Blog

Training fads and tools for the toolbox come and go, especially for unilateral work, the notion of instability, and its performance impact. For a long time, we looked at instability and the need to resist it as a training necessity. We’ve had Bosch methods come and go, and I’ve yet to see any major teams use the methods effectively. I find the inverse more useful—when we drive down instability, we drive up systemic benefits of a movement. This concept has limits, as a system still needs the freedom to achieve the right amount of stress.

Hand-supported movements let athletes express intent & force development not attainable with heavy unilateral work, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Bilateral and unilateral hand-supported movements allow athletes to express intent and force development not attainable with heavy standard unilateral work. Hand-supported movements exist because pragmatists saw inherent problems with unilateral and bilateral movements and their ability to facilitate the desired stimulus.

Simply put, athletes need more stimulus under certain circumstances, and hand-supported movements are a great way to achieve this. Physiotherapists have been using upper limbs to assist the lower limbs since the inception of physiotherapy. When we consider what we can facilitate by using the upper limbs, we open up many potential additions to our exercise selection.

Why Hand-Support Anything?

Force production and stability live in the same spectrum as velocity. Stability refers to the ability of a body to restore itself to its original static equilibrium after it’s been displaced slightly. When it comes to very heavy unilateral loading, for instance, displacement is easily restored when forces are low.

When the forces produced are high and instability occurs, the base of support becomes more compromised, and the harder it is to right the body. Let me be clear; this isn’t the same as high-velocity running, which asks for force absorption and preservation after initial acceleration and requires a modicum of translational equilibrium to keep going.

Producing the highest forces requires bilateral facilitation, which is why most lifting sports have an initial bilateral component. The transfer argument posits that we need movements that, even in an abstract sense, reflect sports positioning. Enter unilateral training. Not to beat a dead horse, but unilateral training and the benefits of bilateral training are highly synergistic.

Unilateral training can be a weak link if high levels of force are required at low speeds. Therefore, unilateral training seems to have a large structural element. Because of the lower velocities, tissues must tolerate more. In high-force low-velocity training phases, unilateral work requires structural demand, and bilateral training requires neurological demand; we should plan accordingly.

This does not discount the usefulness of low-velocity high-force unilateral training, thinking from a transference context moving to acceleration phases in sprinting, ice skating, or attempting a takedown in wrestling and MMA. The way to overcome this weakness in unilateral training is to add to our base of support, which improves our stability.

Bringing the upper limbs into play is a simple and almost reflexive approach to adding stability to any movement. In the past, people would use a free limb in single side-loaded movements to stabilize, much like holding your arms out to walk a tightrope or gripping something upright to stand from a low position and so on.

I’ve long seen hand-supported movements used as regressions and progressions in rehabilitation scenarios to provide stability so that training effect can be applied as necessary. There’s no reason why we can’t apply this to the other end of the training spectrum.

One argument I’ve heard against hand-supported movements is, “if we are mitigating instability, then why not use machines like a leg press?” It’s a good question, and the answer lies in the reason machines pale in comparison to free weights—a fundamental argument in strength and conditioning orthodoxy.

Coordination and efficiency are still challenged to the degree that’s not available using only machine weights. Second-order effects like axial load, vertical loading, trunk stabilization, and bracing are all challenged enormously even when a greater base of support mitigates instability. You let in just enough chaos to challenge the system.

Boosting Bilateral Movements with Hand Support

The Hatfield, or hand-supported squat, is the poster child of hand-supported movements and probably the progenitor of this mode of thinking. Increased intensity and decreased risk while moving very high loads at high velocities make this an appealing and viable option under many circumstances. It also can do much for building confidence under big weights. Before abandoning social media, Cam Josse once thanked me for reintroducing him to a movement that made him feel “strong again.” The subjective sense of feeling strong has value also, particularly for athletes returning from injury or those who desire to keep in-season intensities high.

Increased intensity & decreased risk moving very high loads at high velocities using hand support is appealing and viable, says @WSWayland. Share on X

We must not, however, use it as a crutch for squatting. Hand support is best used with athletes who have well-established competence and strength in the squat pattern. I’ve had to chide assistant coaches at my facility for being keen to get clients lifting with hand supports before establishing a strong conventional squat.

• Encourage the athlete to stay tall and use the handles for support.
• Staying tall minimizes forward lean and lumbar stress, and the safety bar takes out the more problematic elements of heavy axial loads.
• The athlete should push-off only when using eccentrics or isometric methods.

The hand-supported squat has allowed my athletes to use loading above 125%-150% of the conventional back squat, and other coaches have reported larger percentages to me in some instances.

The hand-supported squat allows my athletes to use loading above 125%-150% of the conventional back squat, says @WSWayland. Share on X

We can perform the hand-supported squat in a few ways. The first obvious opportunity lies in supramaximal eccentric or isometric loading with weight releasers or with hand assistance on the concentric element (more on that later) or with spotters either side. The other lies in high-volume high-load options or hypertrophy type of work.

And, finally, it’s an intensive squatting option for athletes with a history of lower limb and back issues. This is probably due to the more upright posture, as it reduces sheer force in the knees and back. This makes sense, given that having more points of stability sagittally means less shear stress. Working with a spectrum of young and old combat athletes means I’ve helped deal with a lot of joint issues; we’ve used this movement often for those returning from ACL/PCL and quad surgeries.

People often ask me about mitigating arm contribution. Removing arm contribution entirely is impossible and defeats the point of a hand-assisted movement—the clue is in the name, after all. When we want an athlete to get feedback on how much they’re contributing, we string a tight band for hand support instead of another bar or handles; the band will depress increasingly the harder the athlete presses down, as demonstrated in the video below.

Video 1. The rise of the heavy hand-supported split squat is a useful trend for coaches who value tradition but demand evolution. The hand-supported split squat exercise combines unilateral benefits with safe overload qualities.

Hand-Supported Unilateral Movements: A Perfect Compromise

I’ve looked into this area extensively, and one of my early articles on SimpliFaster was about the safety bar hand-supported split squat. I have a reputation as the hand-supported split squat “guy,” but that credit falls to coaches like Cal Dietz and Devan McConnell. For squat type actions, hand-supported movements make sense, as they allow us to counter inherent instability, not so much lateral instability but from heavy axial loading.

I prefer the split squat to rear foot elevated split squat because the contribution from the anterior hip complex on the trailing leg is also trained when performing the lift. Devin McConnell has had enormous success, however, using rear foot elevated split squats with his hockey players where weights exceeding 500lbs lifted have not been uncommon. He has also led the way with measuring force involved in the action using a hand-supported split squat isometric push as one would test an IMTP or isometric squat push, using maximum force data to advance his program.

I covered the technical execution of the hand-supported split squat in my earlier post. Key principles apply as in other squat patterned movements: don’t compromise spinal stability for more load and minimize weight shift and overextension through the lumbar. I’ve also written about striving for a 90-90 position in beginners and then mellowing that specific execution, eventually gravitating toward increasingly idiosyncratic or sports positions. With wrestlers and MMA fighters, for instance, I encourage knee over toes on the lead leg leading eventually to heel elevated on the lead foot which matches increasingly sport-specific positioning.

The hand-supported movement is also useful during heavy ipsilateral and contralateral movements. Holding a heavy weight in the opposite or the same side of the lead leg allows us to get deep into the hip stabilizers. When an athlete becomes very proficient with this movement, they’re only limited by how much they can hold on to.

Video 2. Split squats with a single contact point (hand) enable the opposite arm to load the body asymmetrically. Beginning and advanced athletes can use this exercise to create favorable adaptions.

With the hinge, however, once we take it out of its bilateral wheelhouse, it tends to fall apart technically very rapidly. I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with single-leg RDLs. I find the movement’s high requirements for spinal stability and lateral instability quickly rob it of any meaningful loading, even with athletes who are well-practiced. As a result, unilateral hinge work is usually low velocity and low force. This is great for beginner and intermediate lifters but isn’t enough stimulus for advanced trainees.

While the bilateral deficit certainly rings true in squat and lunge type movements, we can load unilateral quad and hip dominant exercises very heavy, nearly as heavy as their bilateral cousins.  Bilateral deficit phenomena seem woefully lacking in single-leg hinge movements, partly because unilateral hinge movements have a single point of contact (one foot) stabilizations. An RFESS, on the other hand, has two points of stabilization (two-foot).

We can pump up unilateral hinge work by using a staggered stance, giving us two points of contact and, thus, more stability and more load. Pedants will argue that this is a quasi-unilateral movement, sure. But so are RFESS or split squats, if you think about it. I’ve had great results using staggered hinge work with athletes capable of using high loads. We can, however, further isolate with single lower body points of contact by effectively using hand supports.

Grabbing the rack in a hand-supported kettlebell or dumbbell RDL offers a single point of contact that allows for increased loading over freestanding versions.

Video 3. Using a hand-supported option for single-leg, kettlebell RDLs is a popular option for those wanting just enough unilateral qualities with the right amount of stability. Don’t worry, athletes don’t cheat as much as it would appear, as the exercise encourages pulling with the posterior chain.

Video 4. Lateral landmine exercises, specifically the RDL, are excellent for athletes as well. Using the hinge of the landmine from the side stabilizes the exercise in a similar but unique way.

The hinge pattern, however, is more difficult to train unilaterally at the high force high-velocity confluence. Think of the velocities involved in kettlebell swings, high speed pulls, and the like, where the addition of a hand support allows us to get more out of these movements. Here are a few examples worth considering.

Video 5. Instead of using the same arm and same leg, contralateral options are another variant that has a purpose behind it. Some coaches have added cables to the exercise for conventional resistance or isoinertial resistance.

Video 6. Kneeling KB swings are not just for variety, but they are specialized versions of the conventional counterpart. Kneeling provides the stability necessary to get most out of the KB swing exercise.

Hand-Supported Movements as a Full-Body Training Stimulus

Cal Dietz and Matt van Dyke make a compelling argument:

Increased support and the use of the arms allows for even more weight to be used than a barbell split squat would allow, leading to even greater stress being applied to the entire body. The use of the arms, along with the increased load, stresses the core to an even greater extent than a barbell split squat. Supramaximal eccentrics using the hands assisted, safety bar split squat creates total body stress, engaging the arms as well as the core to improve the musculo-tendon structure maximally.

Embedded within this paragraph is the idea that engaging the arms and the core turn a lower body exercise into a full-body exercise when loaded supramaximally. From my experience, doing supramaximal work and intentionally using the arms results in a full-body training effect and some of the sorest lats, abs, and triceps I’ve had from any exercise. It’s not cheating if using the arms is intentional, which runs contrary to earlier statements about making sure athletes don’t cheat the movement.

The next step is to objectively measure force application via a load cell in hand-assisted movements with active arm contribution versus minimized contribution and see what exactly changes when we facilitate movement using the whole body. My current feedback form is personal and subjective regarding athlete experiences as I don’t always have force platforms available.

Video 7. Heavy staggered RDLs provide the benefits of single-leg training with the balance of a bilateral exercise. Using RDLs that are heavy really creates a unique stimulus for athletes who are only using bilateral or unilateral.

When we do employ full-body intent on supramaximal exercises, for instance, obvious upper body contributors are core, triceps, and lats, which all work to main upright positions and then drive out of the hole on the assist. Afterward, athletes report feeling these working the most and experience DOMS in the following days. You could take or leave the upper body assistance component, adding or minimizing based on an athlete’s specific needs. I mention it here because its contribution should not be ignored.

Conclusion and Additional Ideas

I’ve experienced a lot of traction using hand-assisted movement across several contexts, bridging the confluence between overload, load, and return to intensive loading for post-rehabilitation athletes. Outwardly, many would question the use of a free limb to assist an exercise; I know I did when first seeing the hand-supported split squat—my thinking was isolationist rather than understanding the systemic intent.

As with any exercise implementation, hand-supported facilitation requires good positioning, technique, and patience that we ask of any movement or exercise we implement in a training program. Because hand-supported facilitation allows a large increase in loading potential, we can’t get ahead of ourselves and must make sure the athlete has jumped the necessary hoops. One of the strength coach’s duties is to affect change; the primary tool for this is exercise selection. When there are training gaps to be filled, pragmatists fill them not with abstract exercises that intend to make a difference, but with exercises that do make a difference.

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

Caffeine is a very interesting substance from a sports performance perspective; it has the potential to enhance performance significantly, and yet is completely legal to use during training and competition. I’ve written widely about caffeine before, both for SimpliFaster and academically. Based on the current academic research, you might think that we know all there is to know about the use of caffeine in sport. There are, however, still many important areas where we could better understand the nuances associated with caffeine use to enhance performance.

One area ripe for further exploration is the best method to consume caffeine. In a recent umbrella review article on caffeine, my coauthors and I concluded that caffeine exerts clear performance-enhancing effects on sporting performance based on the evidence to date. And the amount of caffeine present in 1-2 cups of coffee was sufficient to enhance performance.

Broadly speaking, this is true. A “standard cup of coffee” (more on this later) generally contains 100 mg of caffeine. For most people, two cups of coffee (200 mg of caffeine) equals 2.5 mg of caffeine per kilogram of bodyweight (mg/kg)—enough to provide some performance benefit. Of course, we already know that coffee may improve performance.

Drinking coffee is the most widely used way of consuming caffeine by nonathletes, with an estimated 2.25 billion cups of coffee consumed daily across the globe. Humans consume coffee for a variety of reasons, commonly including its positive effects on alertness and concentration, which are especially pronounced when we’re sleep-deprived. These benefits are derived largely from the caffeine contained in coffee. Athletes, who widely use caffeine to enhance performance, often drink coffee to consume their caffeine before training and competition.

But while coffee contains caffeine, it also contains a variety of other chemicals, including chlorogenic acids, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid. These chemicals may affect athletic performance in other ways by further enhancing caffeine’s ergogenic effects or reducing them. It’s important to keep in mind that coffee and caffeine are not interchangeable terms even though many people treat them as such.

And while we’re clear that caffeine enhances performance, we’re less clear as to whether coffee does, which I recently explored in a review paper with my co-author Jozo Grgic. We sought to answer some key questions, including “Does caffeinated coffee improve exercise performance?” and “Is this performance enhancement similar to that of stand-alone caffeine?”

Does Caffeinated Coffee Enhance Exercise Performance?

A variety of studies have explored whether caffeinated coffee improves exercise performance, often with mixed results. For example, an early study showed that 3 grams of instant coffee dissolved in water improved 1500m running performance. A more recent study found similar results where coffee provided 3 mg/kg of caffeine and enhanced one-mile running performance. Similarly, a study on cyclists found that 5 mg/kg of caffeine in coffee improved performance to a greater extent than decaffeinated coffee.

However, not all studies support caffeinated coffee’s performance-enhancing effect. For example, a 1998 study found no difference between coffee (providing 4.45 mg/kg of caffeine) and decaffeinated coffee on running performance, as did a more recent study looking at the effects of coffee containing 5.5 mg/kg of caffeine on 800 m running performance. In terms of resistance training, a 2016 study reported no difference in terms of muscular endurance between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, while Clarke and colleagues found coffee did not affect repeated sprint cycling performance.

Coffee has the potential to improve performance when it provides a typical performance-enhancing dose of caffeine, says @craig100m. Share on X

All in all, this suggests that caffeinated coffee has the potential to enhance aerobic endurance performance, but not strength or sprint performance. This essentially mirrors the general findings from the research on caffeine. There is a clear ergogenic effect on endurance performance, with unclear (or at least inconsistent) benefits on strength and speed performance. While there is very limited research on the performance effects of caffeinated coffee, coffee appears to have the potential to improve performance when it provides a typical performance-enhancing dose of caffeine.

Does Coffee Improve Performance to the Same Extent as Caffeine?

This question is surprisingly difficult to answer because very few studies have attempted to explore it. When it comes to aerobic performance, there are mixed results: one study found that caffeine was more effective than caffeinated coffee while another reported no difference between the two. Again, when it comes to resistance training performance, the majority of studies comparing caffeine and coffee report no performance-enhancing effects of either. Again, this means we need more research to understand better what differences—if any—exist between caffeine and coffee for enhancing sport performance.

What Does This Mean from a Practical Standpoint?

With limited evidence available, we can tentatively state there is no difference in performance enhancement between caffeine and coffee, providing there’s an equal dose of caffeine. Caffeine is most reliably ergogenic at doses of 3-6 mg/kg (although it can enhance performance at lower doses). For caffeine to enhance performance, we need to consume 3-6 mg/kg.

Here is where we reach our first practical hurdle—this potentially means we have to drink a lot of coffee. In one of the studies detailed above, the subjects drank 600ml of coffee. In another study, participants had 5 cups of coffee of 200ml each, for a total of one liter. If an average cup of coffee contains 100 mg of caffeine, two cups will provide around 210 mg of caffeine for a 70-kg athlete—enough to provide an ergogenic effect.

For larger athletes, this adds up quickly. A 120-kg male, for example, would need four cups of coffee. Regular caffeine users may require even more caffeine pre-competition. It would not be surprising for a larger athlete to have to drink 6-7 cups of coffee before a competition, which could equate to well over a liter of fluid. This amount could lead to feelings of fullness and discomfort during exercise as well as add 1 kg of weight to the athlete, which may harm performance in and of itself.

The amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee varies widely between brands & within the same brand, so it's hard to get a specific dose, says @craig100m. Share on X

Another complicating factor is that the amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee differs both between brands and within the same brand across time. The differences make it very difficult to know how much caffeine you’re getting from your cup of coffee. For example, a 2007 study determined the level of caffeine in 97 different samples of espresso from the Gold Coast, finding the caffeine content ranged from 25 to 214 mg per coffee. In a follow-up study, the same research group purchased the same coffee from the same outlet at different times and again found the caffeine content ranged from as much as 81 to 189 mg within the same coffee brand.

Making coffee at home fares no better. A recent study discovered that the caffeine concentration of Nespresso coffee pods ranged from 19 to 147 mg per serving. Consequently, it’s often unclear just how much caffeine we consume when drinking coffee. And it becomes very challenging to achieve a specific caffeine target dose, increasing the risk of over- and under-dosing caffeine, which may harm performance and offer additional side effects.

A final practical concern is that coffee is often consumed hot, which creates two issues:

1. It has to be transported to the training or competition venue in a container that maintains its heat.
2. The consumption of hot liquids before exercise may affect thermoregulatory control; in hot or humid conditions, the increase in body temperature from drinking hot liquid may reduce performance.

Summary

Current research leads us to a tentative conclusion that coffee has potential to enhance performance as long as it delivers an ergogenic dose of caffeine, which typically falls in the 3 mg/kg range. Note that this value may be much higher or lower depending on individual variation and previous caffeine behaviors. Caffeinated coffee also may be as effective as caffeine consumed by itself, although only when the caffeine doses match.

If you want to use coffee as the means of consuming caffeine pre-exercise—perhaps you like the taste of coffee—drinking it around 60 minutes before exercise should enhance performance, especially in endurance exercise.

Depending on the caffeine dose required to improve performance, you might have to consume a lot of coffee. And given the variation in caffeine concentrations within servings of coffee, you might get more or less caffeine than you initially planned. Finally, coffee is consumed hot typically, which may affect body temperature control during exercise.

Before competition, I suggest athletes drink caffeinated sports drinks or take caffeine tablets, says @craig100m. Share on X

Before competition, I suggest athletes don’t use coffee as their caffeine source but instead drink caffeinated sports drinks or take caffeine tablets. For recreational athletes and athletes in a less serious block of training, 2-3 cups of coffee 60 minutes before exercise likely will enhance performance.

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

Current research and athlete development models both support a simple conclusion—high school and collegiate athletes should improve on an annual basis. As coaches, it’s our job to support and guide our athletes toward success, and we have countless resources geared toward maximizing the training process. Even so, I sometimes still hear from athletes that they are not improving in their respective team sport or track and field events. This brings up an important question: What should you do if the athletes in your system fail to make routine progress (or worse—seem to go backward)?

High school and collegiate athletes should improve annually. So what should you do if the athletes in your system fail to make routine progress, or worse—seem to go backward? Share on X

Now, first and foremost, I recognize certain basics: A myriad of external factors influence a young athlete’s progress (nutrition, sleep, school, relationships, family, etc.), and the best coaches address their athletes’ emotional and physical constraints because they understand that no athlete is one-dimensional. For the purposes of this article, I focus more on addressing the problem of a group of athletes within a team, positional category, or specific event who are not improving at a successful pace, and I offer suggestions that coaches can reflect on to right the ship.

Is Improvement a Given?

During adolescence and into young adulthood, athletic performance should improve annually with developmentally appropriate training. The Long-Term Athletic Development (LTAD) model identifies a “critical period” of training when athletic potential can be maximized.³This critical period, sometimes referred to as a “window of opportunity,” usually falls within 11–17 years of age and encompasses prepubescent and pubescent development, when the body undergoes changes in growth and maturation. New models, like the Youth Physical Development (YPD) model, have expanded the upper and lower age limits of the critical period, but the foundational LTAD model principle remains intact.

Now, I don’t suggest that an athlete should improve upon their personal best performance in each consecutive competition within a season. Instead, I argue that each consecutive annual (or semi-annual) peak in training should result in an improved performance for high school and collegiate athletes. However, I didn’t always accept this notion.

Each consecutive annual (or semi-annual) peak in training should result in an improved performance for high school and collegiate athletes. Share on X

In fact, when I first coached high school track and field, I seriously doubted this conclusion. I tried to convince myself that a decline in our older athletes’ performances was unique to our team, but not other track teams. Our sprinters and distance runners demonstrated inconsistency and/or declines in performance because of our head coach’s prescribed training.

I did not coach these athletes, but I observed their constant frustration. Fortunately, I received excellent mentorship from other coaches I knew and was able to provide safe, effective training for our throwers and vaulters. While I was incredibly proud of our field athletes, I was often dismayed by the performances of our track athletes. More importantly, their well-being was compromised, as they showed up for practice physically injured from overuse.

This is when I felt compelled to expand my survey of improvement beyond the scope of one team. I decided to ask other high school athletes and coaches within our league for their observations. A few distinct patterns emerged.

1. Successful track and field programs usually excel in one particular event group due to the long tenure of a good coach who’s knowledgeable in that respective event group.
2. Unsuccessful track and field programs struggle with inconsistency and/or declines in athletic performance due to the long tenure of a coach with poor methods or to the frequent turnover in coaching staff.

I imagine that neither of these conclusions come as a surprise. When athletes train correctly, they improve. When they train incorrectly, they don’t. Unfortunately, the available coaching literature didn’t point toward an adequate prescription for the second conclusion. I encountered many articles that were too specific or too high-level for reasonable application to the team setting or for beginner or even intermediate athletes. Meanwhile, other articles too broadly characterized progress, identifying personal best performances as the only measure of improvement year to year.

Ultimately, we know that there are many different measures of improvement beyond PR. For example, in the pole vault, the frequency with which an athlete clears the same bar throughout a season could be a reliable measure of improvement, especially if the height is slightly below that athlete’s personal best. This would provide evidence that a personal best performance may occur soon. Alternatively, if that athlete has maintained the same frequency of bar clearance for four consecutive years, there may be additional factors affecting their performance that have been unaccounted for in their training.

As athletes progress, personal best performances become more difficult to achieve because technical changes diminish, fitness requires greater variation, and athletes eventually reach their genetic potential. Elite athletes demonstrate this extraordinarily well and might go years between personal best performances, but elite athletes are usually beyond the upper limit of the Youth Physical Development model continuum. For athletes within the continuum, annual improvement should certainly be possible.

As athletes progress, PB performances are more difficult to achieve because technical changes diminish, fitness requires greater variation, and athletes reach their genetic potential. Share on X

The following five tenets are united around the core principle that youth athletes should improve from year to year. I designed them to offer guidance to coaches and parents who are committed to healthy and safe athletic development.

If Youth Athletes Are Not Improving Annually, Then There Is Something Wrong with Their Training

Even if their training is not exceptional, youth athletes should still improve due to growth and maturation. As mentioned previously, other factors (nutrition, sleep, stress, etc.) may be responsible for the struggling individual. A great coach guides, supports, and educates their athletes, and knows how to ask noninvasive questions like, Hey, what did you have for breakfast and lunch today? or Do you feel ready for practice?

But if the majority of the team (or entire team) does not improve consistently, then training methodology is likely the culprit, and you should start asking questions of yourself about your coaching. If you are a parent or an athlete, get teammates, other parents, and administrators involved. Address the coach. This is not easy and requires caution, but it is the correct course of action. Negligence is never a good policy, because athletic non-improvement usually correlates with injury. I advocate for a collaborative dialogue between all parties because it will only lead to positive outcomes for the athletes, who matter most.

‘That Which Is Technically Desirable Must Be Physically Possible’⁷

Renowned pole vault coach Alan Launder favored this mantra due to the complex demands of his event. I’ve quoted him before, because his words have value far beyond the pole vault.

The preventative benefit of strength training to reduce injury is a far worthier pursuit for the coach than maximizing the power-to-mass ratio at a young training age. Share on X

Lack of strength, or the absence of an adequate strength training program, increases the risk of injury and decreases athletic potential. The trade-off between moderate hypertrophy and the power-to-mass ratio is not significant for the average high school athlete. Instead, the preventative benefit of strength training to reduce injury is a far worthier pursuit for the coach than maximizing the power-to-mass ratio at a young training age. As their strength increases, you may focus on maximizing the power-to-mass ratio for older athletes.

Correctly programmed strength training, paired with sport-specific skill and fitness development, will not “bulk up” athletes in detriment to their performance. For the same reason that Launder supports strengthening the body for field events, sprinters AND distance runners need to get stronger, too. The wiry freshmen that arrive ready to run cross country cannot sustain the same weekly mileage as their successful senior teammates. Amidst genetic variation, thresholds and limits exist. Too much is too much for any athlete.

We must prepare athletes for their desired technical outcomes, as well as the requisite volume of road running, sprinting, jumping, or throwing. In addition to tracking your athletes’ speed and endurance, tracking their strength is worth it too. Compound lifts are great indicators and useful diagnostic tools for evaluating athletic weakness. Coaching is the art of finding balance in your athlete’s technical and physical limitations, and that balance is not always even.

The triple jump is a classic example of an event in which strength deficits may limit an athlete’s execution of particular phases. Beginners cannot sustain equally spaced phases in triple jump because they are not strong enough to coordinate a foot strike directly beneath their body weight. I observed this frequently with young triple jumpers when I coached high school. In weight throw, I saw this a great deal as well.

In practice, we used lighter weights to improve timing of footwork in the entry and the first turn, because I needed to match the strength demands of the tasks with my athletes’ current abilities. As they got stronger in the weight room, our practice implements got heavier. Teaching movement skills requires the appropriate physical foundation.

Be Willing to Do Your Homework

If recruited athletes do not improve in college, then you may want to backtrack and learn what worked for them in high school. College coaches recruit the best high school juniors and seniors they can for their program. Generally, those athletes were successful because they had a great coach who determined what worked best for them during the previous 3–4 years. This is not always true, but it’s a good bet.

While the YPD and LTAD models suggest that athletic improvement should continue until age 21+, there’s little effort involved in calling your recruit’s previous coach and discussing how they achieved success. Their coach may have valuable advice for you that will support individualization of their training. Maybe plyometric exercises three times per week is one too many sessions for them? Maybe your athlete is not yet ready for a high-volume sprint program, but they will be if you progress them toward it gradually? Even if the coach had nothing to do with their success, they at least spent a lot of time around that athlete and may have insight to offer you. Make the call.

Select General and Specific Measures of Assessment That Work for Your Program

Consider a tool much simpler than Photogate software, a force plate, or blood lactate concentration: the naked eye, which can easily capture a holistic view of performance or focus on specific skills. Sports technology has numerous benefits for coaches who have access to it, but many coaches do not have the bandwidth or budget to involve technology. Furthermore, these tools are usually evaluative, as there are few affordable sports technologies that provide live feedback during training. Maybe a heart monitor for distance runners, but for speed and power athletes, the naked eye remains one of the most valuable tools.

For coaches of speed and power athletes, the naked eye remains one of the most valuable tools. Share on X

While an athlete moves at relatively high speed, a coach can offer live feedback, such as cues, for general or specific assessment. For example, a sprinter may look rigid or too tense at submaximal speed. This would be a holistic assessment. A specific skill-based assessment of the same sprint could be a hinging elbow that does not remain at 90 degrees. You can track and monitor both of these deficiencies. Thus, the opportunity to monitor performance avails itself in any practice session or competition. I recommend that you select measures that you can easily monitor over multiple weeks so you may observe progress within the season.

Frequency and duration are great specific measures for tracking skill development. They are also useful for team sports because they can quantify an individual athlete’s integration within the team.

In soccer, for example, the frequency of passes received may provide an accurate measurement of an athlete’s value to their teammates. Let’s call this quantity “passing value.” Although I cannot confirm this, I predict that a positive correlation exists between an offensive player’s passing value and their number of goals scored, when measured over the course of a season. This measure would require the participation of a person besides the coach, but it offers the opportunity to create comparisons within the season, between different seasons, and between different athletes.

Another measure worth tracking could be an athlete’s duration of ball handling. This could apply to soccer, basketball, or even football and rugby. Similar to the measures of improvement for individual sports, frequency and duration are not limited to competition. Coaches can utilize these tools during practice, and again, they do not require expensive technology—just the naked eye and your ability not to lose count.

Be Humble and Unafraid to Admit That Something Isn’t Working

Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw wrote, “…those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”⁹ Your training program may work for you, but you are not the priority—your athletes are. Your success is a reflection of their success. I addressed this briefly in the first tenet when I suggested that poor progress for a majority of the team requires the coach to reflect on their methods. Self-reflection is an important part of any profession. We cannot support improvement for those around us if we cannot improve ourselves. Consider asking another coach to evaluate you and your process.

Self-reflection is an important part of any profession. We cannot support improvements for those around us if we cannot improve ourselves. Share on X

Coaching is not limited to sports. Today, many industries and professions seek out the support of a third party. In Dr. Atul Gawande’s TED Talk about coaching, he points out that you don’t even need an expert third party to evaluate your practice. If you are more expert than your evaluator, you can teach them what to look for in your practice. Just like your own coaching, there are generalities and specifics, but it’s your job to seek out extra support in the first place. The day that you accept that you cannot improve your coaching any further is the laziest day of your life.

When I began coaching pole vault, I taught it the way it was taught to me. I wasn’t a very good pole vaulter, and when I started coaching, I wasn’t a very good pole vault coach either. The only cues I knew to give were: “Press high,” “Drive the knee,” and “Eyes up.” As you might have guessed, my vaulters didn’t perform particularly well that season.

The following summer, I picked up vaulting again for the purpose of improving my coaching ability. Under the tutelage of Branko Miric, a master coach from Apex Vaulting Club, I expanded my understanding of pole vault and improved my coaching. I admitted to myself that a technical change was necessary, and I adapted my methods. I have no doubt that when I announced we were changing technique, my vaulters were not pleased with me—but in the subsequent season, two out of the three of them improved by at least 4 inches.

When you make technical changes, you shouldn’t expect immediate improvement. Often, the right technical change can increase an athlete’s ceiling for performance and sustain their improvement for a longer period of time.

Tracking Measures of Improvement Is Crucial

Individual sports, like track and field or swimming, are not the only sports in which you can track improvement. There are ways—albeit more difficult ones—to track improvement in team sports. If you treat the team as one entity, then you can track progress by wins, losses, and ties. You can also track game elements, such as total points scored in basketball or volleyball, hits in baseball, or goals scored in soccer.

These measures are challenging to identify because they depend on more abstract, or subjective, aspects of the sport, like the random nature of game play, team cohesion, and the individual abilities of other athletes (both opponents and teammates). You can apply frequency and duration to create your own measures for the team, beyond the most common metrics like shots taken on goal or RBIs. Find the measures that best support your overarching goals for the season and your skills focus for individual athletes.

Find the specific measures of improvement that best support your overarching goals for the season and your skills focus for individual athletes. Share on X

In any sport, tracking measures of improvement is a vital component of safe, effective training for all athletes. Each quantity that you measure has its value in performance and should be cultivated in training as necessary. Like all skills, there must be adequate time devoted to drilling them in practice, and these quantities should improve as the athletes get older. I wrote the five tenets to offer guidance and support a wider community of sports outside my own. I hope they are useful to all those who hold themselves and their athletes accountable to higher expectations.

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. Hammond, T., Gialloreto, C., Kubas, H., and Davis, H. “The Prevalence of Failure-Based Depression Among Elite Athletes.” Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. July 2013; 23(4): 273–277.

2. Wolanin, A., Gross, M., and Hong, E. “Depression in Athletes: Prevalence and Risk Factors.” Current Sports Medicine Reports. January 2015; 14(1): 56–60.

3. Ford, P., De Ste Croix, M., Lloyd, R., Meyers, R., Moosavi, M., Oliver, J., Till, K., and Williams, C. “The Long-Term Athlete Development Model: Physiological Evidence and Application.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2011; 29(4): 389–402.

4. Lloyd, R. S. and Oliver, J. L. “The Youth Physical Development Model.” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2012; 34(3): 61–72.

5. Ford, P., Collins, D., Bailey, R., MacNamara, A., Pearce, G., and Toms, M. “Participant development in sport and physical activity: The impact of biological maturation.” European Journal of Sport Science. 2011; 12(6): 515–526.

6. Loko,J.,Sikkut, T., and Aule, R. “Sensitive periods in physical development.” Modern Athlete and Coach. 1996; 34(2): 26–29.

7. Launder, A. and Gormley, J. From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva too! CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, second edition, 2014. First edition, 2005.

8. Lloyd, R.S., Oliver, J.L., Meyers, R.W., Moody, J.A., and Stone, M.H. “Long-Term Athletic Development and Its Application to Youth Weightlifting.”Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2012; 34(4): 1.

9. Shaw, George Bernard. Everybody’s Political What’s What? (1944), Chapter 37, p. 330.

As mobility is a key physical quality that underpins most athletic movements, strength and conditioning coaches must possess the skill set and tools to assess it. Conventionally, range of motion (ROM) tests have been performed using specialized equipment such as inclinometers and goniometers. To make the execution of these tests even more challenging for coaches, many ROM assessments require exceptional palpatory skills. This has resulted in many resources suggesting an approach to mobility testing that employs a pass-fail criterion (e.g., if an athlete can’t touch their toes during a toe-touch test, they fail the test).

Yet, this method of assessing mobility has major limitations. If an athlete fails the standard set, we have obviously identified a deficiency is present—this is where a pass-fail criterion for a ROM assessment is applicable. However, if we want to monitor the effectiveness of our training intervention and identify what strategies actually develop mobility, we need assessment techniques that provide objective data that is accurate and reliable.

To monitor the effectiveness of your training intervention and identify what strategies develop mobility, you need assessment techniques that provide objective, accurate, reliable data. Share on X

The goal of this two-part article series is to demonstrate that neither the availability of equipment nor the palpatory skills a practitioner possesses should prevent coaches from collecting objective data. Part 1 of this series demonstrated how to perform mobility assessments for the lower extremity. In part 2 (this article), I will focus on mobility tests for the thoracic spine and upper extremity, showing techniques using only a smartphone or tape measure. In particular, I’ll explain and demonstrate how to perform and collect objective data for the following tests:

1. Thoracic spine extension test
2. Lumbar locked rotation test
3. Supine active shoulder flexion test
4. Pectoralis major length test
5. Supine active shoulder rotation test (external and internal)
6. Weight-bearing wrist extension test

Following the demonstration of each test, this article will present reliability data for all of the assessments discussed in both parts of this series to support coaches’ interpretations.

Using a Smartphone to Perform ROM Assessments

For most of the tests presented, a smartphone will be used to measure segment angles. Before we discuss techniques for measuring thoracic and upper extremity mobility, it is important we establish how to standardize our testing procedures when using a smartphone for ROM assessments. This is repetition from the first article, so feel free to skip this section if you have read the lower limb edition of this series. If you didn’t, here are considerations for collecting reliable data:

1. If present, remove the phone case. It is possible the case may alter the contour of the phone.
2. Before testing, calibrate the phone against either a vertical (e.g., wall) or horizontal (e.g., table) reference point. This should be done against a surface that is level, so be sure to check before calibration by placing a spirit level on the surface. Not all free applications allow you to zero the smartphone, which should be a consideration when selecting an application to perform ROM assessments. Whether you need to calibrate the smartphone against a vertical or horizontal surface depends on the test used and is described in the procedures for each assessment.
3. I also recommend coaches be cautious about using different phone models interchangeably. At present, there isn’t much evidence for this to be a concern, but until quality research is presented, I suggest you perform all tests using the same model.
4. Again, there is little evidence for this, but I would recommend caution using different applications interchangeably.

Palpating Bony Landmarks

An important consideration for collecting reliable data is being able to locate anatomical landmarks for measuring segment alignment. For two of the tests shown in this article, coaches will need to be able to palpate the olecranon process of the ulnar (figure 1).

Palpating the spinous processes can be a particular issue for assessing spine ROM. Although learning how to palpate specific spinal segments isn’t too difficult, it’s not the easiest skill to teach on this platform. For other assessments, measuring joint alignment can be tricky due to the nature of the assessments. To get around these issues, coaches can record distances between various structures using a tape measure to represent joint ROM. An example of this approach is the weight-bearing lunge test for the ankle joint, where the toe-to-wall distance is measured to represent dorsiflexion capacity.

To avoid problems palpating specific spinal segments and measuring joint alignment, coaches can record distances between various structures using a tape measure to represent joint ROM. Share on X

Although this is a very reliable measure¹, one problem with this strategy is it can be challenging to establish a deficit. For example, if we know the ankle dorsiflexes to approximately 40 degrees during the back squat², then I would want to see an athlete achieve >40 degrees during the weight-bearing lunge test. But if I’m measuring ankle ROM using the toe-to-wall distance, how do I know if an athlete with 9 centimeters has enough mobility to squat to full depth without compensations?

This is where measuring distances can be a problem. To resolve this, we can combine our measure of distance with a pass-fail criterion. This allows us to collect objective data that is reliable, while being able to identify the presence of a mobility deficit.

Thoracic Spine Extension Test

During shoulder elevation, thoracic spine extension occurs to facilitate scapulothoracic upward rotation and posterior tilt.³Although thoracic spine contribution to overhead exercises is small relative to the shoulder complex⁴, suboptimal thoracic spine alignment during overhead movements can hamper ROM and strength capacities for the shoulder musculature.⁵

To measure thoracic spine extension mobility using equipment such as an inclinometer or a smartphone, practitioners would need to palpate the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar junctions.⁶This is a time-consuming process and requires a specific skill set that many coaches do not possess. To circumvent this issue, measuring the tragus-to-wall distance during the thoracic spine extension test can provide us with an objective score representing extension capacity.⁷

For this test, a score of <10 centimeters is generally used to represent sufficient thoracic spine extension ROM.⁷However, factors such as maturation, periods of weight loss/gain, and anthropometric dimensions may impact the applicability of this threshold.⁸To overcome this limitation, I recommend using a pass-fail criterion to support the interpretation of this test. To pass the test, the athlete should be able to bring the bottom of the inferior margin of the orbital (eye socket) to horizontally align with the auditory meatus (ear hole) while maintaining contact between the occiput and the wall (figure 2).

Starting position: The athlete leans back against the wall with their feet hip-width apart and a foot length from the wall. The knees should be slightly flexed to allow the pelvis to posteriorly rotate and the lumbar spine to flatten against the wall. The head should touch the wall and the mouth should be closed.

Movement: The athlete is cued to pull their chin toward their chest as far as possible while maintaining a closed mouth and keeping contact between the head and the wall.

Measurement: At the point where the athlete has maximally flexed the upper cervical spine to bring the chin to the chest, use a tape measure or ruler to record the distance between the tragus and the wall to the nearest 0.5 centimeters. To avoid the need to Google “tragus,” it’s the semi-circular flap that covers the auditory meatus.

Video 1. Head position is important in sport, and measuring the positioning matters. With a few cues, a test can be done in seconds. Coaches can track the changes to head position and see if those changes are factoring in sport through careful analysis.

Lumbar Locked Rotation Test

The lumbar locked rotation test isolates the thoracic spine and its capacity to rotate.⁹Thoracic spine rotation is important for overhead and rotational sports.¹⁰Prior to measuring thoracic spine rotation, I suggest you measure extension ROM. This is because a flexed posture tenses the posterior ligamentous structures, potentially limiting thoracic spine rotation.¹¹

An athlete with poor thoracic spine extension & rotation should focus on increasing sagittal plane capacity first, before switching the emphasis to improving thoracic spine rotation. Share on X

Understanding this can help from a programming perspective. An athlete who has poor thoracic spine extension and rotation should focus on increasing sagittal plane capacity first, before switching the emphasis to improving thoracic spine rotation. For this test, approximately 40 degrees relative to vertical is reported in healthy populations,¹² although rotational athletes may require more thoracic spine mobility.

Starting position: The athlete kneels with the legs together and the ankles plantar flexed. The athlete rests on their forearms with the shoulder and elbows flexed to 90 degrees. With the head in a neutral position, the athlete is cued to “lift their chest.” The athlete is then instructed to bring one arm off the ground and lift the hand so it touches the sternum.

Movement: The athlete is asked to maximally rotate to the side with the arm off the ground.

Measurement: Prior to testing, the smartphone should be calibrated relative to a vertical reference point. At the point of maximal rotation, the phone is placed at the cervicothoracic junction (see figure 3). Although palpating this anatomical location requires some amount of skill, it is generally located at the level of the neckline (think crew-cut T-shirt). In my experience, using this reference point allows you to collect a reliable measure of thoracic spine rotation without the need to palpate the specific spinal level.

Video 2. Taking a position on the knees reduces the load to the spine and improves the evaluation. Rotation of the spine is essential to many sports and normal human movement.

Supine Active Shoulder Flexion Test

Shoulder flexion ROM is fundamental to most overhead exercises.⁴Athletes who lack shoulder flexion ROM tend to compensate by hyperextending at the lumbar spine during vertical pushing and pulling exercises. Approximately 180 degrees of shoulder flexion should be available to the healthy athlete.¹³As the smartphone for this test is calibrated to a vertical reference, a value of 90 degrees represents 180 degrees of shoulder flexion ROM.

Shoulder flexion ROM is fundamental to most overhead exercises, and healthy athletes should have approximately 180 degrees of shoulder flexion, says @LouisHowe_SandC. Share on X

Starting position: The athlete lies supine with the knees flexed to 90 degrees and the soles of the feet flat against the ground. The athlete is cued to posteriorly rotate their pelvis to flatten the lumbar spine and prevent excessive spinal contribution. The shoulder is flexed to 90 degrees with the elbows extended and the hands facing each other.

Movement: The athlete is cued to reach the arms above the head toward the ground, keeping the elbows extended with the shoulder remaining in the sagittal plane. Coaches should monitor the athlete’s pelvic position to ensure spinal compensations do not inflate scores.

Measurement: Prior to testing, the smartphone should be calibrated relative to a vertical reference point. At maximal shoulder flexion, the smartphone is placed beneath the medial epicondyle, along the triceps muscle.

Video 3. Positioning an athlete on their back is useful for a range of motion testing. The upper back and shoulders can respond favorably to flexibility and targeted strength training.

Pectoralis Major Length Test

For this test, we measure horizontal abduction from an abducted position. Due to the architecture of the muscle, the sternocostal portion of the pectoralis major muscle is one of the primary structures that resists this motion. The length of the pectoralis major can influence the ability to optimally position the barbell during the overhead squat or the catch phase of the snatch.

If an athlete holds the bar above their head with a snatch grip, the shoulder complex will be abducted to approximately 135 degrees. As the athlete descends, the trunk will incline forward, requiring a small amount of horizontal abduction to occur to maintain the bar path within the base of support. If this motion is not available, the athlete will struggle to keep the bar above the head. This is demonstrated in figure 4.

I haven’t seen any research establishing the clinometric properties of the test. However, I have found this test to be highly reliable. An athlete passes the pectoralis major length test when they are able to comfortably rest the arm on the ground.

Starting position: The athlete lies supine with the knees flexed to 90 degrees and the soles of the feet flat against the ground. The athlete is cued to posteriorly rotate the pelvis to flatten the lumbar spine and prevent excessive spinal contribution. The athlete is cued to make a fist with both hands and bring the knuckles together directly above the head.

Movement: The athlete is cued to draw the elbows to the floor.

Measurement: At maximal horizontal abduction, the coach assesses whether the upper arm can comfortably contact the ground. In instances where there is space between the arm and the ground, the athlete has failed the test and the coach measures the distance between the olecranon process and the ground to the nearest 0.5 centimeters.

Video 4. The pectoralis length test is a conventional evaluation with objective measurement. While not a screen for injury risk, coaches and therapists should treat each athlete individually.

Supine Active Shoulder Rotation Test

The supine active shoulder rotation test provides an insight into the mobility of the external and internal rotators of the glenohumeral joint. Normative data for these tests in resistance-trained athletes have been reported as approximately 105 degrees external rotation and 70 degrees internal rotation when measuring forearm alignment relative to vertical.¹³However, these values may differ in throwing athletes, with structural adaptations influencing shoulder rotation capacity in throwers.¹⁴Therefore, it may be that total rotation (external and internal rotation combined) is of greater relevance when looking to identify mobility deficits.¹⁵

Starting position: The athlete lies supine on a treatment table, with the knees flexed to 90 degrees and the feet flat on the table. The pelvis is posteriorly rotated to prevent compensations at the spine. The shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees, with the elbow flexed 90 degrees.

Movement: For external rotation, the athlete is cued to bring the back of the hand toward the ground. Conversely, the athlete is instructed to bring the palm of the hand toward the ground for internal rotation.

Measurement: Prior to testing, the smartphone should be calibrated relative to a vertical reference point. For external rotation, the smartphone is placed just below the wrist crease of the anterior side of the forearm. Internal rotation is measured by placing the smartphone on the posterior surface of the forearm, just below the wrist crease.

Video 5. Internal and external rotators of the shoulders are important for all athletes, not just overhead competitors. Soccer and other sports tend to view overhead lifting as not sport specific (except with goalkeepers), but the entire body must be optimized for peak performance.

Weight-Bearing Wrist Extension Test

I’ve included this test here, as wrist extension can be a problem during front squats or the catch position of the clean.¹⁶Normal wrist extension is considered to be approximately 95 degrees.¹⁶As forearm alignment for this test is measured relative to vertical, a value of >5 degrees for this test represents sufficient wrist extension ROM.

Wrist extension can be a problem during front squats of the catch position of the clean. Normal wrist extension should be approximately 95 degrees, says @LouisHowe_SandC. Share on X

Starting position: The athlete stands in a staggered stance next to a box or table with a solid surface that is approximately mid-thigh height. The athlete places the hand so the palm is flat on the box with the fingers facing forward of the athlete.

Movement: Keeping the palm flat on the box/table with the elbow extended, the athlete is instructed to maximally move the shoulder over the hand, causing wrist extension.

Measurement: Prior to testing, the smartphone should be calibrated relative to a vertical reference point. The phone is placed beneath the olecranon process, along the ulnar on the posterior surface of the forearm.

Video 6. The wrist joint is an important part of gripping and overhead actions. Testing the wrist is a useful screen for all athletes, not just those who grip sport implements.

Reliability of Tests

To support the interpretation of the findings from any assessment, it is very important that coaches appreciate the error associated with each test. Fortunately, many of the tests introduced in this two-part series have been extensively studied. Table 1 below provides the typical error values for each test along with the corresponding reference.

Not all of the data presented was collected using a smartphone to determine the clinometric properties of the assessment, so I’ve included a column indicating the equipment used for each study. As some of the data presented below has been collected using other equipment (i.e., inclinometer), coaches should interpret these values with caution. Furthermore, I’ve included my own between-session reliability data for two tests where no information (to my knowledge, at least) is available from the literature.

Due to some of these limitations, I recommend coaches use the table purely as a guide. In fact, because this data was collected by researchers with a different skill set than your own, using a population that likely differs from the athletes you work with, I suggest you establish your own reliability data for each test using the statistical procedures outlined by Spence and Cushion.¹⁷

What to Do Next?

As you now know how to perform the tests and have some idea as to the reliability of each test, you possess the skill set required to identify deficits. Additionally, you also have the capability to determine what mobility exercises and dosages work when it comes to improving ROM. This will likely be a pretty interesting experience for many coaches, and will no doubt help you refine your toolbox for truly developing an athlete’s mobility.

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. Langarika-Rocafort, A., Emparanza, J. I., Aramendi, J. F., Castellano, J., and Calleja-González, J. (2017). “Intra-rater reliability and agreement of various methods of measurement to assess dorsiflexion in the Weight Bearing Dorsiflexion Lunge Test (WBLT) among female athletes.” Physical Therapy in Sport, 23, 37–44.

2. Swinton, P. A., Lloyd, R., Keogh, J. W., Agouris, I., and Stewart, A. D. (2012). “A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat, powerlifting squat, and box squat.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1805–1816.

3. Crosbie, J., Kilbreath, S. L., Hollmann, L., and York, S. (2008). “Scapulohumeral rhythm and associated spinal motion.” Clinical Biomechanics, 23(2), 184–192.

4. McKean, M. R. and Burkett, B. J. (2015). “Overhead shoulder press – In-front of the head or behind the head?” Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(3), 250–257.

5. Kebaetse, M., McClure, P., and Pratt, N. A. (1999). “Thoracic position effect on shoulder range of motion, strength, and three-dimensional scapular kinematics.” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 945–950.

6. Lewis, J. S., Green, A., and Wright, C. (2005). “Subacromial impingement syndrome: the role of posture and muscle imbalance.” Journal of Shoulder and ElbowSurgery, 14(4), 385–392.

7. Bohannon, R. W., Tudini, F., and Constantine, D. (2019). “Tragus-to-wall: A systematic review of procedures, measurements obtained, and clinimetric properties.” Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, (Preprint), 1–11.

8. Ozaras, N., Gulec, M. G., Celik, H. K. A., Demir, S. E., and Guler, M. (2014). “Effect of body shape on tragus-to-wall distance in the normal population.” Clinical Rheumatology, 33(8), 1169–1171.

9. Bucke, J., Spencer, S., Fawcett, L., Sonvico, L., Rushton, A., and Heneghan, N. R. (2017). “Validity of the digital inclinometer and iphone when measuring thoracic spine rotation.” Journal of Athletic Training, 52(9), 820–825.

10. Young, J. L., Herring, S. A., Press, J. M., and Casazza, B. A. (1996). “The influence of the spine on the shoulder in the throwing athlete.” Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 7(1), 5–17.

11. Edmondston, S. J., Aggerholm, M., Elfving, S., Flores, N., Ng, C., Smith, R., and Netto, K. (2007). “Influence of posture on the range of axial rotation and coupled lateral flexion of the thoracic spine.” Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 30(3), 193–199.

12. Johnson, K. D., Kim, K. M., Yu, B. K., Saliba, S. A., and Grindstaff, T. L. (2012). “Reliability of thoracic spine rotation range-of-motion measurements in healthy adults.” Journal of Athletic Training, 47(1), 52–60.

13. Barlow, J. C., Benjamin, B. W., Birt, P. J., and Hughes, C. J. (2002). “Shoulder strength and range-of-motion characteristics in bodybuilders.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(3), 367–372.

14. Reagan, K. M., Meister, K., Horodyski, M. B., Werner, D. W., Carruthers, C., and Wilk, K. (2002). “Humeral retroversion and its relationship to glenohumeral rotation in the shoulder of college baseball players.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(3), 354–360.

15. Wilk, K. E., Macrina, L. C., Fleisig, G. S., Porterfield, R., Simpson, C. D., Harker, P., Paparesta, N., and Andrews, J. R. (2011). “Correlation of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and total rotational motion to shoulder injuries in professional baseball pitchers.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(2), 329–335.

16. Bousquet, B. A. and Olson, T. (2018). “Starting at the Ground Up: Range of Motion Requirements and Assessment Procedures for Weightlifting Movements.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, 40(6), 56–67.

17. Spence, A. and Cushion, E. (2015). “Determining reliability: a data collection guide for S&C practitioners.” Professional Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36, 27–33.

18. Charlton, P. C., Mentiplay, B. F., Pua, Y. H., and Clark, R. A. (2015). “Reliability and concurrent validity of a Smartphone, bubble inclinometer and motion analysis system for measurement of hip joint range of motion.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(3), 262–267.

19. Cejudo, A., de Baranda, P. S., Ayala, F., and Santonja, F. (2015). “Test-retest reliability of seven common clinical tests for assessing lower extremity muscle flexibility in futsal and handball players.” Physical Therapy in Sport, 16(2), 107–113.

20. Cejudo, A., Ayala, F., De Baranda, P. S., and Santonja, F. (2015). “Reliability of two methods of clinical examination of the flexibility of the hip adductor muscles.” International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 10(7), 976.

21. Hansberger, B. L., Loutsch, R., Hancock, C., Bonser, R., Zeigel, A., and Baker, R. T. (2019). “Evaluating the relationship between clinical assessments of apparent hamstring tightness: a correlational analysis.” International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 14(2), 253.

22. Vohralik, S. L., Bowen, A. R., Burns, J., Hiller, C. E., and Nightingale, E. J. (2015). “Reliability and validity of a smartphone app to measure joint range.” American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(4), 325–330.

23. Shipe, N. K., Billek-Sawhney, B., Canter, T. A., Meals, D. J., Nestler, J. M., and Stumpff, J. L. (2013). “The intra-and inter-rater reliability of the tragus wall distance (TWD) measurement in non-pathological participants ages 18–34.” Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 29(4), 328–334.

24. Werner, B. C., Holzgrefe, R. E., Griffin, J. W., Lyons, M. L., Cosgrove, C. T., Hart, J. M., and Brockmeier, S. F. (2014). “Validation of an innovative method of shoulder range-of-motion measurement using a smartphone clinometer application.” Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 23(11), e275–e282.

Before training begins for any athlete, a full movement analysis of each individual joint should be done. For me, if there is any joint that is not fully prepared from a standpoint of overall health (balance of strength and active range of motion), then we need to ready the health of the unhealthy joints prior to training.

Ensuring the proper health of all joints prior to training allows us to get as close as possible to improving the longevity of the athlete through their collegiate career. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP in training and preparation. Those who get caught up in “getting the athlete strong” without proper screening (because getting the athlete strong helps prevent injury) are setting their athletes up for failure at some point down the line.

Ensuring the proper health of all joints prior to training allows us to get as close as possible to improving the longevity of the athlete through their collegiate career, says @coachjbrewer. Share on X

At this phase, we need to get as much information as possible to get as close as we can to predicting a possible injury (even though we can never entirely predict it or entirely prevent injuries from occurring). In this case, our job is to fully understand:

• What each joint should be capable of compared to current joint ability.
• The health history of each individual athlete (collaboration with ATC staff).
• The consistent or typical injuries that occur within the sport (for me, soccer)— when and how they occur.

Once these are complete, then I create a warm-up with movements that will aid in teaching the athletes how to move safely. From there, I move to programming. Here, I will focus on assessing an athlete and moving toward ACL mitigation.

My Evaluation Process for Athletes

One thing that has not and will never change is the anatomy of a human being. A shoulder will always be multiaxial, an elbow will always be a fixed hinge, knee flexors will always flex, etc.

Many people prefer to start training athletes without doing this evaluation process, using the initial general conditioning phase to get an idea of where the athlete is. The philosophy of these coaches is that they will evaluate as they train and adjust from there, because they say there isn’t enough time to evaluate. John Wooden said it best: “If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?” I prefer to have a complete diagram of what I’m working with before I get started with any athlete.

Assessing Each Joint

When I screen an athlete, it typically takes about 10–15 minutes. The evaluation screen hits the following areas:

Shoulder Flexion: The screen for this shows me how much movement into shoulder flexion the athlete can do. If they are not able to pass the ear (in a lying position), then I will not load them with exercises above the head. Instead, I give them correctives that will increase their ability to move into flexion.

Lying Hip Flexion Holds: This shows me how much active range of motion is possible due to the flexibility of the hamstrings and strength of the hip flexors. I ask for 80 degrees of movement from each athlete. If they do not possess that, then I give them stretching assignments and correctives along with modifications of all loaded hamstring exercises.

Lying Hip Internal Rotation: As the athlete lies on their back, has one leg prone and the other hip flexed to 90 degrees, and the knee at 90 degrees, I ask them to rotate the heel away from the midline of the body, moving into internal rotation. The acceptable range is 30–40 degrees. Athletes who are below this number receive extra internal rotation exercises along with external rotation stretches.

Lying Hip External Rotation: As the athlete lies on their back, has one leg prone and the other hip flexed to 90 degrees, and the knee at 90 degrees, I ask them to rotate the heel inward into external rotation. The acceptable range is 40–60 degrees. Athletes who are below this number range are given external rotation strengthening exercises and internal rotation stretches.

Groin Straight Leg Abduction: I have the athlete lie flat on their back and then abduct one hip as far as possible with no compensation movement. I then place my foot inside theirs and have them squeeze into my foot. This helps me gauge if they possess any strength or if they may have closing angle pain. The desired movement here is 30–50 degrees. This assesses the groin muscles that are more active when the leg is straight. If weak, I give them isometric exercises. If not in the desired range of movement, I give them extra stretching of the groin in a straight leg fashion.

Groin Bent Leg: I have the athlete in the same starting position as the internal/external test. I place my hand with pressure on the opposite leg hip and have them abduct as much as possible. I then apply pressure with my other hand on the inside of the abducted knee as they try to adduct back against me. This helps me assess adductor strength and closing angle pain. The desired movement here is 30–50 degrees. This assesses the groin muscles that are more active when the leg is bent. If weak, I give them isometric exercises, and if not in the desired range of movement, I give them extra stretching of the groin in a bent knee fashion.

Ankle Dorsiflexion (in relationship with the knee): Each athlete starts in a kneeling position with the back knee in line with the front heel. With the front leg, they then push the knee into anterior displacement until the point at which the heel wants to come off the ground. The desired movement is having the knee at least 4–5 inches in front of the toe. If they cannot move further than this distance, I give them extra Achilles stretches to do prior to our warm-up, and I keep their heel elevated (stepping on an elevated surface) when we do a front or overhead squatting variation.

Ankle Controlled Articulation Rotation: The athlete sits on the ground with a bent leg. I have them start in an inverted ankle position, then roll slowly into plantar flexion, then finish in an everted position. This gives me an idea of the movement and control they have from inversion to eversion. If the ankle is jumpy while rotating, they lack active ranges of motion while moving. (I have yet to see a soccer player with this concern.) If this is the case, I give them active exercises and stretches to help with the issue.

Knee Controlled Articulation Rotation: The athlete sits on the ground and starts with one knee bent and dorsiflexed as much as they can. I have them attempt to shift the heel out and the toes in (internally rotate) and then slowly extend the leg. Prior to reaching a knee-locked position, I have them rotate the other direction, then flex the leg back toward the body. If I do not see a significant amount of rotation, I then prescribe a knee controlled articulation rotation (CAR) exercise with more intense contractions. If they lack any movement, I do a series of stretches with isometric contractions in order to stimulate more passive and active ranges of motion.

Standing Hip Flexion (with Strength Assessment): The athlete locks their body in an upright position, and then I have them rapidly flex one hip (knee/toe up). Once they reach maximum height, I have them freeze the hip flexed position. This rapid hip flexed movement shows me the position the athlete naturally places their knee in when braking and raises their knee to during sprinting. I watch each athlete from the front and then push down on their knee to assess the level of strength. The red flag of this test is when the athlete’s knee moves to the midline, and the foot, when dorsiflexed, externally rotates. Imagine an athlete moving at a rapid pace and trying to brake, then change direction from this compromised position—injury is inevitable.

From a standpoint of muscle balance, I would like to see the knee move vertically and the hip actually take over with some external rotation and/or slight abduction, where it would begin to pull and balance the movement. This is where most female athletes fail. Therefore, I spend much of my time working the abductors and external rotators of the hip and increasing dorsiflexion of all the athletes.

Note that, if the athlete experiences closing angle pain in any of the assessments (pain on the joint side as the angle gets smaller), I refer them to the ATC staff.

While this assessment process may look like a lot, all of it is necessary for us to understand where to go when it comes to training, explains @coachjbrewer. Share on X

This assessment process looks like a lot, but the body is a complex moving machine. All of this is necessary for us to understand where to go when it comes to training. Cooperatively, all movements in the weight room require prerequisites. If an athlete cannot properly flex the shoulder, then they shouldn’t be doing weighted overhead movements because it will lead to injury since they do not possess the active range of motion prerequisite. This seems to be true, from my experience, for all joint movements.

This process also allows me to educate each individual athlete on their weaknesses and imbalances. For those with glaring needs (really weak areas or range of motion issues), I then provide them with a small list of exercises to use when they first go to the weight room or things they can do after the workout or at home on their own time. Over time, they start to balance the health of the joint. (Joint health can be defined by both the active range of the joint and its articular strength and capsule space.)

As a Functional Range Conditioning® mobility specialist, I follow the FRC flowchart created by Dr. Spina¹ (the founder of the FRC® system). This flowchart allows for proper progression as far as bringing back the health of a joint and preparing it for more complex movements. The main two points of the FRC® system are:

1. Increase functional mobility through articular strength and neurological control.
2. Increase articular resilience with increased tissue-bearing capacity and, therefore, better preparation for competition in an effort to limit or prevent injury.

This helps truly increase functional mobility. We need to train the entire joint system, as all joints will eventually work with each other at some random time in the action of sport.

When it comes to movement patterns, we cannot fully program the body to do something exactly the same way in repeated fashion; there will always be errors in movement and uncontrollable variables that will affect movements in sport action. Bernstein’s “repetition without repetition”² suggests any complete repetition is impossible because of the uncontrollable variables in the body (muscle firing mechanisms), along with constant variable environmental factors (flooring, weather, speed, angles, etc.). Latash, et al., later added to this literature by stating: “A motor task does not prescribe a particular motor pattern.”³

I try to provide athletes with more degrees of freedom in their joints, to be more consistent while adapting to more variables. This makes them safer and more efficient movers during play. Share on X

Due to these findings, I try to provide my athletes with more degrees of freedom in their joints, to be more consistent while adapting to more variables. This, in turn, makes them safer and more efficient movers during play. This process with proper progressive overload creates tissue adaptation and protection and provides injury mitigation, improved neurologic function, and better articular health and longevity (Dr. Spina, FRC® system¹).

A Balance of Strength

As many of us know by now, the main anatomical difference of a female athlete compared to a male athlete is the wider hip base and, therefore, the increase in valgus angles to the knee. Along with other factors explained below, this is the principal contributing factor to the ACL injury epidemic, as it puts extra stress on the MCL and ACL during landings and braking periods in sport. My goal is to greatly reduce this risk by gathering information on why non-contact ACL injuries occur and then begin to train toward prevention.

This starts with properly assessing the health of the joints (hip/knee/ankle). If you do not possess the ability to assess these correctly, then please allow someone who does (ATC staff, ortho, more seasoned trainer/strength coach) to conduct the assessment. As stated earlier, assessment of health is based on two factors: active range of motion and the strength within the active range of motion. Next, I focus on balancing the strength of all the muscles involved that support and move each joint.

If you do not possess the ability to evaluate the health of an athlete’s joints correctly, please allow someone who does to conduct the assessment, says @coachjbrewer. Share on X

Bryan Mann, in his NSCA presentation from 2018, showed research that supports my philosophy and practice, with his application of exercises to strengthen and balance the joint to oppose the weaknesses in the area.⁴Mann concluded that the mechanisms of an ACL tear need to be narrowed down to three areas: hip adduction, hip internal rotation, and tibial anterior translation.⁴Causation factors are then applied—accumulated fatigue (through the season and through single competitions) and outside stressors (physical, academic, emotional).

His recommendation for a solution is to counter the mechanisms of the tear; in this case, by balancing the stress through the strengthening of the opposing muscle groups. The main areas of focus are, of course, increasing the strength of the abductors, external rotators, VMO (vastus medialis obliquus), and hamstrings, and utilizing preventative warm-ups such as FIFA 11 and other inclusions.

I take this one step further and suggest that you need to keep the joints healthy by maintaining a balance of strength, in addition to combatting the injuries plaguing the sport. This approach allows me to train holistically (train a human to be a better human) and then focus on sport-specific entities (i.e., energy zones, movements, game duration, etc.). It makes my programming from sport to sport much simpler and more universal.

My selection of exercises begins with these muscle groups in the weight room, and I spend a majority of my initial weeks (regardless of training season) teaching athletes how to properly brake/absorb from all angles, speeds, and heights for both one- and two-leg landings. I build each athlete to a proper body positioning and encourage proper muscle sequencing.

Warm-Ups for Stability and Mobility

Let’s start with the warm-ups. This is where we begin to build good movement habits and more stability (click exercises for linked videos).

• Straight Leg Raise Hold – Flexing the hip creates a movement where the hamstring, as the antagonist, needs to contract eccentrically in order to stop the hip from flexing too much. If done right, the leg in use should be shaking.
• Straight Leg Raise Pump – Same routine as above, but now in a ballistic manner.
• Glute Bridge Banded Abduction – Extension of the hips firing up the entire posterior chain, then abduct against band tension.
  

• Upright Hip Rocker – Constant activation of internal and external rotation of the hips while sitting upright.
• Hip Roller – Lie on back with arms out for stability. Using 90-degree flexed hips and knees, roll hips to the right and then the left. This activates the internal and external obliques, as well as the spinal stabilizers.
• Cat Cow
• Outside Edge Walk
• Inside Edge Walk
• Side Heel Walk
• Full Foot Roll – Heel to Toe Walk
• Tip Toe Walk
• Band Abduction Walk
• Band Monster Walk
• Reverse Banded Monster Walk
• Standing Band Extension/Abduction

From here, I usually filter in exercises that mimic what we have on the training card as far as the lifts of the day go, but these warm-ups give us a great start on balancing the hips, knees, and ankles.

Exercise Selection

The exercises of emphasis to combat the ACL injury epidemic focus on the hips and knees/hamstrings.

Squatting Hip Stabilizer Exercises

Almost every squatting movement of mine, whether it’s unilateral or bilateral, is done with a knee-out emphasis, which asks more of the abductors, external rotators, and VMO.

Almost every squatting movement I have athletes do has a knee-out emphasis, which asks more of the abductors, external rotators, and VMO, says @coachjbrewer. Share on X

Here are a few that I utilize:

• Banded Squat
• Band Abduction Walk
• Standing Band Extension/Abduction
• Banded Monster Walk, Reverse Banded Monster Walk
• Fire Hydrant, Banded Fire Hydrant
• Prone Lying Banded Abduction
• Glute Heel Tap
• Simple Lunge Variations (walking, small steps, flat back, repel, etc.)

For external rotation, a 90/90 PAIL/RAIL with a focus on the externally rotated hip, isometric dog pointers, RDLs, full-range squats, and full-range front squats. The full-range squats require a fair amount of external rotation of the hips, allowing the body to be able to sink down rather than pushing the hips back.

Knee Flexors (Hamstrings/Calves)

These cover the exercises I have athletes do to work the posterior side of the legs.

• Eccentric Pistol Squat
• Ball Hamstring Curl, Two-Leg
• Split Hamstring Curl
• Split Leg Manual Hamstring, Eccentric Resistance
• SL RDL, Locked T-Spine
• KB RDL
• Barbell RDL, Explosive Concentric Emphasis
• Anterior Draws Lunge with Stomp
• Repel Lunge with Deceleration Emphasis
• Partner Nordic Hamstring
• Sorinex Roller Hamstring Curl
• Banded Glute Bridge Raise/Hold

Braking/Absorbing

As a former track coach (for 14 years), I fully understand and can program excellent sprint mechanics, help develop more efficient strides, and enable faster sprinters. The thing I learned coaching football (for 17 years) is that many players are not taught how to properly slow down or even stop safely. This is more important for female soccer athletes, due to anatomical disadvantages as well as the variable nature of the sport, where change of direction and speed are constant needs. By learning the proper way to land/brake/absorb force (which is flexion of the hip, flexion of the knee, and dorsiflexion of the ankle with an abducted hip), the athletes can move closer to reacting properly during play in this absorption position.

My coaching cues are always flex your butt, then flex everything else with the knee out. By cueing the athlete to flex their butt, it increases the chance of them firing up the abductors and external rotators of the hip to move the stress away from the knee and toward the hip. The “knee out” cue intentionally moves the knee away from the unsafe valgus position and fires up the VMO, along with paying extra attention to the abductors and external rotators of the hip.

I then remind athletes of the importance of dorsiflexion (pulling the toes up toward the knee), as this can draw attention to the Achilles as it’s being stretched. Additionally, this fires up the calves and adds extra attention (even though they are weak knee flexors) to the muscles that cross the back of the knee. This process helps counter the anterior movement of the tibia and gives tension to the ACL, which helps strengthen it over time.

Strength coaches need to treat the braking series like weightlifting or plyometrics, in that all tissues, including ligaments, will adapt to stress and increase in strength, says @coachjbrewer. Share on X

Strength coaches need to treat the braking series just like weightlifting or plyometrics, in that all tissue, including ligaments, will adapt to stress and increase in strength. This makes the entire joint more stable and better ready for the stress it will endure during the season. I have found isometric positioning followed by eccentric loading to be the best way of progressing into heavy plyometric exercises. The two additional key points to remember here are straight out of any textbook covering strength and conditioning:

1. Principle of Progressive Adaptation: Incremental loads imparted on tissue results in adaptation of said tissue such that the load absorption capacity improves.
2. Principle of Specificity: The adaptation is specific to the demand.

Much like every other sport, repetition is key to improving the athlete’s ability to cope with variable environmental stimulus (different speeds, vectors, levels)—i.e., better prepared to stop and change direction safely—in this case, a soccer player. Here are a few progressive exercises I use:

• Isometric Hold of the Proper Landing Position (One-Leg Squatting Position)
• Isometric Holds of the Proper Landing Position (Two-Leg Squatting Position)
• Plate Catch Drill
• Hip External Rotation/Extension (Intro to Braking)
• SL to Two-Leg Landing
• Angle Bound with Stick
• SL Rotation Jump, Outside Leg Landing
• Angle Leg Braking

Once the process of landing/braking/absorbing is complete, I tend to filter in minimal accelerations (1–2 walking steps of momentum, creating linear/lateral/hopping movement). During this training phase, I stay until the athletes have mastered the stopping (no sign of compensation). This process will typically take 2–4 weeks, and then I move to more complex movements and change of direction drills.

If there are individuals who still look behind, I have them come in and do extra work to get them caught up. Based on research findings, “dynamic movement patterns are very important factors contributing to ACL injury.”⁵Therefore, we need to give athletes as many variables as possible in their training to stay clear of the possible injury. In order for your athletes to gain the ability to stabilize, you must continue to add stimulus.

From here, I move to a “nudge” series, where the athletes hop and land with the added stimulus of a partner knocking them slightly off course. This slowly gives them more confidence landing in crowded areas. I then move to higher speeds and harder pushes, until they are completely stable with a wide variety of uncontrollable stimulus:

• SL Landing Nudge Variation
• SL Braking Nudge Outside Leg
• Moving SL Braking Nudge Variation
• Moving SL Braking Forward Nudge Variation

Aiming for a ‘Healthier’ Season

After we have taught the athlete to properly position themselves when braking, the next step is to really dig into the training process with full-speed accelerations and vertical and horizontal plyometrics, and tie all of these together with change of direction drills. If you have allowed the athlete to adhere to the Principle of Adaptation and you yourself have stayed true to the Principle of Specificity, then your athletes will be on track for a healthier season as it relates to non-contact injuries.

As I stated earlier, I have this progression, no matter the training season. This is due to the many fluctuations in every training cycle that we, as strength professionals, don’t have control over. This includes winter break, spring break, NCAA break periods, summer break, busy practice schedules, enduring practices, enduring game performances, etc.

Obviously, the more the athletes have been subjected to the exercises and movements, the more adaptation speeds up. Upperclassmen will be further along in the training progression than incoming freshmen and transfer athletes. This is why it is necessary to separate your athletes by training age as it pertains to ACL prep programming, along with all new inclusions in a strength and conditioning environment.

On the path to prevent all injuries, there needs to be an extensive screening process followed by careful planning to balance the athletes’ deficiencies, says @coachjbrewer. Share on X

In summary, I firmly believe that on the path to prevent all injuries (most importantly, the ACL), there needs to be an extensive screening process followed by careful planning to balance the deficiencies of the athletes. You can then move them into a holistic training program that includes “sport specific” needs such as proper energy systems and movements within the sport.

I have done this (with many revisions over the years) with all sports I have worked with, and the health of the athletes throughout the playing season has shown excellent numbers (as it pertains to joint health). There have been only three non-contact ACL injuries in 18 years of the sports I have had strength and conditioning control over, followed by a short list of common muscle pulls, strains, sprains, and other minor injuries that occur within full contact 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. Dr. Andreo A. Spina, Founder of FRC® and FR® systems. FRC Training, Denver, CO. (2019)

2. Bernstein, N.A. (1967) The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

3. Latash M.L., Scholz J.F., Danion F., and Schöner G. “Finger coordination during discrete and oscillatory force production tasks.” Experimental Brain Research. 2002; 146(4): 419–432.

4. Mann, Bryan. “The ACL Epidemic that Never Needed to Happen.” Presentation at NSCA 2018 Coaches Conference, January 2018.

5. Journal of Orthopaedics Editorial.“The female ACL: Why is it more prone to injury?” 2016; 13(2): A1–A4.

“If you don’t have the squat in your program, you don’t have a program!” has been a motto of Iron Game and strength-power athletes for the past half-century. In recent years, however, some strength coaches beg to differ. They contend that the “King of Exercises” is old school and should be replaced by a single-leg exercise called the Bulgarian lunge. Let me explain.

First, although the popular name of this single-leg exercise suggests that it’s a lunge, it’s actually a split squat. What’s the difference? With a lunge, you take a step, and your hips descend diagonally, like an escalator; with a split squat, your hips drop straight down, like an elevator. The name Bulgarian lunge has been used so often, however, that it stuck.

The History and Appeal of the Bulgarian Lunge

I began competitive weightlifting in 1972, a time when the two powerhouses of weightlifting were Russia (The Big Red Machine) and Bulgaria (The Little Country that Could). This was long before the Internet, so it was difficult to get credible information about how European weightlifters trained.

While there were articles written by Russian weightlifting coaches, they were looked upon with skepticism—why would the Russians share their training secrets? And there was the concern that the best coaches weren’t writing these articles because they were too busy coaching athletes. We even heard stories that Russian lifters amused themselves by performing bizarre exercises in the training halls at international competitions to see if the Americans would copy them. As for Bulgaria, the reports that their lifters were training five times a day and maxing out every day were a bit too hard to believe (and impractical, at that).

In 1989 our frustration came to an end, or so we thought, with the publication of an article in Muscle and Fitness entitled, “Bulgarian Leg Training Secrets.”

The article was written by weightlifting historian Dr. Terry Todd and Bulgarian weightlifting and strength coach Angel Spassov. Although Spassov was unknown to most American weightlifters, he was from Bulgaria, so he had insight into their training methods. Todd, in contrast, was an Iron Game celebrity.

As an athlete, Todd was the first man to officially squat 700 pounds, and his wife, Dr. Jan Todd, was the first woman to squat 500 pounds officially. As a PhD scholar, Todd was committed to preserving the history of the Iron Game and was instrumental in discrediting the myths about squats being harmful to the knees. He was also the driving force providing content for the H.J. Lutcher Stark Center for Physical Culture and Sports at the University of Texas in Austin.

With those credentials, along with having an article published in a major newsstand magazine, there was little reason to doubt the accuracy of the article. At last, we were going to learn the secrets of the most powerful athletes in the world!

Bondarchuk, Verkhoshansky, and Transfer

Todd and Spassov’s article began by discussing the work of Anatoliy Bondarchuk. Bondarchuk won an Olympic gold medal in the hammer throw, coached a two-time Olympic gold medalist in the same event, and became a professor who wrote extensively about sports specific training. Unquestionably, Bondarchuk is a track and field legend.

According to Todd and Spassov, Bondarchuk did not believe the strength and power developed from the squat transferred well to sports. They said one of Bondarchuk’s arguments was that there is no sport other than weightlifting in which an athlete finds themselves in a full, rock-bottom squat.

Todd and Spassov also claimed that the stress put on the lower back from squats might not be worth the risk. How much stress? According to Bondarchuk, the compression forces on the lower back are at least doubled that of the weight from a standing position. Thus, an athlete who squatted 200 pounds would put 400 pounds of stress on the spine in the bottom position—considerably more when performing the lift quickly. Contrast this with a step-up, which is an exercise that most athletes would have difficulty doing using 50 percent of the weight they could use in squats.

Tackling the problem from another direction (literally), Russian track coach Professor Yuri Verkhoshansky tried using quarter squats with his jumpers. During the brutal winter months, his athletes had to train indoors, and heavy quarter squats seemed like a practical way to duplicate the stress on the body during the takeoffs for the jumps. Practical, yes—safe, probably not.

Because you can use considerably more weight in a quarter squat than a full squat, many of Verkhoshansky’s athletes complained of lower back pain from performing them. That’s the bad news. The good news is that this problem inspired Verkhoshansky to develop plyometrics, a valuable training method that seemed to help 12 of his athletes achieve the prestigious level of “Master of Sport.”

Soliciting the support of the bodybuilding community, Todd and Spassov strengthened their anti-squat propaganda with the following observation about single-leg training and leg development:

One thing coaches in the Soviet Union and Bulgaria noticed was that those athletes, both lifters and those in other sports, who dropped the squat and used the high step-up developed more complete muscularity than those who simply squatted. Many of the coaches say that the legs of those who work hard on the high step-up look more like those of someone who did sprinting and jumping as well as squatting. Apparently, the balance required in the high step-up calls more muscles into play, producing fuller, shapelier development.

Sports specificity, less injury risk, and a symmetrical physique—all valid reasons to consider adding single-leg movements to your workouts. But Todd and Spassov were not done and drove home their sales pitch with the following statement that shocked the weightlifting community:

Several years ago the Bulgarian weightlifting team began to drop all back squatting in favor of high step-up. By that time, many Soviet lifters had abandoned squats and made their higher lifts in the snatch and clean and jerk than ever before.

They added that Leonid Taranenko, the absolute world record in the clean and jerk with 586 pounds, had not done a squat in over four years in favor of single-leg training! 

Face to Face with Angel Spassov

After the publication of the article with Todd, Spassov came to the United States and continued championing the benefits of single-leg training. In addition to sharing his experience with Bulgarian weightlifters, Spassov talked about amazing feats of power performed by athletes who focused on single-leg training.

One of the athletes was 5’11” Khristo Markov, 1988 Olympic champion in the triple jump, who placed 42-inch high hurdles across the length of a soccer field. Jumping on one leg, touching just once between each hurdle, Markov could hop the entire distance of a soccer field, according to Spassov.

Around this time, Spassov was staying in Colorado, and I had the opportunity to visit him on several occasions. I also attended a presentation he gave in Denver. Since I was the primary person writing workouts for athletes at the Air Force Academy, I was able to try out these exercises on Division I college athletes.

The story could end there, but with my background in competitive weightlifting (and undergrad studies in journalism), I had a skeptical mindset and decided to investigate the idea that single-leg training with exercises such as the Bulgarian lunge or the high step-up are superior to squats.

The following seven points discuss the facts and fallacies surrounding single-leg training for weightlifters, especially regarding the Bulgarian lunge.

1. The Bulgarians Did Not Stop Doing Squats

In 2011, Ivan Abadjiev—the former head coach of the Bulgarian weightlifting team and creator of their training system—came to our educational center in Rhode Island to give a seminar. The following day I took the opportunity to ask him some questions in our gym while he trained one of his athletes.

I asked Abadjiev about the use of step-ups and lunges in his workouts, and he made it absolutely clear that his lifters never performed these two exercises. One of Abadjiev’s prize athletes was Stefan Botev, a weightlifting medalist in the 1992 and 1996 Olympic Games.

Iron Game journalist Randall J. Strossen, PhD asked Botev about step-ups:

Stefan Botev politely but firmly told me that I must have misunderstood something because Bulgarian weightlifters never did step-ups, but of course they squatted frequently and heavily—something I can attest to now, being lucky enough to have seen Bulgarian weightlifters training from Spokane to Sofia to Santo Domingo, and many points in between…Subsequent to my first talk with Botev about this, I confirmed this with Ivan Abadjiev, and the three of us have since laughed about this more than once.

Okay, here’s one more!

Dragomir Cioroslan is a Romanian weightlifting coach who trained under national team coach Ivan Abadjiev in his preparation for the 1984 Olympic Games. I spoke with him when he was coaching athletes at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cioroslan told me the primary leg exercises for Bulgarian weightlifters were front squats and back squats and that he had never seen any lifters on the Bulgarian National Team perform single-leg exercises.

2. The Clean and Jerk World Record Holder Did Not Stop Doing Squats

After the Spassov and Todd article was published, sports scientist Bud Charniga was attending an international competition and asked Taranenko about his use of single-leg training. Taranenko said he had never talked to Spassov about his training and had recently squatted 837 pounds with a 2-second pause at the bottom. Taranenko did say, however, that he occasionally did step-ups when his lower back was overtrained.

3. The Bulgarian Lunge Is Frequently Taught Improperly

When I visited Spassov, one of his key points about the Bulgarian lunge was that the rear foot should only be elevated about 4-6 inches off the ground, with the ball of the foot on the platform. As such, the back leg is more actively involved in the exercise. In contrast, many functional trainers who promote this exercise teach that the rear foot should be pointed and elevated to approximately knee height, thus limiting the range of motion of the exercise.

I showed the Bulgarian lunge to Gorsha Sur, a Russian ice dancing champion whom I was coaching who won the US national championships with his partner Reneé Roca. Sur, who had clean and jerked 50 pounds over bodyweight, saw value in the exercise. However, he told me it would be better for ice dancers to elevate the rear foot to at least 12 inches and to hold the barbell on the front of the shoulders (as you would when performing a front squat) to encourage a tall posture.

I wrote about Sur’s variation in the international skating magazine Blades on Ice, and I called it the Gorsha Lunge to credit Sur. As an experiment, I tried this exercise once with several swimmers at the Air Force Academy, and the following day several of them came up to me and said, “Coach Goss, our Gorshas are sooooo sore!”

4. The Bulgarian Lunge Does Not Work the Legs Through a Full Range of Motion

One big selling point by those who promote Bulgarian lunges is that they provide a greater strength training effect than squats. Someone who can squat 200 pounds, for example, may be able to use 125 pounds on each leg with a Bulgarian lunge, and 125 + 125 = 250. More weight equals higher intensity, and higher intensity means the muscles are working harder. Well, you’d lift a lot more weight, too, if you only had to bend your knees halfway.

As another experiment, I had a 240-pound defensive lineman at the Air Force Academy do the exercise. After a few sessions, he did 505 pounds on each leg—not far off from what he was back squatting. His brother, who weighed about 200 pounds, did 400 pounds. I also had one female weightlifter who weighed 132 pounds do 205 pounds on each leg after a few training sessions. Again, don’t be too impressed—both legs are still working even when the rear foot is elevated and there’s only a partial movement.

When you perform partial-range exercises, the muscles around the knee are inadequately developed & the connective tissues lose their elasticity. Share on X

So what’s the big deal about, as they say in Game of Thrones, “bending the knee”? It’s important because, if you perform partial-range exercises, not only are the muscles around the knee inadequately developed but also the connective tissues lose their elasticity. Exercises with a partial range of motion adversely affect the elastic qualities of these tissues, and this could make those who focus on them more susceptible to injury.

A regular lunge offers more range of motion than the version with the back foot elevated. Many lifters in the 1950s and 1960s who were uncomfortable with the squat style of lifting used the split style; some achieved extremely low positions for the snatch and the clean. By the way, if you want to significantly increase the range of motion of the front leg during a lunge, perform it with the back foot on the ground, and the front foot elevated about 6-8 inches.

And this brings us to the next point.

5. The Bulgarian Lunge Should Be Performed in Conjunction with the Step-Up

Spassov made it clear to me that for training athletes, two single-leg exercises should be performed—the Bulgarian lunge and the step-up. He said the addition of the step-up ensured that the legs were worked through the full range of motion.

When Spassov moved to the United States, one of the first athletes he trained was weightlifter Ursula Garza, now Ursula Garza Papandrea. Spassov coached her for two and a half years. Papandrea told me that Spassov had her perform step-ups and split squats, but she did not stop squatting. Papandrea’s best results at a bodyweight of 123 pounds were a 330-pound back squat and a 286-pound front squat.

Papandrea’s results suggest Spassov believed that single-leg training for weightlifters should not replace squats but be performed in addition to them.

6. The Bulgarian Lunge Creates Unnatural Stresses on the Spine and Other Areas

One problem with the rear leg being too high in a Bulgarian lunge is that it puts the spine into hyperextension—and the more you bend your front leg, the greater the arch in the lower back. Performing it with a barbell across the back of your shoulders increases the stress as you have to stay more upright.

The stress is worse for those who already have an excessive degree of anterior (forward) pelvic tilt. For these individuals, excessive loading could result in injury to the rectus abdominus (i.e., the six-pack muscle), the muscles that flex the hip (such as the psoas), and may even cause a sports hernia. It gets worse.

Lifting the rear leg in a split squat can cause the pelvis to tilt and twist. Dr. Stuart McGill, one of the foremost experts on lower back pain with over 240 peer-reviewed scientific journal papers on lower back health to his credit, said that the Bulgarian lunge causes one side of the pelvis (ilium) to rotate forward and the other to rotate backward. According to McGill, excessively performing the Bulgarian lunge can cause “a laxity and you will actually start to compromise the connective tissue across the SI joint so that a minor motion, such as walking upstairs for example, now becomes painful.” This issue is especially problematic for those who play hockey and soccer.

One study looking at the risk of groin injuries in sports found that these injuries were common in many sports. The authors of the study noted, “In professional ice hockey and soccer players throughout the world, approximately 10% to 11% of all injuries are groin strains.” Is it possible that Bulgarian lunges could increase these numbers? Just ask Paul Gagne’.

Ironically, many hockey strength coaches use Bulgarian lunges to help prevent injury when, in fact, the lunges may contribute to them. Share on X

Gagne’ is a posturologist and strength coach who has trained over 100 NHL players. Coach Gagne’ said that in his experience with these athletes, the Bulgarian lunge produces high levels of stress in the hip. He suggested that the internal rotation of the upper thigh bone (femur) during this lift may lead to injuries to the groin and knee. Ironically, many hockey strength coaches use Bulgarian lunges to help prevent injury when, in fact, the lunges may be contributing to them.

7. The Risk of Squats Hurting the Back Is Exaggerated

The data about the high compressive loads on the lumbar spine during deep squats may seem like cause for concern. And yes, going deeper in the squat increases the compressive forces on the spine—but the discs are most suited to deal with this method of loading as opposed to the twisting and hyperextension motions of the Bulgarian lunge. The bigger issue here, however, is that the strength coaches who over-promote the Bulgarian lunge are creating hyperbole about the risk of lower back injuries in Iron Game athletes who perform squats.

Strength coaches who over-promote the Bulgarian lunge create hyperbole about the risk of lower back injuries in Iron Game athletes who perform squats. Share on X

If squats were so bad, we would expect the sports of powerlifting and weightlifting to have a much higher injury risk than most other sports. One commonly used assessment to determine the safety of a sport is to look at the injury rate per 1,000 hours of athlete exposure.

In a study of 245 competitive and elite powerlifters, the injury rate was one injury per 1,000 hours of training. In another six-year study of elite male weightlifters training at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, the rate was 3.3 per 1,000 hours. These two studies looked at elite athletes who performed large volumes of training at high intensities. How do these numbers compare?

You would think that distance running and swimming would have much lower rates of injury than weightlifting and powerlifting. Not true. In one study, the numbers for distance runners were up to 12.1 injuries per 1,000 hours and up to 5.4 injuries per 1,000 hours for triathletes. Another study found that 95 percent of hockey players reported lumbar pain in their final year of practice. In American football, up to 30.9% of injuries involve the lumbar spine. And in baseball, 89.5% of players reported lower back pain during their career. You get the idea.

If we’re so concerned about injuries, should we condemn running, swimming, hockey, football, baseball, and continue down the list until we’re restricted to perhaps slow walking and sport stacking? My point here is that if you’re a strength coach and don’t like weightlifting and powerlifting, fine. But enough with the disinformation that the Bulgarian lunge is superior to the squat.

Final Thoughts

To sum up, let’s be more skeptical about so-called revolutionary athletic fitness training methods that focus on inferior exercises using light weights. Instead, stick to the basics and realize that not only do conventional strength training exercises have a lot to offer but also that it’s OK to be strong!

Header photo courtesy of Poliquin Group.

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

Spassov, A., Todd, T. “Bulgarian Leg Training Secrets,”Overspeedtraining.com, Muscle and Fitness, Dec 1989.

Strossen, R. “Step-Ups for Weightlifters,”IronMind, Jan 2007.

Goss, K. “Step-Ups: Pros & Cons,”Bigger Faster Stronger, Spring 1991.

Goss, K. “Blades on Ice: The Gorsha Lunge,” Blades on Ice, Summer 1992.

McGill, S., Darby, K. “Dr. Stuart McGill and Kevin Darby on Split Squats and SI Joint Pain,” YouTube, Nov 2018.

Tyler, T., et al. “Groin Injuries in Sports Medicine.”Sports Health, May 2010.

Siewe, J., et al. “Injuries and Overuse Syndromes in Powerlifting,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, Jul 1999.

Calhoon, G., Fry, A. “Injury Rates and Profiles of Elite Competitive Weightlifters,” Journal of Athletic Training, Jul 1999.

van Mechelen, W. “Running Injuries: A Review of the Epidemiological Literature,” Sports Medicine, Nov 1992.

Korkia, P., et al. “An Epidemiological Investigation of Training and Injury Patterns in British Triathletes.” British Journal of Sports Medicine, Sep 1994.

Ball, J., et al., “Lumbar Spine Injuries in Sports: Review of the Literature and Current Treatment Recommendations,” Sports Medicine, Dec 2019.

 

Coaches who are investing in GymAware and FLEX have asked SimpliFaster for a complete list of articles that dive into the details of the system. Included here are several blogs and articles that highlight the best ways to apply velocity-based training (VBT) and weight room tracking. We included all of the relevant articles that showcase what is possible with the hardware and cover key concepts that are extremely useful for coaches. We will update this list of articles periodically, so it will include new blog pieces written by coaches and sport science professionals. If the list doesn’t include what you are looking for, feel free to contact us, as we can always answer questions if you need more information.

8 Techniques for Better GymAware Training and Testing Sessions

This article expands on the best ways—eight ways, specifically—to use the GymAware system in a professional or high school setting. The article covers topics like integrating with AMS (athlete management system) solutions, as well as reviewing the simple practices of barbell path and squat depth. If you are a coach, you may find practical ways of using GymAware for Nordic hamstring exercise testing and for one repetition max assessment.

Getting Started with Velocity-Based Training and GymAware

If you are interested in GymAware and want to learn what you need to get started with the system, this article is for you. The blog post expands on all of the necessary steps to implement velocity-based training in a gym setting, including mounting the unit properly. Also included are small details such as understanding what the GymAware Cloud subscription is and how to use the iPad app. Coaches who just purchased the system will find this piece a good primer to get the most out of the product and onboard efficiently.

Finding Money for Your Strength and Conditioning Program

Coaches who are interested in GymAware but are restricted because of budgeting will want to read this blog post immediately. Any high school coach who needs technology funding should review the article and see what is possible when you organize your requirements into a grant or similar. The article is written by a high school strength and conditioning coach and demonstrates several different possibilities with regard to fundraising. Doug Gle is a fan of the GymAware system, and he offers several ways to make budgeting for technology possible.

How to Improve Your Athletes Instantly with Biofeedback

If you want to get the most out of each rep in the weight room, Shane Davenport covers the details of why GymAware is an excellent option for athletes. While the article includes other sports technology options, he explains why barbell speed and other variables are indispensable for his situation. Coaches who want to raise the intensity or accountability in the weight room will love this blog post because it is written by a professional who works with athletes ranging from the middle school to professional levels.

Instilling Practical Sport Science in a Team Setting

College coaches and professional teams are likely interested in the pragmatic benefits of GymAware. Devan McConnell, a professional strength coach for ice hockey, covers how he integrates the GymAware system with his athletes. Coaches who test and train will want to learn how functions like monitoring fatigue and power during the course of a season can be done simply and quickly with the barbell tracking system.

Why Coaches Should Bring Back Weightlifting Tempo Methods

Tempo, or repetition speed, is a popular method of presenting strength training. This article covers the details of strength training tempo and illustrates the value of GymAware for measuring compliance with athletes. If you prescribe tempo or want to know how athletes are performing specific exercise, this blog piece goes into the details of why you may want to use GymAware to add more precision to the method. Any level of athlete can benefit from tempo training, and coaches who want to ensure that athletes are strict will enjoy this article.

What Does the Science Say About VertiMax Training?

Vertimax training is popular with coaches, and this article examines the science behind the training equipment. Included is the available research in detail, along with how to use GymAware to track training. With half the training research using a VBT device, it only makes sense that coaches use the same methods to benchmark changes over time. If you are already a Vertimax user or wish to invest in other systems, such as the kBox, this article balances both the science and practice with flywheel and velocity-based training.

Why the Jerk Lift Is the Crown Jewel in Weightlifting

When coaches think of VBT training, they commonly think of squats and cleans, but the jerk can be monitored with the GymAware. If you are a fan of the Olympic lifts and are curious about the jerk movement scientifically, this article covers the known science and includes videos on how to implement the exercise with athletes. Coaches who have a GymAware can see example case uses for measuring barbell speed and motion with the jerk exercise.

Cluster Training: How to Navigate Through the New Science

Arguably the best use case for velocity-based training, cluster sets are ways to program power training through very precise rest periods with barbell training. This article explains cluster sets in detail, and GymAware has a specific feature in the app to improve the user experience. Coaches looking to maximize VBT must consider cluster sets as a primary option, as the scientific research supports the method and the GymAware enables coaches to monitor the power output of the bar.

Olympic Lifts: The Importance of Peak Velocity and Recommended Guidelines

Bryan Mann, a pioneer in VBT, outlines a case to move away from mean velocity to peak velocity with Olympic lifts. In this blog post, Mann shares the available science and his experience measuring barbell speed with both the snatch and clean. If you are a coach and use the Olympic lifts, this article lists reference values and explains them in detail. In addition to the science, Mann covers important practical considerations for why you should use barbell tracking in your training.

Bryan Mann Responds to Velocity Based Training Round Table

Another resource from Bryan Mann, this interview covers multiple topics related to velocity-based training. In addition to VBT, the interview dives into hormones, jump testing, and even genetics. If you are a fan of Mann, you will love this interview, and if you are not familiar with his work, this article is a great starting place. This roundtable-format interview outlines a few use cases of GymAware, such as estimating one repetition maximum.

Velocity Based Training

Coaches who want to get started with velocity-based training should read the history and practice of this method first. Most articles on VBT don’t include the origins of and changes to the methodology of barbell tracking over the years and reading this blog article is an excellent foundational starting point. Velocity-based training is a term coined by Bryan Mann, but it’s not new or limited to bar speed. If you are interested in going beyond barbell speed and want to know where the technology is heading, this post is a great reference.

Review of GymAware Velocity Based Training

If you want to hear another coach’s experience with the GymAware system, this blog post is a perfect read. Drew Cooper, a sports performance coach, highlights the features and benefits of using velocity-based training methods and the benefits of GymAware. If you are new to VBT or want to get the most out of the training option, Drew’s article is an excellent read. Included are different methods and features of the product and some timeless ways to use barbell tracking smarter with training.

Top 10 Power Measurement Tools in Strength and Conditioning

In this older but still relevant article, Carl Valle outlines how technology is changing the game with weight room training. Some of the companies are no longer in business and some are still viable, but GymAware is still a leader in VBT. In addition to the list of companies that have helped shape velocity-based training, the article covers the importance of knowing how the hardware works so coaches can make better informed decisions on what to invest in.

How to Use Barbell Trajectory Analysis to Improve Performance

Barbell path is the tracing of the motion of the exercise, and it is an instrumental part of training and testing. How the bar moves in time and space is a major benefit of the GymAware system, and this article explains the details of barbell tracking. If you want to get more out of your GymAware system, and you work with intermediate to advanced level athletes, this blog post is a perfect resource for understanding the value of bar path tracking.

Why Bar Displacement Is a Hidden Gem in the Weight Room

Similar to the barbell path article listed immediately before this, this blog post covers the very simple benefits of knowing the precise distance of the exercise movement. Barbell distance is now a metric used for monitoring work in the weight room, and this article precedes the research and explains why using GymAware for barbell distance is great for teaching young athletes and monitoring the weight room.

This anthology was last updated on September 25, 2019.

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

When you think of box jumps, I am pretty sure you don’t think of 2- to 4-inch boxes. I’m quite certain you think of BIG boxes ranging from 24–48 inches high. Just like you, I love having my athletes explode up on the big boxes and express high rate of force and incredible landing skills—but the BIG box’s little cousin is maybe even more important for different expressions of athleticism. Let me explain…

When I speak of using low boxes, I refer to a box that is roughly 2–4 inches high (I have gone as high as 6 inches, but I found those boxes were not as versatile and didn’t express what I wanted) and roughly 18 inches wide by 24 inches long. If low boxes are not in your budget, but you happen to have lots of Olympic-sized bumper plates, they work just fine.

If low boxes aren’t in your budget, but you happen to have lots of Olympic-sized bumper plates, they work just fine, says @leetaft. Share on X

Before I dive deep into low box training strategies, can I tell you a little about the history of how I created this method of low box training? Sorry, I’m going to anyway…

When I was roughly 25 years old, in 1991, I found myself doing a mentorship at one of the most well-known tennis academies in the world: Bollettieri Tennis Academy (now known as IMG Academy) in Bradenton, Florida. The very first day I arrived, I drove into the parking lot, parked my car, started walking to the office, and nearly got run over by a car backing out. Guess who it was? Bjorn Borg!!! Man, I never thought I would be excited to get hit by a car, but that would have been cool. Sorry, I digress.

As a strength and speed coach, part of my job at Bollettieri was to work with the up-and-coming young talent. I noticed these athletes struggling to change directions after a ground stroke and run down a drop shot or lob. They would take an additional gather step after the original foot plant, and I just knew that was costing them valuable time—especially at their elite level.

I also noticed, in the corner of the weight room, a stack of hardly used step aerobics steps. I dusted off a few and started practicing on my own with some concepts I thought of when I was lying in bed at night thinking about how I could help these tennis players change direction quicker. My goal was to get them to plant the foot, create immediate stability, and reaccelerate back toward the middle of the court, or toward the next shot. It seemed simple enough…

Wouldn’t you know it—after a couple days of messing with the low boxes during my breaks and at night, I came up with these concepts of how to build more reactive speed so the players could not only NOT take additional gather steps with the plant leg, but could also redirect, or reaccelerate, in the new direction so much faster. I knew I couldn’t throw them into the most challenging concepts or drills, and that I needed to progress them and build their reactivity off the ground first. So, I started with the teaching concept of progressing simple to advanced, slow to fast, more stable to less stable (I guess I learned something in my college pedagogy class after all). Long story short, the low box concepts, which I have tweaked over the years, were born.

The progression I briefly mentioned goes kind of like this:

1. The athlete learns to quickly jump on and off the low box with a major focus on feet, ankles, and lower leg energy versus those big deep bending jumps that take way too long. This sets the stage to use elastic response versus longer power responses. It also builds strong feet, ankles, and lower legs.
2. Next, I have the athlete quickly jump on and off, but with a straddle technique, to begin the concept of “quick reacceleration” from a lateral plant. Even though they are not moving laterally during this drill, the foot goes from a quick loading to exploding position (pronation and supination), the leg plant closely represents a plant angle to change direction, and the upper body learns to control positions of the lower body.
3. Finally, I begin to add in these powerful and reactive lateral shuffle patterns over the low box with a quick return to the start. The athletes gain valuable “subconscious” sensations as to where their limbs and body are in space, and then begin to self-organize.

I didn’t know what I didn’t know back then, but what I did know was to cue the athletes to stay level and not rise up and down—which we know isn’t as fast as traveling in a straight line. What this cue did is actually force the athletes to plant on an angle that matched the speed at which they were coming into the plant. For example, if I made them go really fast over and back, it simulated them sprinting after a wide forehand and having to change directions quickly to get back into the court. But if I had them go at submaximal speeds, it was more like them reaching a narrowly hit shot where they didn’t have to move far to hit it and return.

Training with low boxes allows the coach to dial in on variations in vertical displacement jumps with a much higher emphasis on the elastic response versus the longer duration power jumps of a big box. What the low box offers that the big box doesn’t is the multidirectional force application emphasis seen during change of direction—truly an amazing strategy!

What the low box offers that the big box doesn’t is the multidirectional force application emphasis seen during change of direction, says @leetaft. Share on X

Before I give you a series of drills used with the low box, let me go ever so slightly deeper into the concepts behind the low box training methods.

One of the characteristics of an athlete’s change of direction during live sport is how quickly it occurs. The athlete plants their foot and, within tenths of a second, the athlete moves in a new direction. But there is more to it than simply seeing the athlete move quickly.

In order for the athlete to change direction like a rabbit dodging danger in an all-out chase, they must apply force into the ground at angles which effectively and efficiently control their mass and momentum. So, when the athlete leg plants at an angle, and body control is harnessed because the leg plants with the joints fairly straight (not like a 90-degree angle seen in a squat), there is a stretch shortening response to the musculotendinous unit. The stretch shortening cycle (SSC) is what creates the “elastic rubber band” effect. Well, the low box strategies can mimic these quick elastic responses beautifully!

Rather than boring you by going over the detailed aspects of why low box training is impactful, let me share several low box strategies while I inject a little science to back it up. But before I do, take a look at this easy-to-follow chart on how to program for these exercises.

Exercise Strategy #1– Quick Low Box Jumps

When an athlete sprints, they do so with a great deal of foot, ankle, and lower leg responsiveness. I mean, they use their lower quadrant like springs. Once the foot hits the ground, it is important to quickly store and release energy in order to be fast. The quick low box jumps are a great way to build stiffness in the tendon (more neurological CNS quickness via proprioceptive stimulus) and joints. They are a low-amplitude, low-intensity way to create the elastic response with a proper joint loading strategy.

Now, as we all should know by now, there is never a free ride. There will always be things that can go wrong with even the simplest of drills. With the quick low box jumps, if the athlete doesn’t keep their shoulders over the box, every time the foot springs off the box, the athlete will be pushed further from the box. This leads to very poor coordination and, even worse, loss of quickness off the ground as they regain balance with a big long jump back to the low box.

I personally feel that they can avoid the other issue easily, which is the loss of a quick bounce off the round or box due to untimed arm action. This is why I have the athlete place hands on hips while all the energy from the ground surges through the body and doesn’t get dissipated by a delayed sloppy arm action. The arms can be a powerful tool, but these drills are isolated enough where it won’t matter if you use them to help “lift” the athlete on the quick jump.

Take a look at video 1. The progression would go from single low box quick jumps to single low box resisted quick jumps to multiple low box quick jumps. There are many ways to measure how quickly or efficiently the athlete performs these drills, but I say keep it simple and easy for the athlete to challenge themselves. In that case, I love using a short duration bout of 7 seconds to see how many times the athlete can land on the box. I chose 7 seconds because, in my experience, around that time frame is when the athlete starts to slow down—we can assume the ATP-PC system starts to yell for help at this point, as it has less and less supply.

Video 1. Repeated jumps for stiffness are something any athlete can do, so they’re not just for beginners. Advanced athletes can build up to single leg (hops) when they are able to maintain the same rhythm and quickness.

Notice how the joint angles in the ankle are loaded through dorsiflexion, and the knees and hips are fairly straight to elicit an elastic response versus a power response (deep bending).

Exercise Strategy #2 – Straddle Jumps

This exercise is the start of the journey to improve lateral change of direction ever so subtly. The athlete begins by standing on top of the box facing the long way. They quickly jump off and back on while attempting not to “jump” into the air by raising the center of mass, but rather, lifting the feet on and off the box. By the simple fact that the feet land outside the shoulder width and the athlete is in more of an athletic stance, lateral forces are being included.

The important characteristics are that the athlete must have dorsiflexed ankles and allow the foot to be flat—although most of weight is toward the balls of feet, the knees are slightly bent, hips are pushed back to help support the knees, and the shoulders remain forward for balance and to load the hips. When the athlete “springs” off the floor and returns their feet back onto the box, there should be little, if any, raising of the head or center of mass, as what would be seen in vertical jumping.

Man! Think of how important this skill is for an athlete who frequently jump stops, split steps, or squares up to challenge an opponent. Court and field sport athletes will benefit tremendously from this strategy.

Court and field sport athletes will benefit tremendously from a straddle jump exercise strategy on low boxes, says @leetaft. Share on X

Kind of like I mentioned earlier, the big mistake I see is that athletes like to pop up rather than just flex at the ankles, knees, and hips to return the feet back to the box. They’ve got to stay athletic!

To progress this drill, simply add a band, which creates a pulling action to the right or left, depending on which direction the athlete faces. This band acts as a form of artificial momentum similar to the momentum an athlete would feel if they were shuffling laterally and had to change direction. A beginner would use less tension compared to an advanced athlete with great control and body awareness.

In video 2, you can see how the band slightly pulls the athlete off center of the box. The athlete must reorient their body to land back on the box with both feet. This constant pull of the band is a stimulus; the athlete must act on this stimulus and remain in balance, as well as perform the exercise quickly. If you want to really challenge an athlete on this exercise, the coach or partner holding the band can begin to pull the band slightly back or forward to throw the athlete into a need to “tilt” their body to regain orientation on the center of the box. This works like a charm to get the athlete to feel pressure and adjust to it on the spot.

Video 2. Footwork that is stationary is excellent for team sport athletes who need to move rapidly to create space in small areas. Unlike agility ladders, small box straddle jumps create vertical stiffness qualities if performed properly.

One of my favorite challenges is to see how many foot contacts the athlete can have in 7 seconds while straddling on and off. They get a point when the feet touch the box. My highest count to date was 21 touches by a college softball player—unbelievable! Here is a little chart to score the low box straddle.

Exercise Strategy #3 – Lateral Power Shuffle

In order for athletes to learn the footwork sequence of this exercise, I have them begin by pushing themselves one time over the box using a lateral shuffle technique. The low box is perfect for this, as it allows the backside leg to load more and the frontside leg to lift and clear forward. The athlete simply pushes hard performing one shuffle over the box; the back leg ends up on the box while the front leg lands off and decelerates the athlete. This is repeated going back over the box with the opposite leg now the “power leg.”

In video 3, you will notice the athlete creates a push-off angle with the back leg in order to create acceleration in the direction of the box. If the back leg had a vertical shin angle, the athlete would be more likely to rise up than move laterally. The key to the low box lateral shuffle is to move the center of mass over the box to the opposite side in order to create power, rather than just switching the feet side to side and not actually moving the body laterally.

The progression would be to add a resistance band. This aids in power production.

Before you view the video, let’s see if we both understand what’s going on here. If I have one foot on the box and one off and am in an athletic parallel stance, what’s really going on with my posture and position? First of all, having one foot on a box that is 2 inches higher causes my pelvis to actually lift higher on that side, meaning my opposite-side pelvis is lower. This is perfect, because in the lateral gait cycle, when an athlete pushes off hard to shuffle and the back leg extends long to push off (just like the back leg of a sprinter coming out of the blocks), the backside of the pelvis needs to drop to allow the foot to stay in contact with the ground longer.

Okay! So, what’s that mean for the frontside pelvis? Well, it has to lift, right? If I want to clear that front leg while the back leg is pushing, I need to lift the thigh and abduct and externally rotate a bit. In order for this to happen, I need the pelvis to get out of the thigh’s way so it has space; not to mention that it adds stability via the adductor muscles when it tilts and the front leg reaches out in front (more on that in another article).

Video 3. Shuffle work is great for defensive needs as well as general lateral movement. Teams can get a lot out of a set of low boxes by sharing equipment and alternating athletes.

The mistake I often see is the athlete attempting to REACH with that front leg without allowing the back leg to push the center of mass over the box. This causes all kinds of problems and results in a slower push-off. I cue my athletes to push the ground away so they can explode over the box and switch feet—one on the box and one off.

Exercise Strategy #4 – Lateral Reactive Shuffle

In this strategy, the setup is identical to the lateral power shuffle. The exercise starts with a power shuffle over the box, but immediately upon planting the deceleration foot, the goal is to quickly return to the starting position. So now the athlete is truly using the low box to aid in change of direction quickness.

Notice in video 4 that the plant leg is extremely wide. This is because the intent of the athlete is not to simply stop—it is to change direction quickly and return to the start. Once the athlete returns to the start, a two-second pause is allowed, and the drill is repeated. This is amazing at improving change of direction.

If the athlete needs to be challenged with greater mass and momentum control, the progression is to add a band around the waist and pull the athlete into the change of direction.

The lateral reactive shuffle drill can get a little hairy if athletes don’t create proper foot plant positions. This means the foot must be perpendicular to the direction of travel, so the ankle has a chance to be properly dorsiflexed and loaded. Plus, if the foot is somewhat externally rotated, the athlete tends to do what I call “knee glide.” This is when the knee glides in the direction of the toes and slows the movement down versus being stable and pushing off to extend the knee during change of direction. The width of the foot outside the hip and shoulder needs to be adequate to manage the momentum and have ability to stop and reverse the momentum.

I like to cue the athlete to stay “compact” and “tight” during an aggressive foot plant, says @leetaft. Share on X

The other issue I see is when the shoulder does what I call “sway” and tilts toward the plant leg. This sway can ruin a great leg plant angle because the ground reaction forces traveling back up through the body get leaked out the ribs rather than traveling through the core and out the shoulders. I like to cue the athlete to stay “compact” and “tight” during an aggressive foot plant.

Video 4. Adding a reactive component to shuffle movements bridges the general movement to a more athletic form. Coaches should only progress to reactive options when the athlete is coordinated and skilled at the basic shuffle exercise.

A great way to challenge athletes with an appraisal is to take points away for a delayed push-off, reacceleration, shoulder sway, or knee glide. I love to record and play the video back with the athlete watching, and we score it together. This teaches them (as well as annoys them when I get picky).

Exercise Strategy #5 – Elevated A-Skips

One of my favorite ways to challenge my athletes is to change the landing surface by using a low box. The goal is to have the athlete perform 1–2 A-skips on the ground, and then perform them on a 2- to 4-inch low box. This requires the athlete to project themselves up quickly as they push through the box. This is a very good coordination exercise and helps teach the athlete to extend through the leg and hip while remaining in a tall posture. Also, because the athlete projects themselves higher, they must absorb more forces quickly upon landing in order to get right back into the A-skip pattern.

The key to this A-skip while using random positions of the low box is to cue the athlete to stay tall, strike down, and strike the box with a dorsiflexed ankle so they can spring off the box or ground.

An issue I encounter using this drill with athletes for the first time is that they want to sink into the box versus attack the box. They also will get caught reaching for the box—we can’t have that! I preach to them to accelerate their hips over the box so they can strike down versus reach.

Video 5. Skipping and other movements off a low box add a new dimension that coaches love. You can find small learning opportunities in training sessions when you add a subtle adjustment to common drills.

In video 5, notice how the athlete performs various A-skips between the boxes to challenge coordination and rhythm.

Going Low Is a Smart Move

The goal of any training program is to challenge the human system so there is an adaptation to the new stress and a subsequent improvement. The low box strategies mentioned in this article are simply that—strategies to challenge the athletic system to force an improvement in multidirectional athleticism.

When implementing low boxes, always err on the side of caution and use lower boxes that are extremely stable, says @leetaft. Share on X

When implementing low boxes, always err on the side of caution and use lower boxes that are extremely stable. If you use too high of a box, the athletes’ postures and positions change, and the angles of force production and reduction are altered in a negative way.

Enjoy implementing low box training into your 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

Scene 1: A coffee shop near you finds two veteran college track and field coaches beginning a conversation about their approach to off-season sprint training. One advocates minimum effective dose (referred to as MIN). The other has similar ideas regarding the importance of sprinting in training but views it through the lens of the maximum effective dose (referred to as MAX). 

MAX: How many times per week do your athletes sprint in the off-season?

MIN: Typically two. 

MAX: Can you lay out the general parameters for those sprint sessions?

MIN: Sure. The first sprint session of the week is acceleration-based and consists of 10 m to 30 m sprints for a total volume of 100 m to 160 m. The second sprint session focuses on maximum velocity and consists of 40 m to 60 m sprints with the last 10 m to 30 m timed. For example, in a 40 m sprint, we only time from 30 m to 40 m. For a 50 m sprint, we time the last two 10 m segments (30 m to 40 m and 40 m to 50 m). Athletes complete between three and four repetitions.

MAX: When do these sessions occur?

MIN: Usually either Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday to ensure the nervous system is prepped for maximum intensity.

MAX: We used to do something similar. Let me ask you this, what is the most important factor in training a sprinter?

MIN: Developing maximum velocity. Ideally, I want it to occur later in a race. And even though I’m aware it only occurs at one moment in time during a race, I’d like to think through training we can widen the window of how long we can maintain the values close to maximum velocity.

MAX: I couldn’t agree more! I love targeting maximum velocity in training because it checks so many boxes. Huge forces in minimal time on one leg, acceleration development, maximum velocity development, along with the endocrine response post-workout. So in your off-season sessions, how much exposure to maximum velocity do your sprinters get?

MIN: Well, we know from timing 10 m segments that our men reach maximum velocity between 40 m to 60 m. So while they’re probably close to maximum velocity during some of our acceleration sessions (sprints <30 m), they’re not getting any exposure then. That leaves the maximum velocity day where I’d say they get between 40 m to 80 m of time spent at, or very near, maximum velocity.

MAX: Since you believe maximum velocity is the most important component of developing a sprinter, do you find value in safely increasing the amount of time your sprinters spend there?

MIN: Of course, but there would be risks in reaching it more often. What would you propose?

MAX: How many weeks do you have in your off-season?

MIN: Twelve.

MAX: Okay, let’s discuss your athletes who have two years of experience with you. I assume that heading into their third off-season, you would start with 10 m flys and progress up to 30 m flys.

MIN: Yes. Assuming ideal progress, four weeks of 10 m flys, four weeks of 20 m flys, and four weeks of 30 m flys. We would cap the 10 m and 20 m flys at four repetitions and the 30 m flys at three repetitions.

MAX: Sounds like a reasonable progression. Before I move on to a plan, can we agree on the following parameters?

• Although it is not perfect, let’s assume that the length of the fly portion represents the distance an athlete spends at, or very close to, maximum velocity.
• Maximum velocity is 97% or better of an athlete’s best split. (Author’s note: an athlete with a 10 m fly best of 1.0 second is considered to be at maximum velocity for anything 1.03 seconds and under).

MIN: Yes.

MAX: Okay. With these in mind, your athletes would attain the following maximum velocity totals each week during the 12 weeks:

• Weeks 1-2: 30 m (3 reps of 10 m flys)
• Weeks 3-4: 40 m (4 reps of 10 m flys)
• Weeks 5-6: 60 m (3 reps of 20 m flys)
• Weeks 7-8: 80 m (4 reps of 20 m flys)
• Weeks 9-12: 90 m (3 reps of 30 m flys)

The overall total would be 780 m spent at maximum velocity.

MIN: Yes.

MAX: Okay, here is my proposal. Keep the first two weeks the same. That’s a total 60 m at maximum velocity during the two weeks.

MIN: Works for me.

MAX (begins scribbling on a napkin): Here are the following weeks:

Time spent at maximum velocity totals up to 940 m, which is 160 m more than your current programming.

MIN: Apparently, you believe athletes can handle sprinting more often than many would consider possible.

MAX: That’s true. But notice that the load placed on them each day is smaller than what you’d call for within a maximum velocity session. In essence, I want to have a low daily volume, which will allow for more frequent training, leading to a higher weekly volume.

MIN: Interesting. How do you measure athlete preparedness?

MAX: Heart rate variability measures are ideal, but we don’t have access to a system. We’ve had success using simple tap tests, conversing with athletes before and early on in practice, and paying extremely close attention to how they warm-up. We’ve also found that, because their performance is measured more often, they’re much more likely to take care of the “other 22 hours” away from training.

MIN: What do you do during the other training days?

MAX: Anything that won’t impact the performance on the days listed. You have the chance to be creative with each individual on these days. Technique work is common, general circuits, lifting, etc.; the list certainly goes on. The main idea is to prioritize improving maximum velocity during this phase—anything else done on other days should support this priority.

MIN: What if an athlete is unprepared to sprint on one of the days?

MAX: We adjust, of course. Having contingency training plans is essential to maximizing athlete development. We have a wide array of activities on our training menu that mesh well with sprinting. Through conversation and physical assessment of the athlete (if necessary), we can determine which route is the most appropriate.

MIN: Well, you certainly have given me something to think about. Can I have that napkin?

MAX: Excellent and absolutely! Remember, if maximum velocity is king and we have access to it, why spend time messing around with lesser modalities?

End Scene 1

Scene 2: We find our two favorite track coaches, MAX and MIN, in the midst of a conversation at the same coffee shop five years later. The only difference is MAX has quite a bit more gray hair and MIN has cultivated an exquisite mustache. The two have not spoken since their meeting five years ago.

MAX: I’ve noticed your program has had some incredible performances over the past few years. Did it have anything to do with our earlier conversation?

MIN: Our conversation led me down a road of reflection. I was satisfied with our programming. It was effective, and our athletes were happy and healthy; my focus was just on bringing my best to each session. When I assessed your proposed plan, I concluded that the only way I could offer a solid critique was to put it to the test. For two years, we did exactly what you laid out during the off-season. Our athletes loved it, and we experienced better gains than we had in years past. More than anything, however, our conversation reminded me that complacency has no place in our profession. Our conversation caused an initial change, but it also served as a springboard to even more change in our programming.

MAX: How so?

MIN: I’m glad you asked. I have the entire layout with me, but before I show you, I should point out that I based it on two items: increasing the time spent at maximum velocity and working around the concept of intent and intensity. (Author’s note: hat tip to Coach Gabe Sanders who eloquently explained the intent versus intensity concept at Track Football Consortium 8; I had been milling through a much more complicated explanation in my head for years, but he boiled it down to a three-word phrase.)

MAX: What do you mean by intent and intensity?

MIN: During your max velocity sessions, would you say your athletes have high intent?

MAX: Absolutely! They’re always on a quest for a new best!

MIN: When you perform your sessions, are they always on a track surface with spikes?

MAX: Yes.

MIN: Spiked up, on a track, and timed is one way to achieve both maximum intent and intensity.

MAX: Are there others?

MIN: In regards to intent, yes—timing, racing, and chasing-eluding. The beauty is timing can accompany both racing and chasing-eluding.

MAX: I understand racing. We often progress to completing our fly sprints with competition. We go up to four athletes at once, and each receives a time. I have an idea of what you mean by chasing and eluding, but can you give me an example?

MIN (pulling out cell phone): Sure.

Video 1. When sprinting around curves, athletes demonstrate maximum intent. The curves also automatically lower the intensity compared to a straight-line sprint.

MAX: No doubt, the pool noodle adds a little more incentive! A great way to raise intent! I noticed they were kind of…..swerving? Could you elaborate?

MIN: After our conversation, I was on a quest to chase infinite speed on the straightaway, and there is still no question it’s our priority. However, I kept coming across content involving the benefits of curvilinear running. After doing research, I decided it would have value in our training design.

In one study I found, sprinters performed approximately 8.9% slower when they sprinted a 40 m curve with a 17.2 m radius (the recommended minimum for a 200 m indoor track) when compared with a straight 40 m sprint. I thought, What if I incorporate multiple curves in a single repetition which have a larger radius?

First, it creates a more robust runner by continually changing the force vectors the athlete puts into the ground. Second, it does a nice job preparing our athletes for the treacherous curves they face on an unbanked indoor track. Finally, and possibly most important, having a larger radius allows athletes to reach higher velocity. If they are 8.9% slower on a 17.2 m radius, I thought we could get to under 5% slower with a larger radius. It’s a challenge to achieve great accuracy in timing multiple bends, but the eye test shows some of our athletes can get fairly close to maximum velocity. Three birds, one stone!

MAX: The video showcases maximum intent, and the curves automatically knock down the intensity when compared with a straight-line sprint.

MIN: Exactly.

MAX: Brilliant. What other factors influence intensity?

MIN: Weather—temperature, wind, and even humidity. We get outside any chance we can, but there is something to be said for a controlled indoor environment when assessing athlete progress. Beyond that, footwear and surface play a big role. We did some of our sessions on field turf, grass, indoor and outdoor track surfaces, and indoor courts. Our athletes fluctuated between training shoes, racing flats, and track spikes. We determined the intensity desired and created the combination of surface and footwear that would match.

MAX: Interesting. Can you show me the program now?

MIN (taking out papers from his backpack): Yes, sir. First, here is the focus of each day.

Day 1. Acceleration

Day 2. Maximum Velocity—Fly Sprints and Sprint-Float-Sprints (SFS)

• Four numbers follow SFS. For example, 30-10-10-10 means Accelerate 30m-Sprint 10m-Float 10m-Sprint 10m. Additional information can be found here.

Day 3. Curved Sprints

Day 4. Maximum Velocity—Fly Sprints and Auto Regulation (AREG) Fly Sprints

• AREG: An athlete performs up to the max number of reps assuming they are within 3-5% of their best time. An athlete with a 10 m fly best of 1.0 would complete reps up to the max as long as they do not run above 1.03 seconds (3% cutoff). Additional information can be found here.

MIN: And here is the actual program.

Key for Table 2

Drop-in start. Athlete skips into a start. Because it’s less demanding than a static start, more volume is possible.

Wicket runs. Also referred to as mini-hurdle runs. Build-up distance, hurdle spacing, and surface selection vary on the session’s objectives, constraints on the session (such as weather), and athlete needs. We determine footwear by the surface and spacing. The number of hurdles typically range from 8-16.

• Build-up: 10 m – 30 m
• Hurdle Spacing: 1.4 m – 2.2 m
• Surface Selection: Grass, field turf, indoor/outdoor track, indoor court

Curve chaser. A sprint on the curve of an indoor/outdoor track or a curve on a field or court sport surface.

Curvilinear chaser. A possible 2-bend setup is offered below. The first L in LRL means the athletes move to the left first in the first rep. The R means the athletes move to the right first in the second rep.

Athlete choice. Athletes have the flexibility to choose what they feel will prepare them to run their best series of 30 m flys the following day.

MAX: Wow. I have a few questions.

MIN: Shoot.

MAX: I see you included sprint-float-sprints. What have you noticed using them?

MIN: With the 30-10-10-10 setup, many athletes will have their fastest 10 m during the float. It’s a challenge determining the reason for this. Many athletes could have built up to their maximum velocity during this section (40 m – 50 m), and therefore hit their best time even though they’re taking the foot off the gas during the float. Other athletes may be faster during this section because it’s the first time they stopped “forcing” speed. Regardless, I see the coordinative challenge of invisibly shifting gears as a benefit for all of our athletes.

When we get to the 30-10-20-10 repetitions, we begin to see athletes who can hit similar times at or near their 10 m fly bests in the two 10 m sprint sections. It’s argued that the 20 m float section gives the nervous system time to recoup and put forth a second great effort. It also fits the goal of trying to maximize the time spent at or near maximum velocity.

MAX: It sure does! Can you tell me about your experience with AREG?

MIN: A couple of years after our conversation, I stumbled upon the concept and thought it would be a way to once again maximize time spent at maximum velocity. We’ve played around with the cutoff and usually assign a specific percentage to each individual. Most of our athletes are either 3% or 4%. Regarding repetitions, the average is between five and six. Some could certainly go above the maximum, but we have yet to determine if it’s necessary. We placed the workout at the end of the week because the athletes have two days off afterward. We encourage taking a nap right after the session on Friday and going for a long walk outside on Saturday and Sunday.

MAX: I love it. Get outside and ditch Fortnite! I notice you included a day of acceleration work, and we would both agree that athletes are not touching maximum velocity on those days. What is your reasoning?

MIN: First, athletes need repetition when developing acceleration. I agree acceleration development comes with training maximum velocity, but I didn’t want to give up so many opportunities to practice acceleration by extending the length of the repetition so the athlete could reach maximum velocity.

Then I came across a study which showed athletes who ran the 40-yard dash at the NFL Combine reached 93-96% of their maximum velocity 20 yards into the sprint. Could this vary with some of our track sprinters who have the ability to delay maximum velocity? Absolutely. It also led me to believe that, even in accelerations of 20 m to 30 m, we may very well touch on some maximum velocity qualities.

MAX: Well, now you’ve given me a lot to think about! Even though what you listed seems to be less maximum velocity training than what I laid out, your athletes may be getting more exposure! I need to snap some photos of these programs!

MIN: Go for it. See you in five years?

MAX: Maybe we should Skype once a month?

MIN: Nobody’s got time for that.

MAX: Truth.

End Scene 2

Final Thoughts

In conversations with most sprint coaches, I’ve found that many believe they can do true sprinting only two or three times per week. The program I’m in follows this philosophy. I’ve wondered, however, if we could prepare our athletes properly and manage them appropriately during a phase in which sprinting occurs 4-6 times per week, would this higher density yield better results?

If we prepare & manage athletes properly so sprinting occurred 4-6 times a week, would this higher density yield better results? says @HFJumps. Share on X

I’d love to prescribe a 4- to 6-week phase following the same guidelines as the somewhat random hypotheticals presented above. Unfortunately, our state regulations would not allow something like this to occur in our off-season. Once our season is underway, competition and event-specific work would make the picture much more cloudy.

Training ultimately comes down to stress, and the body will adapt to it when received in appropriate doses. The training blocks listed may be a bit of a reach, but an off-season could be a perfect spot for it. Let’s take a look at a simpler hypothetical with an athlete who can follow one of these two programs with the given results:

• Program A: 3 x 10 m flys on two training days, all ran in 1.0 seconds
• Program B: 2 x 10 m flys on five training days, all ran in 1.0 seconds

Which program would lead to a greater improvement in maximum velocity? Is there more value in the higher daily volume in Program A? Does the greater training density (and corresponding higher total volume) of Program B make it superior? Would a hybrid of the two programs be even better?

For any sprint coach, all these questions are worth pondering. It’s common to get caught up in accepted training dogma. We need to ask ourselves if the way it’s always been done is the way it should be done. I often refer to the phrase “there is nothing new under the sun” when it comes to training, and I’m a firm believer in it. However, our situations are all unique (clientele, facilities, equipment, weather, contact limitations). It’s our responsibility to try to find the best solution for our situation.

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

NOTE: The following article is a rendition excerpt from Level I in a book series written by Dr. Fergus Connolly and Cameron Josse entitled The Process: The Methodology, Philosophy & Winning Principles of Coaching Winning Teams, which is now available from Ultimate Athlete Concepts here.

Contrary to common belief, the physical make-up of a player (when considered in isolation) does not determine player success on the field. The truth is that physical prowess is only one factor in terms of what goes into being a successful player. We cannot isolate the physical ability of a player without considering how it interacts with psychological well-being, technical skill, and tactical awareness.

Based on these aspects, a Four-Coactive Model is a more complete assessment of player potential. In it, there are four elements of player preparation, all of which are intertwined and interdependent:

1. Tactical Preparation
2. Technical Preparation
3. Psychological Preparation
4. Physical Preparation

The Four-Coactive Model encompasses the four elements of player preparation—tactical, technical, psychological, and physical—which are all intertwined and interdependent. Share on X

All four elements are present to varying degrees in every moment of a team sport game. They are also present during all forms of practice and preparation. They are called “coactives” because they both complement and rely upon each other. These four coactives must come together in a synchronized manner for the player to execute effectively. They cannot exist without each other. They are complementary, codependent, and co-reliant.

In addition, it is a mistake to analyze these four coactives without considering the most vital aspect of player preparation: health. Player health is an essential umbrella that affects all four coactives. Without health, none of the other coactives matter in the long run.

The Tactical Coactive

When it comes to game-day performance, each player’s tactical acumen is the front-runner of the four coactives. If players don’t understand what to do when they’re on the field, then they simply can’t help a team win. When assessing performance, coaches often attribute failures of execution to physical shortcomings. But often, high-level players have more than enough physical competence to do what is needed. After all, they are recruited for this purpose.

Instead, what we typically find is that unsuccessful players lack the requisite tactical know-how. This also means that just because a player is a physical specimen, that player is not excused from understanding how to position on the field or from adhering to the play calls.

Often, high-level players have more than enough physical competence to do what is needed, but we typically find that unsuccessful players lack the requisite tactical know-how. Share on X

Fostering Effective Decision-Making

One element of tactical preparation that’s often overlooked is improving player decision-making on the field. The exercises, drills, and games designed for training and practice should focus on the desired tactical outcome at the individual, unit, and team level. This will help players perform by focusing on successfully completing the task rather than being overly self-conscious of their movement.

Learning opportunities are dictated by what the current scenario looks like and what players can draw on from their past experiences. This is exactly how they will operate in the game. It’s essential that tactical team periods of practice and scrimmages occur at, or above, game tempo so that the players learn to execute under pressure on game day.

The tactical preparation is based on the next game on the calendar. While maintaining team principles, coaches might recognize a dominant quality in the opposing team that needs to be mitigated, such as the threat of a game-breaking player. Coaches might also find a limiting factor in the opposing team that can be exploited, so they can design tactics to take advantage of this.

Tactical Player Load

Developing tactical awareness is more inclusive than just running through plays on the field. This form of training is highly cognitive in nature. Film study, whiteboard work, walk-throughs, and situational awareness are all forms of tactical preparation.

Just like the other coactives, the tactical coactive creates a stress load on players, but this stress affects their brains more than on their bodies. While film study might not be physically stressing for players, the duration must be considered as part of the cumulative stress load for the day.

Coaches simply cannot put players through high-intensity, high-volume sessions across all four coactives, day after day. If they do, they’ll compromise learning outcomes, and the players will be worn down going into the next game. Therefore, the tactical sessions must be balanced with all other stressors during the weekly cycle of training.

The Technical Coactive

A player’s technical skill is an oft-misunderstood form of preparation. In the same way that scouts and commentators over-emphasize a player’s physical make-up, they also over-emphasize a player’s movement, attempting to fit it into a perfect, one-size-fits-all technical model.

However, recent theories on motor control like dynamical systems theory and ecological dynamics suggest the futility of this approach, namely that it is impossible for a player to move exactly the same way twice.¹ Even so, it wouldn’t be warranted because the opponents, situations, environments, and other contextual elements of the game are constantly changing.

Therefore, the goal is to build players who move in dynamic, adaptable, and resilient ways to accomplish tactical goals.

Spatial Awareness

The first step in coaching technical skill is to teach players to understand their position and how it relates to those around them. In this way, players will comprehend how to manipulate the space available to them. This is spatial awareness, and it depends on the ability to process what is happening on the field and how the environment will change.

When a player is described as having great “vision,” it is really the perception and ability to process visual information which ultimately dictates the type of physical action chosen. Contrary to popular belief, vision, perception, and game-specific spatial awareness can be developed and trained by engaging in learning tasks that represent aspects of the game.

Contrary to popular belief, vision, perception, and game-specific spatial awareness can be developed and trained by engaging in learning tasks that represent aspects of the game. Share on X

When players are prepared using representative learning in practice, they will be able to focus more during the unexpected events that occur in the game and feel less overwhelmed. Players will be less self-conscious of their movements and will be paying more attention to what is happening around them, acting through instinct.

The Importance of Context

Context is king. To make preparation more optimal, coaches must constantly keep the context of the game in mind. One should never look at the execution of a skill without considering the context. Just because a player has great “footwork” when working out alone on an agility ladder does not mean anything in terms of functioning effectively within the context of the game.

Transfer to game performance requires perceptual triggers against which to observe and act. These must also be considered in context. For example, adding non-specific perceptual triggers like a coach pointing in a certain direction can help build general reactive ability, but will still lie far outside the game context. It’s not enough to have players reacting to something; the experience must be game-like in order to improve sports performance.

Manipulating Complexity and Constraints

Contextualized activities can be layered in terms of complexity. By adding more players to a practice drill or game, the players must not only account for their opponents, but also their relationship to teammates, making the overall complexity higher than one-on-one situations. Progressing to full team games will produce an environment that is very similar to the game itself. These layers indicate rising complexity where perception of the environment will take on an increasing role.

Even when players look like they’re exhibiting consistent form in skill execution during a game, in reality they are making slightly different movements each time. The best players are those who can operate along a movement bandwidth in which a similar skill can be performed against a variety of constraints and environments. This means that the outputs are consistent in terms of results, like a player beating the man across from him repeatedly, but the manifestation of the result happens in different ways.

Great players are capable of consistently completing tasks by adapting movement solutions to fit the problems they face—all without losing efficiency of movement or effectiveness of solutions. Technical mastery has less to do with how a player moves in a “closed” environment—in the absence of opponents—and more to do with how that player is able to solve varying sport problems with efficient and effective movement solutions.

The bottom line is that we cannot learn (or teach) a skill in isolation and expect it to fully translate to a game setting. Share on X

Field position, proximity to the end zone, opponents, teammates, ball speed, formation, and time on the game clock are just a few of the many constraints that require players to change how they perform any skill. Additionally, environmental factors—bad weather, crowd noise, and the condition of the playing surface—also shape skill execution. This is why, in a game setting, a skill is never performed the same way twice.

The bottom line is that we cannot learn a skill in isolation and expect it to fully translate to a game setting.

The Psychological Coactive

When profiling or assessing a player from a psychological perspective, there are three micro coactives: spirituality, emotion, and cognition. As with all coactives, these are interlinked and interdependent, but each is a key factor in the performance of the player.

Spirituality

The term spirituality isn’t exclusively about religious belief, although this can be an important part of a player’s spiritual makeup. Spirituality involves an individual’s identity, purpose in life and society, perceived role in society, community, team or tribe, and commitment to things considered bigger than self.

Spirituality encompasses how players see themselves in relation to others. From time to time, players who struggle with relationship issues also struggle to relate to others in the locker room or have difficulties interacting with their coaches. The boundaries between personal and professional relationships are permeable and can’t simply be dismissed as two distinct entities.

One’s moral and ethical code underpins the spiritual coactive. Many young players have yet to find a goal for themselves or understand their place in life. This confusion often affects their ability to identify clear spiritual guidelines early on. The sooner they find this comfort, the easier it is for them to find peace in the perspectives and beliefs they hold.

Players with a strong spiritual center tend to better understand group dynamics and feel more confident about their role in the organization and in society. Someone who lacks this foundation often struggles in this regard. This doesn’t have to be a matter of religious faith; a player may simply be out of sync with the spirit of the team and feel like an outsider who is not involved in the group dynamic.

For players to contribute and feel like part of a team, they must clearly identify a personal reason for why they come in every day and give their all. This is closely related to the player’s needs and identity. There must be a connection on a spiritual level—a sense of belonging or a tangible power of togetherness.

It’s essential that players have the sense that they are invested in the team and that their contributions are valued by the organization. This encourages a sense of responsibility and commitment:

• Meaning: Why am I doing this? Why are we doing this?
• Connection: What do I have to offer? What’s expected of me?
• Control: How can I positively influence my performance and that of the team?

Emotion

Managing emotions on and off the field is an essential prerequisite for high performance and is arguably one of the most impactful components of psychological strength and ability. A player’s decision-making process is partly reliant on past experiences and surrounding observations in the moment, but it’s also closely tied to emotional intelligence and control.

A player’s past and culture can affect emotional responses as well. Emotions are the fastest mechanisms in the body, so they have a great effect on players’ actions and overall performance. How coaches and players communicate verbally and nonverbally sets the emotional context for each interaction.

Recognizing the importance of the emotional preparation of players leads to better decision-makers under stress. Share on X

There’s more than a hint of hypocrisy when coaches display emotional outbursts and then scold players for drawing a penalty flag for acting the same way on the field. The way a workplace carries itself always starts with how those at the top carry themselves. Couple this with the sad reality of coaches who berate and shout at players in practice but then expect the player to remain calm and not react during periods of high stress during games. Coaches like Bill Belichick that have sustained success at a high level typically project a sense of calm and emotional control during the most stressful moments of games. Recognizing the importance of the emotional preparation of players leads to better decision-makers under stress.

Cognition

Cognition is the player’s ability to focus, maintain attention, and mentally process what’s going on during practice and games. Cognition encompasses information-processing, logical decision-making, studying the playbook, on-field awareness, and critical thinking.

It’s perfectly fine for coaches to expect a high-tempo, high-energy setting in practice, but they must also expect full cognitive commitment and concentration from players. Also, coaches can’t lose sight of the cumulative cognitive load that players are experiencing throughout the week; such awareness ensures players can stay mentally fresh come game day.

The ability to focus and learn is profoundly impacted by stress and/or disruption to basic health. Being capable of engaging fully on the practice field, in the film room, or during supplemental learning scenarios, and then transferring these experiences to long-term memory, is inextricably linked to a player’s overall well-being.

Conducting a basic psychological profile or having honest conversations with players and being mindful of areas like emotion, cognitive learning, and self-esteem allows coaches to clarify the areas of greatest need for psychological improvement:

• Does the player handle stress well?
• Is the player emotionally intelligent?
• Are there external issues affecting the player’s mental and emotional state?
• Does the player process and learn information properly and fast enough?
• Does the player feel wanted and part of the team?
• Does the player feel appreciated? 

The Physical Coactive

The physical coactive is arguably the simplest to understand because here we are really referring to a player’s fitness. Any form of fitness development or fitness testing will fall under the physical coactive. In our approach, we break down the physical coactive into three primary areas:

1. Energy System Performance– The functionality of the aerobic and anaerobic systems (i.e., alactic power, anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity)
2. Neuromuscular Performance– Regimes of muscular work (i.e., concentric, isometric, eccentric, elastic)
3. Motor System Performance– The observable outputs associated with performance in sport (i.e., speed, power, strength endurance, speed endurance)

The physical coactive also includes analysis of body composition, mobility, and biomechanics. Again, everything measured in the physical coactive should be understood in context, so asking questions related to areas like strength or speed should always be investigated by working backwards from the game.

Are Our Players Strong Enough?

By combining knowledge of biomechanics with a thorough understanding of the sport game, coaches can assess a player’s physical prowess as it relates to game performance. From this vantage point, strength really refers to how well the players can apply force and achieve a specific outcome when faced with various movement constraints.²

This means that strength is not just about how much weight a player can squat or bench press. For strength to be analyzed in terms of its usefulness for sports performance, coaches and scouts must consider the task requirements of each player’s position and the constraints they will face when playing the game.

Perhaps it’s not really a strength issue. Maybe the player does not understand what to do from a tactical perspective or is operating with poor technical execution. Or the player may not possess enough mobility and flexibility to achieve the required technical positions to play strong.

So, while coaches want to see players continue to improve in the weight room from a force-production standpoint, they can keep everything in context by observing how players are operating in the game before deciding that strength is a true limitation.

Are Our Players Fast Enough?

Speed is an interesting paradox as it relates to team sports. Most coaches would agree that they desperately want to recruit speed, even going so far as to question young players on their involvement in track and field. In fact, many players are overlooked simply because they don’t participate in track and field. We live in a time where numbers sometimes seem to be more important than what coaches can see with their own eyes.

In truth, coaches don’t need a 40-yard or 100-meter sprint time to tell them if a player can play fast. All that’s needed is some film to watch how the player plays the game. To be fair, there is no question that a player who can run a fast sprint time will have the potential to play fast. Still, the fact remains: A player’s sprint time will tell coaches almost nothing about how the player plays the game. In contrast, game film will show scouts exactly how the player operates in a game environment. Coaches can ask themselves: Are we recruiting players to run a race, or are we recruiting players to play the game?

Coaches don’t need a 40-yard or 100-meter sprint time to tell them if a player can play fast. All that’s needed is some film to watch how the player plays the game. Share on X

Some young players will show some nice flash on film but play in a league that isn’t very competitive, making it tougher to distinguish how these players will function at higher levels of competition. For this purpose, camps are valuable, as coaches can invite players to participate in game-related exercises with other highly touted prospects and see how they perform.

Measuring a 40-yard-dash can help, but its value is as an objective analysis in combination with subjective indicators from watching a player play the game. Some prospects may have never run a 40-yard-dash and may not test well. These same prospects may show great awareness and skill when it comes to competitive game scenarios.

The reality is that game-related speed is far more complex than what is devised from a 40-yard-dash test. Great players understand when to slow things down and when to burst into another gear, all of which is dictated by what they are perceiving in the game environment. While having access to a lot of speed will always be an asset, being able to use that speed in an effective manner when playing the game is the better indicator of success.

Determining Limiting Factors

To the extent possible, coaches must find the limiting factors holding a player back from improving game performance. A mistake often made is assuming that if players can lift 20 more pounds or withstand another four repetitions of 110-yard sprints, they will magically improve on game day. The problem with this approach is that it’s essentially just guess work, often leading to overtraining and underperformance.

Coaches can use the Four-Coactive Model to identify the true limiting factors of player performance in the context of the game. Share on X

A far better approach is to use the Four-Coactive Model to identify the true limiting factors of player performance in the context of the game. This way, coaches can clearly see if players need to improve certain physical qualities and they can devise a plan to get there.

It’s also necessary to understand that physical development is not limited to the strength and conditioning sessions. Practice is a form of physical training, so coaches can address limiting factors related to physical shortcomings in practice activities as well.

In fact, by understanding the Four-Coactive Model, the strength staff and sport staff can work together in a coherent way to determine which physical qualities will be addressed in practice and which will be addressed in the strength and conditioning sessions. This is a perfect example of letting the game guide the preparation process throughout the organization.

Health: The Most Important Factor for Sustainable Success

Hands down, player health is the most important factor for achieving maximal and sustained performance. Coaches are not interested in winning one game or going through one successful season…they’re interested in dominating and winning multiple championships. For that, the health of their players is essential.

One of the main goals of the Four-Coactive Model is to enable players to continue making small improvements every day and, ultimately, for these advances to result in more wins. For this to come to fruition, coaches must maintain the overall health of their players as best as possible, especially with busy training schedules.

Hands down, player health is the most important factor for achieving maximal and sustained performance. Share on X

Physical health is a key factor in its own right—players need to be physically fit to play their best. But, it’s also a precursor to achieving balance in the body’s chemistry, which has a positive impact on player mental states as well.

A player who leads an unbalanced, unhealthy lifestyle might be able to cheat biology for a time. But after a while, the cracks will widen into canyons and the player will fall through. Talk to most professional players who have ended their careers earlier than expected and they will say, “I wish I had taken better care of my body.”

While it is the responsibility of the players to take care of themselves, the coaching staff, medical team, strength and conditioning staff, sports science staff, and other members of an organization also have a moral and ethical duty to look after players.

Health is more than just eating right, getting enough sleep, and avoiding excessive drinking or drug use. Trying to attain mental toughness by beating players down physically, day in and day out, seeing if they can overcome it, poses a very high risk to their health. Similarly, when berating players verbally and trying to break them down psychologically through insult and mental manipulation, the damage might not show at first, but the health of that player is likely being sacrificed from the inside-out.

For a more detailed description of the Four-Coactive Model and how it can be used in designing team sport preparation strategies, be sure to pick up Level I of our book series, The Process: The Methodology, Philosophy & Winning Principles of Coaching Winning Teams, available here.

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. Bunker LK (1999). Progress in Motor Control: Bernstein’s Traditions in Movement Studies. J Athl Train. Jul-Sep; 34(3): 296–297.

2. Jeffreys, I., & Moody, J. (Eds.). (2016). Strength and conditioning for sports performance. Routledge.

Dr. Fergus Connolly is one of the world’s leading experts in team sports and human performance. He is the only coach to have worked full-time in every major league around the world. Dr. Connolly helps teams win at the highest level with the integrated application of best practices in all areas of performance. His highly acclaimed book, Game Changer (with Phil White), is the first blueprint for coaches to present a holistic philosophy for winning in all team sports.

Dr. Connolly has served as director of elite performance for the San Francisco 49ers, sports science director with the Welsh Rugby Union, and performance director and director of football operations for University of Michigan Football. He has mentored and advised coaches, support staff, and players in the NBA, MLB, NHL, Australian Rules Football, and international cricket. Dr. Connolly has also trained world boxing champions, and he advises elite military units and companies across the globe.

He is a keynote speaker and consultant to high-performing organizations around the world.

Learn more at fergusconnolly.com.