Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

BenBreeg

Members+
  • Content Count

    915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39
  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by BenBreeg


  1. I would say this.  I get cold really easily and insulation in coaching pants isn't something I worry about.  Even if there is a practice I am not doing a lot of demoing I stay plenty warm even in the thinnest pants.  On skill days when the coaches are the lemmings that have to shoot on the goalies while the goalie coach works with them, I am too hot no matter what.  Waterproof isn't something I have ever thought about needing.

    My CCM pants (older version) are the thinnest though and my Bauer are the heaviest, if that helps.

    IF I needed more warmth like if for some reason we practiced outdoors, I would just add an insulating layer underneath.


  2. We did house until my son was 10.  We had enough kids for 4 teams in each division, 15 kids on a team.  The guys who ran the league were amazing.  You got practice plans days before, super organized on the ice, drills progressed throughout the year.  Each team had kids ranked 1-3 so your #1 line always went against the other teams #1 line, etc.  

    I've coached baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, and hockey for over 25 years, all ages from 5 year olds to college.  Every level has unique challenges, all fun (even the hell season we just went through I guess overall was a net positive...)

    It would be great if this forum got going for sure!


  3. 3 hours ago, krisdrum said:

    Thanks for the input.  It's funny I was looking at that "Twice Your Speed" program I always see advertised on social media, but the reviews of the site and experience are less than flattering.  Feed the Cats looks legit.  I'll have to check it out.  And I have a slideboard sitting in the basement, time to break that sucker out.    

    Here's his intro video:

     

     

    • Thanks 1

  4. 12 hours ago, colins said:


    I don't think any off ice aid can help develop proper skating form. A slideboard can help develop some muscles used in skating - won't make you faster but should make you more stable. Balance work, hip and ankle mobility, all good things to make you a better skater.

    But they won't really address skating form, that's an on-ice activity. If you develop excellent balance and range of motion (hips & ankles primarily), your skating will naturally get better the more you do it.

    But sprinting addresses the 2nd half of the question - power. If you want to get faster, sprint. If you want to increase your athleticism overall, sprint. It's the rising tide that floats all boats. Sprinting is the holy grail. Get faster on land and you'll be faster on ice. Sprint training is as much about training your central nervous system as it is about training your muscles - Tony Holler 'Feed the Cats' has done excellent work in this area if you wanted to read more about it.

     

     

    And Mitch Stewart, S&C coach, from the Arizona Coyotes Feeds the Cats as well from a dosing standpoint.  Mike Boyle believes faster runners are faster skaters, too.  

    For something to have transference to another activity, in this case sprinting to skating, the mechanics don't have to be identical.

    • Like 2

  5. 28 minutes ago, clarkiestooth said:

    Really? On a hockey equipment forum, you do judge theories and hypothesis. And with regard to assessing evidence and making claims, the manufacteurer isn't even making a claim that it works in its data. They use terms like warranting further study/may show promise/may benefit with other therapies/etc. Probably because they are actually prospective analysis, which offer far less compelling results than a randomized blind or double blind study. Also, the P value of 0.05 is borderline implying whether the results happened by chance. I would think a scientist would not be sold on this data. Also, the FDA doesn't do testing. Ever. Nor do the assess whether something is effective. They are primarily concerned with safety.  

    You can argue that the venue matters, but I disagree, why does the venue lower the threshold?  They are making the claims that their data supports based on their submission.  It's the standard all medical devices are held to.  Claims are very specific.  Anything else must have the stipulations attached.  Nobody said the FDA does testing, not sure why you are even bringing that up.  They do assess efficacy against your claims as well as safety.


  6. 2 hours ago, start_today said:

    Yeah, and their marketing materials say 

    “Further research is necessary to determine whether the Q-Collar can provide these benefits to users.”

    So, seems like despite all of the testing, they can’t validate the claims. 

     

    Claims are very, very specific.  I read that sentence as relating to the performance aspect.

    Editing instead of creating more posts:

    FDA's statement of the DeNovo submission:

    https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-marketing-novel-device-help-protect-athletes-brains-during-head-impacts

    Relevant research summary of the article:

    The FDA assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Q-Collar through several studies, including a prospective, longitudinal study in the United States with 284 subjects 13 years or older who were participants on a high school football team. During the sports season, 139 athletes wore the Q-Collar and 145 athletes did not. All participants also wore an accelerometer device that measured every impact to the head sustained during play. Each athlete underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan pre-season and post-season. These MRI scans were used to generate Diffusion Tensor Imaging (a specialized MRI image) of the brain that allowed researchers to compare structural changes in the participants’ brain, after a season of play.

    Significant changes were found in deeper tissues of the brain involved in the transmission of electrical nerve signals (white matter regions) in 106 of the 145 (73%) participants in the no-Collar group, while no significant changes in these regions were found in 107 of the 139 (77%) of the group who wore the Q Collar. These differences appear to indicate protection of the brain associated with device use. No significant adverse events were associated with device use.

     

     

    • Like 1

  7. On 3/14/2023 at 8:31 AM, clarkiestooth said:

    Me either, but I think it's a real stretch. Woodpeckers have dozens of adaptations that prevent concussions. "Off the top of my head"', some of the bigger differences are a thick cartilage between the skull and brain, and a a tongue that wraps around the brain and actually pulls its tiny brain in the opposite direction of the impact. In comparison, the human brain is a large hunk of jello floating in a liquid (CSF).  As I said, the theory behind this is a stretch.

    You don't judge theories, you test them and assess the evidence vs. the claims.  It's how every medical device in existence is cleared.


  8. The step ups would be great, especially if you can move the box to somewhere there is something you can grab onto if needed, like another piece of upright equipment (power rack or similar).

    Don't underestimate the steady state stuff for overall health, there are some strong guys who advocate lots of walking (for recovery but also for lower back health).

    And lastly, rotate through those other machines.  If they are selectorized vs. plate-loaded that's going to be best I would assume for you.

    I look at it this way, even if the workouts aren't the ideal you would be able to do with two good wings, the choice between being as active as possible and recovering on the couch is an easy one.  I have a bunch of nagging things going on (49 years old) and the one thing my ART guy tells me is "keep moving".  Learn to train around things.  The worst thing you can do at our age 😄 is just sit still waiting for things to get better.

    • Like 1

  9. Did anyone look at their studies or data?  Pretty legit people involved in its development both from the medical side and product side.  I've worked with one of the developers former companies and they are as legit an NPD company as I have ever worked with, and I have worked with many in both medical device development and non-medical.


  10. The problem being, and it happens a lot, is that they are trying to be cute and engineery.  The only thing that matters to the end user is how much they can actually bend a stick at a given length and how that bend impacts their shot (primarily).  People use the word flex.  Just because they measure their rating at 1m and claim the flex doesn't change there (a true claim) doesn't really matter, because what we care about is how the stick behaves when the distance between the top hand and the blade on the ice changes- it gets stiffer if you reduce that distance from the original length.

    Bringing an engineer onto a video is stupid.  There is a reason that when I put an engineer in front of a customer there is a very detailed briefing with them before (not a knock on engineers, I used to be one). 

    • Like 1

  11. 10 hours ago, puckpilot said:

    Flex rating is a property of the material the stick is made from. It's like looking at the load bearing weight of something made of bamboo or iron. Making smaller pieces of those things doesn't change that property. So doing mental gymnastics trying to do calculations about what a sticks flex rating will be after you take a couple of inches off is not a good way to think about things. It can lead to confusion.

    For example, if you take two Bauer Vapor sticks both 85 flex, but one comes stock at 60". and the other comes stock at 63". If you think of flex as changing, then if you take 3 inches off the second stick, depending on what rate of change you're using, it should be somewhere around 100 flex. So how is it the first stick is still an 85 flex but the second stick is now 100 flex? In reality, they're both the exact same, an 85 flex stick that's 60" tall.

    When one thinks of flex as immutable, things become simpler. We all generally have a preferred stick height, so we can think of that as immutable, to. So now when we look for the right stick flex for us, we simply look at what our current flex is, and choose higher or lower as desired instead of doing unnecessary calculations. But if we do want to change the length of our stick, it's simply a change in the amount of leverage we have. 

     

     

    My only confusion is how people get so confused over this, it's about as simple as it gets.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  12. 9 minutes ago, xstartxtodayx said:

    yea, but in the grand scheme of things, cutting 3-4" off a stick is not going to make a noticeable different for 99.9999% of users and if they say it does I call BS.  Where you place your bottom hand will also play a part in the bend/flex and during the course of a game you prob won't have that hand in the exact same position for every shot. 

    So what I'm saying is the OP (and many of us) are putting way too much thought into the minute difference of a stick's flex after trimming a few inches off the top.  I think the OP just needs to experiment with some different brands and kickpoints to find something that feels good to him, there really is no right/wrong stick for a person, just a matter of preference.

    Yeah, but if not for putting way too much thought into equipment minutiae, this place would be a ghost town! 😄

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

  13. 50 minutes ago, jmaister said:

    Do you lean on the edge of the skates? That's why comfort edge is preferred by some?

     

    And yes, foot work. There is little no visual instruction as far as searches go.

    How much the top of the skate where the comfort edge comes into contact with your leg is more a matter of your anatomy and the construction of the boot.  I don't think of leaning on the top of the skate at all, more the side of the boot with my foot I guess.


  14. Not entirely clear what you are asking but:

    What does, "prop the boot on your calf" mean?

    Outside edge, forward turns the weight is driven through the back part of the foot, outside edge, backwards you are using more of the forefoot.

    The ankles need to roll to get on edges, which is why you need some mobility there, not only forward but laterally as well.  

    Figure skating is great for edge work, but also keep in mind their maneuvers are different, and done in a different posture.


  15. 43 minutes ago, pgeorgan said:

    That's one singular comment about one singular issue. I stand by that comment. 

    Go into a Pure Hockey and check out the True-branded Brannock device. It did not recommend I go with the size MSH recommended. Posters have even said as much that True stuck by their original TF9 sizing. 

    Sorry you don't like it. 

    Dude, just drop it.  You are obviously thin-skinned and get all bent out of shape when people challenge your arguments.


  16. 18 hours ago, VegasHockey said:

    I would say 95% or more players do not use that area and only use the "working area" on the steel. However, there are about 5% of elite level players that do in fact use that portion of the steel.

    Some skating coaches, like Katy Jo for example, are really focused on trying to get players up on their toes. I think many of these skating coaches who are teaching this were previously figure skaters, so I have mixed feelings about such. 

    Who is using the last 8mm of steel and what are they using it for?  You would be almost vertical.  I always thought of Katy Jo as good at marketing.  Maybe it's lost in translation but a couple of her ideas seem a bit off- no pushing to the side, stopping on the flats of your blade vs. your edges.  There are plenty of successful high level skating coaches with figure skating backgrounds.

×
×
  • Create New...