created in the modern era by the disenchantment of nature and the death of God. The doctrine of omnipotence gave rise to a modern theodicy problem, experienced as an anxiety that the conditions of goodness must henceforth be self-consciously created by the self-assertion of large associations of interdependent people. This self-conscious forsaking of omnipotence carries with it a high price. In the work of Immanuel Kant natural law ethics and economics are no longer available and our associations tend to be bureaucratic. The dissertation follows the thought of both practical reformers and philosophers in developing this characterization of modern organization. What emerges, alongside their positive accounts of the relation between freedom and organization, is a darker picture of profound anxiety and melancholy. Particularly instructive is Kant\u27s interpretive text on Cain and Abel in which modern people are identified with the brother who murders. Kant\u27s insights are followed by those of Soren Kierkegaard, Rene Girard, Elton Mayo, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, and others to explicate the structure of mimetic desire as it operates in modern large-scale organizations. These intense mimetic structures do not mean that freedom in large organizations is a myth, but it does mean that the self-conscious assertion of freedom involves a profound spiritual struggle which can result as easily in demonia as in release. Thus the final chapter employs a Weberean typology to show how freedom in its various organizational guises has so far remained elusive while the champions of freedom have tried to embody it in ever more inclusive organizational structures

Advanced resistance training strategies for increasing muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength: part 1 accumulation methods

Training variation has been suggested as a primary principle in the pursuit of increasing muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength. Although variation may be achieved in a number of different manners within the training process, at the training session level advanced approaches to stimulating adaptations can be employed. At present, research is undecided on the benefits of these methods. Part 1 of this two-part article will review methods that may be employed to accumulate greater training volume through raising training density. Part 2 will discuss advance strategies that possess the potential to increase training intensity, while maintaining other acute exercise variables. The practical application of these methods will also be discussed, in the context of creating greater muscle cross-sectional area and developing maximal strength

The postactivation potentiation effect of either plyometrics or speed, agility and quickness exercises on linear sprint performance

Postactivation potentiation (PAP) is a phenomenon whereby the contractile history of the muscle positively impacts the force generation capacity of an athlete for subsequent activities. The purpose of this study was to explore the acute benefits of including either a plyometric or SAQ based warm-up, on linear sprint speed. Using a randomised repeated measures design, 16 (13 men, 3 women) recreationally trained athletes performed either a control (C), control and plyometric (P) or control and SAQ (SAQ) warm-up (table 1). There was a statistically significant difference between groups for the 0-10m following a Friedman’s ANOVA (χ2(2) = 25.125, p=0.00). Post Hoc analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a Bonferroni correction identified no significant difference between the control and SAQ conditions (Z= -0.906, p= 0.365, d=0.06). However, there was significant improvements between conditions in favour of P; P vs. C (Z= -3.518, p= <0.001, d=0.50) and P vs. SAQ (Z= -3.522, p= <0.001, d=0.44). Linear 10-metre sprint time is not acutely improved with the inclusion of SAQ drills as part of a dynamic warm-up. However, a warm-up consisting of plyometric exercises results in an acute decrease in 10-metre sprint times

How S&C coaches can assess thoracic spine & upper extremity mobility [blog post]

As mobility is a key physical quality that underpins most athletic movements, strength and conditioning coaches must possess the skill set and tools to assess it. Conventionally, range of motion (ROM) tests have been performed using specialized equipment such as inclinometers and goniometers. To make the execution of these tests even more challenging for coaches, many ROM assessments require exceptional palpatory skills. This has resulted in many resources suggesting an approach to mobility testing that employs a pass-fail criterion (e.g., if an athlete can’t touch their toes during a toe-touch test, they fail the test). Yet, this method of assessing mobility has major limitations. If an athlete fails the standard set, we have obviously identified a deficiency is present—this is where a pass-fail criterion for a ROM assessment is applicable. However, if we want to monitor the effectiveness of our training intervention and identify what strategies actually develop mobility, we need assessment techniques that provide objective data that is accurate and reliable. The goal of this two-part article series is to demonstrate that neither the availability of equipment nor the palpatory skills a practitioner possesses should prevent coaches from collecting objective data. Part 1 of this series demonstrated how to perform mobility assessments for the lower extremity. In part 2 (this article), I will focus on mobility tests for the thoracic spine and upper extremity, showing techniques using only a smartphone or tape measure

A guide to assessing mobility for strength and conditioning coaches [blog post]

Strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches are commonly responsible for programming mobility exercises for their athletes, with the goal to either improve movement quality or reduce injury risk. If you ask a room full of coaches to list the mobility exercises they regularly program, you’ll no doubt receive an endless list of movements along with countless variations. Ask the same group of coaches to list tests they employ that accurately and reliably identify deficits or changes in an athlete’s mobility, and the list will generally be significantly shorter. This is likely the reason so many athletes are prescribed countless shoulder, thoracic, hip, and ankle mobility exercises as part of their routines—if you can’t assess something, better do the exercises to develop it, just in case. This leads to extended warm-ups and “filler” exercises being scattered throughout training programs with little return for improvements in performance. To avoid valuable training time being wasted performing needless mobility exercises, S&C coaches should possess a basic skill set that allows them to reliably measure an athlete’s range of motion (ROM), which underpins fundamental movements. The goal of this two-part series will be to demonstrate ROM assessments that require no specialized equipment, but produce data that is reliable and valid, in order to direct the training process. Part 1 will focus on lower extremity assessments, while Part 2 will cover tests for the upper extremities

Restricted Unilateral Ankle Dorsiflexion Movement Increases Interlimb Vertical Force Asymmetries in Bilateral Bodyweight Squatting

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of unilateral restrictions in ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion (DF-ROM) on interlimb vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) asymmetries. Twenty healthy and physically active volunteers (age 23 ± 3 years; height 1.72 ± 0.1 m; mass 74.9 ± 20.3 kg) performed 3 barefoot bodyweight squats (control condition) and with a 10° custom-built forefoot wedge under the right foot to artificially imitate ankle DF-ROM restriction (wedge condition). Force data were used to calculate the mean asymmetry index score for the upper descent phase, lower descent phase, lower ascent phase, and upper ascent phase during the bilateral squat. Significant differences were found for comparisons for each phase between conditions, with effect sizes ranging between 0.7 and 1.1. Asymmetry index scores indicated that for all phases, the unrestricted limb in the wedge condition produced greater vGRF. Therefore, interlimb differences in ankle DF-ROM can cause interlimb asymmetries in vGRF during bilateral squatting. As such, athletes with asymmetrical squat mechanics should be screened for interlimb differences in ankle DF-ROM to ascertain whether it is a contributing factor

Improved Ankle Mobility After a 4-Week Training Program Affects Landing Mechanics

This study examined the effects of a 4-week ankle-mobility intervention on landing mechanics. Twenty participants with restricted ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DF ROM) were allocated to either a strength training only (n = 9) or a strength training and ankle mobility program (n = 11). Participants performed a weight-bearing lunge test and bilateral drop-landings before and following the intervention. Normalized peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), time to peak vGRF and loading rate were calculated, alongside sagittal-plane initial contact angles, peak angles and sagittal-plane joint displacement for the ankle, knee and hip. Frontal-plane projection angles were also calculated. Following the intervention, only the strength and mobility group improved ankle DF ROM (mean difference = 4.1°, effect size (ES) = 1.00, P = 0.002). A one-way analysis of covariance found group effects for ankle joint angle at initial contact (P = 0.045), ankle (P < 0.001) and hip joint angle at peak flexion (P = 0.041), and sagittal-plane ankle (P < 0.001) and hip joint displacement (P = 0.024) during bilateral drop-landings. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the strength and mobility group landed with greater ankle plantar flexion at initial contact (mean difference = 1.4 ± 2.0˚, ES = 0.46) and ankle dorsiflexion at peak flexion (mean difference = 6.3 ± 2.9˚, ES = 0.74) following the intervention, resulting in greater ankle joint displacement (mean difference = 7.7 ± 4.0˚, ES = 1.00). However, the strength training only group landed with increased peak hip flexion (mean difference = 14.4 ± 11.0˚, ES = 0.70) and hip joint displacement (mean difference = 8.0 ± 6.6˚, ES = 0.44) during post-testing. The findings suggest that changes in landing strategies following the performance of a strength training program are specific to whether restrictions in ankle mobility are considered as part of the intervention

Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion asymmetry does not influence landing forces during a bilateral drop-landing

Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) has a reported relationship (r = -0.31) with peak vertical ground reaction forces (vGRF) during landing activities, with higher peak vGRF produced among those with the greatest ROM deficit.2 The commonly reported inter-limb asymmetries in ankle dorsiflexion ROM among healthy populations5 and athletes3 are therefore, likely to influence the kinetic landing profile. However, the relationship between interlimb asymmetry in ankle dorsiflexion ROM and the loading strategy utilised during landings has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the relationship between asymmetries in ankle dorsiflexion ROM and kinetic variables associated with bilateral drop-landing performance

Maine\u27s Science and Engineering Brain Drain: How Much and Why?

More than the traditional economic ingredients, the new global economy is being built around talented people with special knowledge and skills, those with the capacity to innovate and the entrepreneurial wherewithal to turn ideas into commercial products. Hence many states are shifting economic development strategies away from efforts that market commodities such as low tax rates and cheap labor, and toward efforts that amass and equip talented people with the tools of innovation. In short, states are beginning to think about strategies for recruiting and/or retaining talented workers. In this regard, the Southern Technology Council conducted a national study to compare states on their performance in retaining their own recent science and engineering graduates and/or attracting similar graduates from states elsewhere in the country. How is Maine doing? they ask. In a word, poorly. The authors compare Maine to other states on a number of performance indicators and predictor variables to assess why this is so. They suggest Maine take bold steps now to prevent the continued loss of its most important commodity of the future