This article delivers an introduction of the science of coaching; which verbal cues make for the most effective coaching. I disagree with the author’s opinion that external cueing will always be a better choice than internal cueing and the evidence produced was not 100% convincing to me, from a research point of view. I believe that both internal and external cues should be used at appropriate times depending on the athletes’ training age, skill level, natural ability and education. This article left me wanting to know more about the evidences’ origin, the quantified data which was gathered the testers, the tested population and the equipment used.
Internal cueing is coaching the athlete to perform an exercise or movement(s) by focusing on what the body is actually doing mechanically and being conscience of what is actually going on with their body. According to the article this type of cueing is less effect because the athlete tends to focus on body movement patterns and it “increases consciousness” and “constrains the natural flow of the motor system”. External cueing is focusing on the overall goal of the movement or the “movement outcome”. This method of cueing gives the athlete’s motor system a more natural flow when attempting to execute an exercise or movement.
Internal cueing can be useful if an athlete is having trouble activating a certain muscle or muscle group for an exercise or movement. A perfect example of this is instructing an athlete to flex their glutes during a glute bridge (or any variation) or cable pull through. Cueing an athlete internally for this exercise works well and produces good results not only for these two examples but also for more complex exercises in the future. An external cue for the Glute Bridge is keep your hips from touching the floor, however the athlete must first understand how to use the glutes in order not to compensate with their lower back and perform this exercise incorrectly. Both Cues have a place in coaching it is a matter of knowing when and how to use them correctly. *I would like to note that I have experience this myself and witnessed there coaches using this internal cue to a success at my time here with the Strength and Conditioning Department.
There were two experiments presented in the article; the first was using a ski simulator with one group using internal cues, a control group which received no instruction and a group using external cues. The results were that the group receiving external cueing performed better than the other two groups. The second experiment presented was a balance reaction time test (using the same three groups), which yielded the same results.
My issue with the article may is that the process of the experiments was not explained, duration of the trials or how many attempts were allowed? T here was no population description (age, training age, athletic background, educational background, profession). No quantitative data was given with either experiment nor did was there a description of the equipment used to carry out the experiments. Including these details in a professional article is crucial to scientifically proving your, theory, methods (or the science behind coaching). With the professional field of strength and conditioning rapidly changing, modifying older theories and processes it is important to t only used fact based evidence to present your case but, also to show how you arrived at your conclusion.
In the end I still found this article very insightful article and an enjoyable quick read although, I still believe that if the experiments were presented better it would still be an introductory article with a little bit more explanation. It is the desire to educate ourselves that helps drive our industry; and to approach all aspects of strength and conditioning with fact based evidence. Constantly seeking out the reasons to why one way of coaching is superior to another, don’t just accept it as fact without thought and move on.
Source: www.nsca.com/Education/Articles/Hot-Topic-What-We-Say-Matters-Part-I/