How We Got Our First Sprint Relays to State in Program History

By: Coach Robert Dunn, Taylorville High School (IL)

Summary

In just three seasons, Coach Robert Dunn led Taylorville High School’s girls sprint relays from humble beginnings to record-breaking state qualifiers – making program history along the way. This article details how this transformation was brought about by building a culture of fun and speed, data-driven practices, and a program-wide sense of belief. From adopting “Feed the Cats” methods to redefining warm-ups and recovery, Coach Dunn breaks down how his athletes progressed from missing state by fractions of a second to becoming one of Illinois’ fastest sprint relays.

Introduction

When I took over the track & field program at Taylorville High School three years ago, I had a vision—but no guarantees. The seniors who just finished their season were only sophomores back then. I knew they had potential. The question was: how could I unlock it?

This is the story of how we built our first-ever sprint relay teams to qualify for state—and the steps we took along the way that made it happen. Our school did qualify a sprint medley in 1997-98, though that is no longer an event.

Year 1: Trusting the Process

Like many sprint coaches, I’ve been deeply influenced by Tony Holler’s “Feed the Cats” philosophy. Ironically, I only ran track for two years myself—in middle school and high school—before quitting. I was a decent sprinter, but endless warm-up laps, stairs, and jogging circuits drained the joy out of the sport for me. And was I getting faster? Not really.

After a decade away from the sport, I dipped back in as a middle school coach and found Holler’s system. It made sense. So when I took over the high school program the following year, I brought that same approach with me.

We started simple: flying 10-meter sprints, recorded and tracked. That first year, not one girl on the team broke 18 mph. Our top speed was 17.7 mph. It would’ve been easy to get discouraged, but we stuck to the plan. We emphasized quality over quantity, speed over conditioning, and data over guesswork.

We emphasized quality over quantity, speed over conditioning, and data over guesswork, says @Dunn_15 Share on X

The season before I took over, the fastest 4×100 was 55.04 seconds. That team included two girls who would later become key seniors – it was their sophomore year.

The 4×200 also included two future state qualifiers. Their best time was 1:54.54.

Comparing their 10m fly times to their performances in the relays, I knew we had a lot of untapped potential. By the end of my first indoor season, we ran 1:55.20 – a new school record at the time – and nearly matched our best outdoor time from the previous year. Once I started noticing time drops and comparing from the year before, I really knew the 10m flies, off days, and plyometrics were working.

Once outdoor season arrived, we knew there would be an automatic time drop. With three blind handoffs, the sun, and fewer curves to run, it was sure to be faster – but by how much? The team went from 1:55 to 1:50.07 (school record at the time). This was not state qualifying but we had high hopes for the following season, as that team was made up of two sophomores and two juniors that we would return.

Our 4×100 team that had run 55.04 the year prior dropped to :52.36. This group was headed by our core three plus one junior. While it still fell short of qualifying for state, we made a huge improvement.

By the end of the season, we broke the indoor and outdoor 4x200m records. In total, four school records fell that year. We were building momentum. We sent athletes to state in four events. (high jump, pole vault, 4×400, 800).

Year 2: Right There, But Not Quite

In our second season, we hit our stride. The 4x200m team broke both indoor and outdoor records again. Our top girls were now running near 21 mph.

In year two, I was ready to go and excited to see how our numbers would grow not only on the track but the roster. With the success and different practice approach, I figured we would gain new athletes. We increased our roster from 29 year one to 36 year two, which gave our team more depth. This allowed us to compete in almost every event and be competitive. We had set big goals to send more girls to state and try to win our conference, a feat which had never been done before.

Indoor season we again broke the 4×200 multiple times. That year we finished with a 1:52.93. This meant we had gone from 2:02 to 1:55 my first year and already down to 1:52.93 to finish indoor season in year two.. This was great momentum heading into the outdoor season. Of course this relay had the core three, now juniors and one senior. It was nice to see a ten second drop in a two year span regardless of training beliefs. The girls were really starting to see what we were doing in practice working.

This season, we incorporated a freelap starter cone. This allowed us to really time starts and work on acceleration without doing any type of run in. In year one we did not work much acceleration, just top speed. Top speed was the priority but we started timing the 20m sprint out of blocks. Unsurprisingly, our girls with the fastest top speeds also had the best accelerations. That being said, by mixing in some acceleration work and exercises like “perfect calf raises” or wall isometrics from Chris Korfist, we saw improvements with both max speed and acceleration that made us more well-rounded sprinters..

Outdoors we had only one mission, GET TO STATE. Our senior referenced in the indoor record suffered a stress fracture playing in an all-star basketball game. So her season was over. This was tough because she was first or second fastest on the team but I knew we had the girls to get the job done. We didn’t necessarily replace her, as we had been rotating the five total athletes in the relay. We just had to find a new alternate.

We consistently hit state-qualifying times in the 4x200m relay. But at sectionals, brutal weather cost us our shot. We missed state by less than half a second. It was devastating for the girls—and for me. But it lit a fire in all of us. Their senior year was going to be different. As I type this, I still have the splits on my phone to remind me that I should have been a better coach and helped them run faster. I was not mad at them at all. I was mad at myself, because I should have been better. It hurt to see my athletes upset and crying because we knew how close we were. To make matters worse we had two of those girls on our 4×400 team who also missed state by less than a second in the same night.

Image: 4x200m Girls at state

Year 3: It All Comes Together

2025 was the breakthrough.

We shattered seven school records—five of them sprint-related (60m, indoor 200m, indoor 4x200m, 4x100m, 4x200m). Our 4x200m indoor team qualified for the Illinois indoor state meet—a massive achievement, considering only the top 16 times in the state make it. We finished 12th overall: the first sprint relay in school history to reach that level.

How did we break three indoor records in this one season? We regularly used all of the following exercises to prioritize speed, health, and performance.

• Continued to use the different freelap cones to build speed
• Used spring ankle iso, with the goal being to build up to a minute
• Perform chuck berry walks, banded and non banded
• “Knee past knee” Green band around the ankle and pull it backwards/forwards This can be done with an athlete holding onto something if needed. Better without.

This is one of the different “knee past knee” variations. This video is from a Chris Korfist TFC Presentation, 2024.

• Banded psoas drives. Same as “knee past knee,” however the band is now on the ankle and the knee is driving forward and up.

This video shows an athlete performing the psoas drive. The psoas is a very important muscle for sprinting but is very hard to work in practice. Drill learned from Chris Koirfist.

That is what we did as a team 90% of our practices for the indoor season. This led to our best indoor season.

Then the outdoor season came, and the momentum carried over. We broke school records at 11 outdoor meets. As a team we qualified athletes to state in six events, which of course was a school record (100, 4×1, 4×2, shot, discus, and 3200m). By the time we headed to state, our 4x200m relay was ranked 10th in Illinois. Oh and by the way, there are now eight girls running over 18 mph and five over 18.5 mph. Huge improvements from year one!

As we were preparing for the outdoor season, we knew we had big goals ahead after the way we finished indoor season. With all of the indoor records we broke and where we ranked in state we knew we had a chance to qualify multiple athletes from the state track meet. We started the outdoor season with our 4×2 dropping three seconds from our indoor time, which is to be expected as it’s an automatic time drop going from indoor to outdoor. It was such a relief because it was already state qualifying time and we still had two months to go until the state track meet. We knew we had to fix some steps in our handoffs, but we were excited to say the least. As the season went on, we continued to drop time, figure out our steps and continue to break the school record time and time again. However, at the Mattoon invitational, we had three horrible handoffs and we dropped over a second and set the invite record. Even we were surprised by the result, but it showed how far we’d come. We placed first, set both an invite record and a school record – all with three terrible handoffs. That’s when we knew we had something special. We ran 1:46.89 – our first time breaking under the 1:47 mark. We were excited, but we knew that we had to improve if we wanted to be more comfortable heading into sectionals. Honestly, we did not make any big changes, maybe moved our steps in a step or two other than that. Everything else was fine. A few weeks later we headed to sectionals ranked first and we knew we would have great competition going up against Teleno Unity, Mattoon, and Mount Zion. At sectionals we ran another school record 1:45.72. The second place team was over one second behind us. This gave me and the girls a boost of confidence as if we knew we had a chance to medal at state. Going into the state track meet, we were ranked 10th overall for Illinois. At the state meet, the top nine teams advance from Friday’s prelims to and run in Saturday’s finals. We were in the last heat ranked second in our heat behind the fastest team in the state. That didn’t mean much for our girls since they weren’t able to know the bubble time at that moment. As coaches, we knew the bubble time at the state meet that day was 1:44.3. That was over a second faster than our PR, but if I had to pick a group of girls to rise to the challenge, it would be these girls. We ended up getting second in our heat, which was expected, and we ran 1:45.01. This was another school record, and it was our fastest time of the season. However, this was only good for 11th overall in prelims. Looking back at the last five seasons, that would have gotten us to the finals three times – two of those years we’d have finished in the top five. This was devastating for me to look at because I know how special this group is and how fast we have gotten over the last three seasons. I ultimately take the blame for this. I wish I could have done more as a coach to help develop them and prepare them for the moment. Overall, it was a great ride with the core three. I told them and our other four seniors, “We rewrote history.”

Our goal in the 4×100 was to break a record that was set in 1983 the year before but we could never do it. The time was 51.6 seconds. We could never get under 52. So we knew this year was the year. Of course we were able to break it. This team included our core three alongside a sophomore who came out of the blocks to run the opening leg for us. As the season went on, we continued to mess up our last handoff to our anchor, so we had to make a change. We decided to swap our last handoff to an undersweep handoff. This is a variation of a traditional blind handoff where the incoming runner handing the baton puts it by the receiving athlete’s thigh and yells “rock” to signal the handoff. From the first time we tried it at practice, we knew it would work. Throughout the rest of the season, we had no other issues with that handoff. This strategy wasn’t conventional. It was honestly the first time I had seen a different handoff within a relay team. However, if it works, it works. At sectionals, we placed 2nd, qualifying for state running 49.79. We were ranked 22nd in the state. We are so happy about this, but we knew our 4×2 would be our best shot of getting the finals. At the state track meet we ended up finishing 22nd, our exact ranking. Our time was a little slower than it was at sectionals, but we couldn’t be upset. This was the first time in school history 4×1 has run at the state track meet.

Image: 4x100m Girls after qualifying for state

What We Did Differently

We tried to measure some type of jump or sprint every practice. It gets the athletes used to performing and something to look forward to. This was a great success, says @Dunn_15 Share on X

Here’s what we focused on over those three years that made the difference:

• Sprint with intent: No tempo runs. Every rep was timed.

Sprints varied from 10m fly, 20m fly, 30m fly, 20m sprint, and 10m fly out of blocks with 15 yard run in. We used Google Sheets to keep track of PRs and records. It was nice to see the season to season jump.

• No warm-up laps: We warmed up with purpose, not tradition.

Our sprinters did not run a single warmup lap at practice during this three year span. They simply aren’t needed. In my opinion, they just waste time and energy. Some athletes did not like it at first, but now they would all complain if we brought them back.

• Rest matters: We gave recovery days regularly.

Tried to give at least two days off a week. So some weeks it was Saturday and Sunday. Some weeks it was Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. Some of my sprinters were jumpers so they may come in to do light jumps on those days while the other sprinters were completely off.

• Track what matters: We measured jumps and sprint speed throughout the year.

We tried to measure some type of jump or sprint every practice. It gets the athletes used to performing and something to look forward to. This was a great success.

• Fuel the athlete: Athletes were encouraged to eat between events.

Before almost every away meet, we would get Jimmy John’s or something to eat for the athletes. They would eat it on the bus. And then at the track meet, we encourage them to eat. We would provide snacks for them. I would find myself spending $40-$50 at Walmart before each meet. Even if they didn’t really like to eat in between events, we had hydration packs or apple sauces and those seem to work great for them. Most of our top end athletes had to be in three or four events so this worked great.

• Sprint volume control: We never ran more than a 200m in practice at once.

Typically, our athletes would be sprinting a total of 70 to 80 meters at a practice. However, on our hard days, we would do a 27 second drill where our girls would sprint as far as they could for 27 seconds. The average was about 175 m per rep and we would do that twice. We did have multiple girls reach over 190 and one athlete reach 200m. Athletes won’t be able to give their best effort and I honestly don’t see much benefit from sprinting more than what we did.

• Recovery tech: We used Firefly bands post-meet/practice.

This past season we started using the Firefly recovery bands. We had a few athletes with some minor injuries and wanted anything to make them feel better. I would have athletes take them home and use them both the night before meets and also in between events. My top and athletes seem to like them a lot and we saw some positive results. We will continue to use these from here on out.

• Unconventional drills: Water bags were part of our sprint mechanics work.

Learned from Coach Fichter and Coach Korfist water bags can be very valuable. I would have athletes sprint with them on their back or do different drills. This would help hip work, feet, core and balance. Logistically, I had to reserve the water bags for our top performing athletes, though I would have loved for everyone to have used them if we had enough to go around.

• Keep it short: Our warm-ups were quick. Practice lasted about an hour.

We normally started practice with a quick discussion because I don’t teach the same building as my athletes so I would never see them throughout the day. And then we would go straight into either our speed drills or take our shoes off and work some isometrics. This is simple and effective. An easy way to get athletes engaged and starting practice off is the correct way.

• Share talent: Jumpers were shared with the sprint group when needed.

Within my program, most of our sprinters are also jumpers. However, I believe that sprinting is the foundation of everything, so they would spend a lot of time with me in the preseason and then as a season goes along, they would spend more time at jumps. Granted, they were still required to sprint at least twice a week with me. If we had more athletes, we would likely split them up to make things a lot easier, but we have to be flexible.

• Train strength smartly: We implemented isometric holds and tension-based work.

We just added some simple isometrics to our program. With the split squat iso, our goal was to get up to at least a minute. A few other ones that we implemented were just a calf raise and a calf raise with a knee pushing into the wall as well.

• Test and tweak: We tried different handoff styles to find what worked.

As stated before, our 4×1 team used traditional blind handoffs plus the undersweep variation to our anchor. This is not common, but sometimes you just have to know what works best for your specific athletes. I still don’t know what handoff is the best or the fastest. It can vary from 4×1 or 4×2. Currently, we are all blind in the 4×1 and 4×2 plus that one underweep handoff.

Final Thoughts

Track & field success isn’t just about talent—it’s about belief, data, recovery, and consistency. I’m proud of the culture we’ve built, and even more proud of the athletes who trusted the process. I also have to thank my assistant coach, Coach Koniak, who helps out in many areas such as wish jumps and our distance crew. We routinely have 30 or more athletes at practice and we find ways to make it work. He has been a great mentor for me.

I’m excited for the future of our program. We aren’t just breaking records. We’re changing expectations.

Track & field success isn’t just about talent—it’s about belief, data, recovery, and consistency, says @Dunn_15 Share on X

Science, Dogma, and Effective Practice in S&C

By Andrew Langford

Summary

This article explores the intersection of science, cognitive biases, and practical application in the field of strength and conditioning (S&C). It discusses the limitations of human perception and reasoning, the role of scientific principles in reducing bias, and the dangers of pseudoscience and dogma in the profession. By drawing on analogies and real-world examples, it encourages practitioners to adopt a rational, evidence-informed approach grounded in physiology and sound training principles. The piece concludes by emphasizing the importance of foundational scientific knowledge, critical thinking, and experiential learning in developing effective and ethical S&C practice.

Introduction

The practice of strength and conditioning presents us with a challenge. We must navigate the difficult path between understanding and utilising current facts and training methodologies, while recognising that much of what we do has no evidence base in the given population or specific environment we are working in.

For instance, a training program that effectively increases maximum strength in a group of collegiate football athletes may have limited transferability when applied to youth basketball players or elderly populations. Individual variations in training response, due to age, sport demands, physiology, and recovery, highlight the importance of interpreting specific evidence in context, rather than universally.

So how do we overcome such a conundrum? In this article, we will explore the common issues and propose a theoretical framework for best practice in the profession.

Human Fallibilities

“Our brains were designed to understand hunting and gathering, mating and child-rearing: a world of medium-sized objects moving in three dimensions at medium speeds.” This quote by Richard Dawkins beautifully summarises the inherent limitations built into us humans.

While the human body is fantastically, intricately, and complexly adapted for life on Earth, by its very nature it has difficulties fully understanding all aspects of the world.

Adaptation has built into us rules-of-thumb, or heuristics, that enable us to function more efficiently in the world. We are able to take in vast quantities of information through our senses and create a model of the world that allows us to operate relatively effectively, with little perceived effort.

For example, our stereoscopic vision receives photons from the outside world which stimulate neurons, and the brain then converts these signals into what we perceive as images. We don’t have to consciously think about synthesising the different images from each eye or filling in the gaps created by our blind spots. Instead, our brain automatically pieces together the information and presents us with a detailed representation, or model, of the world.

Most of the time, this is amazingly accurate and allows us to operate effectively. However, it’s not perfect. Consider, for example, the visual illusions we can observe, such as the Necker Cube. This simple drawing of two cubes almost magically seems to jump between different orientations. You can find many brilliant examples of these illusions online, all demonstrating how easily our visual senses can be deceived.

But what does this have to do with S&C?

Well, unfortunately—but perhaps unsurprisingly—our visual system is not the only aspect that can deceive us. The human brain is filled with cognitive biases that greatly affect our decision-making. The work of Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues has detailed many of these biases and their effects, a number of which directly influence our effectiveness as S&C practitioners.

Below are several key biases from Kahneman’s work relevant to S&C practitioners, with brief explanations of their importance:

• Availability Bias: People overestimate the likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind.

For example, an S&C practitioner might overemphasise exercises or methods that have become popular and frequently appear on social media, forgetting about better evidence-based alternatives.

• Anchoring Bias: Initial information disproportionately influences decisions, even if irrelevant.

When assessing an athlete’s goals, the practitioner might anchor on a metric that the athlete mentions (e.g. to squat 400 Ibs) instead of considering the actual performance benefit of such an outcome.

• Confirmation Bias: Seeking or interpreting information to confirm pre-existing beliefs.

A practitioner might favour training methods they’re familiar with (e.g., Olympic lifting) and dismiss evidence supporting other approaches (e.g., loaded jumps and plyometrics) that could benefit the athlete more.

• Overconfidence Bias: Overestimating one’s knowledge or ability to predict outcomes.

An S&C coach might assume they can accurately predict an athlete’s progress or injury risk based on a flawed or incomplete model, leading to ineffective programming.

• Loss Aversion: People prioritise avoiding losses over future potential gains.

Sports coaches may resist changing ineffective routines because they fear losing current progress, even if a new program offers greater benefits. Practitioners need to address this fear with evidence to promote better outcomes.

The Value of Science

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

Science is not just the facts that we know about the world. While these are of course important, equally important are the principles and values of science. The whole point of science, and the reason it is rightly elevated above other ‘ways of knowing’, is that it attempts to eliminate bias. Science attempts to discover what is really true.

The scientific enterprise is therefore structured to ensure that bias does not creep into our findings and decision-making. The scientific method is designed to guard against self-deception, against being misled by beliefs that are mere traditions, dogmas passed down, or assertions by authority. In other words, it protects against subjectivism.

This is why, in research, we ideally use double-blind trials. This is why we use peer-review in academic publication. And this is why we use control groups and advanced statistical methods for assessment.

This rigorous approach is how we gather reliable facts about the world. Based on these, we can employ critical thinking, logic, rationality, and reason to make inferences about novel situations.

It is true that science is sometimes criticised for being wrong or misleading, but this generally comes down to bad science, not science itself.

The scientific method is designed to guard against self-deception, against being misled by beliefs that are mere traditions, dogmas passed down, or assertions by authority. In other words, it protects against subjectivism, says… Share on X

The Threat of Pseudoscience and Dogma

One of the ways science gets misused is through the propagation of pseudoscience. This occurs when principles or facts from science are dubiously extrapolated to imply something unsupported. If this were merely a hypothesis, it would be open to testing and not necessarily problematic. But it becomes more insidious when pushed as 100% true, especially when complicated scientific concepts obscure what is actually happening.

A common example is the misuse of quantum theory, erroneously applied to unrelated areas using complicated quantum language to misleadingly explain them.

We see similar phenomena in sports performance all the time. A new training methodology, supplement, or device is proposed that promises seemingly magical benefits. The company proposing it then markets it as objective fact, quickly gaining a cult following that further propagates the myth.

Consider the rapid growth of whole-body vibration (WBV) training equipment in the early 2000s. Companies marketed these devices with unsubstantiated claims, such as “accelerated muscle activation,” “enhanced bone density,” and “equivalent strength gains to traditional resistance training in half the time.” The marketing materials were filled with pseudoscientific terminology about “reflexive muscle contractions” and “gravitational loading amplification.”

The proposed mechanism seemed vaguely plausible to those with a limited physiology background, and some early studies showed small acute increases in EMG activity during vibration exposure, which companies jumped on as proof of effectiveness.

However, when critically evaluated using our scientific principles, we soon notice it doesn’t all add up. The stretch reflex operates on a different time scale and mechanism than voluntary strength development. The high-frequency, low-amplitude contractions induced by vibrations have little resemblance to the coordinated, high-force contractions required for athletic performance. And when researchers conducted longer-term studies comparing WBV to traditional resistance training, the vibration groups consistently showed inferior strength and power gains.

Yet WBV gained widespread adoption in professional sport and fitness facilities, driven by the appeal of “high-tech” solutions and the promise of time-efficient training. Practitioners who might have been skeptical of other recovery modalities readily accepted vibration training because it seemed to align with established training principles, despite lacking robust evidence for performance enhancement.

This demonstrates how pseudoscience can infiltrate S&C when we fall for some of the previously mentioned biases inherent in humans.

A useful heuristic to apply to any hypothesis is that extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Based on Hume’s argument, when we have a strong underlying theory and rationale, we might accept a claim with modest evidence. However, if the claim contradicts current scientific understanding, we must demand much stronger evidence. This principle also aligns closely with Bayesian reasoning, providing a mathematical/statistical formulation that reflects this logic, and is often used in scientific research.

Much of what we see in the commercial fitness sphere strongly falls within the realm of pseudoscience. But I also fear that much of what we have adopted as standard practice in S&C may also be subject, although to a lesser extent, to this kind of dogma. For example, are Olympic lifts truly vastly superior to other training methodologies, or has the dogma become so embedded that questioning it is now almost heresy?

Cannonballs and Guided Missiles

I often like to present topics to practitioners in novel ways, as I find this to be the most effective tool to stimulate new thought. A good example of this is how we think about programming, and ultimately why effective programming is important. This is where my analogy of cannonballs and guided missiles comes in.

Cannonballs are projectiles designed to perform the task of hitting a target. Being a simple, round object that is crudely fired in the general direction of a target, its success is fairly limited.

A guided missile, on the other hand, is a finely-tuned and programmed projectile that can intricately weave and dart through the air, homing in on its eventual target.

As we know, guided missiles are far more effective at hitting the target.

We can use this analogy to think about the purpose and effectiveness of programming in S&C. If we choose to use a generic, cookie-cutter approach to programming, we are effectively employing the cannonball approach. The programme may work to some extent, but its overall effectiveness is limited.

In comparison, if we craft the programme to cater to the individual athlete and the given circumstances, we can vastly improve its effectiveness. Using this guided missile approach, we can fine-tune the exercises, sets, reps, and intensities to dynamically respond to the athlete and current environment.

More precisely, we are constantly assessing and refining which adaptation we need to work on, and how our programme is going to elicit a purposeful outcome. This approach subtly shifts the emphasis for the practitioner away from thinking too much about what the ideal programme should look like and how it meets the typical expectations of sports or textbooks. Instead, the focus becomes the adaptation.

The Adaptation’s Eye View: Unweaving Athletic Performance

Strength and conditioning has developed to the point where whole textbooks are written about how to programme for a given sport or activity. Complex programming and periodisation models are presented, often assuming inherent superiority over other methods. Perhaps more confusingly, there are now hundreds of technological tools that practitioners can utilise, each with hundreds of their own metrics to analyse performance. The problem with this is that practitioners can become blinded by the metrics. The majority of the measures that we are able to collect with technological tools are outcome measures that don’t tell us much about how those outcomes are actually being produced by the body.

Consider, for example, using force plates to obtain the rate of force development from an Olympic lift. We have no direct insight into what specific aspect of physiology is producing the outcome measure. We know that it is a complex summation of muscle actions, including concentric, eccentric, and isometric contractions of the calves, quads, hamstrings, and glutes, as well as upper body musculature.

What we need to do as practitioners is break things down into what specific physiological quality is being stressed, and therefore, what adaptation is likely to occur.

For example, if we want to achieve a very high rate of force development (RFD), we can do so through a variety of methods, including the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), Olympic lifts, drop jumps, and other plyometrics. However, each of these methods achieves RFD through different physiological mechanisms.

For example, in a vertical jump: if one athlete achieves a height of 40 cm with a concentric-only squat jump, and another athlete achieves the same height on a drop jump, this would tell us very different things about the underlying physiological qualities.

We should therefore strive to analyse all movements and outcomes in terms of their foundational physiological qualities, which will then give us clues as to what adaptations they will cause and what exercises, sets, and reps may best achieve a given long-term goal.

Over time, an athlete thus becomes a statistical description of the demands placed upon them. To be sure this is true, consider the following experiment. Take 10 athletes and randomly assign them to two different training methodologies:

• One for maximum force production.
• One for aerobic capacity.

If we test the athletes before and after the intervention, we can be fairly confident that the athletes who received the max force training will have improved the function of their high-threshold motor units, whereas the aerobic training group will have improved their mitochondrial density.

This knowledge gives us the rationale for why we must view all of our training interventions primarily in terms of the adaptation we hope to elicit. If we cannot be sure of what our desired adaptation and associated performance outcome will be, then we probably should not be programming it.

...there are now hundreds of technological tools that practitioners can utilise, each with hundreds of their own metrics to analyse performance. The problem with this is that practitioners can become blinded by the metrics, says… Share on X

Effective Modelling and Reductionism

Reductionism is often used as a derogatory term to criticise the use of science. It is a term often used to imply that all we want to do as scientists is break things down further and further into their constituent parts, and then explain complex wholes purely through these isolated components.

Of course, if we take this approach simplistically, we will quickly find that it does not give us the answers we are looking for. And so, the argument against the scientific enterprise appears to gain strength. However, nowhere within the principles of reductionism does it state that we must view things purely as the simple sum of their parts. Indeed, the beauty of effective science is to be able to break things down into their elements and then figure out the complex summation required to put them back together into a meaningful whole.

Viewed in this way, we should always aim to break things down into their constituent parts and then explain the whole in terms of how these parts interact: not simply as the sum of these parts.

The more complex the system we are analysing, the more challenging it becomes to piece the parts back together effectively. But that does not make it an aimless or fruitless task. On the contrary, this is the essence of effective modelling.

As with all models, our outcomes are only as good as the data we input. No matter how sophisticated or elegant the model, if we don’t use it wisely, the information it provides won’t be useful. It is therefore essential that whenever we are assessing something in S&C, we are mindful of what we are testing, and why we are testing it. We must shield ourselves from bias and ensure that our data collection methodologies are valid and reliable.

As S&C practitioners, everything we do is based on creating models. We analyse the sport, the athlete, the needs, and the goals, and then develop an associated intervention to suit those demands. Ultimately, the usefulness of any model is measured by its ability to make accurate predictions of the future. In S&C, this means making a prediction about how the athlete will develop.

In any real-world situation, this forecasting approach is inherently difficult. As we know from the example of weather forecasting, which is famously unreliable, so too are predictions about injury or sports performance outcomes. However, the more focused our desired outcome is—such as for a specific adaptation we hope to elicit—the more accurate our predictions can become.

For example, if we design a programme to increase maximal force output of the quadriceps and glutes, we could reasonably predict an increase in 1RM squat or IMTP performance. However, if we then infer that this will translate into an increase in striking power during a football kick, or long jump distance, our prediction becomes far less certain, as more interacting variables are now involved.

We must shield ourselves from bias and ensure that our data collection methodologies are valid and reliable, says @Langford_Andrew Share on X

Navigating the Path of the Effective Practitioner: False Positives vs False Negatives

So, what is the best way to be an effective S&C practitioner?

My thesis is that—given the inherent subjective biases in humans—we need to utilise the facts, principles, and values of science in order to navigate the complex terrain of athletic performance.

To use the terminology of the statistician, we can consider ourselves as seeking the right balance between type 1 and type 2 errors.

• Type 1 errors, or false positives, occur when we think something has occurred, when in fact it hasn’t.
  For example, consider an athlete who starts wearing compression garments during recovery periods and then sees an improvement in sprint performance. We may jump to the conclusion that the compression garment caused the results, instead of looking at other factors such as natural adaptation to training load, nutritional improvements, or even psychological placebo effects. Without rigorous, controlled evaluation, we risk adopting methods based on coincidental correlations rather than evidence-based causation.
• Type 2 errors, or false negatives, occur when we think something didn’t make a difference when actually it did.
  For instance, consider an athlete following a plyometric training programme to enhance explosive power. If we rely solely on a general performance metric such as sprint time, which doesn’t show immediate improvement due to external factors like fatigue or weather conditions, we might incorrectly conclude that plyometric training was ineffective. Yet, if we had directly measured neuromuscular outcomes such as increased peak power, we might have recognised genuine improvements caused by the intervention. Thus, overly simplistic or inappropriate assessments can lead to dismissing effective methods prematurely.

In essence, if we stray too far towards favouring either false positives or false negatives, our effectiveness as practitioners suffers.

Some situations will likely warrant more of a shift towards one end of the spectrum than others. For example, in a medical setting, we likely want to err on the side of caution, perhaps accepting more false negatives, to ensure that we don’t cause any undue injury or negative side effects.

On the other hand, at the very pinnacle of sport where the smallest of margins can mean the difference between winning and losing, we may have rationale to experiment a small amount with a soundly rationalised methodology that does not yet have research backing.

Of course, we want to know whether something truly works, and whether a particular method of training is effective. But unfortunately, as an applied science, S&C is often stuck in a grey area of ambiguity. For any given situation, we likely will not be able to find a peer-reviewed study telling us whether a particular protocol will work with our athlete in our unique circumstances.

So how do we navigate this?

The first step is to strengthen our foundational knowledge of science. The better our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology, the better we are able to form rationales for how and why exercises and training programmes will cause adaptations to occur, and have specific performance outcomes.

We can then use our scientific principles and values to skeptically and rationally question and assess what we do. Then we can collect data, and analyse and evaluate in an unbiased way, determining whether we have been effective, and what the best future action should be.

This ‘first principles’ approach to S&C, allows us to reduce the limitations of our specific knowledge and inherent biases, and only make assumptions based on evidence and reason. And the more our assumptions are based on objective facts and reason, the less likely we are to go astray.

We also hope that through experience of working with different athletes, and in different environments, we will be able to develop almost an instinctive ability to do this. Indeed, when we see coaches who have decades of experience, it is likely that they either innately are very good at this process, or they have developed the required skills over time (or more likely both).

In today’s modern era, we can learn anything online for free, but inevitably, the ability to decide what information is good, and what information is bad can be a challenge. Additionally, motivation and staying on track can be difficult.

This is where formal education pathways are hugely valuable. A well-structured degree, such as those accredited by the IUSCA, can ensure that these principles and values of science are attained, along with the necessary scientific facts in the underlying sciences.

But as we’ve alluded to, knowledge is only part of the battle to becoming an effective practitioner. We also need experience, and the ability to put this into practice. Good internships and work experience opportunities can provide this. And again, the best degree programs can also do this.

Additionally, the challenge for any S&C practitioner is to develop the intellectual humility to question our own methods while maintaining the confidence to act decisively when needed. This requires us to:

• Continuously update our foundational knowledge in the underlying sciences.
• Create hypotheses based on this knowledge and the values of science.
• Actively seek out evidence, even if it goes against our preferred methods.
• Remain skeptical of extraordinary claims, especially our own.
• Collect meaningful data on our interventions and analyze it honestly.
• Accept that uncertainty is inherent in our field, not a weakness to overcome.

The framework presented in this article: understanding cognitive biases, applying scientific principles, thinking in terms of adaptations, and balancing false positives against false negatives, provides a roadmap for navigating this complexity. But ultimately, the quality of our practice depends on our commitment to ‘good science’ and our willingness to let evidence, rather than dogma, guide our decisions.

In a field where the stakes are high and the answers are often unclear; this approach offers the best path forward for both practitioner and athlete alike.

 

If you have been in the strength and conditioning profession for at least a minute, you’ve most likely heard arguments for and against Cleans, Hang Power Cleans, and other Olympic weightlifting movements and their derivatives. You will hear how good they are for Rate of Force Development, how good they are at helping athletes receive force, and how fun they are to teach and perform. Equally, however, you will also hear how they are hard to teach, dangerous, and not as effective as loaded jumps.

So….pick your side of the fence.

Additionally, if you scroll S&C social media for 45 seconds, you will most likely see at least a dozen videos of Olympic lifting being done—some good reps and some bad ones. But whether it is a CrossFit athlete, an Olympian, or a high-school football team, everyone is doing cleans and showing off their stuff. People know the benefits, how the lifts correlate well to sprinting speed, skating speed, and jump performance. Everyone loves them, everyone seems to do them, and sometimes my athletes do as well (which, then, probably has you confused as to the title of this article).

Do No Harm: Limiting Factors with Oly Lifts

Our Men’s and Women’s Volleyball athletes do a heavy dose of Olympic weightlifting movements all year long. They love it and do the lifts very well. I’ve actually written an article on how I program our Olympic movements with our “Rep-Drop Method” (you can read that article here).

I’ve also started using that method with our Track & Field groups, with a lot of success over this past season. BUT…almost no other team I coach does them. Now, with so many benefits that I would want our athletes to have (RFD, speed, power, etc.) why not just get everyone to Olympic lift? (Especially considering that I was a competitive Olympic weightlifter for 5 years, so I know all the movements and how to coach them.)

My opinion is simple—I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze for most of our in-season athletes. You see, Olympic lifts—cleans in particular—require a high level of mobility, technique, and power to execute well and get a benefit. Many of the athletes we see simply do not have the requisite mobility to be able to perform these movements safely. Whether it is from previous wrist injuries or having long forearms, they are just not able to get into the “catch” position for a clean safely.

But, for whatever reason, we have found that almost all of our volleyball players and a large majority of track athletes can get into the positions we need. Could be because volleyball needs really good shoulder and t-spine mobility, so they have that inherently to make them good at their sport? Could be that track doesn’t use their arms as much, so they haven’t been damaged from contact or bracing falls? Honestly, I am not totally sure the reasons, but it is a trend I have seen in our athlete population.

Olympic lifts require a high level of mobility, technique, and power to execute well and get a benefit. Athletes we see simply do not have the requisite mobility to be able to perform these movements safely, says @chergott94. Share on X

In the past, I’ve done tons of mobility drills and stretches, trying to get my athletes into these positions safely—but nothing seemed to work. Then, after examining their anthropometrics (limb lengths), I realized that those who have long forearms simply can’t get into the right position without the bar crushing their windpipe. While my examination works, I should have seen it earlier when I saw these same athletes doing Front Squats in a cross-arm pattern, not a front rack. After all, if you can’t hold a front rack in a squat, chances are you won’t be able to get into it in the blink of an eye to catch the bar in a clean.

Another issue stemming from this lack of mobility is the higher injury risk that comes with it. Whenever you try and fit a square peg into a round hole (i.e., force someone to catch a clean when they don’t have the movement pattern locked in), that greatly increases the risk of something going haywire and busting down the chain, like a wrist or shoulder. My number one job with my athletes is “Do no harm.” For most of our kids, I can get them to do a well-executed squat plus some jumps and sprints to cover what we need—such as rate of force development, fast-twitch muscle fiber usage, and force production in multiple planes of motion—with even less risk of injury.

If you can’t hold a front rack in a squat, chances are you won’t be able to get into it in the blink of an eye to catch the bar in a clean, says @chergott94. Share on X

Sprint, Jump, Throw

Now, many of you might be thinking why not just teach them how to do the lifts over the summer or off-season so they can do them in-season. Agreed. 100%. But the issue with our setting (and many university settings, especially in Canada) is that our kids go home for the summer—meaning, I would be programming cleans for them to try on their own in some big box gym somewhere and hoping that goes well. Yeah, not a great idea.

Which leads me to my latest craze in programming and the main point of this article: Sprint, Jump, Throw.

I know that didn’t just introduce you to any new concepts and this is something you are all doing in some capacity—but over the last year, these simple tools are something I’ve really doubled down on. Knowing that I needed to enhance the transfer of our weight room work, I started to play around with different set and rep schemes, as well as different exercises. Nothing was having the effect I wanted. Why not? Because sport isn’t squatting. It isn’t benching. It isn’t 3×5 or 2×10. It’s sprinting. It’s jumping. It’s throwing (or shooting).

So why not train those more?

Over the last year, I’ve decided to ramp up my focus in those areas. Whereas before I would maybe have sprint exercises 1-2x p/week, a couple jumps and maybe a throwing movement as well, for most of our teams I now program all three each day. We do a sprint, a jump, and a throw each session (2-4x p/week). This gives our athletes exposure to high velocity movements along with the higher force weight training we still do (surfing the force-velocity curve). I believe this approach greatly enhances the transfer of our sessions by getting the athletes to apply their strength and power in movements they actually need to perform in their sport (again, sprints, jumps, and throws).

We do a sprint, a jump, and a throw each session (2-4x p/week). This gives our athletes exposure to high velocity movements along with the higher force weight training we still do, says @chergott94. Share on X

I do have some general classification systems for each of these, just to keep them sorted in my head. I’ve stolen a bunch of ideas from great people like Matt McInnes-Watson and his tier system for plyos, but basically this is how I structure things:

Sprints

In a 3-day program, we will sprint each day right after our warm-up. We do this in our gymnasium, which is adjacent to our weight room, or outdoors (weather permitting). Day One is linear, but with a varied start so they get used to putting themselves in the right sprint position from different start positions. Sports are weird and have you in all sorts of positions, so I want our athletes to be able to “go” from anywhere their sport asks of them. These starts include starting on one knee, starting on your belly, or starts facing the opposite direction of the finish line. Day Two will have a change of direction component in the sprint: could be a simple 45 degree cut, a stop and comeback sprint, or a curved sprint.

Image 1. Reaction Balls.

My goal is to expose the athletes to speeds at various angles that sport demands and make sure they have the necessary movement capability—additionally, I want to expose their feet, ankles, knees, and hips to those game-relevant angles and forces (I steal lots of stuff from the 8-Vector System on this day). For our Day Three speed work, I’ve started to incorporate a reaction component. This includes tennis ball drops, sprinting on a “go” call, or actually using Reaction Balls (see image above). This day involves—by far—the most effort…and is also the most fun. This way, we get linear speed, change of direction, varied starts, and reaction work (plus effort and smiles) all in a single week of work, each and every week.

Figure 1: Sprint program ideas.

Jumps

I won’t go into a deep dive into other people’s work here (i.e., Matt McInnes-Watson), as that is way beyond my brain power. But for me I try to categorize jumps into:

• Single Leg or Double Leg
• Single Effort (i.e., one broad Jump) or multi-response (i.e., double broad jump)
• Linear or Change of Direction (jumping in a straight line or jumping back and forth/in various directions)
• Deep Tier/Slower or Stiff/Springy/Fast
  • Deep Tier—Staying low and bouncing in and out of a low position (like the bottom half of a squat and pulsing up and down).
  • Stiff—Staying tall and trying to have minimal knee/hip bend on each rep.

Within that, you could have a broad jump (double leg, single effort, deep) OR a single leg zig zag pogo (single leg, multi-response, change of direction, stiff). Lots of variety, lots of progressions, lots of fun. To give you a brief insight into our progression model, I always start our athletes with something that is the least complex, like a double leg pogo on a spot. Then, we progress throughout the season in one area. For example, we might move from double leg to single leg, or double leg but then we are moving laterally. Then, we just layer on top one area of complexity at a time as the athletes master the movement and get better at it. There is no sense rushing through progressions if they can’t do the previous ones well.

Figure 2. Jump programming ideas.

Throws

I don’t have as formal of a template for throws. I just try to get some rotation work like rotational tosses, some horizontal work (chest pass), and some vertical work (slams). I will play around with the foot positioning to get a varied effect, but these have the least structure to how I program them. Just grab a ball and let out some frustration!

Some of my favorites are:

• Med Ball Chest (horizontal upper body power).
• Med Ball Slam (vertical upper body power).
• Rotational Throw (rotational power).

Video 1. Med Ball Slams—cue for max intent, “break the floor.”

From these, we can then change up the leg position: for example, from two feet under hips to a staggered stance to taking a step into the throw as the athletes get more competent and are able to master the upper body movement coupled with leg action (which better mimics the coordination demands of sports). I always cue athletes to “break the wall/floor” as the only goal with throws/slams is to move balls as fast as possible. I recommend they use a med ball that feels sort of heavy, but they are still able to move it really fast. Always err on the side of too light rather than too heavy for this.

I always cue athletes to break the wall/floor as the goal with throws & slams is to move the balls as fast as possible. I recommend they use a med ball that feels sort of heavy, but they are still able move it really fast, says… Share on X

While these med ball throws are pretty general, this system keeps it simple while making sure we aren’t just training the same thing over and over. Plus, over the last year this approach has yielded a ton of positive benefits, including:

1. Better testing numbers.
2. Reduction in injuries.
3. A more positive reception of the programs overall.

Gone are the days of athletes asking “Can we do more plyo or speed work in our lift?”—because now they now get a heavier dose of these every time they walk in.

The last and biggest benefit from doing more Sprint, Jump, Throw work in place of Olympic lifts is that it doesn’t take 1-2 weeks to learn the movement, get better at it, get stronger, and then add some weight to get an actual benefit from it, like first time Olympic lifters do. The athletes can get a benefit immediately from sprinting, jumping, and throwing as it is all stuff they know how to do (and can do better than I can demo most of the time too).

Choosing the Right Exercise for the Right Result

While Olympic lifting is a fine way to get faster, gain explosiveness, and learn to receive force, I can get the same adaptation from a method that is simpler and easier to learn. Which, at the end of the day, is what my job is—deliver results/get adaptations. It doesn’t matter what exercise I use, I just need to deliver the goods. Again, this doesn’t mean we don’t clean or snatch, but just that over the last year I’ve shifted away from them more and more, as I have had success with the Sprint, Jump, Throw approach.

While Olympic lifting is a fine way to get faster, gain explosiveness, and learn to receive force, I can get the same adaptation from a method that is simpler and easier to learn., says @chergott94. Share on X

So, if you use cleans and I use sprints, jumps, and throws and both of use get our athletes better…then who cares? As much as I love a good online debate, to me, as long as you are doing your best to serve the people you work with and get them results, you are doing your job. So use cleans, or don’t. Just make your athletes better.

Peace. Gains.

The 1080 Sprint is a powerful tool for measuring and training speed, but as with most equipment, it’s the small details that can make the biggest difference. After using the 1080 Sprint for 6 years, I’ve picked up a few things that aren’t always obvious in the user guide but can make an impact in both the quality of your data and the safety of your athletes.

These lessons came from real sessions, real athletes, and real moments where the numbers didn’t match what my coaching eye was telling me. When the 1080’s Peak Velocity was consistently higher than our GPS readings, it made me question: which number do I trust when giving feedback, and will it hold up next session?

I also started noticing timing inconsistencies when athletes looked their same consistent speed but suddenly “improved” by 0.3 seconds…that is, until I saw the slack in the cord and realised that was skewing the start trigger. I also recognized unique cord-anchoring issues when I began sharing turf training space; meanwhile, every snapped cord told the same story as it always broke where the rope was twisted (not at the carabiner).

These small-but-pivotal moments helped refine how I make best use of the 1080. Based on those experiences, in this article I’ll share four tips that I now rely on in every session. From choosing the right velocity metric for consistent analysis to best practices for setup and safety that will save you time, avoid injury risks, and improve the quality of your sessions:

1. Which velocity metric should you record?
2. Safety first—keep the cord straight.
3. Find the optimal anchor point.
4. Get the first step right for accurate timing.

1. Which Velocity Metric Should You Record?

In working with the 1080 Sprint, one of the first decisions coaches face is choosing which metrics to focus on. To analyse sprint velocity, for example, you can choose from Peak Velocity, Top Speed, and Average Velocity.

For our purposes today, I’m going to talk about Peak Velocity and Top Speed. You may say “aren’t they the same?” And on the surface, the measures may appear interchangeable…but they’re not:

• Peak Velocity is 1080 Sprint’s raw, unfiltered velocity metric.
• Top Speed is their filtered velocity metric.

Back when I first started using the 1080 Sprint, we used the Peak Velocity metric; since that time, however, 1080 Motion began to include Top Speed in their latest software. So, does it really matter which one you take? Put simply, yes! And it comes down to resonance, or the cord whiplash effect (as seen in Video 1 below).

When the cord whips back and forth it can create noise, and this noise can lead to spikes in velocity that are not the true representation of the athlete’s velocity—for this reason, 1080 Motion applies a filter.

Video 1. Cord resonance in linear sprint.

To dive a little bit deeper, I conducted in-house testing with four professional rugby players across a range of resisted sprint conditions—from 15kg at 10 meters down to 1kg at 30 meters—while recording their speed using GPS and the 1080 Sprint. You can see the results, averaged across the four players, in Table 1 and Table 2.

What I found was:

• Top Speed, which is the filtered metric, closely matched the GPS velocities, typically coming in around 2–3% higher.
• By contrast, Peak Velocity, which is unfiltered, showed markedly higher numbers than the GPS values by 8–10%.

Interestingly, I expected the heavier resisted conditions to reduce the cord resonance, which in theory should reduce the gap between unfiltered and filtered velocity readings. That, however, was not the case. In fact, the data showed a slight trend in the opposite direction—as the load decreased, the velocity values between GPS, filtered, and unfiltered readings became more similar. This suggests that cord behaviour and signal smoothing are not improved by heavier resistance, and that resonance variability persists regardless of load.

The take-home message? Use the Top Speed metric when analysing data for more reliable results, especially when comparing across sessions, athletes, or to other tools like GPS.

Use the @1080motion Top Speed metric when analysing data for more reliable results, especially when comparing across sessions, athletes, or to other tools like GPS, says @jonobward. Share on X

2. Safety First—Keep the Cord Straight

When using Gear 2 on the 1080 Sprint—which allows you to impose >15kg of resistance—coaches need to check that the cord isn’t twisted before the athlete’s rep starts. It’s a small detail that doesn’t seem like much of a big deal…until it is.

In Image 1 (above), you can see the cord is twisted. When the athlete runs with the cord twisted, it creates friction that can eventually cause the rope to suddenly snap. I’ve had this happen, and when it does, the athlete doesn’t get a warning: the cord snaps mid-sprint and they end up face planting. I was worried about injuring the guys in training and then having to go tell the Head Coach a player is out for the upcoming weekend game. Not what you want!

Now compare that to Image 2 (below), where the cord is untwisted. That’s what you want to see before every sprint. It only takes a few extra seconds, but checking the cord before each rep—especially when you’re running in Gear 2—should be part of your routine. It’ll save your cord, your budget, and most importantly, your athletes!

It only takes a few extra seconds, but checking the @1080motion cord before each rep should be part of your routine. It’ll save your cord, your budget, and most importantly, your athletes! Share on X

3. Find the Optimal Anchor Point

This tip is also important when using Gear 2. If you’re using a wall attachment to attach the cord to an external anchor point—in my case, a squat rack—make sure that anchor point is only slightly higher than the machine. If it’s attached too high (Image 3) or offset to the side (Image 4), the cord can pull the athlete upwards or sideways, disrupting their sprint mechanics.

Anchor the @1080motion cord low and in line with the 1080 Sprint to minimise the impact the cord placement can have on the sprint, says @jonobward. Share on X

Several of my athletes have said they can’t “get low” when the attachment point is too high, as it pulls them out of position, especially during the early phase of the sprint. When I’m coaching my athletes to rise progressively over the first 5-10m, I don’t want the cord pulling them upright and disrupting their run. My take home message here:

• Anchor the cord low and in line with the 1080 Sprint to minimise the impact the cord placement can have on the sprint (see Image 5 below).

Image 5. Optimal anchor placement with the cord fixed in line with and just above the 1080 Sprint.

4. Get the First Step Right for Accurate Timing

Lastly, coaches collecting data need to be mindful of how their athletes initiate the first steps of their sprint. The 1080 Sprint begins timing once the cord exceeds a velocity of 0.2 m/s. If the athlete takes a step backward before sprinting, they can introduce slack into the cord (see Video 2 below).

Video 2. Starting a sprint with unwanted slack in the cord.

The machine doesn’t start timing until after the slack is taken up—so in the example above, this will make it seem like your athlete was faster out the blocks than they really were, giving an inaccurate sprint time. To avoid this, tell your athletes to drive out and don’t rock back to then drive out.

The @1080motion Sprint begins timing once the cord exceeds a velocity of 0.2 m/s. If the athlete takes a step backward before sprinting, they can introduce slack into the cord, says @jonobward. Share on X

Final Message

The 1080 Sprint is an awesome bit of kit, but like anything, the value is in how you use it. These four tips might seem minor, but over time they make a big difference. Whether it’s picking the right metric, checking the cord, setting the anchor, or cueing that first step, these are habits I’ve built into every session and learned from the field.

If you’re using the 1080 Sprint regularly, make this part of your checklist as you’ll save time, protect your gear, and get much more out of your sessions.

The walk to the Devil’s Loop is loaded with anticipation, with those who show up expecting a circuit of self-inflicted punishment. Though some come to run for pure enjoyment or solitude, others push themselves out of necessity. Their eyes linger on the vivid blue path, almost distracting themselves from the small amount of oxygen they take in with each stride. 

The Devil’s Loop doesn’t get its name from treacherous terrain or excessive heat beating down on your shoes and back; rather, it refers to the toll it takes on your psyche. Tackling the Devil’s Loop doesn’t just test my endurance, it confronts something deeper within me: a constant cycle of self-reflection, pain, and perseverance that feels…never-ending. Every step forward marks the struggle of pushing through doubt, a reminder of the unforgiving loop of suffering and growth. 

To most people, running comes naturally—they do it without a second thought. In my case, the hesitance comes from numerous professionals telling me I couldn’t for half of a year. It feels almost as if there is a stamped stop sign in the folds of my brain telling me not to take that first stride. The mind is a powerful tool—it can be the thing pushing you forward or backward. Having to outrun doubt when that is the very thing holding you back seems almost impossible. 

My​​ body is physically healed, but my mind remembers the pain, the setbacks, and the fear of re-injury. The excruciating pain I felt taking my first step after surgery, the frustration I endured from not progressing fast enough, and the fear I faced, constantly questioning whether I will ever be the same athlete I once was. Training my mind to fully trust my body again is like a wall I am slowly trying to break through. There is a wavering caution where instinct used to be, and echoes of uncertainty blanket my mind. 

Training my mind to fully trust my body again is like a wall I am slowly trying to break through. There is a wavering caution where instinct used to be, and echoes of uncertainty blanket my mind. Share on X

Toeing the track, I remembered sitting in the office of Laura Jones, a faculty member in health sciences and neuroscience. Sunlight shone through the bright, open windows, casting soft shadows on the plants that perfectly colored the room. The cushiony seats across from her desk invited an open conversation, the kind of space that made you want to share your whole life story without hesitation.  

In that moment, Laura described the new instincts of hesitancy creeping in because you can feel your body pulling back…even when you want to move forward. 

“But really, how do we help athletes build new coping skills?” she said, ​​​​her voice soft, with a slight southern accent. “Help athletes become more resilient in the face of struggle, get them connected, and do anything that we can to prevent the exacerbation of any mental struggles?” 

There was something about the way she spoke that made you lean in, not just because of what she was saying, but how she said it. Every phrase was a story worth hearing.  

When talking about self-doubt, she gave me something to hold on to. 

“Imagine yourself being successful,” she said. “Whatever success means to you. If it’s becoming more resilient when running, picture yourself working through that situation and being successful. Imagery is about seeing yourself succeed, however, you define success.” 

Defying Doubt 

I blink. 

I catch myself staring ahead, my torso is already leaning over the starting line. 

​​​Naturally, loop one is the feeling most people remember. No layers to shed yet because the cold is still creeping in—only thoughts of how the next eight laps will feel when my legs start to bear the heavy presence of fatigue, the track starting to feel like drying cement.  

Before I even start my run, I fixate on one question. When my legs begin to cycle, will the hard impact of the ground shoot that familiar pain through my knee? Or…will the first few steps feel effortless, the traction of the track offering comfort, only for the pain to come creeping back in and remind me of my past defeats. I can’t help these thoughts, they come and go as they please. This isn’t any different from when I first started weight-bearing again. I remember knowing I had to take those first steps, forcing myself to have faith that my body will hold me. And then, just like clockwork, I am here again, standing behind the line, the first real sense of normalcy I’ve had in a long time. 

I don’t know how this run will feel or how I’ll push myself through it, or if I will even be strong enough to finish. This uncertainty is terrifying, but at the end of the day, I am on my own.  

That has to be enough. 

I don’t know how this run will feel or how I’ll push myself through it, or if I will even be strong enough to finish. This uncertainty is terrifying, but at the end of the day, I am on my own. Share on X

To distract from these troubling thoughts, I watch a man in a neon green shirt who has been consistent in his regular turns on the track, always showing virtually no emotion when he runs. His pace is nearly a walk, but he moves his arms as if trying to catch the person in front of him. No telling how long he stays after others depart, but he’s always the first and last to leave the loop. 

​​​In the second and third laps, the experience begins to shift, like the start of a never-ending story. My once-pale façade has flushed as my breathing becomes more vigorous, and the ground beneath my feet no longer seems as smooth as it once was. The last turn of the third lap serves as a key reminder that the remainder of the journey will only get more difficult.  

Knowing that I’m showing clear signs of struggle, I see boys in matching black and blue uniforms, carrying baseball bats and gear, casting looks of discernment. With their own season on the rise, the young men share no glances of envy but will surely pay their dues on the loop soon enough. 

Drawing my eye back—refocusing on the task at hand—I push through these laps and realize that this run is its own test…but not the first one I have faced. Before I could drive my legs to run for the first time, I had to rebuild my body from the ground up again. 

Recovery isn’t just about healing your body, it’s about rebuilding. That means molding a stronger version of myself while leaving the old one behind. In the weight room, in the rehab facility, in every painful step I have taken to get to this point. The last time I felt myself first facing a truly taxing workout was when I started strength training again. That was the early stage of my return to play process. I remember the moment I finally stepped up to the rack again, gripped the steel of the barbell, and loaded the plates. Taking that first deep split squat made my body tingle: I filled my lungs with air and braced for the moment I’d have to drive and push the weight back up. 

Recovery isn’t just about healing your body, it’s about rebuilding. That means molding a stronger version of myself while leaving the old one behind. Share on X

Even stepping up and down from a box, a simple movement, became one of the biggest challenges of my day. Those early stages of recovery were their own battle, but also became a source of motivation. Reflecting on where I started—compared to where I stand now—I realize the pattern is the same. I have to keep pushing and moving forward, because I know where I want to go. And I know I can get there. 

By the fourth and fifth laps, I can feel the weight of effort in every muscle—it’s a battle of mind against body, but both sides are losing. The acceleration of my inhales and exhales forces the body to surrender, and unfamiliar sounds escape from exhaustion. A whisper of self-doubt runs through my mind, but other voices push back. I catch a glimpse of my coaches’ shadows along the pavement as I pass by, their presence guiding me through the loop. 

“Get through it and grind,” Coach Andy hollers from my right. 

“Hold yourself accountable,” Coach Bella advocates from my left. 

Taking their words to heart reminds me that this pain has a purpose. This is not about completing the run—it’s about proving to myself I can accomplish anything if I keep going. The way their voices encouraged me forward felt familiar, a memory of another moment in my recovery process. 

A whisper of self-doubt runs through my mind, but other voices push back. This is not about completing the run—it’s about proving to myself I can accomplish anything if I keep going. Share on X

I think back to the first time I stepped into a team lift again. After weeks of training in isolation, that moment felt like a return to something bigger than myself. Plates clattering on the floor, the ringing voices of encouragement heard throughout the gym, it all brought me back to what I had so desperately missed. The first time I walked up to my rack again, I saw the nods, the smiles, the simple acknowledgments that I had fought to see again.  

For a moment, life felt still. 

That day gave me hope. The camaraderie, the shared struggles, the powerful presence of others pushing me harder than ever before. It was a reminder that I was never in this fight alone, and just as before, pushing through these laps, I know I won’t stop. 

I remember sitting in my coaches’ office, their voices stern but encouraging, telling me to set little goals for myself. Once I achieve all those goals, then I will set bigger ones. Even though running is a little goal, it still feels like enemy territory—at any moment, I fear I could be shot down. 

The coaches understand how hard it is being away from my sport. ​​I feel like an outsider, watching instead of having a sense of belonging. During this time of loneliness, being involved in practice in any way is crucial for me. Whether it is acting as a stationary defender for players to practice their moves around, feeding balls into drills, or even counting scores during games, it gives me something to do and keeps me engaged. These small tasks allowed me to stay connected with the team—sitting on the sidelines and watching the action happen without being a part of it can feel isolating. Being active in training, no matter how small the role, can make a big difference in feeling a sense of belonging, even when you feel the most distant. 

Being active in training, no matter how small the role, can make a big difference in feeling a sense of belonging, even when you feel the most distant. Share on X

I know that each step gets me closer to my end goal—to be back on Greenwood field again. 

Suddenly, though, a devil perches on my shoulder, craving defeat…but just as quickly, a light shines through, illuminating perseverance with each heavy stride. I chose the light, brushing off the devil’s temptation to give up, drowning out the outer noise with my own internal voice, over and over, speaking empowering words of affirmation. 

The last stretch of the fifth lap marks the approach of the end. The body yearns for relief from the endless loop. Vision becomes less clear, lost in the rhythm of exhaustion—a man stretching nearly gets toppled, sending a brief jolt of panic through my chest, accelerating it further. He doesn’t seem to mind, offering a quick nod of encouragement to continue. 

A Fight to Finish 

With the end in sight, ​​the sixth and seventh laps merged. There’s a burst of energy that wasn’t expected, but each step brings me closer to relief. The beginning of the end almost feels promised, just like being cleared to lift, to jump, and finally to run with intensity. These have all been checkpoints throughout my journey, each one drawing me closer and closer to the finish line.  

I hear my heart pounding fast, loud, and the hot gasps of air fighting the cold winter wind. Water swells up in my eyes from the striking dry air, the current world blurs around me. 

All at once I’m thirteen again, chasing a ball down the field, trying to outrun the girl beside me. At that age, it felt like you either gave your all or it was nothing, there was always something to prove. 

“Run faster 28!” my dad fiercely calls from the sideline, urging my little legs forward. 

The opposing coach starts countering my dad’s words. 

“SHE’S FASTER THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED!” 

“GIVE YOURSELF ROOM SO YOU DON’T GET BEAT!” 

A cheeky grin peaks from my face, unable to contain how humorous the opposing team’s frustration with me was. Turning to my dad, he let out a proud and deep chuckle. He gave me one final look, a signal to leave everything out on the field. And just like that, I was off again, running as fast as I could across the pitch. Not stopping until the ball was in the back of the net to secure victory for my teammates. These memories soon faded as I rubbed my eyes, clearing my vision. 

I wasn’t in my little white and burgundy uniform anymore. 

My bright pink knee-high socks ceased to exist. 

And my messy bun returned to my sleek ponytail, braided to waist length. 

You never realize how quickly time passes until it’s gone. As a little girl, I never believed I could get hurt, never imagined that everything could be gone in an instant. It was the only period in time I had no fear, when the voices of parents on the sidelines fell quiet in my head and my mind was clear of uncertainty.  

You never realize how quickly time passes until it's gone. As a little girl, I never believed I could get hurt, never imagined that everything could be gone in an instant. Share on X

Now, I hear everything—even the things that aren’t there. 

There are faint words of encouragement from the field above, they are there: “You got it, Sage!”  

That was the push I needed to finish the last lap with pace. Every stride became just a little longer, and thoughts of tiredness faded into the background of the laps I’d left behind. The finish line loomed ahead—with ragged breaths and sharp pains shooting through my calves, the courage to continue held firm. Inch by inch, the last reserves of strength peaked out of every pore to cross the final line. Without hesitation, the timer was paused, and my hands caught the ground, bracing before my knees hit the track. 

After finishing the run, all I could think about was how far I had come…and also the day I could barely walk off the field during warm-ups. I was moments away from hearing the first whistle, the ball being pinged around the field, and the cheers from my team’s bench.  

Everything changed the moment I took one wrong step.  

With my eye on the ball, my right foot planted slightly at an angle and then a hard crunch and snap forced me to my knees. A flood of emotions entered my mind and I couldn’t stop the water from flowing.  

“Help! Something is wrong!” I screamed, loud and hard until I was red in the face. 

The trainer rushed to me and bent down so he could meet my gaze, his touch firm but careful. He tested my knee, comparing my left to the right with precise yanks and pulls. I studied his facial expressions as he bent my leg in different directions. He was calm, almost reassuring, but his eyes told me something different. He didn’t want to tell me what he was thinking, so he avoided my questions, steering the conversation away from a truth I wasn’t ready to hear. Instead, he pulled my coaches aside, speaking with them in low voices.  

Their body language and expressions confirmed what he wouldn’t say loud enough for me to hear. This wasn’t just a minor tweak, it was something more. 

I had done everything right, I don’t know how I could have stopped it from happening. But none of it mattered at that moment. Every athlete’s worst nightmare. It happened to me. Giving up was an option, but I knew better than to just throw it all away. Pain is temporary, and I wanted to be able to look back and say that I pushed through. 

Giving up was an option, but I knew better than to just throw it all away. Pain is temporary, and I wanted to be able to look back and say that I pushed through. Share on X

After a few moments of stillness, the burning in my lungs began to settle. The sharp winter air no longer felt like an adversary; instead, it cooled the sweat clinging to my skin. Slowly, easing upright with hands pressing against sore knees, I took a long look to the loop as my airways re-opened. 

Other runners passed, breaths visible in the crisp air, their battles just beginning. The man in the neon green shirt was still there, moving with that same slow but determined rhythm. 

Step by step, I moved away from the loop and past the gate, my thoughts lingering on exhaustion and muscle aches. The loop wasn’t just a place of struggle—it now represented how adversity can be overcome. A final glance back at the vivid blue track brought a sense of pride in my completion, much like others who had just finished their runs.  

This marks the end of the beginning for me. Months from now, this moment will blur into the past, a distant memory of struggle and doubt. The fear of it all will fade, and when the time comes, it will be me on the field again. Sprinting without restraint, chasing the ball, and finally feeling connected with my teammates again. Playing in my first game back, that is the moment I will hold onto forever.  

As the Director of Strength & Conditioning for the Colorado Men’s Basketball and Olympic Sports teams, my priority is to create an elite training environment where athletes can perform at their best. This requires a strategic approach that balances workload, readiness, and individualized programming. Over the years, I have tested numerous technologies, but often felt there are trade-offs between efficient weight room flow and useful/accurate tech.  

In this playbook, I will break down four key training protocols and philosophies that drive our success: 

1. Velocity-Based Training (VBT). 
2. Readiness monitoring. 
3. Return-to-play markers. 
4. Driving intent and competition in the weight room. 

I will also summarize how the Output Sports system helps us achieve a unique balance of accuracy and efficiency in each these areas while also be simple enough for our athletes to run themselves. Output is and end-to-end system for strength coaches which utilizes a single wireless, portable sensor for athletic testing and VBT, a mobile/tablet capture app that directs S&C sessions and drives athlete intent, and a centralized coaches’ hub for leaderboards, analytics and building and managing athlete workouts. We chose Output because it provides a unique blend of versatility, simplicity, efficiency, and affordability for weight-room technology and it prevents the age-old issue of needing a whole suite of technology to drive a data-driven S&C session.  

We chose Output because it provides a unique blend of versatility, simplicity, efficiency, and affordability for weight-room technology and it prevents the age-old issue of needing a whole suite of tech to drive a data-driven S&C… Share on X

1. Velocity-Based Training (VBT): Enhancing Precision in Strength Development 

Why & What: VBT is essential for modern strength training because it provides real-time adjustments based on an athlete’s actual performance rather than relying on estimated percentages of one-rep max. It also helps drive intent to maximize athlete adaptation. This approach ensures that training loads align with an athlete’s daily physiological state, optimizing gains while reducing unnecessary fatigue.  

This is especially important given our athletes’ busy game and travel schedule at Colorado. By utilizing bar speed as a performance indicator, VBT helps prevent overtraining, facilitates progressive overload, and allows for dynamic adjustments based on fatigue levels. Unlike traditional fixed-percentage training, which may not account for day-to-day variability, VBT ensures that every set is performed at the optimal intensity. 

By utilizing bar speed as a performance indicator, VBT helps prevent overtraining, facilitates progressive overload, and allows for dynamic adjustments based on fatigue levels. Share on X

Furthermore, VBT helps in power development, particularly for explosive sports like basketball and track, where speed of movement is just as critical as strength. Training at specific velocity zones enhances neuromuscular efficiency, ensuring that athletes produce maximum force at game-speed movements. 

How Output Helps: 

• Provides real-time feedback on bar speed and power output, enabling athletes to adjust loads instantly whether we are on the road or at home in our weight-room. 

• The athletes view their VBT workouts in the app and seamlessly follow their guidelines for the day. 

2. Readiness Monitoring: Knowing When to Go and When to Slow 

Why & What: Athlete readiness is a cornerstone of effective training and injury prevention. Each athlete responds differently to stressors such as high training loads, travel, and competition. Monitoring daily readiness ensures that we adjust workloads accordingly, aiming to reduce the risk of injury and maximizing performance. When readiness is overlooked, athletes may train too hard when fatigued, leading to poor adaptations, decreased power output, and increased susceptibility to overuse injuries. 

When readiness is overlooked, athletes may train too hard when fatigued, leading to poor adaptations, decreased power output, and increased susceptibility to overuse injuries. Share on X

Readiness testing evaluates neuromuscular and physiological markers such as jump height deficits, mobility restrictions, and reactive strength. This is particularly crucial in team sports like basketball where external stressors, including travel and game schedules, significantly impact performance. By tracking trends over time, we gain insights into how individual athletes respond to various stimuli, enabling us to optimize recovery protocols and make informed decisions on training loads. 

How Output Helps: 

• Measures jump tests, RSI, and mobility to assess neuromuscular fatigue. 

• Customizable ‘traffic-light’ dashboards for any combination of surveys and measures that fit our training use-case. These also allow you to set custom thresholds for when to flag a measure that is in the red or green. 

• Integrates with wellness surveys to provide a holistic readiness profile. 

• Allows remote monitoring for athletes away from campus. 

3. Return-to-Play: Data-Driven Rehab and Recovery 

Why & What: The return-to-play process must be carefully structured to ensure full recovery while minimizing re-injury risk. Subjective assessments alone can lead to premature return, increasing the likelihood of setbacks. Objective data allows practitioners to track progress and make evidence-based decisions about an athlete’s readiness for return. 

Rehabilitation should focus on restoring full function, not just reducing pain. This means systematically rebuilding strength, mobility, and power while addressing movement compensations that could have developed post-injury. By comparing pre-injury baseline data with recovery progress, we can ensure that an athlete’s movement mechanics, strength levels, and explosive capabilities are fully restored before they return to competition. 

By comparing pre-injury baseline data with recovery progress, we can ensure that an athlete’s movement mechanics, strength levels, and explosive capabilities are fully restored before they return to competition. Share on X

An effective return-to-play protocol also considers asymmetries between limbs, which can lead to compensatory patterns and increased injury risk. By tracking these metrics, strength coaches and medical staff can implement targeted interventions to correct imbalances before the athlete is cleared for competition. 

How Output Helps: 

• Provides objective movement data to track rehab progress and ensure progression. This includes early-stage markers like balance and mobility and late-stage markers like single limb power and reactive strength. 

• The Output Hub enables us to create rehab dashboards that show key targets, any asymmetries of significance, and engage the athletes in the benefits of their rehab exercise.  

4. Driving Intent: Fostering Competition and Engagement

Why & What: Athletes perform best when they are fully engaged and motivated. Training should not only develop physical attributes, but also cultivate a high-performance mindset. Creating an environment where athletes push themselves fosters long-term development, resilience, and competitiveness. 

A key factor in driving intent is providing immediate and meaningful feedback. When athletes see real-time performance data, they develop a stronger connection between effort and outcome. Leaderboards, benchmarks, and peer competition reinforce this culture, ensuring that each training session is executed with purpose. 

A key factor in driving intent is providing immediate and meaningful feedback. When athletes see real-time performance data, they develop a stronger connection between effort and outcome. Share on X

While leaderboards and intent have long been a focus in weight rooms for compound lifts like back squat and bench press, we implement competition across the whole force-velocity spectrum including plyometrics, med ball work, kettlebell movements and ‘traditional’ VBT exercises. 

How Output Helps: 

• Displays real-time leaderboards to enhance competition. These can be updated in an instant to a new metric and exercise. 

• Relative leaderboard option enables people to rank versus their percentage of their own personal best—this creates competition across all athletes and the chance for anyone to top the leaderboard. 

• Versatile measurement of movements where max intent is essential (e.g., med balls, plyometrics).  

Final Thoughts: A System That Elevates Performance

By embracing real-time feedback, seamless integration, and objective decision-making, coaches can unlock their athletes’ full potential while fostering a competitive and efficient training environment.  

Output Sports has become an integral part of our training programme and philosophy. It isn’t just a tracking device—it’s a performance optimization tool that bridges the gap between coaching intuition and data-driven programming. By implementing Output Sports into our VBT, readiness, return-to-play, and athlete engagement strategies, we maximize every session in the weight room without the traditional complexities of multiple technologies.  

While there can be a stifling amount of weight-room tech options on the market right now, if you prioritize intent in your athletes’ training, simplicity and efficiency in analysis and intervention, and don’t want to spend a crazy budget, I highly recommend trying Output for your program!  

Within the last decade, technological advances have captivated the human performance industry. From radically advanced testing capabilities to a spectrum of biotracking and software devices, we have officially entered a new era in our industry. Leading the way for the majority of us has been the interjection of force plates. What was once seen as a costly and sophisticated piece of lab equipment has suddenly become a standard of necessity.   

By most accounts, the infusion of tech and data-centric practice in our space has already proven to be largely beneficial. For several decades, our industry was plagued by—and therefore minimized due to—a lack of objectivity. Prior to 2010, human performance testing was relatively scarce. Apart from a few individuals/organizations, force plates, motion tracking, and so forth were only really being conducted in university or lab settings. Beyond the general inaccessibility, advanced diagnostics were costly, lacked efficiency, and were often impractical due to the constraints of software capabilities.  

Safe to say, we’ve come a long way in a short period of time.  

Once seen as a costly and sophisticated piece of lab equipment, force plates have suddenly become a standard of necessity, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

Learning to Ask the Right Questions

Despite the progress and validation that the commercialization of force plates have provided human performance, it has not come without cost—both figuratively and literally. Costs aside, coaches have commonly experienced challenges such as understanding the bounty of measures, changing their session/daily routines, and irritations with glitches and accuracy. We should also be cautious about falling into the trap of paralysis by analysis. In other words, just because something can have a number or a pretty radar chart…doesn’t necessarily mean it should.  

So, this begs the question: is it worth it?  

 I’ve been candid in expressing my own struggles and frustrations adapting to the technology era of human performance. Safe to say, it has not been a seamless transition for me, and the most challenging aspects have been centered around the perceived disruption to my routines, along with implementation and data interpretation. My philosophy has always been that if I’m going to change my structure or approach, it needs to significantly influence my decision making.  

We should be cautious about falling into the trap of paralysis by analysis. In other words, just because something CAN have a number or a pretty radar chart…doesn’t necessarily mean it SHOULD, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

Analyzing and utilizing the deeper data and truly understanding how that influences programming decisions have been my primary shortcomings. Initially, I questioned the expense because I wasn’t really changing much about how I coached or trained athletes. That was until I met Brian Buck, who is a lead consultant for Hawkin Dynamics and someone who has been utilizing and teaching on force plates for over a decade.   

People like Brian have been instrumental in helping many of us navigate the expanded implementation of force plates. While many may claim it, very few individuals have mutual degrees of expertise on both the sport science and strength and conditioning sides of the field. Collecting extensive data is great, but without understanding the back-end and how it influences decisions thereafter, we aren’t moving the needle the way we think we are. Brian has been a game changer for me, and has completely revamped my appreciation for—and ability to utilize—my force plates.   

Collecting extensive data is great, but without understanding the back-end and how it influences decisions thereafter, we aren’t moving the needle the way we think we are, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

Which brings me to the motive of this article: what does the data mean, and how does it affect our decision making thereafter?  

Video 1. Full webinar discussion with Brian Buck and Danny Foley on how to integrate Hawkin Dynamics force plates into specific training sessions and ways to apply the data the improve the performance of your athletes.  

A few months back I had the pleasure of sitting down with Brian to talk candidly about these challenges of force plate utilization. If you’re like me at all, this conversation will be highly valuable, as we cover a range of subtopics relating to force plates.  

What I took away from this conversation is that when you are new to force plates, start with a handful of key metrics, and understand them thoroughly before analyzing more. Rather than trying to ‘jump all the way in’ and immerse yourself, go piece by piece. It’s better to be effective with a small pool of knowledge than be misled by plethora of numbers. I hope you all enjoy this talk as much as I did.