Blog

In an increasingly impatient society that’s continually searching for instant gratification, it’s easy to chase results at the expense of the process. As it relates to youth soccer, this often means investing a disproportionate amount of time and energy into participating in a seemingly endless cycle of ID camps, college showcases, and random futsal tournaments while neglecting the underlying technical, tactical, and physical foundation that must be in place. With more attention now being paid to long-term athletic development (LTAD), most parents and athletes are aware of this, but feel pressured into keeping up with the Jones’. After all, development with no competition or exposure doesn’t put an athlete on a top college coach’s radar or get them a professional trial.

Admittedly, the risks of putting the cart before the horse or toiling in anonymity are both less than optimal. So, what’s best if development and results appear to be at odds with one another? I’m here to argue it’s not about putting your eggs in one basket or the other but distributing them accordingly at the appropriate time. For years as the strength and conditioning coach for the Pittsburgh Riverhounds Development Academy (RDA), I’ve witnessed time and again the power of a highly refined, nuanced approach that promotes development without devaluing competition and early success.

A thoughtful, structured approach for long-term development checks the appropriate boxes at the appropriate times. This is a critical distinction, as the timing is arguably the most important part of the process. The timing is far from one-size-fits-all either. When dealing with a young athlete’s maturity, personality and individual psychology are huge components. Some athletes are just ready to progress quicker than others and that’s great, but it’s very important to be aware that young athletes should dictate their own pace and not have it dictated to them by a coach.

As a result, it’s necessary to foster an environment that can quickly adapt to progress or regress an individual athlete’s needs and still be able to express majority rule by doing what is best for a team. It’s a delicate balance, and it’s a constant work in progress. Truly, sometimes failure must come before success. The payoff in the end is well worth it and embracing the process, as opposed to fixating on results, has yielded tremendous success for our RDA athletes to the tune of multiple U.S. Club National titles, five All-Americans (four female, one male) in the past three years, and alumni at top programs across the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, and A-10.

More Strength, More Skill, Better Skill

Strength wins at all ages, but it is probably most evident at the earliest stages of development, as the disparity between those who have strength and those who don’t is most apparent. Whether through natural physiology or training adaptation, the difference between an early bloomer and a late bloomer can be glaring. Regardless of how strength is achieved, the strongest athlete is typically also the fastest and, in most cases, the most coordinated as well. This is most likely because, before adulthood, strength is more about inter- and intra-muscular coordination and proper motor unit recruitment than the size of a young athlete’s muscle.

Strength then provides an important motor link to desirable on-field attributes such as enhanced skill and speed by developing high levels of self-awareness and body control at lower velocities. At the youngest ages, the name of the game is relative strength. Mastery of body weight and expressions of that mastery through running, jumping, landing, twisting, and throwing are a must first, and only then, as young athletes mature and earn the right through proper progressions, can they train for load and more traditional absolute strength. Isometrics (holds) and eccentrics (slow stretches) are fantastic at giving real-time feedback to beginners and engraining proper positions and signaling pathways.

The link between strength and skill is relatively clear, but another more subtle by-product of getting strong young is an increased affinity for actively doing more skill work. Stronger muscles are more resilient and recover more quickly from prior training and competitions, so young athletes are more likely to demonstrate spontaneity and get on the ball just because they have more energy to do so. An energetic athlete is a motivated one, and the value of feeling good cannot be overlooked. Youth sports should be enjoyable, and the desire fades if soccer starts to resemble more of a chore than a game.

Let’s face it, if athletes are sore and tired, they are more likely to reach for the PS4 controller than get touches on the ball. Over the marathon that is long-term athletic development, a little bit truly goes a very long way. If one athlete organically does more quality skill work, speed work, and gym work, it will matter in the end. “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard” may be a bit too simplistic of a cliché, but when comparing two athletes with similar skill sets, the athlete with the ability to handle more work over time will always be at an advantage.

Building a Better Athlete

To build a well-rounded athlete, you must dedicate time and energy to making speed, power, and fitness the primary focuses. In theory, it’s that simple. However, it requires effort to first make the commitment and then demonstrate the discipline and expertise required to follow through and put it into practice. This means devoting entire sessions specifically to developing athleticism away from the ball.

Due to the highly technical nature of soccer, it’s critical to be on the ball as much as possible, but it is still necessary at times to make sure physical development doesn’t become a watered-down afterthought. Warming up with laps around the field and finishing with haphazard sprints, push-ups, and crunches does not constitute building a better athlete. Stand-alone sessions with specific themes of speed, agility, power, and strength really allow young athletes to dedicate the adaptive reserve necessary to improving those skill sets.

This is protocol at the Riverhounds Development Academy. Our youth teams train with me a minimum of once a week throughout the year, and our older teams train twice a week. This is deeply embedded within the cultural fiber of our club, and the kids have really taken to it. With so much soccer all the time, this provides a nice change of pace for them both mentally and physically.

The success of those who have previously come through our system creates the initial buy-in, and from there it doesn’t take long for them to personally experience the benefits. These benefits are typically characterized by moments on the field in which the young athlete feels different physically, in a positive way, whether it be turning a corner, winning a 50/50 ball, or not fatiguing late in a game. These seemingly trivial, highly subjective moments on the field mean more to young athletes than running a faster 30 meters, posting a higher countermovement jump, or improving upon their max aerobic speed. These same moments breed high levels of confidence and demonstrate the value of prioritizing physical development, as actions truly speak louder than words at early ages.

Prioritizing physical preparedness also promotes healthy, sustainable, long-term development. Continually playing soccer and repeating the same movement patterns lends itself to overuse injuries, and injuries are the quickest way to disrupt the longevity of a young athlete’s career. Setting aside time specifically dedicated to addressing these concerns with general strengthening exercises to fill in the gaps will keep young players much healthier in the long run.

For vitality, it is best to be contrarian and avoid sport specificity by developing muscle groups typically underutilized in soccer like the glutes, hamstrings, and back. The value of supplemental development and strengthening weaknesses is even greater as the days of the multisport athlete are being jeopardized. Playing many sports naturally created a broader, more robust skill set, and the dawn of a new season brought about a new movement pattern and different substrate to perform on that naturally protected against overuse. With athletes now identifying with one sport and playing that sport year-round at a much earlier age, it is becoming increasingly necessary to have strategies in place to handle these concerns.

Don’t Worry About Conditioning

It is important for young soccer players to understand the value of fitness, but it is not necessary for it to be an actively developed focal point until the young athlete becomes a teenager. The organic rise of fitness should be the result of well-organized technical sessions that keep kids engaged and active throughout, as well as the acquisition of higher strength and skill levels pertaining to running and sprinting. Encouraging free play and staying as active as possible naturally builds volume when young, so the athletes have a nice aerobic base to build intensity on later as they mature.

Although I may not directly condition, I do find it beneficial to teach good habits that develop positive attitudes as it relates to conditioning. I am a firm believer that strong runners make good sprinters, so distinguishing between jogging, running, and sprinting is helpful. Having young athletes maintain skill and rhythm at different speeds and be able to efficiently switch gears as needed is very important for energy maintenance. Young athletes are typically all or nothing: walking when fatigued or away from the play or going like a bat out of hell once they think they have a chance to make a play.

Being able to assess when to cruise or step on it is a skill that I like to develop with very low-volume extensive tempo work and fartleks. I think the impact of treating conditioning more as a skill when young is just as important as the physiological changes that should occur later. A more skilled approach can create the perception that a young athlete is becoming fitter.

Compatibility with Other Sports

We now know that a broad athletic skill set with varied movement patterns is best for the longevity of a young athlete’s career. On the surface, it would then appear that participating in multiple sports at a young age is the answer, but is it the only answer? We have all heard the stories of legendary athletes and their prowess at multiple disciplines. Dave Winfield was drafted by the MLB, NBA, and NFL before finally settling on a Hall of Fame baseball career. Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders both played in the MLB and NFL, and it is well-documented that Michael Jordan did nothing but golf in his off-season.

Is this practical or even possible now, as the natural evolution of all sports has led to bigger, faster, stronger, better—in large part due to specializing at earlier ages? While playing many sports throughout the year might be ideal, long-term athletic development in 2019 may face a new reality. To that end, I believe it is our job collectively as a strength and conditioning community to solve this problem by providing the necessary physical balances a one-sport athlete may need while considering the depth that a multisport athlete may already possess. As with many things, there are many paths that can lead to the same destination.

Taking a supplemental approach in which we identify and address weaknesses will be of increasing value as young athletes continue to specify at younger ages. The diversity that playing multiple sports once addressed naturally will have to be replaced by well-thought-out and well-timed performance training. Building a broad athletic skill set that teaches athletes how to run, jump, land, cut, twist, push, pull, and hinge in all planes of motion at varying velocities and tastefully challenging with light loads as needed will optimize both health and performance.

Deliberate rest periods will also begin to take on greater significance. While #rest may not move the needle like #hustle or #grind, it’s just as important. Particularly at the youngest ages, rest is too quickly dismissed. Kids adapt, learn, and recover quicker from training stress, but they also require a lot of energy to grow and mature.

The Difference Between Burnout and Boredom

Striking the appropriate balance between competition and training at young ages is a very important task and we should not do it haphazardly. Competing too much can limit technical and physical progress, as well as burn a young athlete out physically, mentally, and emotionally. Conversely, not playing enough might lead to boredom, as a young soccer player might begin losing sight of the reason they train. Prioritizing training while integrating friendlies, tournaments, and ID camp attendance as barometers of progress is optimal.

Hand-selecting events around training that can challenge at certain times and breed confidence at other times is an art. Success is more motivating to young athletes than failure, but they must learn how to fail. Never experiencing adversity at a young age will leave the athlete ill-prepared later. The trick is to simultaneously know the capabilities and personality of the player as an individual and collectively as a team, while never losing sight of the fact competition is subordinate to training, and not the other way around, during the critical early years of development.

Too often, parents and their young athletes fall prisoner to the moment and place too much stock in results, whether good or bad. It is highly unlikely both that the sky is falling, and the young athlete is destined to be the next Christian Pulisic or Alex Morgan. The answer lies somewhere in between, and there is something to be said for treating triumph or disaster as the imposters they are and focusing instead on the totality of a growing body of work.

You should build the foundation for the long-term success of a young soccer athlete on a broad technical base with a high volume of quality touches on the ball with all surfaces of the foot and various parts of the body. Specifically, the Riverhounds Development Academy utilizes a juggling log. It is simple, highly effective, and a great way to hold our athletes accountable to getting quality touches daily, as opposed to just smashing balls at a goal or wall. They must record their progress and are subject to spot checks during training at any time. The goal is 1,000 unbroken juggles, and then we have the kids progress to seated juggling.

There are regressions as well for the super young. Balloons and bounce juggles are effective at prepping for actual juggling. Building comfort on the ball while simultaneously building a broad general skill set is the key to longevity and success, particularly if an athlete identifies with just one sport. It’s simple, but it requires discipline and postponement of immediate gratification. Long-term athletic development is not a sprint; in fact, it’s not even a marathon. It’s an ultra-marathon with an Ironman thrown in for good measure, so stay patient.

Start with the End in Mind

Development and success are not at odds with each other, but rather go hand-in-hand if done properly. Committing to establishing a firm foundation based on technical skill and general athletic enhancement will always be the best way to create winning results while sustaining longevity. An appropriate balance of training and competition that favors development and uses games primarily as a litmus test should always be the goal.

Chasing results and cutting corners might bring about more immediate rewards but be warned that it’s fool’s gold. Foresight and vision are necessary to grasp the 30,000-foot view that long-term athletic development requires. Stay the course, as it is the disciplined, conservative investments in training and physical development early that will yield the greatest dividends in the end.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

If you sneak into the warm-up area before a major championship race, you’ll most likely see eight different routines used by the finalists. That’s always been my favorite part of the sport to watch, because while the few seconds of the sprint race are frustratingly short, the warm-up extends to more than a couple of hours.

Admittedly, the pre-race activity of Usain Bolt has always been quite frustrating as well: physio and assisted stretching on a table, a few strides, and gone to the call room before the race. If you wanted to film drills and starting-blocks trials, the world’s fastest human was not the one to follow!

However, for the 200m competition at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, I chose to focus on him with my Casio Exilim camera. He had just broken his own 100m world record with an unbelievable 9.58, so he was expected to do the same at 200m. He did just that in 19.19, a record that still stands 10 years later. So, in 2019, I guess it’s about time to release the footage of what happened backstage in preparation for one of the greatest performances in history:

Video HERE

Quarter-Final

On the morning of August 18, 2009, Bolt won his heat in 20.70, a 93% effort compared to his personal best (19.30 at the 2008 Beijing Olympics). I came to the warm-up track in the afternoon to record his pre-quarter-final warm-up. Obviously, he was not going to do much exercise, as he would eventually jog through in 20.41, a 94% effort. What I wanted to do was record his running motion in a sagittal plane to observe how he gets faster and faster as the warm-up progresses, and compare this with his top-speed mechanics, as displayed during the 100m world record. At 65% speed (8 m/s), his step length is 2.44 vs. 2.77 during the 100m, and his step rate is 3.3 vs. 4.4 hz, but the major change was how fast the foot was striking the ground.

Semi-Final

The next day, (August 19), Bolt won his semi-final in 20.08. I decided to film him from behind and take close-ups of his foot. A top hurdler friend told me, “Hey, that’s not how you are going to find Bolt’s secret for speed.” I laughed. At least I would get beautiful pictures that would be used by physios regarding Bolt’s atypical alignments and foot sole action in acceleration phase.

Final

The final was scheduled the next evening (August 20), his eighth race of the championships. Although this was only going to be the second one at full effort, he was already tired, to judge from his attitude and complaints. It was completely understandable, with all the attention and duties around him during these championships. This was the shortest warm-up I’d seen him do.

Under the eyes of coach Glen Mills and manager Ricky Simms, he wore the spikes and only did two starts without blocks. He only took a few steps and almost false-started on the second one. I left the warm-up area feeling that he would be lucky to win with 19.7 and not get injured. But I was so wrong, as he would run 19.19 and win by 0.62, the greatest margin ever in a contemporary world-class 200m.

A Proper Warm-Up?

Was this warm-up routine effective for Usain Bolt? Should you copy it? Does it tick all the boxes of a proper warm-up? I’ll leave these questions open while you watch Bolt’s video. To accompany your reflection, here’s the definition of warm-up by my colleague Fabio Martins, a Portuguese physio in the Shanghai province who has spent some time at the Diamond Leagues this year with Team China: 

“For me, warm-ups should be athlete-dependent. If they feel more prepared from doing an in-depth one, we do it. If they like a more condensed variation, we choose that instead. However, there are always two major components I include when carrying out the preparation for athletic optimisation: movement and the mind. Transfer to sport is a critical factor when planning a training program and it should be no different when deciding on what to include within a warm-up. It could be seen as an additional opportunity to input motor skill development, remedial-based exercises, and visualisation strategies. Over time, good habits have the potential to not only improve movements, but can also instil confidence! Additionally, even further benefits can be gained via manual treatment from a therapist prior to the session/competition. With enough skill, the therapist should once again be able to potentiate the two major components: movement and the mind, to help create optimal performance outcomes!”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Have you noticed that we see either the lowest introductory level jumping exercises or the holy grail of BIG BOX JUMPS? Do you ever wonder what happened to the medium intensity jumping sequences and where they fit into your program?

Let’s find a home for this stepchild of plyometric intensities—the middle-intensity jumps. WARNING: Your cool factor on social media might take a drastic hit because you’re not jumping onto a 50-inch stack of Olympic plates swaying back and forth as you go into your approach.

The Gap Between Beginner and Advanced Jumping Exercises

Recently I wrote a post on using very low boxes for training, 2-4 inches in height, to elicit a very reactive response to ground contacts. I shared how these lower level, yet extremely quick, actions could be used vertically, horizontally, and lateral specific. It was a pretty cool article if you want to check it out to gain perspective on low box training.

Although the strategies used in low box training stand on their own, they’re also great to use in the early stages of building a foundation of the foot, ankle, and lower leg strength, plus power and elasticity when preparing your athletes for higher-level plyometrics.

Logically, the next progression in the sequence of jumping is to add more intensity—let’s say more potential knee bending and a little less focus on elastic energy. To do so, we’re going to graduate our athletes up to more medium-height jumping, including medium-height boxes.

Keep in mind, as we go up in height, we slowly eliminate the lateral influence of change of direction type elastic work. But that’s perfectly fine. And it’s a good thing because the higher we go and the more intensity we drive, the less variability we want so we can safely produce force at appropriate angles—while protecting our joint systems.

Okay, what do I mean when I talk about medium jumping and medium boxes? Does this mean athletes are only using medium effort to execute all these medium jumps? Ah, no, not exactly. Let me talk about how high we jump and box height before I go into programming and various jumping strategies. Then I can draw some lines connecting the various jumping height strategies.

Before I go any further, this article is not about box heights. It’s about medium-level intensities of jumping or plyometric activities. I include boxes because it is a no-brainer strategy if they’re available. I want to make sure, though, that you don’t use the lack of boxes as an excuse to not participate in jumping and plyometric activities.

Take a look at the chart below. It outlines what a medium box means to different athletes. Please keep in mind that this is just a chart and not a commandment—it’s a starting point. You can adjust athletes to box height accordingly.

The strategies in the chart below are not just for jumping onto a medium box. They’re additional strategies to build eccentric capacities in the various areas of the body that contribute to jumping better, especially when referring to the reversibility of effort (when you must change the direction down to up quickly).

In the next section, take a look at the video demonstrations of the five jumping strategies listed in the chart. Watching them will help drive home the message of why.

Building Eccentric Control with Fake Throws and Other Exercises

Posterior Chain Eccentric Control with Fake Throws

What are fake throws? They’re part of a strategy I developed decades ago to elicit a fast eccentric action through the kinetic chain. Basically, an athlete moves a light medicine ball very quickly as if throwing it, but suddenly stopping it to create immediate deceleration (you can use other weights as long as they are 4lb-10lbs).

When doing a fake throw, the muscles throughout the body quickly tense to stop all movements, from limbs to upper and lower body. This was my way of creating an innate stiffness in the body to control movement by building eccentric control. There are countless strategies to use the fake throw concept to increase eccentric control.

Knee-Bending Eccentric Control with DB and Bar Loading

Athletes doing these exercises use DBs, a bar, or bodyweight to execute the movements. Knee-bending eccentrics are performed with the upper body simply dropping straight down with little to no hip flexion. The weight is delivered primarily to the knee and ankle joints as the primary spring loaders. These kinds of movements cause an important adaptation to higher speed loads. If the athlete quickly redirects the load back up, the movement aids the coordination of agonist and antagonist muscle functioning even though it’s highly focused on tendon resiliency when not going very deep.

Arm Lever Length and Speed from Tight to Extended

Arm action may be one of the most overlooked aspects of jumping. Depending on the type of jump, the arms can be kept closer to the body and never extend past 90 degrees at the elbow. Yet, in a sport like volleyball, outside hitters use a very long approach with relatively long ground contact time to execute a high vertical displacement. To achieve this, the athlete swings their arms much longer to coordinate the action of the approach jump footwork (the inside foot touches first followed by the outside foot).

A middle blocker in volleyball will keep the arms close and vertical to the body, never getting too far out front until they reach the peak of the jump and attempt to block. This arm action lets them jump quicker to execute a block. A soccer goalie having to jump quickly to punch a ball coming high at the goal will also use a very tight quick arm action to get up quickly to time the speed of the ball.

Multiplanar Bilateral Jumping in All Planes

In this video, the jumps are performed in various directions. You can challenge an athlete with a lateral jump, a lateral jump with 90 degrees of rotation, a forward jump with transverse rotation at any degree, etc.

The athlete’s ability to effectively manage body control while performing multiplanar jumps is critical in overall athletic preparedness. In sport, athletes often land in awkward positions, and if they’ve never been challenged or experienced this before, their injury risk rises.

Multiplanar Unilateral Hops and Leaps in All Planes

Multiplanar hops and leaps follow the basic path as the multiplanar jumps. The obvious hurdle to overcome is making sure athletes are prepared to manage single-leg exercises with great control.

Performing medium intensity single-leg jumping exercises is valuable because sports are so often played on one leg, requiring an athlete to very quickly stabilize in the single-leg landing patterns.

It should be pretty clear that if you’re not addressing the “not so common” strategies to improve the jump, you’re leaving resources untapped.

Do not think I don’t know the fun stuff is what athletes keep coming back for. I totally agree you can have your cake and eat it too. What I mean is, if you want to make sure you do exercises that challenge the athletes and make it fun yet still focus on the appropriate intensities and safety parameters—as Sylvester Stallone says in Rocky, “GO-FOR-IT.”

Body-Only Exercises and Skills

I want to shift gears now to completely address jumping and plyometric type exercises with the use of ZERO equipment. Yep, just bodyweight strategies that can challenge the nervous system to elicit a coordinated response. These exercises bridge the gap between the reactive low box and low-level exercises and the monstrous big box and high hurdle training.

Hey, wait! It’s a great time to define the difference between jumping and plyometrics. I know this is talked about to death, but I’d feel remiss if I don’t let you know what I think about these two strategies.

When I speak of jumping (leaping and hopping also fall into this category), I’m primarily concerned with the concentric effort of the jump. Meaning, the attention is on pushing through the floor to lift the body off the ground. My attention to how long it takes—I certainly don’t want it slow—isn’t as urgent as it is when focusing on plyometrics. Now, I do realize there will likely be an eccentric or loading phase to the jumping, leaping, or hopping, but the focus isn’t on that aspect of the movement—it’s on pushing up or concentrically driving the body up.

Plyometric exercises, on the other hand, are totally focused on the quick turnaround between landing and jumping. We call this the amortization phase, the loading phase—you know, the phase between going down and going up. We want it quick!

The difference between the jump and the plyo (plyometric) is that the jump relies a lot on the muscular system to provide the energy to jump. The plyo does need help from the muscle for sure, but it’s the tendon and its ability to store and release energy quickly that we want. Are we good?

Now I want to dig into some jumping and plyo strategies, using nothing but the ground and the weight of the body—gravity will jump in there too, so don’t even fight it.

Bodyweight Jump Strategies

To ensure my athletes have a great foundation of medium-intensity jumping, leaping, and hopping, I start with stationary exercises like those in the video below. The video also sets the standard of how to define jumps, leaps, and hops. Remember, these fall under jumps—not plyometrics—so there will be more emphasis on the concentric portion of the movement.

But what if I want to put a focus on more posterior dominant versus quad dominant exercises? What could I do? Of course, I’m going to allow the hips to flex forward much more. If my attention is on quad dominant, I won’t allow the hips to flex forward and will attempt to keep the upper body more upright. But this causes me to use more ankle dorsiflexion so I can downwardly load. Take a look at the video below showing examples of a posterior, or hip, dominant jump versus a quad, or knee, dominant jump.

One of the goals of a solid jumping program should be to challenge body and spatial awareness. Body awareness means where the limbs are in space during a movement. Basically, am I in control of hitting proper positions with arms, legs, and entire body? Spatial awareness lets us know where our bodies are in space. Meaning, am I tilting to the right, or leaning backward, or about to fall over? Kind of important to be good at if you want to be a successful jumper and mover.

Bodyweight Plyometric Strategies

In this section, I’ll pull your attention to using plyometric strategies to challenge athletes’ abilities to get off the ground much faster while still moving extremely efficiently—in other words, not sloppy while executing the exercises.

Earlier I discussed posterior versus quad dominant performances while jumping. It’s easy to focus on either/or when jumping. When performing medium-level plyometrics, we start leaning toward quad dominant and lower leg dominant emphasis.

Why? Well, if we’re not jumping from or at maximal heights and don’t need as much hip bending to help absorb forces, we typically can quickly return the energy using more tendinous structures and not require as much power from the muscles—as in a big hip flexion to load the posterior chain.

If my goal is to increase the speed I get back off the ground, I need to limit how low I go when I land. To do this, I rely on more ankle dorsiflexion and knee flexion and less hip flexion. But truthfully, I don’t want a ton of knee flexion either. If I have that, I end up losing the energy in the tendons in the form of heat. It comes down to landing and jumping back up as quickly as possible.

I didn’t mean to skate over an important aspect of stored energy in the tendon. Let me explain what I mean by the tendon losing heat. When an athlete lands and instantly goes back up, the energy built up in the tendon is used to “rebound” the tendon from its stretched state back to its shortened state very fast. This causes an elastic response, which is what makes athletes faster.

But if the athlete lands and pauses, the energy stored in the tendon during the stretch phase can’t hang around for very long. So, the tendon relaxes to the stretched state, and the energy that was built up gets released in the form of heat—meaning no more elastic response or fast movement. Kind of sucks when this happens. There’s more to it, but this gives a birds-eye view of what we want to accomplish with plyos.

Medium Intensity Lower Body Plyometric Exercises

When performing medium-level plyometrics, a coach must have a reason for going sub-maximal yet going higher than the reactive exercises performed with a low box or low-level reactive jumps. My answer to this falls in the realm of learning to manage more load than the very low-level exercises and before the high loads come with the maximal plyometric exercises, such as high load depth jumps.

In this section, I want to outline several of my favorite exercises to challenge an athlete’s loading and exploding abilities as well as their coordination to manage variations in patterns.

Think about this for a second. If an athlete wants to move quickly off the ground, they must apply force into the ground much more quickly. They must not only apply force quicker but also redirect the force quicker to leave the ground quickly. Now, low-level plyos do allow quickness off the ground, but there’s not a lot of force applied into the ground—it’s merely elastic energy.

On the other hand, if they jump from a maximal height, they will greatly increase the force into the ground but might not be able to get off the ground very quickly, at least not in the early to middle phases of training when they’re not fully prepared. So, the best alternative to get both speed off the ground and force into the ground is medium-level plyometrics.

Here is a list of exercises I love to use. I’ve included videos so you can see the execution of the exercises.

The Knee Tuck Series

Tuck Jump with a Hand Tap on the knees to slightly control the height. To execute this plyo, the athlete must not put too much emphasis on jumping high but rather jumping quickly. You’ll notice the athlete’s head doesn’t go vertical very much, but the knees and hips flex quickly to bring the knees up to the outstretched arms and hands.

Vertical Tuck Jump. In this version of the tuck jump, the athlete attempts to bring the knees up above the waistline to challenge body awareness and to increase the intensity of the landing. In this exercise, you can see the athlete is trying to jump higher by watching the head travel vertically.

Cycle Tuck Jump. The level of body awareness goes way up as well as the intensity of the landing. The athlete is not jumping maximally, as these are medium-level exercises, but the force into the ground is increasing as it slowly goes toward more unilateral bias.

The Lateral Series

Lateral Leap. Also knowns as an ice-skater, the lateral leap challenges the athlete’s ability to use effective and efficient positions to quickly leap right to left while maintaining stability in supportive structures of the foot and ankle complex, knee, hip, and pelvis, and upper body influencers such as shoulder and head. The athlete must quickly redirect the force going angular into the ground and return in the direction they came.

Medial Continuous Hops. In this video, notice how the athlete performs on the same leg moving to the inside (for example, the right leg moving toward the left or vice versa). This exercise places the stressors on the medial structures of the body, such as the groin and adductors, quadratus lumborum and obliques, and structures of the foot, ankle, and lower leg such as posterior tibialis, peroneal, and gastroc-soleus. The hops also challenge the glute medius to support frontal plane pelvic positioning upon landing.

Lateral Continuous Hops. The stress to the body shifts on this exercise to the lateral structures such as glute medius and other supporting structures. I tend to migrate toward the continuous medial hops more than the continuous lateral hops for one primary reason. In court and field sport, athletes do so much cutting and hard change of direction that the IT-band is always under tension due to the hip structures (TFL and glutes) it attaches to. It’s not that I don’t train this exercise—I just monitor it with my athletes. My first priority as a strength coach is to do no harm.

The Bridge Between Beginner and Advanced Training

I don’t know, but I believe medium intensity plyometrics and jumping have their place. As a matter of fact, because I’m traditionally a very low-risk coach, I love medium intensity plyos. I like to find sound strategies where I can increase the variability, and therefore the feedback, the athletes get by training at sub-maximal levels.

One of the ways I attack jumping, especially plyos, is by enhancing the parts of the body above the hips to recoil and redirect energy quickly. This is where the fake throw methodologies come into play.

To enhance the performance and safety of all your athletes, you need to train at all levels and intensities with plyos. A medium level is simply a strategic tool that checks a lot of boxes, at least for me. I use them, I get results, and my athletes gain great foot and ankle resilience. Maybe most importantly, my athletes like them and feel great from doing them. And that’s good enough for me!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Throughout my professional career, I have traveled across the country visiting, as well as consulting, with many professional and collegiate athletic teams and programs. During these occasions, I have witnessed and been asked to evaluate various off-season and in-season athletic team training sessions and planned program designs. These observations, as well as my numerous discussions with physicians, rehabilitation professionals, sport coaches, and strength and conditioning professionals, expose a concern over the incorporation of high-level stressors (i.e., high-intensity exercise) into the athlete’s training program design. This apprehension (fear) appears to intensify at the time of the in-season training period, because, in addition to training, athletes also participate in team practice and game day competition.

To initiate this dialogue’s “elephant in the room,” I need to address the anxiety triggered by the distressful “what if” that arises during the course of an athlete’s training. In my four decades of professional practice in the related fields of sports rehabilitation and athlete strength and conditioning, as well as my time as the CEO of a 2,000+ employee, 185-facility physical therapy enterprise, my experiences have taught me to learn from the mistakes of the past, place emphasis on and address the concerns of the present, and make concise and well-thought-out decisions based upon factual information. Since initiating these principles, I’ve realized the large majority of “what if” fears will never come to fruition.

If an individual places focus upon the “what if” scenario of a possible fatal accident while driving a car, “what if” a deadly virus is acquired while wandering into crowded public settings, and “what if” serious injury transpires from participating in athletic competition, this individual likely wouldn’t drive a car, wouldn’t leave their home, and certainly would not participate in athletic endeavors. However, we can assume the majority of the population does not address life’s circumstances with this perspective. So why is there such a strong concern placed upon the “what if’s” during the athlete’s training?

Now, with that stated, the application of high-level stressors during training is not a free pass for the S&C professional to institute poor programming and inadequate training agendas or provide “off the cuff” imprudent decisions that are not well-organized, evidenced-based, or well-coached. 

What Is a ‘High Stress’ Application?

In my previous SimpliFaster blog post, I highlighted Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development, as well as Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome, including the need for an unaccustomed stress application in order for physical adaptation to take place. High stressors are applied in the form of exercise “intensity” and may include, but are not limited to, exercise weight, exercise velocity, jump heights or distance, running velocity and distance, and many other activities utilized to enhance an athlete’s physical abilities. High levels of applied stress do not necessarily translate to the application of a heavy weight or high-velocity movements. High levels of stress refer to the application of a stressor to which the athlete is unaccustomed, resulting in a physical adaptation to that particular stressor.

You should also note that normally perceived “lower intensity” stressors may in reality be of “higher intensity” when utilized in the rehabilitation and training environments. Such a scenario may include a rehabilitation exercise progression to a 1-pound weight during a straight leg raise exercise where the patient previously had the limited ability to only lift the weight of their leg. “Healthy” high school and college freshmen who have no formal history of organized training would likely begin with lower stressor intensities (perceived as high to them) when compared to their seasoned peers. These same principles apply when introducing a progression of appropriate and significant high intensities (i.e., heavy weight, high sprinting velocities, etc.) founded upon the demonstrated abilities displayed by the experienced athlete during training. Regardless of the type of perceived intensity application, the premise remains that an appropriately programmed unfamiliar stressor at suitable periods of the training cycle is needed for physical adaptation to take place.

A review of Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development (figure 1) demonstrates that strength is the physical quality foundation from which all other physical qualities evolve.

The Physical Quality of Strength

The physical quality of strength, as with any physical quality, is continually enhanced with the appropriate cyclic application of unaccustomed high intensity. You should evaluate and treat every athlete as an individual, as some may not be suited or properly prepared for the same high-intensity stressor applied to their peers. Proper preparation and the establishment of a work capacity are fundamental essentials often overlooked during the athlete’s training process. These fundamental essentials will help ensure future desired physical quality outcomes while allowing for suitable recovery and decreased threat of injury.

Clearly, strength-based athletes such as powerlifters and Olympic-style weightlifters place no constraint upon weight intensity performance, as this is the outcome goal for success in these competitive sports. The objective for lifting weights in the team sport setting is to assist in the enhancement of the athlete’s physical qualities and athleticism, not for the creation of a competitive powerlifter or weightlifter. We should also note that other non-weightlifting activities such as sprinting and body weight exercises will also enhance strength qualities. However, we should not ignore that in many arenas of team sport competition, the athlete must produce high levels of force to overcome much more than their own body weight against the influence of gravity. Such examples include a football player breaking a tackle, hockey players fighting over the puck, basketball players rebounding under the boards, and wrestlers during match competition.

These examples substantiate the requirement for the application of external high stressor intensity during training. You should observe the following variables during the planning, as well as the execution, of a high-intensity exercise performance:

• Demonstrated body control and correct posture adjustments with associated proper technical proficiency as exercise intensity is progressively increased.
• Demonstrated applicable executed exercise velocity.
• Successful execution of the programmed exercise training intensities as related to the physical quality standards of the sport of participation.

The physical quality standards of the sport of participation are utilized as a reference to establish a foundation for the preparation of the athlete to eventually compete in practice alongside their peers and on game day against their opponent. An example of the strength and explosive strength standards for the sport of American football can be found in figure 2

• Enhancement of the physical qualities necessary for optimal athletic performance.
• Sustained proper technical exercise proficiency resulting in the athlete’s optimal application of force against the external resistance.
• The velocity (i.e., rate of force development, impulse) at which the athlete’s executed force is applied.
• Physiological and biomechanical efficiency, for the proper distribution of the applied stressor upon the athlete.
• Safety from injury.

Another consideration often asked about is how high a level of applied stress is enough. In addition to the physical quality standards of the sport of participation, a balance should exist between these sport standards and guideline limitations placed upon high-intensity applications. Using the squat exercise as an example, the general rule for the athletes trained under our supervision is a full squat exercise weight intensity limitation of twice their body weight. Once accomplished, the emphasis is placed upon exercise execution at higher velocities at this same high (as well as all) exercise intensity.

This philosophy of training transpired during an “ah-ha” moment while working with my good friend, Hall of Fame S&C Coach Johnny Parker, during many off-seasons with his NFL New York Giants players. During the 1980s, Coach Parker and I also met and worked with a former Soviet weightlifter and weightlifting coach named Grigori Goldstein. On one particular occasion, we witnessed a NY Giants player who had executed a successful 425-pound squat at a body weight of 178 pounds. When Coach Goldstein was asked how to continue to make this particular player stronger, he responded: “You don’t need to make him stronger. You need to have him move the bar faster.” Progressing this player through what would eventually become Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development would be much more beneficial for his overall athletic performance than continuing to focus on making him stronger.

There are exceptions to every rule, and the two-time body weight squat limit is no exception. There was an outstanding running back with the Giants for many seasons (he was also a member of the 1986 Super Bowl Championship team). At a stature of 5 feet 7 inches and a body weight of 202 pounds, this player also performed a 620-pound full squat. If his squat exercise limitations had been set to two times body weight—i.e., 404 pounds—he likely would not have physically endured a single NFL season or had his outstanding NFL career.

In hindsight, when considering the “risk vs. reward” with regard to a high-stress application, Coach Parker and I often discuss whether this player would have been as successful if his squat exercise intensity had been limited to 500 pounds or 550 pounds with increased barbell velocities versus three times his body weight. All athletes should be evaluated for high-intensity limitations and exceptions based on such criteria as the athlete’s stature, the standards of the sport, and the position of participation. For example, does an Olympic fencer need to lift as much weight as a football lineman?

Lifting Heavy Weights In-Season

During the aforementioned discussions, there is increased apprehension over the inclusion of high-intensity exercise performance during in-season training. This concern appears to be centered upon the inclusion of team practice, as well as game day competition. However, we may then ask, if an athlete executes high-intensity exercises during their off-season training, where they may also achieve personal records (PR’s), why then during the most important time of the year is there a hesitation to prescribe high-intensity training?

If you establish in-season training intensity limitations at, let’s say, 80% of the athlete’s previous off-season physical performance, why then have the athletes perform so diligently during the off-season? Where is the logic to attaining substantial off-season physical achievements and not at least maintaining, if not continuing to improve, these achievements during the competitive season? Would any sport coach instruct any athlete to limit their physical abilities to an 80% effort during game day performance? Is a 20% reduction in effort considered acceptable? If a reduction in effort is not deemed acceptable, why then is any programmed deficit during the in-season training considered not acceptable as well? Not only will a weaker athlete likely perform at less than optimal, but a continual loss of strength due to the physicality of a long season in conjunction with a steady application of a shortfall (inadequate) intensity may also set the stage for possible injury.

The philosophy for in-season high-intensity stress application was introduced to me in the fall of 1996. Coach Parker was now with the NFL New England Patriots, and numerous discussions led to high-intensity weight applications of 90% or greater at appropriate training periods during this particular in-season. At the conclusion of the 1996 NFL competitive season, 35 New England players set PR’s in one or more of the foundation exercises (i.e., squats, cleans, bench press, etc.) as the team entered the NFL playoffs. Wouldn’t we, as coaches, aspire for our athletes to physically “peak” at the most important time of the year, the time of the post-season playoffs? This same Patriots team eventually competed in that same post-season Super Bowl XXXI.

The Relationship Between Exercise Volume and Intensity

Higher programmed exercise volumes have an inverse relationship to exercise intensity. As an example, if an athlete performs a squat exercise with 100 pounds for 10 repetitions and their exercise descent and ascent are both 2 feet in distance (a total distance traveled of 4 feet), we would calculate the total work performed (work = force x distance) as 100 pounds x 4 feet x 10 repetitions = 4,000 ft. lbs. If the same athlete squatted 150 pounds for five repetitions, the work performed would now be 150 pounds x 4 feet x 5 reps = 3,000 ft. lbs., resulting in a 25% less overall quantity of work performed (i.e., 3,000 vs. 4,000 ft. lbs.). However, the same athlete would also execute a 50% higher quality of work (i.e., 150 lbs. vs. 100 lbs. per repetition). Appropriately programmed in-season high-intensity exercise execution corresponds with a lower volume of work. Reduced exercise volumes also help avoid the excessive physical fatigue that may lead to many physical consequences.

Using the above example, I present two in-season squat workouts (after warm-up) below. Figure 3a represents an actual college football in-season squat workout limited to 80% exercise intensity. Figure 3b represents a higher exercise intensity in-season squat workout. Both programs are based upon an athlete’s demonstrated 500-pound squat performance.

In addition, a greater amount of accumulative in-season exercise volume (work) may eventually lead to excessive physical fatigue, setting the stage for overtraining, poor recovery, decreased on-the-field performance, and eventual soft tissue type injury. An additional consequential risk that low-intensity, higher volume workouts may present is the illusion of a light workout session when the reality is often the opposite. As demonstrated in figure 3a, lower intensity “light” work sessions may transform to “heavy” work sessions due to the greater-than-anticipated quantity of work performed. It is acknowledged that during the course of training, athletes require days off and “unloading” workouts to assist in recovery and avoid overtraining. However, athletes remain “fresh” by maintaining (as well as enhancing) their strength levels during the competitive season, not by persistently resting.

Do Athletes Sprint Enough in Season?

There also appears to be a reluctance to incorporate appropriate levels of high-velocity (intensity) sprinting during the competitive season. Once again, this hesitation appears to be due to the concern for injury, and more specifically, the onset of soft tissue injury (i.e., hamstring strains). Sprinting is required not only for enhanced athletic performance, but the prevention of high-velocity injury as well.

If an athlete isn’t acclimated to the repetitive high-velocity movements that occur during practice, competition, and the prolonged competitive season, how then could there be expectations for them to remain healthy under such stressful physical circumstances? The following are benefits to incorporating high-intensity (velocity) sprinting during the athlete’s in-season training.

1. Enhances running velocity – Stating the obvious, to maintain and possibly enhance an athlete’s running velocity, the athlete needs to run at high velocity. Sprinting is the purest plyometric activity and will enhance the physical qualities of strength, explosive strength, and elastic strength. Although some athletes may rarely achieve 100% of their maximal velocity during their sport of participation, the enhanced starting abilities (i.e., first step) and improved acceleration capabilities associated with high-velocity sprinting will also help contribute to optimal athletic performance.
2. Enhances the speed reserve – Higher running velocities will also enhance submaximal running velocities (i.e., 80% of an improved running velocity is faster than 80% of the previous lower running velocity). The athlete will also improve their physiological and energy efficiency (economy) at these new high and submaximal running velocities, as well as consistently maintain these velocities throughout the game day competition.
3. Improves neuromuscular efficiency and timing – Sprinting will provide a stimulus to both enhance and “fine-tune” rate coding, contractile velocities, and efficiency of recruitment. Maximal muscle activation of the medial (semitendinosus) and lateral (biceps femoris) hamstring muscles occurs at different musculotendon lengths⁷ and at different time intervals during the running cycle. Precise timing for these differences in activation to happen is crucial for both performance and injury prevention.

In addition, the lateral hamstring muscle, the biceps femoris, consists of two heads, a long head and a short head (figure 4). These two distinct anatomical components of the muscle also have two different and distinct nerve innervations, the tibial nerve (long head) and the common peroneal nerve (short head). For the athlete to maintain and/or achieve the proper neuromuscular efficiency of the medial and lateral hamstring muscles, as well as the proper timing of the nerve innervations to the long and short heads of the biceps femoris muscle at high velocity, the athlete must perform at high velocity.

4. Improves the coactivation index of the lower extremity musculature – The coactivation index is an additional neuromuscular consideration for training at high velocities. During slow-velocity movements, including those with applied high intensity, agonist and antagonist muscle groups work amicably together over the prolonged exercise period to stabilize the joint(s), demonstrating a coactivation index (ratio) of approximately 1:1. High-velocity movements are dependent upon brief periods of time requiring a prominent contribution from the agonists, while the opposing antagonists must demonstrate a lower level of activity.

One of the Last Advantages

The programming of high-intensity training via the application of unaccustomed stresses is necessary for physical adaptation to transpire. The application of high stressors during off-season training will continue to improve the physical qualities necessary for optimal athletic performance. In-season high-intensity training will maintain, if not continue to improve, the physical qualities attained during the off-season training. The appropriate incorporation of high-velocity in-season sprinting will also maintain and possibly improve the athlete’s running velocity.

Appropriate in-season sprinting will also assist in the prevention of soft tissue injury, due to maintaining or enhancing the athlete’s strength levels, intermuscular coordination, and neuromuscular timing. As many athletic teams have off-season training requirements as well as training facilities available to them, the application of high-intensity stressors during in-season training may be one of the few advantages remaining in competitive team sports.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Lauersen, J.B., Andersen, T.E., and Andersen, L.B. “Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018; 52: 1557—1563.

2. Newton, M., Morgan, G.T., Sacco, P., et al. “Comparison between trained and untrained for responses to a bout of strenuous eccentric exercise of the elbow flexors.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008; 22(2): 597–607

3. McBride, J.M., Blow, D., Kirby, T.J., et al. “Relationship Between Maximal Squat Strength and Five, Ten, and Forty Yard Sprint Times.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009; 23(6): 1633–1636.

4. Watts, D. “A Brief Review on the Role of Maximal Strength in Change of Direction Speed.” The Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning. 2015; 23: 100–108.

5. Hewett, T., Ford, F., Hoogenboom, B., et al. “Understanding and preventing ACL injuries, Current biomechanical and epidemiologic considerations – Update.” North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2010; 5(4): 234–251.

6. Hoffman J. Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2006.

7. Higashihara, A., Nagano, Y., Takashi, O., et al. “Relationship between the peak time of hamstring stretch and activation during sprinting.” European Journal of Sports Science. 2016; 16: 36–41.

In today’s expanding world of high school sports performance, there are a multitude of tools at our fingertips that can really help our programs stand out. Some of them are technology-related: For instance, velocity-based training devices, online training websites, etc., are all things we can lean on to make our program better. Other ways we can ensure the success of our program are programming-related: APRE, linear periodization, conjugated periodization, cluster sets, and the tier system (just to list a few!). These are all modalities that can fit into programs and, when mastered, help us grow as coaches and ensure the development of our athletes.

I will discuss my program’s process and the step-by-step approach we use to prepare our young athletes to climb the ladder from our “Block 0” program upward, with the goal of reaching our “Block 4 Elite” level. This is the first of several articles in a series that will provide an in-depth and comprehensive look into the process our athletes go through from the lower grades through the end of their freshman year. I give an overview of the program in this article and will go much more in-depth for each portion in upcoming articles.

Invest in the Future with the Talents of Today

Over the last 22 years, I’ve used or (at the very least) researched just about every one of these things with athletes. Having a growth mindset and embracing and growing from both success and failure is, in my humble opinion, a sign of striving for success in any field.

I’m a big believer in self-reflection and evaluation. When I sit and evaluate the multitude of things we have instituted across the years in our program, one specifically jumps out at me as being probably the most important of all. Having a vertical integration plan for athletes with an evidence-based protocol to transition from the sub-freshman level to the varsity level is, without a doubt, the most impactful addition to our program. It has had a great effect on not only the development of strength, speed, and power, but the overall health and well-being of our athletes.

The way we approach the transition from a little-to-no-experience-level athlete coming to us from middle school to a senior athlete very close to full maturity doesn’t have to be complicated. It does, however, have to be organized and done with purpose. The process can vary by situation. If we have exposure to the athletes at the middle school level or below, it is an even greater advantage and opportunity. Yet, even if you don’t see your athletes until the first day of their freshman year, an organized and purposeful plan will help them reach their full potential.

Buying into the Process of LTAD

The first step in the process of vertical integration of your program is developing a rock-solid and trusting relationship with your sub high-school-level coaches and athletes. Every situation I have been in has been quite different in many ways. One factor that remained the same in all was the eagerness of most lower-level coaches to have me involved in the development of their athletes.

A second factor that was also the same was the excitement of parents and their kids to have the opportunity to be submerged in the coaching and culture that they will experience at the high school level. Most of the time (including my current situation), that eagerness has resulted in not only trust in the process, but an attitude of growth that has led to a smooth transition. If your lower-level coaches embrace a growth mindset and are willing to accept the educational process, there is a great opportunity for excellence.

Building a solid relationship with parents and athletes will also lead to a situation that is conducive to your goals. While that trusting and positive educational working relationship is often an end result, in many cases there are obstacles that must be navigated. The most restrictive of these stems from a lack of experience in actually doing what is best for the young athlete.

My biggest obstacle with all three groups that need to be nurtured is without a doubt the process that many call “slow cooking” athletic development. As we all know and understand, we live in an “instant results” world. This situation is no different. A slow and in-depth process of mastering the ordinary aspects before moving to the next step is absolutely the correct path to take, but it isn’t the one that sells.

Parents can PAY outside coaches who will have their 12-year-old doing the same workout as a 17-year-old. Coaches can seek out high-level programs online that will promise immediate success with little or no attention to the details of actual mastery. The challenge for us lies in building a trust that will convince both groups to allow us to do what we all know is best.

The biggest aspect of developing this trust, in my experience, is being present. Reach out to coaches. Learn their process and evaluate what strengths they may already have. The worst thing we can do is walk into a situation (often one that has been that way for many years) and make it seem like they know nothing and do everything wrong. A discouraged coach is that much harder to bring around to your way of doing things.

Once you have a personal relationship started with coaches, they will trust that what you need them to do differently is best practices. Spending time with them in both a co-coaching and teaching/learning environment will bring them into your program much faster than just showing up and demanding change. It’s also very ineffective to simply email a document or program to these coaches. In my experience, much will be lost in translation and very little will be put to use. The bottom line is you need to reach out and build a positive personal relationship first. Once you have that established, the idea of “slow cooking” the process and the skills needed to do so will be embraced and accepted.

Fostering the Trust of Parents and Athletes

The much more difficult job will be selling the idea to parents and athletes. The single biggest issue I have, even in our higher levels, is them accepting and trusting our process. They see athletes doing heavy back squats, jumping on 54” boxes, and doing full Olympic movements and want to do them as well. It’s human nature to want to emulate the people who are already successful. Too often, we don’t realize that the success of those high-level athletes came about because of a process.

Literally on a daily basis in our program, I have to talk about trusting our process and not resisting our programming because it could be done with heavier weights. Parents often don’t understand how adaptations differ and push a higher volume “bodybuilding” type program. They see hypertrophic results and confuse “big muscles” with powerful and explosive ones. Being strong, powerful, and explosive doesn’t always correlate to muscle size.

As is the case in many of my articles, I suggest relationship building and education to combat these obstacles early on. The single biggest limiting factor for our athletes is lack of parental knowledge and support for what constitutes a safe and effective sports performance program. It’s our job to foster those relationships as early as possible. Once you build that trust, parents and athletes alike will turn to you with questions that will shape their beliefs, and not to an outside source motivated by income.

What You Allow Is the Standard

Once we have built the trust of our lower-level coaches, parents, and athletes, we still must implement our program. One philosophy I have come to embrace is that movement matters more than anything else we do in our program. This means that, first and foremost, we want our athletes to move as safely and efficiently as possible in everything we ask them to do. This particular belief really does make as much sense as anything in sports performance. If the athlete has a high level of dysfunction in their technique and movement, it is clearly not the safest situation. Our top priority as a sports performance professional is to do no harm. This means we must not do anything that could lead to a preventable injury.

Nobody would argue that point. If we can all agree on that as a directive for all coaches working with athletes (not just in the weight room, but also in sport), then why are so many coaches ignoring that idea? Why are there too many situations where athletes are not only allowed but instructed to add load to obvious dysfunction? While I fully understand at some point we have to load our athletes, this is a fine line, and a debate for another article. Many, many factors go into how and when each individual coach decides to increase the intensity of the lifts their athletes do. It varies by coach and athlete.

My point here is that, at the very least, I would encourage all programs to implement a blocking classification protocol with an evidence-based plan for progression. This will ensure that all athletes have the opportunity to gain mastery of basic movements (which will take care of a good portion of dysfunction on its own) prior to adding load/intensity to those movements. Hopefully, coaches will include movement screening or various evaluations within their programming, which will give even more information to the coach and athlete on potential movement issues that they then can work on. Within our program, we focus on these things in an effort to ensure our athletes have a mastery of movement and technique that will lead them to the highest possible level of training they can achieve while leaving as little as possible on the table.

Phase One Transition Program

The first step toward this mastery begins when the student-athlete comes into our program for the first time. At York Comprehensive High School, we have a middle school strength and conditioning class. This is a great advantage for us. I am able to work with those coaches to have our athletes prepared with the basics when they come to me. The vast majority of our Block 0 program is done at the middle school in these classes. In my previous position, I ran a well-attended sports performance camp through our Rec year-round, as well as a summer strength camp in the weight room. Both of these situations were good ones and I encourage everyone to develop similar programs.

The Block 0 program continues in the spring and summer for those athletes. The middle school athletes who attend our after-school program in the spring will regress and progress in preparation for the summer transition. Once we hit summer, I spend the first three weeks reviewing our basic movements and evaluating the status of each individual athlete.

This is the time we begin the transition to everything we will do moving forward. Variations of each movement are broken down, taught in detail, and practiced over and over. We detail how we use the tier system, how the clock and set times work, and every other aspect involved. Our main goal during this time is making sure as many Block 0 athletes as possible are prepared for the transition to Block 1. My next article will go in-depth into the actual details of this phase.

Earning the Right to Train Block 1

The goal of our transition period in the spring and summer is to have our athletes ready for the climb to our Block 1 “New Lifter” level. This level runs just like all our higher levels do, but with programming differences. We use three “tiers,” although it is a definite “modified” tier system.

Tier 1 is normally a “dynamic” tier for our higher block athletes. It is where we would do our more power- and speed-based movements. This is one area that we have modified for sure. We still program movements such as a loaded jump in Tier 1 with our Block 1 athletes. The main modification is that we also include strength and even volume-based movements.

Our thought process is that most of our Block 1 athletes lack strength and size, so we focus on developing that strength to the point where our power-based movements will be more effective. A weak athlete will struggle with force production. So, while we still do some “power” movements (typically pulls and loaded jumps), our main focus is not in that area. We particularly focus on developing strength in the upper back and traps, which the athletes will need for more advanced movements later on.

Tier 2 is always our “strength” tier. This is where our athletes perform our three main types of strength-building movements: trap bar pulls, squats, and bench presses. In our tiers, we always have an A, B, C, and D movement. Typically, in our modified system, D is either spot or rest. In Tier 2, A is always our main movement or variation. B is an auxiliary antagonist movement and C is some sort of mobility or “prehab” movement. A typical week of our Tier 2 session for our Block 1 athletes looks something like this:

Goals of Block 1

Our philosophy of “slow cooking” our athletes does not change even as we transition to Block 1. We absolutely program volume and intensity in this block. It is, however, a distant second to our two main objectives, which are mastery of technique and teaching bar speed.

In the book “The System,” Coach Johnny Parker discusses the training he received from Coach Goldstein, a former Eastern Bloc coach and master of the “Soviet System.” If you have not read this book, I urge you to purchase it at once and dive in. One of the pillars of the Soviet system is making sure the majority of the program for athletes is done in an intensity range of 70-85%, moving the bar as fast as possible, but with great technique. Too much time spent below 70% will not be enough to increase strength effectively, while too much time above 85% will result in strength gains, but not the type of explosive strength that translates to sport. We call that the “sweet spot” and we preach to our athletes that bar speed trumps all.

We use Block 1 as the time to begin to develop moving the bar with great speed and technique. We spend about half of our volume in the 50-59% relative intensity (RI) range during this time. The other half is split between 60-69% and 70-79% RI ranges. As the year goes on, we slowly begin to slide the intensity and volume from low to high. By May of the first year, as our Block 1 athletes prepare to transition to “Block 2 Novice,” we may be down to 20% of volume in the 50-59% RI range, the majority in the 70-79% RI range, and 5-10% in the 80-85% RI range.

Our No. 1 coaching cue for bar speed came directly from a phone conversation with Coach Parker, where he talked about not needing an accelerometer back in the day to know they were moving the bar fast. Instead, he listened for the “plate clang” and that told him his guys were moving it. “Make the plates clang” is something I say 100 times a day. I think it is an excellent cue to get our young athletes to understand bar speed.

The final piece of our Block 1 program is a slow and steady increase in volume. Our Block 1 athletes use a modified version of 5-3-1 for the three strength movements that I “stole” from a good friend of mine, Jeremy Evans. I made slight modifications to fit what we do from a volume programming standpoint. In our programming, we use volume as our first consideration for forcing progressive overload.

I have a system for the number of reps of volume per month we program our athletes to do in squats, presses, pulls, Olympic movement (variations), and posterior chain movements (again, to be discussed in a later article in this series). I have a number I want each block to reach in the last month of the school year. I count backward, decreasing 5-10% each month until I reach month one. I then use Prilepin’s Chart to select the proper set/rep numbers and fill in our tiers. We “wave” weeks with high, low, big, and moderate percentages of monthly volume and “wave” days within each of those weeks. High, moderate, and low are based on a set percentage of the weekly total volume count.

Our Block 1 athletes begin with 500 total reps of volume for month one and peak at +/-700 heading into the sport pre-season. We divide those reps up by exercise and begin with 24% squat variations, 20% pulls, 20% pushes, and the rest loaded jumps, Olympic variations (lots of pulls), and PC work. One thing to note is that we only count intensity of 50% or greater. We still shoot for a 2-1 pull-to-push ratio, at least. We just use body weight and band movements to reach that ratio. As the year progresses, if we notice we are lacking as a group in a certain area (bench press, for example), we can slide the percentage to address those issues with more volume. Our Block 1 athletes use partial movements and variations and progress to full movements as they advance blocks.

Last, but not least, we test our athletes when we feel they have reached the point of movement mastery and a promotion to Block 2 is a possibility. I will cover our blocking system later. Basically, we use a combo of body frame, body weight, and strength ratios in our three strength movements to recommend promotion. Movement mastery is also a deciding factor.

Our Block 1 athletes must achieve a combined 80% of the following “goals” to be eligible for promotion.

Next Steps and Phases

This is a very basic outline of our transition plan for new athletes coming into our program. As I stated, I will add depth to this outline with future articles in which I will go into more specific examples of how we use everything from our tier system to volume and relative intensity. I will break down each step as well and expand on our athlete blocking classification system and how we institute it. I hope this article gives you some insight into the thought process we use when introducing our athletes to our sports performance program.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Does your youth sports club preach player development and follow through with its promises? Or does your club toss “player development” around as an alluring phrase to hypnotize parents into joining your organization?

If there is anything you should get from this article, it is to take player development seriously and uphold it meticulously, as well as take radical action to ensure your players develop in a well-rounded fashion.

“Player development” is a buzzworthy slogan in the youth sports world that is widely broadcasted, yet rarely executed. Clubs that practice player development year-round and for the life of a child athlete’s career are few and far between.

What Is Player Development?

Let me first dive into what player development is not: It’s not about coaches and clubs.

Rather, player development focuses on the young human first and the construction of the complete player—one who is physically, technically, and tactically sound. Adding on to that, it is also one who is mentally resilient and prepared for the oscillations of life.

From the physical side of player development, are your athletes strong, powerful, fast, agile, and conditioned to withstand the demands of the game and a year-round schedule that is more rigorous than that of the pros?

Technically speaking, are your athletes sharp with sport-specific movements, especially under pressure and applied in a game situation? This could be a basketball player dribbling their way out of a double team, or a soccer player beating a defender one-versus-one, or a baseball pitcher throwing three strikes. Do you reinforce these skills weekly, and do you hold players accountable to practice on their own?

In the tactical corner, can they move off the ball, anticipate the next play, understand the role of their position, and think creatively without coaching cues from the sideline?

And looking to the mental side, are they able to pull themselves out of hardship, tackle adversity with poise, use nerves as fuel to perform at a high level, and be forgiving of themselves for their mistakes?

The physical, technical, tactical, and mental pieces perform an integrated dance when true player development is the focus of clubs.

If you are a coach who preaches an attacking formation, how do you expect players to run at top speeds off the ball and make lightning diagonal runs? They need the physical piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches perfect passes without opposition, how do you expect players to pass and move under pressure? They need the tactical piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches risk-taking with technical skills, how do you expect players to be confident in their approach if you berate them for their mistakes at training sessions? They need the mental piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches sharp combination play, how do you expect players to be skilled on the ball if you don’t reinforce skill mastery at your training sessions? They need the technical piece, too.

To that end, it all matters.

Coaches do their players a tremendous disservice when they fail to fill the player development buckets of physical, technical, tactical, and mental equally.

I understand that the noise of wins and rankings gets in the way, but we all need to remind ourselves daily why we coach: to help youth athletes become their best selves on and off the field.

Expounding further, this goes beyond sports and extends far into the long term: a college player lasts for a finite moment in time, but a human lasts longer—a human who can accept failure with ease, a human who can thrive in the competitive workforce, a human who can lean into creativity to grow something magical, a human who takes care of their health after sport ends.

Here are 10 things clubs should do to practice player development.

Refer out to Experts

This much I know: It takes an army to develop a player. A team coach, technical coach, and strength coach are just a few of the experts involved in the player development process—no one person can do it all. Sure, referring out to another niche expert might be a harsh reminder that you do not know it all, but don’t let it be a hit to your ego.

As an example, a coach referring out to a strength and conditioning professional to improve their team’s speed mechanics and ability to handle eccentric load is a step in the right direction. I have seen a few clubs do this, and these are the clubs that are respected for providing their players with not only value, but great care. Another initiative I have seen recently that guides players with the mental piece is a club reaching out to a sport psychologist to give a presentation on performance anxiety, and how to deal with failure.

Even if you do not make money or profit by recommending the strength coach, physical therapist, or sport psychologist down the street, you provide a tremendous service to your young player. Parents take notice too. When clubs and coaches invest in resources and realize it is valuable for the long run, even though they may cringe at the cost, everyone benefits. Most importantly, the young players blossom.

Have a Holistic-Purpose Sport Technology

Sport technology can be useful if applied properly, but it can be detrimental if it’s only invested in for the sake of having cool offerings to splash on social media. Clubs that have genuine intentions with sport technology examine the data first before looking at the likes on Instagram.

You need advanced technology for optimal player development. It can tell you valuable information about managing fatigue and adjusting training sessions, so your players perform at capacity. However, technology is useless if it is only used to take a photo of a leg sensor on a 10-year-old for Instagram, rather than having the coaching staff apply it. It is tantamount to buying a luxurious car without having a mechanic to maintain it and keep it functioning.

The same goes for youth sport technology: invest in it with the purpose of applying the data to tweak your pitch and gym sessions that training week, not for the sake of showing parents your club has more products than the club next door.

Don’t Focus on Wins and Rankings

Take it from a woman who recruits for college, wins and rankings matter far less these days. Of course, back when colleges traveled to showcases more and attended the top tournaments in the country, kids had to be on a team with a high ranking. But now?

More college programs operate under the ID camp model, where players travel to them, pay a fee, and get evaluated for 1–3 days. More college coaches are moving into this model because they do not want to fork out the travel expenses, they can stay at their home base, and the talent comes to them with checks in hand.

While a fraction of college coaches still go to top tournaments, it does not hurt to be on a winning team. However, it is no longer everything, nor is it a make-or-break factor.

Can these kids go to an ID camp and leave a remarkable impression upon the coaches? Do these kids know the game? Do these kids present all buckets of the total player—physical, technical, tactical, and mental? Moreover, can they apply their skills? Are they physically fit to handle the demands of competition and outrun other potential recruits? Are they mentally tough to prove themselves in a single day on campus?

If clubs focus on player development, players will show themselves well at ID camps. Is that not the end goal here?

Encourage Other Sports and Physical Activities

There are a plethora of coaches out there who remember that kids are kids, and they are meant to be exposed to a variety of movement, sports, and physical activities. This is not just from a physical development standpoint, either. These coaches realize that a variety of activities is good for a kid’s mental and social health, too.

A study from the American Journal of Sports Medicine shows that kids involved in multiple sports who participated in more games still experienced fewer injuries. Of course, I could list an archive of studies on the topic, but we all know the research is not new.

We also cannot forget that load monitoring plays a pivotal role here if a kid chooses to play one sport. Yet, most clubs don’t do the strength and conditioning piece, so how do we expect these kids to handle the chronic loads and recover effectively? The caveat is if kids opt to do a single sport, does the coach truly encourage fatigue monitoring? Do they incorporate strength, balance, spatial awareness, and other basic motor skills into their sessions?

Video 1 (here). Crawling is not just for elementary school kids, but for all athletes. The decision of how much and when is up to the coach, and that will vary based on needs.

It is a tough, yet fair question to ask, and it takes a little creativity and preparation from the coach’s end. Kids need a diverse palette of movement to build neural connections in their brain and enhance motor skills, so let us provide them with that.

Give Equal Playing Time

Clubs that give equal playing time to child athletes practice all of the components of player development all at once. Game play is the best way for kids to explore their sport beyond rehearsed practice sessions. When kids are on the field playing the sport they love or in the gym exploring movement, they are learning how to problem-solve, move, sprint, make mistakes, apply their skills, and more.

Going beyond learning the game through playing time, can you imagine what this does for a player mentally? Can you see them beaming with confidence? Can you seem them smiling when they are out there with their teammates? Can you seem them shining with joy when they score a goal?

The coaches who realize that the local U10 tournament championship is trivial compared to the happiness of the kids are the ones doing player development right. The coaches who expose young ones to a lot of minutes, positions, and scenarios are the ones looking out for the longevity of their players.

Moreover, it pains me to see 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds sitting on the bench discouraged, disoriented, and confused as the rest of their teammates are out there playing. What is worse is that these kids develop a nasty taste in their mouth for the game and wonder if they will ever be good enough.

Sure, the “better” kids’ parents might get mad that their 8-year-old’s team is not winning games, but I promise a college scholarship will not suffer because of this. Player development is a long-term process, and setting kids up for successearly by exposing them to the game as much as possible ensures they soak in an understanding of the game.

Clubs that provide equal playing time at the young ages understand it is paramount for kids to develop physically, technically, tactically, and mentally through equal playing time.

Guide Players Through College Recruiting

Following through on promises of college recruiting preparation is another way clubs practice player development. After all, most of these players and parents have the end goal of a college scholarship and evolving into an even better player after high school is over. This is the social piece of player development that clubs often overlook, and it’s the most critical.

As a college recruiter myself, it is easy to tell which athletes went into the process prepared and educated by their coaches. These are the players who reached out to us early, drafted an edited and professional email, and stayed in touched with us for feedback relentlessly. Sadly, most young athletes are not even taught how to draft an email, yet clubs promise college recruiting pathways for their players.

The clubs that walk the walk with college prep value their players’ long-term dreams to play at a high level.

Increase Players’ Strengths

The best coaches see the genius in their players and amplify their talents to bring them out during competition.

Reminding kids of their strengths consistently—what they bring to the collective group, their role on the team, and their talents—has a way of boosting confidence and hyping kids up. While it is important to work on weaknesses and instruct players on what they can improve, it is another thing to berate them, tell them they’re terrible, and not provide them with guidance on how to improve.

Not every kid will be the aggressive one. Not every kid will be the fast one. Not every kid will be the play-maker. Not every kid will have it all. But what coaches can do is hammer home to their players what their strengths are so they can further grow and nurture them.

Make Injury Prevention a Priority

The health of the players affects whether or not they can continue to develop, and clubs that blend in the physical piece of player development make injury prevention a priority. They execute dynamic warm-ups before training sessions and games, consistently reinforce strength and mobility work, and make it mandatory to stretch and recover after games.

The standard for injury prevention training is set by the coach, who creates a culture that requires doing the small things to stay healthy for the long haul.

It can be something as simple as motivating kids to buy an in-house pull-up bar:

Video 3 (here). Assisted pull-ups allow anyone to train at home. Having a pull-up bar at home reminds athletes and even coaches that training doesn’t need to be away from home to be effective.

Requiring players to keep a foam roller, mini band, and nutritious snack in their bag during tournaments also goes a long way.

Something as efficient as performing an on-field strength session that attacks all muscle groups of the body so kids continue to get stronger is also a good idea:

Video 4 (here). On the field, core work is easy and adding a ball to the equation enhances the training. Any athlete can benefit from this partner-assisted exercise.

You can also program maximal sprints with a long recovery to ensure kids are reaching top speeds during practices:

These are easy actions that the best clubs take to physically develop their players, and they need to be mandatory.

It warms my heart to see coaches welcome their young players at every practice session with excitement, exuberance, and passion. Making kids feel important, loved, and valued the moment they show up to the field instills trust, and provides them with an escape from the stressors of daily life. Even it is something as small as putting a bow in your hair to match your young athletes during their sessions, it means the world to them that you are relatable and welcoming.

Video 6 (here). Lower level drills and games are fun for everyone, not just the athletes. Incorporate participation when you feel it enhances the learning process.

To that end, infuse practices with goofiness, laughter, smiles, and high-fives. The mental side of player development begins with providing your players with great care and putting them in an environment where they feel safe, pumped up to play, and welcomed.

I cannot for the life of me understand a coach who is emotionally abusive, makes kids cry, and yells and points in their faces. This is so incredibly far from player development because it ignores the most critical piece: the mental.

Building players up, giving them a sense of community, and ensuring they are comfortable the moment they arrive is key.

Promote Free Play and Creative Thinking

Seeing coaches get out of the way is refreshing because it allows kids to play, be autonomous, and enjoy the sport for what it is. Not only can they learn to be independent thinkers, they can tap into the creative corners of their brains to better flow along with the spontaneous nature of the game.

Stopping play every 10 seconds to bark out a coaching cue that goes in one ear and out the other can prove to do more harm than good for young ones, especially after they have been told what to do all day in school and by their parents.

Club-wide free play nights are an excellent way to ensure kids run around uncoached and give them a break from the structured, rehearsed tactical drills. However, there needs to be more free play encouraged besides clubs having just a set night. This can start with the coach speaking to their players about weekly pick-up games in the neighborhood, educating the parents about why something like this is critical, or telling kids to create their own drill, skill pattern, or game each week.

As an example, my players came up with this awesome game of 1v1 dodgeball:

Video 7 (here). One-on-one or 1 v 1 doesn’t need to be actual soccer. Global athletic development is about competition and athleticism, not only sport-specific skills.

There were no instructions, rules, or limitations given. They were given a bag of dodgeballs and were free to create any game they desired. The result? They had a blast.

I understand that it is tough to bite your tongue and keep from sounding important and acting as the authority. I also understand it is hard to put the practice plan away and give kids your power. However, for the sake of developing their brains into magicians rather than robots, it is worth you just watching and staying quiet.

Every behavioral change from parents and players starts at the top—with clubs and coaches not only setting the expectation and sticking to it, but simply educating weekly and reinforcing the importance of creative play.

Make Player Development Your Standard

Player development is beautiful, but it will come with costs, which means wins might suffer, parents might criticize, and money might be lost. But if player development is what clubs preach—and value—they will make it happen. I have seen few walk the walk, so let us be grateful for those who do not use player development as a sexy catchphrase, but rather, as a standard practice.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

During my career, I have found the high jump to be the most difficult event to coach in track and field. Narrowing the discussion to the jumping events, three factors determine success in the long jump: takeoff speed, takeoff angle, and the height of center of mass at takeoff. The long jump also has the least technical demand. The triple jump depends on similar factors, and if a coach is patient, an athlete can progress through it with minimal technical issues. What makes the high jump a bigger challenge are the curved nature of the approach and the rotations that result because of it.

Before progressing, it is necessary to identify the immense influence Boo Schexnayder’s teachings have had on my development as a track coach and, in this specific case, training for the high jump. His resource, “The High Jump: Technique and Teaching,” is a must-own. I watch it before every season, and a new light bulb goes on in my head every single time. I also refer to my seven-page outline of this resource numerous times each year.

Along with the teaching of Coach Schexnayder and others, I’ve found developing the following essentials to be most effective for developing young high jumpers. Before we dig into those, however, I must first lay out some general groundwork:

• • Anytime you see an asterisk (*), it means that you should refer to Coach Schexnayder’s high jump resource for further information.

• Most of our high jumpers utilize a 10-step approach, although I think you could make a solid argument for the use of eight steps. Ultimately, the approach length is about athlete comfort and strengths. In terms of step numbers moving forward, a 10-step approach is obviously 1–10. However, to remain consistent in communicating with all high jumpers, an eight-step approach is numbered 3–10.*

The Start

With high school athletes, I am an advocate of the crouch or rollover start.* I have a theory that athletes who are “elastic” favor the rollover method because of the movement prior to the first step, which allows them to utilize energy via the stretch-shortening cycle. I find that high jumpers gravitate to this method, and it makes sense, as the majority would be classified as elastic-based instead of strength-based. For example, if Ben Johnson and Andre De Grasse did any of the jumps, my guess is Johnson would prefer the crouch and De Grasse the rollover.

I am generally a laid-back person, but during the teaching and rehearsal of the start, I am extremely intense. The start is the place where novice athletes tend to be lazy in any of the jump approaches. Variation will occur in any approach, and the most consistent parts of the approach should be the beginning and the end. In reality, the end somewhat takes care of itself because the athlete will steer to where they feel comfortable taking off. The highest variation tends to reside in the middle, and in order to minimize that variation, the start must be consistent. This is why I prefer the rollover or crouch start as opposed to a run-in. With the run-in, there are more steps, and more steps increase the chance for variation.

General acceleration mechanics should be followed during the start and initial steps. I look for a gradual push to vertical posture during the first three steps in a 10-step approach. However, during various drills and runs away from the high jump runway, I challenge athletes to push to vertical in a wide variety of steps to challenge coordination and general awareness of posture.

Initiation of the Curve

Because of my personal experience in the event, I was well aware of the importance of running the curve and the resulting lean created, which is necessary for quality rotation over the bar. One of the most common problems for athletes is that they abandon their lean as they come closer to the bar. Early in my career, my focus for the lean was during steps 8–10 in the approach, but encouraging athletes to “stay in it” did not yield great results. It was not until I was primarily tasked with coaching jumpers that I finally took Gary Winkler’s advice and “looked upstream” in regard to this issue. By emphasizing a quality initiation of the curve and rehearsing it A LOT, you significantly increase an athlete’s ability to maintain the lean.

According to Schexnayder, the transition to the curve should begin with a slight turn of the hips during push-off in step 4. Step 5 initiates the curve and should travel outside of the line of travel. This establishes the lean. Step 6 establishes the curve and should land back on the line of travel. Verbal emphasis and demonstrating to the athlete how to run a smooth curve and not a “post route” tend to help with the problem of cutting the curve during steps 5 and 6.*

The video below showcases a drill we use to practice curve initiation. We do it on the high jump runway, but the beauty of it is that you can complete it in any open space (such as a school cafeteria or hallway during the winter months). You can construct a practice curve with chalk or cones*, or you can use the center circle on a soccer field. I have 10-step-approach athletes run back five steps from the start of the curve to establish their starting mark, and we rehearse steps 6–10 depending on space. Objects can be placed in the necessary locations for athletes to simultaneously rehearse the shifting visual focus during the event.*

Arm Action in the Curve

One common error I find with novice jumpers is a decrease in the range of motion of the limbs. In general, the range of the inner arm will be smaller than the outer arm during the curve, and this should seamlessly correspond with the contralateral leg to preserve proper timing. However, many jumpers shrink the range severely during steps 6–9. I have even seen jumpers whose arms are bent nearly 90 degrees and locked at their sides during this entire portion.

I am a “least intervention necessary” coach, so trying to find a successful verbal cue and providing visual feedback would be my first steps. A steady diet of circle runs, half circle runs, and serpentine runs (my favorite) utilizing the same cue would accompany this. I have recently found success with some athletes using mini barriers (mini hurdles, cones, etc.) during half circle runs and in the curve of a full approach (hat tip to fellow high school coach Kevin Ritter).

It is a challenge to do this with a large group during the full approach, as the barriers need to be moved from rep to rep, but it is doable with reference chalk marks and video after a jumper has rehearsed the approach enough to establish consistency during a session. The mini barriers pose a hazard to the feet, and the arm mechanics tend to open up.

Lean into the Plant

Earlier, I mentioned failing to lean as a common error for beginning jumpers during the last few steps. I believe one of these four things cause it:

1. 1. The jumper abandons the lean because they are moving at a velocity they can’t handle. In this case, move the jumper’s starting mark forward and encourage them to be more “controlled” during the approach. I do not like to use the word “slower” because it tends to cause the jumper to accelerate uniformly and then slow down abruptly at the end. Nobody enjoys the result of a crossbar wedged into their back!

1. 1. The jumper has a fear of not being able to land in the pit. A steady diet of short approach jumps (possibly adding a ramp) may help instill confidence.

1. 1. The jumper is not comfortable in flight. Earlier this year, I almost smacked myself in the forehead when I heard Dan Pfaff speak about jumpers inhibiting their abilities due to their fear of flight. Because of this, they attempt to find a solution that will make flight feel safer, such as ceasing to lean inward. In their mind, this will make it more likely for them to land safely.
      Simple popover drills may be just what novice high jumpers need to develop comfort with flight, says @HFJumps. Share on XI had sworn off drilling simple popovers because I felt there was not much connection to the actual event. However, despite all my creative interventions, I know the brain is an overprotective mother and will do whatever is necessary to keep the athlete safe. Popovers may be just what they need to develop comfort, and it makes sense to implement them in early season programming. I do not foresee this issue going away, due to the lack of free play and increase in specialization our youth are exposed to prior to high school. Unless something changes on this front, I expect the collective proprioception and coordination of adolescents to continue to decline.
   2. The jumper failed to initiate the curve properly. It is hard to maintain a lean if you don’t do what is needed to create it. See the previous section.

1. If you are still having difficulty getting a jumper to lean in all the way to the plant and be vertical at toe-off, video 4 below may be helpful. The bar in front provides a constraint that can help the jumper get into proper position.

Steering Ability

As much as we would like all approaches to be identical, they simply are not. A high jumper will find a way to steer to a “safe” takeoff spot, and if they do not, it is common to see them run through the plant and head back to the start (I rarely see this happen in the horizontal jumps). So, if they are going to steer to safety, why is it important to enhance steering ability?

I view it as supplemental insurance. Practicing steering with drills that have a higher degree of variability may help the jumper better focus on the ideal takeoff mark in competition. In other words, the range where the jumper feels safe at takeoff should not be the standard for where takeoff should occur. A tighter window is desired. Steering drills are only limited by an individual’s creativity. Here are a few I use that you can close with an actual jump or a scissor kick.

1. 1. • Start at a random spot and run into an attempt.

1. 1. • Start at a predetermined or random spot and skip or run-run-jump into an attempt.*

1. 1. • Insert 1–2 exaggerated bounds within the approach and complete an attempt.

1. 1. • Start at the takeoff spot, run away from it on the curve, and turn back to run into the attempt on the coach’s clap. I brought this to the jumps after utilizing a similar version in coaching the hurdles. I call this “out and back on a clap.”

Note that these options are less than 10% of the jumping we do. Whether it is “normal” short or full approach work, novices get a high degree of variation on each attempt because they are novices. They need to practice decreasing the variation of their “normal” work by practicing “normal” work. You should use the “fancy” drills listed above sparingly. We often use them as a break in the monotony, as athletes tend to find their challenge enjoyable.

Approach Rhythm

A quality approach has a rhythm that gradually quickens. This implies that the jumper is gradually accelerating. There should be no abrupt changes in the tempo of ground contact. The most common error I see with approach rhythm in high jump at the high school level is starting out with a very fast tempo and slowing as the jumper progresses into takeoff. Increasing momentum does not exist in this scenario as the jumper is not gaining weight during an approach.

I do not have a magical answer to improving the rhythm in the approach other than demanding full engagement during approach rehearsal. It cannot be an aimless run, yet it is common to see this at any high school track meet. I purposely work with our horizontal group during a segment where our high jumpers work on approach rehearsal. During this time, I keep an eye on the high jumpers, making sure they show maximum intent. It is easy to be engaged when the coach is around, but, ultimately, they need to be held accountable as individuals.

We don’t just address rhythm during approach work in our program. It is essential in almost everything we do. I encourage readers to follow the work of Andreas Behm and Chris Parno, as they have great ideas for implementing rhythm into training sessions.

Curvilinear and Coordination Considerations

Absorbing and redirecting energy is paramount in any sport, and high jumpers must be able to do it on a curve. In regard to training, a simple way to prepare the foot-ankle complex to be able to handle these demands is to perform activities on curve(s). The intensity of each activity can be in line with the training theme for the day. Here is a compilation of activities that athletes can do on the bend:

It is important to note that high jumpers should still do the linear version of these drills. On the flip side, I feel sprinters, hurdlers, and long/triple jumpers should perform the curvilinear version to enhance robustness and better handle the curve sprinting they will be exposed to!

I am always looking for ways to challenge an athlete’s coordination, and asking them to complete an attempt from the other side (conjugate jumps) does this really well. We start with short approaches and a scissor kick. As athletes develop comfort, they move back and may even attempt actual flops. The ratio of great to good side jumps (we don’t use the word “bad”) can be anywhere from 1:1 to 10:1, depending on the time of the season. There are health benefits to being more balanced, and it also serves as a way to identify athletes who may be successful in the triple jump!

Balanced Tendon Training

Over the years, I have had sprinters and hurdlers, as well as long and triple jumpers, who, although they weren’t feeling great physically heading into a competition, produced very good (sometimes phenomenal) results. I have never had this happen with a high jumper. The following is a consideration for all athletes, but maybe it carries more weight with high jumpers.

Developing tendon stiffness is a common goal of training that I hear about in a wide variety of sport circles. It makes sense. We see elite performers who barely bend and have ground contact times flirting with zero, yet they produce an almost unimaginable rebound off the ground. Therefore, we design training activities (sprinting, plyometrics, explosive lifts, etc.) that emphasize the development of this quality. I will be the first to admit I have probably gone too far on the spectrum with this in the past. Developing tendon stiffness should be balanced with enhancing tendon health. This podcast with Dr. Keith Baar helped me connect some dots in regard to this balance.

While we do want our athletes to bounce like Tigger, we must take into account that genetics play a big role in that ability. It is similar to the high school football coach who sees the huge and freakishly fast football players who make their living on Sunday and then wants to transform his athletes into them. The most common way is to attempt to get players to physically look the part by spending hours in the weight room, but that can happen at the expense of speed not coming along for the ride.

High jumpers tend to be at risk for tendinopathy due to the torsion involved in the event. By implementing activities that promote tendon health, athletes will have a better chance to feel their best, which will allow them to perform their best.

The Necessity of Triangulation

High school facilities are anything but consistent. Because of this, it is even more important to control the controllable. One way is to ensure an accurate starting mark. If your athletes don’t triangulate their approach, they open the door to more variability.

The image below shows two standards (rectangles) and a crossbar. An example of a possible triangulation (in feet) is given using the Pythagorean triple: 12, 16, 20. Many of our jumpers’ bottom check marks are 12 feet. Prior to competition, our athletes use this triangle to pull through to their top check mark (where they start).

One athlete holds the start of the tape AND 48 feet at the intersection of the crossbar and near standard. Another holds 12 feet directly out from the standard (bottom check mark). A third athlete holds the tape at 28 feet, forming a line perpendicular to the line out from the standard. Once the triangle is set with the tape measure taut, a piece of tape is placed at 12 feet and 28 feet. Then, each jumper can measure their distance back to their starting mark from the bottom check mark while ensuring the tape passes over the piece of tape at 28 feet.

1. In addition, coaches and athletes should be sure that the line that they pull out from the standard to establish the bottom check mark is in line with the crossbar. In other words, the intersection of the crossbar with the far and near standard would be collinear to the bottom check mark if viewed from above.

An Emphasis on Consistency

While this article is far from a comprehensive guide to coaching the high jump, I hope it has emphasized the critical items needed for consistent jumping, and it has given some options to progress to in programming once you build a solid foundation. Above all else, remember to keep your high jumpers happy and healthy!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

By Graham Eaton

If coaching is equal parts art and science, then working well with other coaches on the staff is crucial. Coaches who are flexible with each other will make their team better. This can promote athlete buy-in because of the visible connections and communication between all coaches.

There is a dizzying array of choices when it comes to exercises and programming. I have ideas about what is necessary, and so do our jumps and weight room coaches. It is up to us to communicate often and compromise as needed to keep the athletes healthy and happy. I really feel that our goal is their performance, not pushing our own agenda. We need to keep our egos in check.

First off, I don’t think it is my job as a high school coach to reinvent the wheel or make my mark by devising cutting-edge exercises and training methodology. I think the good stuff is already out there. It is my job to sift through things and implement them in ways that make sense. Sometimes it can feel like I have to be a “Jack of all trades, master of none” type figure. Thankfully, I have a great team of coaches to help me.

There is always something new and exciting in coaching and you should approach it with a mix of curiosity, openness, and skepticism. When coaches see a new concept, new information, or new exercise on social media, they often have strong emotions, whether positive or negative. You can either embrace it fully or be threatened by it and ultimately reject it.

When listening to podcasts, reading articles, or attending clinics, I sometimes come across a really cool idea and concept and, quite frankly, I don’t know what to do with it. If it isn’t something I am all-in on, then I just won’t use it. This doesn’t mean that I regret having encountered the information or that after some ruminating it won’t become useful. Sometimes, another coach’s situation just doesn’t pertain to me and mine doesn’t pertain to them.

Chances are that you and your team of coaches are already doing some things really well. Also, like our team, you may perceive shortcomings that you need to address. Change is necessary for growth. It also isn’t good if your program constantly goes through massive overhauls every year because you feel the pull of the latest trends. Both instability and stagnation can be harmful to a program.

At some point, you and the other coaches need to adhere to a set of training mantras or principles that you believe in and just get better at those with a nearly imperceptible rate of change. If you teach the key concepts and foundations on the track and runway and in the weight room, then everything else is just logistics with some chaos sprinkled in to motivate. I am very lucky to work closely with two coaches who have clear goals and beliefs.

Something for Everyone

At Triton, we prioritize speed because we had a drought of speed and decided to address this. Once speed is present, it becomes easier to train the other energy systems. Track isn’t just running fly 10s. The track events are a harmonious blend of the ATP, lactate, and aerobic systems. Race modeling and aerobic work are important, but having lungs and a plan is no good without some wheels. Trust me, with our population, I am willing to let some things take a back seat.

If speed is 1A, then movement is 1B. I try to utilize warm-ups that get all athletes ready for all their coaches. I don’t think most high school athletes have an abundance of experience with motor skills. Recesses are shorter, gym classes are becoming less frequent, and video games are all-encompassing. Jeremy Frisch has inspired me with his balance of structure, play, and experimenting. Early in the season, we spend a lot of time using warm-ups to assess abilities and readiness. I think if you coach a large group, you have to calibrate to a certain level what defines a typical athlete in your program.

I do not usually come with an exact plan for warm-ups. I know coaches reading this might raise an eyebrow or cringe at this. I have been asked for an exact list of my warm-up “drills” before, and I am usually not sure how to respond. I am not a Type A coach, with templates and lists of every warm-up task I am going to do in every cycle of training. I enjoy thinking on my feet and I find that if I am overly structured, I limit opportunities and creativity both in myself and my athletes. Track is very linear, obsessive-compulsive, and rehearsed when compared to other sports. A block start is practiced over and over, whereas one play in football can have several different options.

I do have a rough outline, as well as a purpose for why I do these things. My rationale might not match up with another coach in a different situation. I do a few of each and repeat, progress, and regress as needed.

This is enough of a plan for me to prevent me from becoming unhinged. I want my athletes to become more complete athletes and they need variety to accomplish this.

The starting point for most of our drills is Dr. Ken Clark’s three-bucket position. Imagine a bucket of water on your head, thigh, and toe, and it elicits a pretty good starting point posturally. I like this isometric because it develops hip flexor strength and also provides a reference point for later items like dribbles and wickets.

Frans Bosch has been a huge influence on our movement and sprint drills. Basically, the thought here is that, across our sport or in most sports, there are very few basic patterns (attractors). Although individual athletes may express power and speed with different styles, we expect the attractors to be very similar. By adding chaos and fluctuations, athletes can adapt and become more resilient. This resilience can make the attractors more deep-rooted. You do need repetition and practice to get better, but monotony can hinder learning and progress. No struggle, no progress.

Commonalities between all of these are:

• Rhythm/timing
• Minimal energy leaks
• Neutral hips
• Relaxed head/neck
• Stiff lower limbs
• Scissoring or switching (hip flexion/extension)
• Arms that contribute to timing or vertical pulse (do drill without arms, add them back in)

I don’t really give too many specifics on what athletes should to do with their arms. I would rather allow them to self-organize with subtle cues like “no tension in hands/wrist,” “turn the swag on,” or “up and down with a bop” if something looks rigid or, for lack of a better word, “off.” A lot of this is a potentially moot point because without good lower limb stiffness/adequate time to reposition limbs, the timing and posture cannot be present. So, arms aren’t really a big rock at first with our athletes, but I put them in positions to feel the contributions.

If they become good at a drill, I simply reorganize and change the task. This can be both motivating and frustrating in a good way. Block starts are frustrating. Hurdles are frustrating. So, I like some unpredictability in our practices.

I think if you change the task, you will change the athlete and their resilience. Late in the season, when we are looking to be at our best, I often do away with a lot of these if I feel the athletes have progressed adequately. I also let them choose things that they like and try to invent something new. You would be surprised how motivating even the littlest of choices can be.

The Weight Room

We lift 2-3 days a week. Our shotput and discus coach, Katelin Invernizzi, is also our weight room coach. She is a former distance runner who has competed in figure shows, powerlifted, weightlifted, and done CrossFit. These days, she tends toward powerbuilding for herself, but it is clear that her influences span across several of these disciplines. She spends a lot of time addressing specific mobility and technique issues here. She also gives me suggestions for items to include in my warm-up that can make the time in the weight room more productive.

If she feels someone is better off doing a dumbbell split squat than a front or back squat, we meet them where they are at. We also feel that the athlete who can do both bilateral and unilateral squat variations will probably benefit from this extra repertoire. We used to be big pushers of bilateral squatting only, but have come around on unilateral mostly because of the reality of a 12-week season. It often takes five weeks just to get athletes to a point where we feel comfortable having them front squat with even a partial range of motion. Katelin would rather a kid have at least a point of entry to begin the process. It is motivating and easier to progress with a bevy of squat modalities, but we can’t afford to overthink with athletes with low training ages.

The programming isn’t super fancy and many kids don’t lift. Most of our two-season kids are invited to the weight room. For most others, there is no continuity and we feel like we restart every spring season. It may sound like a cop-out, but if they don’t lift during soccer and basketball season, then lifting for 10 weeks just adds fatigue.

I tell her that I need my athletes to just get stronger and become more durable. We joke around about giving the kids “wowies,” which are just the usual things in a more exciting disguise. The only thing I communicate is selecting exercises that are a continuation of the day’s track work. This is a generic form of undulating periodization.

We also don’t plan deload weeks. School vacations, doctor’s appointments, tests, driver’s ed classes, and all sorts of other things eat up their time. I am not sure if this is just the culture of our school district or also the reality elsewhere. Either way, it is pretty frustrating, so we generally just train and do a little less lifting in a tough stretch of competition, but we never do nothing.

A few rules or guidelines we follow are:

1. 1. Don’t have your athletes do lifts that you don’t know how to do. If you don’t know how to teach your athletes how to squat, clean, or deadlift, then don’t. I don’t think they are that hard to learn, but there is more to them than “sit back,” “jump and catch,” and “pick the bar up with your legs.” Poor t-spine mobility and an absence of a front rack mean a no-go on front squats and cleaning.

1. 1. Do main lifts for strength on speed days, as well as med throws and plyometrics. We do teach the clean, although we are debating whether to keep it. It does have value for helping our athletes become athletic and receptive to cues.

1. 1. Do hypertrophy reps on one lactate day to add some tendon/muscle strength without frying the CNS or as assistance lifts to support main lifts.

1. 1. We don’t do triphasic lifting or post activation potentiation. These are not advanced lifters and they already have enough to recover from. Too many things lumped together creates crappy form. Focus on one thing at a time or the main thing.

1. 1. Bar speed doesn’t matter if athletes are not strong first. Strength comes before power. We don’t have measured VBT technology like collegiate or professional organizations. Toward the middle/end of the season, we may ask specific athletes to move the bar with more intent. They should always execute the eccentric with control, which will set up a better concentric.

1. Increasing force generation though lifting doesn’t guarantee that force application increases. Get stronger, but don’t let the lifting volume ruin the sprinting!

Fitting in Jumps and Hurdles

I feel that a strength for us is not overworking our athletes. The jumps coach, Tyler Colbert, and I communicate before and after every single practice to make sure that we both got in 80% of what we needed. It will never be 100%. He just finished his first year and did a terrific job with a mostly underclassmen jumps crew. He attended clinics and watched countless videos. I think he understands that coaching is about continual education.

He is responsible for the jumpers by himself. The only thing I ask him to keep in mind is that all of them are sprinters first and our cues need to be consistent. Tyler often assists me with the sprints workouts and devises a workout appropriate for the JV runners.

Here is what we have generally agreed on for our week’s plan.

• • Long and triple jumps are accelerations. It is important that athletes learn how to set up a good jump by building to a good rhythm to stay running. Spinning the wheels does not yield a good jump. Do full approaches on acceleration/max velocity days, but allow them to get some Freelap timing and acceleration work in. I think 50% of the main workout is a fair percentage and can make the jump work better.

• • The high jump and pole vault are paired together as vertical jumps and can be done on X-factor day and before a lactate day.

• • Make sure each jumping event has two practice days in addition to the meet day—one full approach and one with something else.

• • If there are two meets that week, do one decent session and then use pre-meet time to get steps. Cut out the fluff and get specific.

• • Ask each other: Is something lacking or missing? If so, can I address it in warm-ups?

• Ask Tyler: Don’t do any extra plyometrics other than what are included in the sprint complexes on those days. Is there a plyometric/jump you would want me to program that you think has value?

For year one of us working together, we did a solid job. I want him to speak up. If a jumper is struggling but doing well on the track, then perhaps he should skip the main session altogether. It becomes a little fuzzy when you have an athlete who sprints, hurdles, and jumps.

This year, we had a sophomore boy do pretty well in the 400 hurdles, but I don’t think he hurdled more than five times in practice. His technique is not great, but speed, 400-meter work, and jumping work were a priority. Something had to give. Next year, we may look back on it and say, “Why were we doing that?”

Everyone thinks they do things the best way until the future reveals otherwise. I guess time will tell, but we try not to be married to anything. If something works better, we are sure to work through it in time.

I have such a reductionist approach to hurdles because our athletes are sprinters first. This year, we did not have a ton of success due to a lack of speed and experience. This will get better and I need to get better at selecting athletes suited to hurdle. I think if an athlete is fast enough or tall enough, can use their trail leg effectively, can execute a handful of dynamic drills with good arm and leg timing, and can hit hurdle one well, then they will eventually have success. I cannot make a kid who runs 13.0 in the 100m into a great hurdler, yet. I think we are set up better here for the future.

Changes Ahead

We had a solid year this past year, but we need to continually adapt and refine. After attending the Juggernaut Training powerlifting clinic a few weeks ago, I started thinking heavily about minimum effective volume (MEV) and maximum recoverable volume (MRV) and what this means for the sprinters at Triton. On the surface, a track coach may question the value of anything powerlifting-related because our athletes are not powerlifters.

I think in any speed, strength, or power sport, that striving to hit the balance between MEV and MRV is very important. How do we elicit a continued response to training without overdoing it? You can’t just do next to nothing any more than you can go hard every day.

Some factors that help determine these volumes are:

Gender

Females can do more volume. They have less muscle mass, so therefore there is less muscle to be damaged. The presenter at the clinic noted that females can do five sets more per week than males. What does this potentially mean for our female sprinters?

• • Slightly longer intervals. This could mean running the 27-second drill instead of 23 or 20, or running 300s instead of 200s.

• • They can handle slightly more absolute speed as long as the Freelap timer agrees and doesn’t show a huge drop-off.

• • More aerobic work for long sprinters since they run longer than their male counterparts.

• In the past, I have trained females slightly differently, but feel I went too far away from that this year, as my 4x400m relay underperformed. I also shifted some girls around, so where they may have done 400 and 4x400m twice a week in the past, they did 100m/200m or 100m/400m. We have a month-long stretch of two meets a week that makes it tough to do anything crazy. That 400/4x400m double is very important in this stretch.

Lifestyle

Unfortunately, it’s very hard to control this one. All we can do is educate and then respond to what we see. I do try to alternate training weeks so that every third week has less volume while maintaining appropriate intensity.

• • Diet, sleep, stress

• • The body can’t distinguish between the stress of a test and the stress of a squat or sprint.

• I am working through a simplified rating system to implement next year. If someone rates their fatigue or perceived effort as higher than expected, I will investigate and adjust if needed. I can’t give more information here because I don’t know what this looks like yet.

Genetics/Speed 

Just like insanely strong powerlifters who squat 900 pounds, more explosive athletes will need less volume due to how taxing their maximal work is. If you have a kid who runs a 10-meter fly in 1.30 seconds, he will be able to do that more often than your genetically gifted athlete who runs a sub 1.00. This is why Tony Holler’s Feed the Cats program has been so popular.

However, if you want the kid who runs 1.30 to improve, he will probably need some more repetitions to get better. He isn’t a cat yet. For my fastest kids, I find running personal bests is the hardest thing to recover from. An active nervous system will have more fatigue after going at “psycho mode.” Watch for an athlete slowly getting sorer or dropping off timewise, and rest them before it is too late.

The bottom line is that, as a high school coach, you are probably better off doing a little less than doing more, unless something isn’t panning out. Then, you may need to do more. Look at athletes’ practice times and meet times. If something isn’t matching up with expected performances, then investigate a bit more.

Working Together

In order to keep your athletes happy and healthy, you need to perfect the art of cross-coaching. Find time to discuss training and belief systems with your team of coaches and know what they are doing. Every coach on your staff plays an important role and can make major contributions.

I am very thankful to have Katelin and Tyler in my corner. We are three coaches with varied backgrounds who can come together for the express purpose of making our athletes better. Both of them understand the factors that influence training and continue to educate themselves, which in turn motivates me. I think pushing your staff in this manner ensures that no one ever settles.

Katelin and Tyler are both former distance runners who have run fly 10s this summer. This was without prompting. Both of them noted how sore they were the next day. I appreciate this exploration and find it important because you have to understand how different training affects your athletes. Coaches often have preferences in training. Katelin lifts, Tyler runs marathons, and I like to chase the pump and do drills. At the end of the day, we know that our inclinations take a back seat to what the science of sprinting suggests we do. Just because we trained or like to train a certain way doesn’t mean we should do that with our kids.

Tyler has made it his goal to bring more short speed work over 90% into the season with cross country runners, who he coaches as an assistant coach alongside his father, Joe Colbert. Joe has always done a great job of reminding us that the kids are “our athletes.” It is not uncommon to find a mid-distance runner in the sprint group running our 5x200m staple workout. I have also sent 600m runners out for tempo runs before with him. There is something to be gained from everything.

The shared responsibility can turn a good team into a great team. We are excited to move forward. Check your egos, balance the training, and make sure every coach has a voice. Start planning now.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Training team sport athletes is complex, with so many ways to prepare them and variables to consider. In truth, any program that allows for the progressive overload of various forms of intensity (not just weight lifted, but also increases in outputs of power, speed, etc.), performed with safe biomechanical positioning, will typically lead to positive results from a physical preparation context.

We see this time and time again with most high-level team sport athletes having similar levels of physical fitness despite each strength and conditioning staff having their own unique approach to the problem. However, team sports exist as multiple layers of complexity and chaos, and to have a better understanding of preparation protocols, it’s necessary to try and consider all the layers as best as possible.

‘Chaoplexity’

“The term chaoplexity brings together the theory of complexity and chaos theory…the complexity of the game exists in a world founded on chaos. Combine this with social laws, the rules of competition, and training or practice schedules, and we see that players are experiencing what can only be described as chaoplexity.” – Fergus Connolly

For me, part of this chaoplexity is understanding how all the various layers interact and how that will determine what I choose to do with my athletes from a physical preparation standpoint. This is especially important for younger developmental players who stand to gain a lot from physical preparation in their overall performance.

I want to expose my athletes to various motor skills and coordination challenges, bring up their power and capacity outputs, and do all of this while still considering the impact of skill acquisition, sports practice, and sports competition. I am in search of structured training variation, based on:

• Desired training effects
• Time of the year
• The specific athlete
• Multiple other factors

“Variation is the key to efficient coaching. This does not only apply to optimizing motor learning processes. When planning physiological adaptations during training, variation should again be the main feature of the training…Variation is therefore the first and most important training principle, along with individualization.” – Frans Bosch

This article presents one ideological approach I use in my current search for structured variation. This approach is specifically geared toward team sport athletes. Based on the demands of team sport physical preparation, I use a system that progresses the general (italicized on purpose) strength and power training by building a foundation of unilateral activities first, and then shifting toward a realization of high-power output with bilateral activities. This general training progression is layered with specialized forms of speed, power, agility, and endurance training performed in conjunction with what’s laid out here.

Varying Unilateral and Bilateral Strength and Power Training

First off, this is not a new concept. I know for a fact this idea has been used before (see the picture of Joe DeFranco’s notes from a Charles Poliquin seminar below). But for me, this whole idea started from a simple conversation with my good friend Chad Dennis, a highly experienced strength coach for the past 17 years.

Chad reviewed my notes and then took a couple of breaths before asking me, “Have you ever tried doing a foundational period of unilateral emphasis followed by a specialized period of bilateral emphasis?” I asked him to elaborate on his thoughts, and he said, “Well, for me, I tend to look at unilateral power as falling more in line with ‘strength,’ whereas bilateral power seems to align better with ‘speed.’ There’s something there with the kinetics and the ground contact times.”

Movement Physics Tell the Story, Not Movement Appearance

As soon as Chad said that, my mind wandered to two specific places. The first was Triphasic Training by Cal Dietz and Ben Peterson, where they wrote the following:

“A single leg plyometric, as shown by [a] motion analysis machine, is so much slower in producing forces…With double leg plyometrics…there is higher potential for developing speed because of the shorter amortization phase, and thus, a more explosive rebound…Single leg plyometrics should be viewed more as a strength plyometric whereas double leg plyometrics develop speed.” ⁴

We often assume that single leg training is more “sports-specific,” since most athletic actions occur on a single limb. When speaking strictly kinematically—that is, based on how a movement appears—then yes, that’s true. But when we consider the kinetics of the motions—that is, how the movement was caused in terms of the forces and time frames involved—we start to see that we can’t just look at the appearance of a movement. In order to better determine the desired training effect, we must also consider the physics involved.

The other place where this thought hit home for me was a recollection of work by Derek Hansen highlighting ground contact time as a simple way to gain insight as to where training effects occur along the force-time continuum.

So, it’s not enough to think in terms of “single leg is more specific” when designing programs—it’s the overarching desired training effect that is most important. As I discovered, taking a broader perspective on the why’s of training brings up some interesting thoughts and questions into when, how, and why to use different forms of unilateral and bilateral training.

Unilateral vs. Bilateral Power

Unilateral power and plyometric training are growing in popularity, especially with team sport athletes for whom having the ability to display power on one limb in multiple directions is an obvious advantage due to the demands of the game. Training in multiple planes seems to be an important factor, with research supporting the notion that having single leg power, deceleration, and coordination in multiple planes is an area of necessity when designing training programs for team sport athletes.^{1, 9, 10, 12}

Both bilateral and unilateral power training will result in general adaptations associated with improvements in power, namely speed of muscle contraction, faster motor unit activation, enhanced neural firing rates, decreased duration of the stretch-shortening cycle, and improved proprioception. However, there are specific adaptations that occur depending on the training means used.

The reported training effects following unilateral power and plyometric training may occur over a period of 6–12 weeks. These effects seem to follow the SAID principle, where specific adaptations occur based on imposed demands. So, it’s typically reported that training with unilateral activities will have the greatest impact on unilateral actions, though some research has suggested that bilateral countermovement jump performance may also improve following a period of unilateral jump training¹.

Figure 2 presents some of the reported effects of unilateral power and plyometric training:

Preparing for Collision

Another point of consideration with unilateral power training for team sport players relates to tissue resiliency and robustness. For contact sports like rugby and American football, collision is a major concern. Thanks to advances in integrated accelerometry (IA) technology, researchers can monitor the magnitude and frequency of impact and collision in team sport players.

It has been reported that the prevalence of high-velocity eccentric actions (i.e., changing direction and deceleration), in combination with tackling and other forms of impact trauma, induces a significant load to the players’ musculoskeletal systems, as evidenced by large elevations of creatine kinase (CK) and cortisol following match play. Soft tissue trauma is part of the game, and if players are loaded too much or too little in training, it stands to reason that noncontact soft tissue injuries are likely imminent.¹¹

However, it seems that the bulk of collision loading in contact sports like rugby and American football occurs in the form of ground-reaction forces generated by accelerating, changing direction, jumping, or rapid decelerations, all resulting in inertial load on the body.^{5, 15}

Force plate data has helped shed light on the magnitude of these impacts as measures of vertical ground reaction forces, which can range from 2–7 times the body weight of a team sport player during jumping, change of direction, and sprinting actions. Further, these are actions that are usually sustained on one leg due to the dynamics of team sport game play.

“The moment you enter a gym, forget about specific training unless you are a bodybuilder, a powerlifter, or a weightlifter.” – Henk Kraaijenhof

One paper investigated the demands of American football using a workload-injury etiology model and determined the following³:

• Coaches and practitioners working with American football players need to expose them to a high number of collisions in training to better prepare players for game demands.
• A balance must exist between the number of exposures required to improve fitness and the number that elicits negative fatigue responses and increased injury risk.
• Players who can produce high average inertial load values were less susceptible to contact and noncontact soft tissue strains and sprains.
• Players with a high level of neuromuscular responsiveness and control can produce high inertial load values through rapid acceleration, deceleration, and change of direction, which may offer protective benefits.

The research seems to indicate that the most complete training program is one that incorporates a combination of bilateral and unilateral power training. This makes sense when looking at the ground contact image in figure 3, where bilateral and unilateral power and plyometric activities are scattered all along the force-time continuum. 

Unilateral vs. Bilateral Strength

Speaking of implementing a complete program, we can’t neglect the development of muscular strength. It seems there are benefits to using both unilateral and bilateral means in this realm as well. The benefits of general strength training are well-established and beyond the scope of this article, but the primary adaptations associated with heavy resistance training include enhanced neural capabilities, increased energy stores, muscle gain and improvements in body composition, anabolic hormonal responses, and potential enhancement of ligament, tendon, and collagen integrity.⁸

Most resistance training research has investigated effects using bilateral strength exercises like the leg press, barbell squat, or barbell deadlift. The research regarding training for maximal strength using unilateral exercises pales in comparison to the research on bilateral barbell training. In practice, most coaches perform unilateral strength training, using exercises like rear foot elevated split squats, pistol squat variations, or single leg deadlift variations. The following is a quote taken from the classic training text Supertraining by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Mel Siff:

“Research has shown that the transfer of strength developed in bilateral training (e.g. using squats or power cleans) offers specific improvement in performance in bilateral events…while unilateral training (e.g. with dumbbells or split cleans) enhances performances more effectively in unilateral activity such as running, jumping.”

In recent peer-reviewed literature, the reported performance gains associated with unilateral strength training show similar effects to what is reported with bilateral strength training, which may be important for athletes who are contraindicated for exercises like barbell squats or deadlifts. If axial loading is an issue, especially for older athletes in contact sports who have experienced low back or hip injuries and feel discomfort when loading bilaterally, unilateral exercises may prove to be an effective form of strength training for the lower body.

Thus, more work is needed before we really understand what adaptations occur from heavy unilateral strength training.

Here are some of the reasons that I personally like using unilateral strength exercises, especially early in a developmental training progression:

• Unilateral strength exercises are naturally more unstable, emphasizing stability, coordination, and balance in the face of more degrees of freedom.
• Due to greater instability, athletes should perform unilateral strength exercises with a controlled tempo, emphasizing time under tension for greater local muscular endurance and hypertrophy.
• Unilateral strength exercises will reduce the overall axial load, allowing for a period of unloading the spine while emphasizing strength and tension of the local leg musculature early in the training process.
• With split patterns and positions, mobility may be trained against load in positions like deep hip/knee flexion, hip extension, and ankle dorsiflexion while minimizing spinal compression.

Field First, Weight Room Second

In my programming, I always take a skill-centric view and work backward from the athletic qualities needed in the sports game. This means that I always think in terms of field first, weight room second.

Certain athletic activities will demonstrate massive vertical ground reaction forces in minuscule amounts of time—let’s just consider how top-speed sprinting can produce up to 6x body weight of vertical ground reaction force in about a tenth of a second on one leg! You just can’t match this kind of output in the weight room. I can find activities that may have a positive correlation and potential transfer to sprinting performance in the weight room, but if I really expect to build better sprinting with my athletes, I must have them sprint.

The same goes for other athletic activities like jumping, change of direction, and deceleration. I must train these qualities as they exist on the field in order to keep the experience specific to what’s encountered in the game. So, for agility work, I will use game-like situations to put my athletes in positions that feature specific perceptual-cognitive elements to help hone their skills of anticipating, reading, and reacting appropriately to what they see.

A popular sprint training progression from Charlie Francis is the Short-to-Long Model, where we expose athletes to shorter distances (i.e., 10–20 yards) earlier in the training process and gradually progress to longer distances over time. This makes sense because shorter distances do not feature speeds or ground reaction forces that are nearly as intense as longer distances, where athletes reach top speeds. Therefore, athletes can train at high intensities of sprinting with less risk of structural damage early on by using shorter distances and gradually expanding their power and speed exposure with longer distances as the program carries on.

In similar fashion, when I train for change of direction speed or agility in the form of open/reactive game experiences, I use a progression of “small to large,” where I start with smaller field spaces early on and gradually increase to larger field spaces. By starting with small spaces, my athletes experience these high-intensity movements with less impact, since the spaces and movement speeds are reduced. As the program progresses, I use larger spaces, and changes of direction feature larger impacts from decelerating from higher movement speeds.

Common Denominators of Effective Programming

When I look at various texts on programming and periodization for sports, the principles seem to be consistent, regardless of the specific periodization model applied, whether it is the traditional model, vertical integration system, block periodization model, block training system, or whatever. There will always be a General Preparatory Period that initiates the training process, followed by a Specific Preparatory Period to emphasize more specific qualities, and finally a Competitive Period where the effects of training are realized in live competition. There is also a Transition Period of reduced loading following phases of competition or team sport seasons.

This model is characteristic of keeping all forms of training present throughout the entire year—hence, vertically integrating the training components like the traditional model—but rotating the emphasis of training into blocks or phases and accounting for greater inclusion of technical/tactical training. It is a system that falls somewhere in between the traditional model and the block models, where definitive blocks are used but all physical qualities are present to some degree all year long due to the nature of team sport requirements.

Team sports are incredibly complex in comparison to individual sports, with a wide array of physical qualities always needed, far more tactical strategy involved, and a greater repertoire of technical skills to develop. In addition, team sport athletes will not need the same level of physical output as an individual sport athlete. A sprinter lives by maximizing speed and a thrower lives by maximizing power, but a team sport player only requires enough physical output to operate effectively within the rules of the sport game.

Progressing from Unilateral to Bilateral Emphasis

The idea of progressing from a unilateral to bilateral emphasis for strength and power is about starting with a base of coordination and gradually shifting toward increasing motor outputs in the general training as the specific training on the field becomes more intense and more technical in relation to the sport. Thus, in team sports, this shift toward specificity will necessitate increasing the intensity and exposure to field-based activities with faster speeds, higher power, more intense change of direction, and greater perceptual-cognitive complexity using open/reactive games and agility training.

It’s also important to spread out the stresses of each training period so that the most important qualities can flourish. With unilateral training, there is an expectation of greater soreness in the local tissues and musculature. This can prove problematic when we want to really emphasize technical elements and intensified field training during the SPP. Sore legs make speed and technique work difficult.

In the early training periods, specialized technical training is less of a priority, so it allows for the opportunity to stress the structures of the lower limbs with less worry of reduced quality in high-speed efforts or activities of high technical demand. It’s much easier to have a quality 10-yard sprint with some leg soreness than it is to have a quality 40-yard sprint. Therefore, it makes more sense to emphasize unilateral training when there is reduced field training intensity, typically earlier in the training process.

Just because the emphasis of a certain training phase may be on unilateral training, this does not mean that we abandon bilateral activities. On the contrary, keeping elements of bilateral training present while emphasizing unilateral training will prove fruitful, allowing for athletes to develop the motor control needed for bilateral activities that we will load later.

For example, I keep bilateral squat and hinge movements present in accessory weight training, using lighter loads and manipulating execution tempos to emphasize eccentric or isometric control. I also perform jump testing with my athletes all year long, so exposure to bilateral squat jumps, countermovement jumps, depth jumps, and the reactive strength index (RSI) is consistent in all phases.

What About the In-Season?

The main body of this article deals with the off-season preparation periods. However, given that the specific context is in relation to team sports, we come across an issue: Team sports like basketball, soccer, and volleyball require competition almost all year long. For these sports, there is a greater requirement to develop a knowledge of the stress imparted on players from sports practice and games and to make educated decisions on how to structure the in-season training.

In his new book, Methodology of Training in the 22nd Century, Coach Henk Kraaijenhof explains how we simply have to throw many periodization models out the window with in-season training, as the majority of the models were designed at times when athletes were simply not competing as frequently as they do in today’s commercially driven world. Thus, we must take a more agile approach, like the morphocycle design of tactical periodization pioneered by Vitor Frade and brought further to light in Fergus Connolly’s Game Changer and my most recent book with Fergus, The Process: The Methodology, Philosophy & Principles of Coaching Winning Teams.

This kind of approach is based on the following components:

1. Preparedness – The underlying long-term adaptations that have occurred for the player, such as overall strength, power, speed, endurance, and other qualities based on previous experiences and training exposure. This requires knowledge of the player’s sport involvement and training history and how it affects what must be done during in-season practice and training interventions.
2. Readiness – How well the player’s body is functioning at the current moment. Readiness must be high upon entering game day and must be maximized as much as possible for important conference games or championship games. Improper training and practice interventions will disrupt player readiness and game day performance.
3. Psychological Resilience – The player’s ability to cope with mental stressors associated with high levels of competition. Practice and training sessions have an impact on a player’s psychology, as physiology is largely intertwined with a player’s mental state and one will impact the other.

During a competitive season, a coach must keep these three components front of mind. Most team sports play at least one game each week, and some upward of three or more depending on the time of year. The game itself is the most important testing protocol for sports performance, meaning that sports practice becomes the most important training session.

In terms of physical preparation, it becomes about winning small battles. So, there is no answer as to how to progress the training; there is only a necessity to be aware of potential training effects and the insurance that what is imposed on the players aligns properly with what is happening in practice on the road to game day.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Bogdanis, G. C., Tsoukos, A., Kaloheri, O., Terzis, G., Veligekas, P., and Brown, L. E. (2019). “Comparison Between Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training on Single-and Double-Leg Jumping Performance and Strength.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(3), 633–640.

2. Boyle, M. (2011). Advances in Functional Training. Lotus Publishing.

3. Cappa, D. F. and Behm, D. G. (2011). “Training specificity of hurdle vs. countermovement jump training.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(10), 2715–2720.

4. Dietz, C. and Peterson, B. (2012). Triphasic Training: A Systematic Approach to Elite Speed and Explosive Strength Performance (Vol. 1). Bye Dietz Sport Enterprise.

5. Edwards, T., Spiteri, T., Piggott, B., Haff, G. G., and Joyce, C. (2018). “A narrative review of the physical demands and injury incidence in American football: application of current knowledge and practices in workload management.” Sports Medicine, 48(1), 45–55.

6. Francis, C. (1997). Training for Speed. Faccioni.

7. Issurin, V. (2008). Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sports Training. Ultimate athlete concepts.

8. Jeffreys, I. and Moody, J. (Eds.). (2016). Strength and Conditioning for Sports Performance. Routledge.

9. Lockie, R. G., Callaghan, S. J., Berry, S. P., Cooke, E. R., Jordan, C. A., Luczo, T. M., and Jeffriess, M. D. (2014). “Relationship between unilateral jumping ability and asymmetry on multidirectional speed in team-sport athletes.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3557–3566.

10. Maloney, S. J., Richards, J., Jelly, L., and Fletcher, I. M. (2019). “Unilateral stiffness interventions augment vertical stiffness and change of direction speed.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(2), 372–379.

11. McLellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I., and Gass, G. C. (2011). “Biochemical and endocrine responses to impact and collision during elite rugby league match play.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(6), 1553–562.

12. Ramírez-Campillo, R., et al. (2015). “Effect of unilateral, bilateral, and combined plyometric training on explosive and endurance performance of young soccer players.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(5), 1317–1328.

13. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Siff, M. C. (2009). Supertraining. Verkhoshansky SSTM.

14. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Verkhoshansky, N. (2011). Special Strength Training: Manual for Coaches (p. 274). Rome: Verkhoshansky SSTM.

15. Wellman, A. D., Coad, S. C., Goulet, G. C., and McLellan, C. P. (2017). “Quantification of accelerometer derived impacts associated with competitive games in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I college football players.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(2), 330–338.

In my previous post, I presented a case for why the pursuit of power development in vertical pulling is a worthy endeavor. Through my own experience and the limited research available, I also tried to project how to use VBT to assist the process of creating more intentional and tangible adaptations in this regard.

Encountering athletes with varying strength and power in vertical pulling is the obvious norm, so there are particular considerations for how we program for athletes at different stages of development. Also, individual athletes come to training on a given day in various states depending on their nutrition, hydration, sleep, DOMS, and general state of recovery. Even psycho-social factors such as relational and financial stressors can affect a training session.

I’m not the first to observe this trend, as coaches have never trained robots. Fortunately for us, a principle has long existed in the world of strength and conditioning to help us embrace these individual changes that occur daily. In Mel Siff and Yuri Verkoshansky’s book, Supertraining, they describe cybernetic periodization as when “the original preplanned periodization scheme is regularly modified by subjective and objective feedback obtained from the lifter’s current performance state.”¹

A coach who intentionally creates a culture of conversation and honesty encourages athletes to give subjective feedback. This type of feedback is a two-way street, as the sharp strength and conditioning coach can observe how an athlete’s body language may be “off” from what is typical. We’ve also never had more opportunities for objective feedback and evaluating athlete readiness than we have today through technology such as VBT, HRV, force plates, hand grip dynamometers, and sleep monitoring devices.

With this article, I’m offering a programming map and three distinct periodization models that I’ve had success with. Efficient maps and models offer wisdom to the decision-making process, and positive results from their use are conditional on the discerning application of the model (to ever-changing athletes); I hope you receive them in these terms. I’ve constructed my models from what I understand to be truthful about the human body and how the average body best responds to training. Models “written in pencil” assume they evolve, which can mean days and not years.

Credit to Mladen Jovanovic’s Strength Training Manual for delivering a resource that aptly explains how understanding the difference between small and large worlds allows us to employ models more successfully:

The real world is very complex and uncertain. To help in orienting ourselves in it, we create maps and models. These are representations of reality, or representations of the real world. Everything written in this manual represents Small Worlds—self-contained models of assumptions about how things work or should work. Although they are all wrong, some of them are useful (to quote George Box), especially as a starting point in your orientation, experimentation, and deployment to the Large World.²

I hope you find some of my models useful. As coaches, we ultimately will face the fork in the road where we have to commit to a direction of programming for our athletes, and because of this, we can’t live entirely in the abstract. We need to make decisions, and good models can influence our decisions for the better.

Mapping the Spectrum of Vertical Pulling Programming

My path to coaching an athlete to gain a more powerful vertical pull begins with a flow chart map to situate the athlete in the proper model. The flow chart allows the coach to execute short-term strategies with big-picture intent in mind—to become more powerful in vertical pulling. In general, we can administer these models with relative ease into most holistic strength and conditioning programs.

I ask you to consider, however, the merit in recognizing vertical pulling as a main movement during at least one session a week and avoid the pitfalls of habitually downgrading it to an assistance exercise. Our distinction between the two practically means we are more likely to place it at the beginning of the session if we value it as a main lift, and our athletes can perform the movement in a less fatigued state.

Programming for the Novice

A novice is an athlete who can’t perform one entire full range of motion (ROM) bodyweight vertical pull (and has no injury or pain concerns). These athletes often are unnecessarily and exclusively relegated to the lat pulldown machine or permanently stuck on the same assisted band variations that never intentionally and precisely increase in intensity. A starting point that’s an alternative to the former approach, which I’ve had success with, is systematically progressing through a six-week triphasic model that begins at lower forces-higher velocities and ends at higher forces-lower velocities.

The novice model undulates in volume session to session (time under tension and total reps), has linear increases in intensity every two weeks (the athlete pulling up more of their own weight), and includes just a hint of a conjugate element (switching the vertical pull variation via the grip, width, and bar thickness every six weeks). I’ve experienced great freedom because the elements I periodize don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I thank Greg Nuckols for his article on this very topic. He perfectly sums up this idea:

Westide is Conjugate Periodization! Such-and-such powerlifter uses Daily Undulating Periodization! Beginner or intermediate lifters should use a Linear Periodization program! It sounds like these are disparate concepts, when really almost all training plans weave all of these elements together to reach the desired end. They can do this because, as we touched on initially, training is organized on different time scales.³

Every two weeks, the athlete advances from a band assisting the entire ROM to ¾ ROM and then to finally ¼ of the movement assisted. This method follows what we know to be true about progressive overload: the athlete who progressively has to produce more force will get stronger over time and as the athlete receives less and less assistance over time—this method accomplishes this.

Check out my previous article, which has videos of the exercises I use in the assisted band category. You’ll see the varying degrees of assistance bungee bands can offer, depending on the distance the carabiners drop down from the bar.

The triphasic approach from Cal Dietz⁴ has been a game-changer for me. In this case, integrating the concepts provides the novice valuable time under tension. This athlete requires significant total work, and greater time under tension in longer eccentric and isometric contractions are very appropriate to teach them to own their positioning in a controlled manner.

Cluster training was impressively discussed by Carl Valle,⁵ so I won’t go into it here. I simply suggest that novices will benefit greatly from it. Although clusters are often thought of as an advanced strategy, they are just as important for weaker athletes as stronger ones.

The Tufano 2017 study⁶ really opened my eyes in this regard, as he found:

Intra-set rest provided in clusters allowed for greater external loads than with traditional sets, increasing total work and time under tension while resulting in similar peak power (PP) and % velocity loss (%VL). Therefore, cluster-set structures may function as an alternative method to traditional strength- or hypertrophy-oriented training by increasing training load without increasing %VL or decreasing PP.

The goal is to increase total work and time under tension, and clusters give novices these very things without compromising power production. An athlete who does clusters literally can get more work in than the typical 3 x 8-10 hypertrophy approach and perform high-quality reps. To me, it’s a no brainer.

To make matters more practical, when an athlete loses velocity with this movement, they often do leg kicking and jolting motions, as they generally lack the discipline to finely execute grinder reps occurring late in a set while under fatigue. The compromise of technical execution is a problem that coaches can get in front of. It’s a proactive approach that may very well reduce the risk of poorly performed reps, especially when we have a weight room full of athletes and our eyes are in a single place at a given moment.

To execute clusters for this population, Tufano again has key wisdom to offer from his 2018 study. ⁷ He showed that it might not be enough to have a velocity cut-off protocol where intra-set rest begins as speeds fall below a given number (he refers to this as contemporary traditional sets). In his study:

Each set during the traditional set (TS) protocol included as many repetitions as possible until two consecutive repetitions dropped below 90% MPmax, which was followed by 120 s inter-set rest. The design was identical for cluster sets (CS) but with an additional 20 s intra-set rest after every 2 repetitions. The number of repetitions performed, mean velocity, and mean power output, were analyzed using 2(protocol)*6(set) repeated measures ANOVA. The number of repetitions during CS (51.8 ± 14.4) was greater than TS (31.9 ± 3.7) (p = 0.001), but the average velocity (CS = 0.711 ± 0.069, TS = 0.716 ± 0.081 m·s^-1; p = 0.732) and power output (CS = 630.3 ± 59.8, TS = 636.0 ± 84.3 W; p = 0.629) of those repetitions were similar.

He concluded, “These data indicate that cluster sets are a viable option for increasing training volume.” My experiences mesh with this study in that a session’s total volume can be compromised when you wait for reps to fall below a specified threshold, especially with a novice in vertical pulling (even when using a high number like 90% in the study).

Ironically, by attempting to limit slower reps, we actually enable slower reps—reps slower than the cut-off are still performed. I have found this concept to be true during the chin-up or pull-up when the novice knocks out reps well above a planned velocity point and then hits the wall and has poor peak power on the next rep. Diligence in increasing the frequency of intra-set rest maximizes the cluster effect, and there is most certainly an art to coaching this.

As an alternative to velocity cut-offs, I recommend using the final velocity or power of a rep in a cluster to serve as competition for the athletes to have with themselves. For example, if they complete a cluster, and the final rep of the set is “x” m/s, that’s now their target to not go below for the next clusters. Since the athlete most likely does not see the VBT readings, I call out the numbers (or have another athlete do so) and watch their intensity mount as numbers progressively lower as the cluster goes on.

This does two things:

1. A coach with a big team doesn’t have to deal with the tedious task of having each athlete in the midst of the pull-up know exactly when to stop the set since they can’t see the VBT feedback screen.
2. As referenced in my first article, we know that visual or verbal feedback enhances an athlete’s performance.

In a separate 2016 study of his,⁸ Tufano found that in the back squat, clusters of two were superior to clusters of four in peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), and mean power (MP) when averaged across all repetitions. For novices to achieve quality reps when using the full ROM assisted band, I’ve found that three often is the ideal maximal number of reps before intra-set rest should begin.

As always, make adjustments when necessary. And try to arrive at the total amount of work that is planned with the best rep speed possible while taking into account that training time is not unlimited; there’s certainly a balance between maximizing time in the weight room and producing high-quality repetitions.

My last note regarding novices is that I’ve found it unproductive to superset the vertical pull with vertical pushing because it greatly diminishes the quality of the next set. Instead, I have the athlete perform a “filler” exercise during inter-set rest. Depending on the athlete or team, this is often a low-intensity core/cuff exercise or a shoulder mobility filler. Even lower body lifts as a superset work. This way, a coach with a team doesn’t have athletes standing around between their turn on the bar. There’s also more high-quality work done in the vertical pulling aspect of the program.

At the end of the six weeks, the novice attempts to perform a full ROM unassisted bodyweight vertical pull. If they’re successful, they move on to the next phase. If not, they repeat the six-week phase with less assistance from the bands at each of the two-week intervals for the following mesocycle.

Programming for the Intermediate

Intermediate athletes can perform at least one bodyweight vertical pull but cannot pull 71% 1RM (bodyweight + load) with at least their bodyweight. Intermediates should not just target getting stronger; they also must get more powerful!

The fastest way to get an athlete to hit 71% 1RM with at least their bodyweight is by embracing conjugate periodization elements and changing the training stressor in each of the two vertical pull sessions per week. This way, they are training two different physical characteristics: high forces and high power outputs. Another conjugate element is switching out the vertical pulling exercise variation every three weeks. There are still triphasic considerations, undulation in volume session to session, and linear increases in intensity during the six weeks.

The first three weeks includes the assisted band variations for the highest expressions of power in the concentric portion of the lift, or what some may refer to as the dynamic effort day (it’s worth pointing out from my first article that the Munoz-Lopez study found power correlates more highly with velocity than force in the pull-up). The isometric and eccentric focus is always on the descent after an explosive pull-up.

The max effort day offers no assistance and has the athlete perform bodyweight or greater vertical pulls at their 2RM starting in week one. The goal is to add 2.5 lbs of additional load each week. I recommend that these athletes use added weight attached to a belt rather than holding a dumbbell between their feet. It’s generally easier to find a 2.5 lb plate to slip onto a chain than DBs that increase by 2.5lbs.

By the time the athlete gets to weeks 4-6, I find it a great time to incorporate medicine ball training in the form of slams to achieve faster velocities than the assisted band reps can offer. I contrast the medicine ball slams after the higher force max effort pulls. Carl Valle made some outstanding points about medicine ball training when he called for a “tighter and more-specific strategy”⁹ for their use. The contrast effect is exactly that in this instance—we get robust strength qualities and the peak velocity movement in the same session.

The Ignjatovic 2012 study¹⁰ showed that medicine ball training has its place in a holistic program that seeks to improve power. When incorporated with a regular training program, “applied medicine ball training improved peak power during bench and shoulder press at 30 and 50% of 1RM” compared to a control group that performed everything the same except the medicine ball work.

With weighted pulls now occurring twice a week instead of once, the athlete receives more focus on the maximal strength qualities and performs a different vertical pull exercise in the last three weeks than the first. I’m a big fan of these subtle changes to the max effort exercise variation, as they tend to recruit a more diverse pool of muscle over the long term versus staying with one vertical pull variation.

For example, the lower traps have a peak MVC score of 87.2 in the wide pronated grip pull-up. In the close parallel grip, the peak score is 69.1.¹¹ The variation in recruitment patterns is important for the traps, rhomboids, and biceps to develop and assist the lats consistently.

Just like weeks 1-3, the goal is to increase the amount of weight lifted at each rep scheme in weeks 4-6. This is the linear component at work. For the same given volume, seeking to increase force capabilities for as long as possible until plateauing is low hanging fruit. During this time, it’s critical to have access to 0.5 kilos and 2.5 lb plates.

At the end of the six weeks, the athlete will see if 71% of their 1RM (bodyweight + load) is at least their body weight. If not, they repeat the 6-week mesocycle. If successful, they move to the final phase and model.

Programming for Advanced Athletes

Advanced athletes are those whose 71% of 1RM is at least their body weight. William Wayland did an excellent job teaching his approach to supramaximal training,¹² and my use of these techniques on the advanced athlete is undoubtedly influenced by his work.

An athlete who is significantly strong and powerful in vertical pulling, as demonstrated by the ability to hit 71% 1RM with at least their body weight, can still get stronger and more powerful. But their improvements in vertical pulling—like any other exercise—often plateau in both strength and power gains. With that in mind, it’s important to find a way to stress the body more significantly than just weighted pulls emphasizing concentric components and eccentric lowering at submaximal weights.

That’s where supramaximal eccentric and isometrics come in. As William wrote:

Compressed intensive training is a period in which we apply the greatest stimulus to accumulate the desired response in the shortest time possible—this is where we apply supramaximal training. Supramaximal training is one of the approaches that excites muscular physiologists, as it leads to rapid adaptations and a reduced need for the repeat exposures we get from the same contraction focus at submaximal loads. Time, as a commodity, is always in short supply. It’s not for the faint of heart, nor the inexperienced.

During the second session each week after the supramaximal reps for both the eccentric and isometric movements, I like to contrast with singles with a concentric focus. Adding the band-resisted reps for the contrast work is a great way to develop explosive pulling abilities through the entire ROM. The benefits of accommodating resistance are known widely,¹³ and I tend to find their implementation in a vertical pulling program more appropriate for athletes without an explosive pulling deficit.

After two weeks spent on both eccentric and isometric supramaximal work, deload weeks are appropriate. These set up the athlete nicely to arrive at weeks 7-8 ready to target some potentiation effects from the concept of wave loading to see peak power capabilities improve. With a very similar structure to the Chiu 2012 study,¹⁴ each wave consists of multiple sets of pulling where we increase the resistance for each set until the completion of a wave. The athlete then lowers the intensity and performs two vertical pulls at 71% 1RM to take advantage of PAP.

In his study, Chiu saw a 5.77% vertical jump increase at the midway testing point and a 5.90% increase at the end of the second wave due to the potentiation effects on vertical jumping from full snatches. After testing peak power at 71% 1RM pre-, mid- (after first wave), and post- (after second and final wave), I’ve seen an average improvement of 2.5% peak power (watts) after the first wave and 1.8% after the second wave in the 80%+ wave protocol and 2.2% and 2.1% for the 50-80% wave protocol.

Although I need to obtain a larger sample size, my initial findings for wave loading in the pull-up suggest wave loading does work to increase peak power in athletes who are advanced in vertical pulling ability and more so after the first wave than the second.

I hope this provides you with a practical resource to situate your athlete in an appropriate model so your athletes can ultimately achieve greater levels of power in vertical pulling.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Siff, Mel, & Verkoshansky, Yuri. Supertraining. com; 6th expanded version edition. December 7, 2009.

2. Jovanovic, Mladen. Strength Training Manual: Introduction. March 23, 2019 (Accessed October 7, 2019).

3. Nuckols, Greg. There is Only One Type of Periodization – Part 1. October 24, 2019.

4. Dietz, Cal, & Peterson, Ben. Triphasic Training: A systematic approach to elite speed and explosive strength performance (Volume 1). Bye Dietz Sports Enterprise. 2012.

5. Valle, Carl. Cluster Training: How to Navigate Through the New Science. SimpliFaster.

6. Tufano, JJ. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Different Cluster Set Structures: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res.2017 Mar; 31(3):848-867.

7. Tufano, JJ. Cluster sets vs. traditional sets: Levelling out the playing field using a power-based threshold. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0208035. Published online 2018 Nov 26.

8. Tufano, JJ. Maintenance of Velocity and Power With Cluster Sets During High-Volume Back Squats. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.2016 Oct; 11(7):885-892. Epub 2016 Aug 24.

9. Valle, Carl. 7 Reasons the Weight Room Isn’t Transferring to Your Sport. SimpliFaster.

10. Ignjatovic, AM. Effects of 12-week medicine ball training on muscle strength and power in young female handball players. J Strength Cond Res.2012 Aug; 26(8):2166-73.

11. Contreras, Bret. Inside the Muscles: Best Back and Bicep Exercises. T NATION. March 15, 2010.

12. Wayland, William. Applying the Compressed Triphasic Model with MMA Fighters. SimpliFaster.

13. Davenport, Shane. The Top Accommodating Resistance Methods for Strength Coaches. SimpliFaster.

14. Chiu, Loren. Potentiation of Vertical Jump Performance During a Snatch Pull Exercise Session. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2012; 28(6):627-635.