Blog

I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard—and continue to hear—about strength and conditioning coaches struggling with sport coaching staffs or battling through conflicts with medical staffs. Often, these struggles lead to a strength and conditioning coach finding themselves out of a job.

I always come back to the idea that, as strength and conditioning coaches, we are often our own worst enemies. Why is that? Because too often we look and act like meatheads, and when we do, we scare the coaches, trainers, and physical therapists we are supposed to be collaborating with. Am I stereotyping? Maybe—but, most stereotypes tend to originate from some element of truth. Physical therapists or athletic trainers who do not trust their strength coach will often say things like “upper body only” because they are worried about what the strength coach might do. A simple question like, “Can we work on the good leg” usually draws an affirmative response and gets you on your way. A follow up question, like, “Can they ride the bike,” often draws a similar response. Suddenly “upper body only” becomes a ¾ body workout that can safely finish with some conditioning.

I always come back to the idea that, as strength and conditioning coaches, we are often our own worst enemies. Why is that? Because too often we look and act like meatheads..., says @mboyle1959. Share on X

With sport coaches, the conflict is often different, but in many ways rooted in the same issues. The young strength coach often comes from a football or powerlifting background and suddenly every athlete is a powerlifter (or a bodybuilder). This leads to the “they don’t understand our sport” conflict.

In Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephan Covey talks about “seeking first to understand, then to be understood.” If you want to be involved in the process, seek first to understand. We refer to this as learning to speak coach. Do you truly understand the sport? Do you understand the injury of the athlete in front of you? Have you studied the anatomy and energetics of the game or the athlete in question? Have you done some extra reading? If a player has had surgery, do you understand the procedure? If it’s a sport you are unfamiliar with, are you talking to the coaching staff and attending practices and games? Can you ask intelligent questions? Do you engage your sport coach, athletic trainer, physical therapist, and team docs in conversation when the opportunity arises?

First, Understand: Some Suggestions

For team sports, study the sport you are working with. Who are the best players? What makes them the best? Skill is obviously number one in most team sports (and is less trainable), but speed and power are often what separate the best from the pack. Speed and power are both more trainable than skill and should receive lots of attention.

In injury situations, attend as many medical evaluations and physical therapy sessions as you can. From the start of my career at Boston University, I tried to be in our weekly injury clinic (where our doctors would look at our injured players). Initially, I kept my mouth shut and took notes. I had an athletic training background, so I felt somewhat comfortable in these settings. One lesson I learned: Save your questions until the athlete is out of the room. Never make it appear that you are undermining the doctor, physical therapist, or athletic trainer. I learned a ton in these sessions. What I learned early on was that there’s a lot I didn’t know. One question I began to ask was, “What could I do in the weightroom that could screw this process up?” I also began to ask specifically, “What can we safely do?”

Any time your PT or AT is doing an evaluation, ask to watch. Bring a notepad or take notes on your phone. If you hear terminology you don’t understand, research it. Prepare to come back the next time with intelligent questions. Ask, “What should I be reading?” Most trainers and PTs will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Watch the best. If you’re working with ice hockey, watch NHL games. If you work with lacrosse, watch the PLL and AuPro leagues. If you train soccer players, watch the Premier League. Become familiar with names, terms, etc.

Reading suggestions? Every strength coach should read Stuart McGill’s Back Mechanic and Shirley Sahrmann’s Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes. I also learned a lot from Porterfield and DeRosa’s Mechanical Low Back Pain.

Also, every strength and conditioning coach should own Kendall and Kendall’s Muscles: Testing and Function and Trail Guide to the Human Body. Become an injury expert if you want to be treated like one.

Attend seminars outside of strength and conditioning. I love rehab seminars. I probably love them more than strength and conditioning seminars, says @mboyle1959. Share on X

In addition, attend seminars outside of strength and conditioning. I love rehab seminars. I probably love them more than strength and conditioning seminars. My early days with the Boston Bruins led me to Gary Gray’s “When the Foot Hits the Ground” course, and in the process, my entire career changed. I became a rehab expert simply because I was not afraid to get out of my comfort zone, grab a front row seat, and learn. I think I’ve been to Kevin Wilk’s “Knee and Shoulder Course” at least three times. I try to go every five or so years to see how surgery and rehab are changing. I’ve sat in the front row of Stuart McGill talks probably a dozen times.

Last suggestion: Don’t be an internet parrot. Don’t repeat the opinions of internet experts as facts. It’s fine to listen; it’s another thing entirely to assume that everything you read or hear is factual, and that goes double for the internet. If the person makes their money by being an internet expert, be wary. Guys like Kevin Wilk and Stuart McGill lecture in their spare time, not as their primary income source.

If you want a seat at the table, prepare like a professional. Dress like a professional, lift like a professional, and read like a professional, says @mboyle1959. Share on X

Figure out where the cutting edge is, and get there. You may only be there as an observer, but what you observe will change you.

If you want a seat at the table, prepare like a professional. Dress like a professional, lift like a professional, and read like a professional.

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

The human performance industry has expanded rapidly, and this growth has precipitated an evolving versatility for S&C coaches and practitioners. Within just the last two decades, we’ve gone from timing gassers and hitting 1RM bench presses to sprinting on 1080s and having mobile, personal force plates.

Things are different.

These differences can primarily be attributed to the effects of technology and social platforms, which have benefited the human performance industry in many ways. To highlight a few: an expansion of work opportunities, increasingly sophisticated performance applications, and direct access to an abundance of resources to improve our knowledge and skillsets. These, among other benefits of today’s human performance model, have provided coaches and practitioners favors in abundance.

The Versatility of Strength and Conditioning

Historically, our work descriptions and applications seemed pretty clear—we help athletes improve physical performance, predominantly through lifting weights and running. And once again, today’s landscape suggests an entirely new reality for us, particularly those in the private sector. For an industry that has objectively been underpaid and overworked since its inception, we shouldn’t be resistant to these opportunities.

(Graphic provided via National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA))

This versatility of S&C can materialize in a variety of ways, and for me has been crafted somewhat uniquely over the years. Where the vast majority of S&C coaches fall under either the athlete performance or general population umbrellas, my job has invariably been focused on helping athletes and individuals recover from injury.

Between my time with Navy SEALs, to now working with professional athletes, I’ve learned that restorative strength training (RST) supported by impacting health and wellness factors is the most effective and sustainable way to recover from injury and manage chronic pain. In this article, I will be covering the philosophy, art, and science of return to play (RTP) for strength and conditioning coaches. These pillars will provide the underpinnings to the structure and applications of this RST approach.

I’ve learned that restorative strength training (RST) supported by impacting health and wellness factors is the most effective and sustainable way to recover from injury and manage chronic pain. Share on X

The Philosophy

The philosophies you hold are the bedrock from which your decisions are formed. Philosophies should be firmly believed but loosely held; in other words, I am always certain of what I am doing, until I’m not. Philosophies should be seen as emergent ideologies that are always open to revision.

The roots of our philosophies should invariably be driven by “how does this help the athlete perform?” The desire to lean towards personal biases or preferences can be strong. Commit yourself to an environment or process that continues to expose you to different ways of doing similar things. This is an effective way to challenge your philosophical views and belief system in an organic way. Our philosophies provide the landscape for our science to be developed; the unwritten rules that we intuitively adhere to:

• Nobody gets hurt on our time. This unequivocal priority speaks for itself, but no pain and no setbacks are always at the front of our focus for each athlete. Every input should be audited based on the potential risk versus the expected return. Make good decisions.
• Health is wealth. Restoring injuries or rectifying chronic pain are invariably dependent on establishing proficient health (physical, mental, emotional) and wellness (sleep, stress, nutrition) practices. Any method, application, or protocol will fall short of fully restoring injuries without a robust health and wellness foundation.
• No treatment in isolation provides a complete solution. The human body is a dynamic matrix of complex systems. These systems provide specific, independent functions that collectively work in tandem to produce unified outcomes. No system works alone, and all systems are interrelated and dependent on another. When athletes sustain injury or have surgery, multiple or all major systems are—to some extent—compromised. It truly takes a tribe and their collaborative effort to provide a complete and effective return to play.

*No pain* and *no setbacks* are always at the front of our focus for each athlete. Every input should be audited based on the potential risk versus the expected return, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

Video 1. Injury restoration fundamentally requires a multimodal or interdisciplinary approach.

• Every athlete is an n=1 case. Do not create expectations or comparisons for injured athletes. While utilizing normative data and standardized ranges can help guide the path, these should not be viewed blindly as mandatory prescriptions. Beyond the physical uniqueness of injuries, the psychological or emotional response will differ across athletes as well. Relying too heavily on what should be happening can become a significant detractor.
• Progress athletes based on achieving landmarks, not timelines (credit: ALTIS). These landmarks can (and should) vary across populations or times of the year, and depending on the specific circumstances, can be modified to better reflect appropriate goals for the athlete. The landmarks are then progressed accordingly throughout each corresponding phase of the RTP process.

Beyond the physical uniqueness of injuries, the psychological or emotional response will differ across athletes as well, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

• Humanizing the athlete. RTP is a human-first process. Humanizing the athlete should be a central pillar to any training endeavor; however, as it applies here, injuries typically affect the athlete as much psychologically as they do physically. For this reason, we need to have particular emphasis on restoring that component. As it applies, athlete input is always encouraged, valued, and utilized. They are a part of the working dynamic, not just the subject.

Video 2. Humanizing the athlete is something that invariably applies, whether we are talking about a healthy athlete or an injured one.

• Integrate them into the same environment as the other athletes. Environment and atmosphere are fundamental to producing a positive outcome. Throughout the injury or post-surgical process, athletes are largely detached from their teammates. The last thing that injured athletes want is to be treated or reminded that they are injured. Take them out of the bubble wrap, integrate them with the other athletes, and allow them to work.
• Measure what matters and keep the goal the goal. This one may seem simple, but with our current crux of information and data overload, it can be easy to get lost in the chaos. My belief is that a blending of subjective and objective measures used in tandem provides a best-practice approach. The subjective evaluation guides the ship, the objective data confirms our route. Ultimately, the end goal is to get the athlete back on the field or court as efficiently and effectively as possible. That will be the empirical evaluation criteria.

The Art

The transaction of coaching is taking an athlete or individual who cannot do something and helping guide them towards being able to do that thing better and with some sense of autonomy. The art of coaching is largely derived from the ability to observe what’s occurring, understanding how that observation relates to the demands of their sport, and being able to make good decisions to bridge the two thereafter. With respect to our n=1 philosophy, we know that the same applications won’t be received the same in two separate occasions. Coaches must be perceptive to individual differences in personality types and learning styles as much as they are to deviations in physiological profiles and movement patterns.

Needless to say, art is intuitive. It is a feeling as much as it is a technical acumen, and only truly develops through firsthand experience. Quality decisions become validated through program adjustments and movement solutions can be justified through data collection. These nuances of coaching develop through a coach’s ability to be keenly aware and make timely decisions with good judgement, coming together in the ability to provide simple solutions to complex problems.

• The “coaches’ eye” may be the panacea for the art of coaching. At the forefront of this is our ability to observe and evaluate movement, which is the predecessor for intervention strategies. Beyond movement, the ability to sense behavioral differences, such as stress-emotional differences, are well within the frame of coach’s eye. Knowing how something should look is important, understanding how it relates and how the athlete receives the input is what becomes critical.
• Think in patterns, not in planes. One of the biggest shortcomings of contemporary S&C is observing and applying movement based on the “three cardinal planes” model. In lieu of this, I suggest seeing movement as being comprised of shapes (isolated positions, joint angles), patterns (how an athlete connects shapes in time and space), and signatures (unique and individual expressions of patterns). (Credit: ALTIS)

These nuances of coaching develop through a coach’s ability to be keenly aware & make timely decisions with good judgement, coming together in the ability to provide simple solutions to complex problems. Share on X

Video 3. This model is much more replicable to the movements and the actions that we’re going to be seeing in sport.

• Review and revise. Already a good practice for any coach, this is critical with injury cases to continuously and objectively audit programming. Take notes diligently. The injury process is highly variable and sometimes chaotic. While the end goals and targets may be mostly static, the route to get there is anything but. For this reason, I review daily training notes (training response, athlete input), and then perform weekly audits (total training load, video review, force plate diagnostics).
• Routine and transparent communication. This is vital for any successful training outcome, but should be viewed as non-negotiable for situations involving injury. The priority on communication can be bifurcated as having two primary avenues: coach-athlete and coach-coach/practitioner. Communication should be fluid and consistent, the less ‘obligatory’ dialogue, the better.
• Individualization is required for success when working with injured athletes. The specification for individual demands should be considered equally on the S&C and restorative endeavors. This can be achieved several ways, but a simple and effective strategy can be achieved through manipulating training parameters. Additional factors for individualization include the sequencing, timing, and frequencies of how the program is organized and delivered.
• Classifying athletes by archetype. Athlete movement and physical attributes exist on a broad spectrum, even within the same sport or position group. In line with our goal to be as individualized as we can, a starting strategy is to classify athletes through archetypes (i.e., force or fascial mover). This predominantly helps to determine the ‘big rock’ training parameters (i.e., volume, intensity, velocity, and density).

• Movement literacy and athlete autonomy are central to the ethos of restorative training. In order to learn or reacquire movement, the athlete first must be made aware of what’s been compromised or done incorrectly. Once aware, the athlete needs to be educated, or coached, on how they should be performing the task. As the athlete becomes proficient with the skill or task, they can then learn to become autonomous with it.

The Science

The intertwining and/or overlapping of rehabilitative applications and conventional team-based strength training can be a challenging compromise. The overarching goal when working with injured athletes is to keep them as relatively close to “standard” training as possible, without imposing risk. With this, the RST model is intended to abridge and align where the athlete is currently to where they ideally would be or need to be. Where the strength training provides the central adaptations we covet, the soft tissue therapy and supporting modalities collectively work to provide a transient optimal window to apply the stress. The two must be applied in tandem to optimize the RTP process.

The key distinction to RST is that every aspect of programming is designed in an individualized manner that specifically addresses what has been compromised from injury. This is in contrast to having athletes “just get back to training” following significant injuries, which can compromise the thoroughness of restoration. A continuation of care and prolonged individualization plan should be considered as the athlete reintegrates to training. See this as a slow but steady process that is gradient along the way.

The key distinction to RST is that every aspect of programming is designed in an individualized manner that specifically addresses what has been compromised from injury, says @danny_ruderock. Share on X

• A diverse biological system requires a multimodal solution. To the best of your ability, within the setting you have, injury restoration must be met with a multifaceted approach. This multimodal structure should look first to address reducing pain levels, improving fluid dynamics, restoring sensorimotor acuity, and improving soft tissue quality. From there, musculotendinous strength, myofascial continuity, aerobic capacity and sport-specific conditioning become the forefront priority.
• Mechanical overload and velocity are what largely drive central adaptations. Both are required for complete injury restoration. A common misconception to RTP is that we need to be overly conservative with loading in fear of causing harm or reinjury. This also speaks to why (conventional) physical therapy has developed a subpar reputation. We need to recall that load is relative, not absolute. And throughout virtually all phases of RTP, we want to relatively load the athletes as much and best as we can.

Video 4. One of the most common misconceptions with injury restoration is that it needs to be “anti-load.”

• The macrostructure is developed from a four-phase model. This includes tolerance (phase 1), function (phase 2), capacity (phase 3), and complexity (phase 4). Full details of each phase are shown in the graphic below.

• The daily structure follows a basic block format which are governed by time blocks rather than prescribed sets. There is nothing exceptional to this structure, which follows a conventional movement prep, primary, secondary, and tertiary block schematic. What is a bit different is the time blocks, which are intended to create an autoregulatory application. This allows the volume of training to be determined by the present ability of the athlete, rather than a predetermined number of sets.
• Training is organized by primary fascial lines and grouped as either anterior-lateral or posterior-spiral focus days. The anterior-lateral days are subclassified as flexion-based days, where the posterior-spiral are extension-based. These are then conducted as either capacity, strength, dynamic, regen, or other specific training modes.

• Improving the athlete’s ability to tolerate variability, or expanding movement bandwidth, are also fundamental elements to the RTP model. While progressive overload is fundamental in this training approach, it does not provide a complete solution.
• Balance the contractile capacity and connective tissue resilience. Specified tissue adaptations can be broadly organized as either having a myotendinous emphasis (60-80% | >80%) or the myofascial structures (80-60% | <60%). This coincides with a delineation between emphasizing overload or pursuing variability. A heuristic I utilize here is looking to balance the contractile capacity and connective tissue resilience. Work the spectrum.
• Incorporating fascial-based training concepts provides value throughout all phases of the RTP model. Putting an emphasis on fascia, along with other connective tissues, is essential for complete restoration of injuries. Fascial-based training emphasizes a tight adherence to the principles outlined by the dynamic correspondence model.

Video 5. With fascial-based training, what we essentially mean by this is utilizing that premise of shapes, patterns, and signatures, we are trying to load the body and load the connective tissue specifically in as many ways as we can. 

• Dynamic correspondence, originally developed by Yuri Verkhoshansky, states that there are five central criteria to training: amplitude and direction of movement, accentuated regions of force, dynamics of effort, the rate and timing of force production, and the regimen of muscular work. While these principles were designed for the sake of performance, they are equally actionable for RTP athletes as well.
• Programming should frequently utilize time under tension training parameters. This can be achieved a myriad of ways, but generally involves isolating and accentuating phases of movement to provide a progressive stimulus in training. An abundance of research has been published over the years demonstrating the benefits of time under tension for soft tissue structures (tendons, ligaments, fascia).

Closing

Relatively speaking, the human performance industry is still well within its infancy phase. Although we have found a handful of concrete roles and applications of our work, I think it’s fair to suggest we are still probably just at the frontier of where this is all leading.

The expansion of S&C is critical for both the value we can provide to athletes, along with diversifying the financial aptitude of the contemporary strength coach (revenue potential). Strength coaches can not only provide a critical component of the RTP model, but can also provide coaches with specialty skillset that can add tremendous value to their work and income. This can be achieved many ways through many avenues; injury restoration was simply what came to me.

Note: Stay tuned for our new project that will provide with an exclusive insight to RTP case studies, with modules featured on SimpliFaster and running throughout the remainder of 2024.

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

Being in-season is, literally, what we all train for. The early mornings, the heavy squats, and the sweaty shirts are all needed to finally let the hard work pay off under the game day lights. Training has now shifted from the previous focus of grinding and building to maintaining and maybe even peaking. However, the foot is still down on the training gas pedal, but the workouts start to look and feel a little different. The priority is to keep the main thing the main thing in-season: being as physically and mentally ready as possible for games.

As training goals shift away from training itself, the amount of time dedicated to training usually shifts as well. This past year in the off-season, I was given 30 minutes three times a week to do “speed school” with my athletes (which just meant warm-up and speed training). Once the season started, I only had 10 minutes during practice and 15 minutes on game days for the warm-up and speed training—if I could fit it in. This isn’t right or wrong; it just is what it is and reflects the training priorities of being in-season.

Athletes’ speed in-season is important because speed has the shortest training residual of all the training adaptations. For example, speed has a 5 ± 3 day “use it or lose it” timeline (basically a week) whereas strength has a 30 ± 5 day timelines (basically a month) (Issurin, 2008). This means at least once a week you need to hit 95+% of your fastest sprint speed to stimulate and maintain it, and maybe even make speed gains. Yes, it’d be fair to assume that athletes could potentially hit that speed threshold during games. But is the total of reps needed for speed maintenance—probably around two to four—achieved during a normal game? And do all players on the field reach that? What about the bench players? If games aren’t a great source of speed stimuli, especially for all the players, it can also be a challenge when a majority of in-season training/practices are focused on refining sport-specific skills and simply just bouncing back (recovering) for game day.

But there’s good news: speed work in-season is relatively easy to get done with a sound understanding of speed training principles and a little bit of creativity. The question becomes: how do we train efficiently and effectively to at least maintain our speed gains while prioritizing practices and games and also keeping athlete-readiness as high as possible? First, we must understand both the foundations of in-season training and the main principles of speed training itself; then, we can dive into the different types of speed to work on and how to creatively do it in-season.

Video 1. A compilation of some of the exercises performed on game day based on the speed training theme of the day.

Core Principles

In-season training can be summarized in a simple, three-word phrase: stimulate, not annihilate. “The hay is in the barn” is a cliche that summarizes this pretty well; for the previous months of the off-season and pre-season, the athletes have been grinding, breaking down their bodies, and building a good foundation to now show everything off in competition. How do we “stimulate” those skills and adaptations from all the prior training to keep them sharp and maintain them, as opposed to “annihilating” them like we did in the off-season? The answer is chasing intensity (speed), not volume (number of reps).

In-season training can be summarized in a simple, three-word phrase: stimulate, not annihilate, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

And next, if we know what counts as stimulation for an athlete’s speed, then we can effectively stimulate it. As mentioned earlier, Charlie Francis’ 95% threshold still applies (this isn’t the only topic I write about, I swear…). This simply means that an athlete must sprint at 95% or faster of their top speed to count as a “high intensity” rep that stimulates their speed. For example, if an athlete’s best speed during a Flying 10 Yard sprint (training top speed) is 20mph, they must sprint 19mph or faster to stimulate it.

Additionally, the principles of being well rested enough (one minute rest of every 10 yards sprinted hard) and everything else that goes into good speed training still applies.

Types of Speed and Application

We know that we have to sprint as fast as possible and do so at least once a week. But what specifically do we apply that to? Is it good enough just to sprint and walk back? Unfortunately, no. I break my in-season speed training into four main buckets:

1. Short acceleration
2. Long acceleration
3. Top speed
4. Change of direction/agility/deceleration

I know that might seem like a lot, but with examples it’ll make a lot more sense.

In trying to be as efficient and effective as possible, I was able to stimulate all these types of speed, getting two-four reps a day across four different 15-minute warm-ups in-season, including on game days. The general outline per day was as follows:

• Six minutes of general preparation, dynamic stretching, etc.
• Three minutes of “personal stretch,” so the athletes had a chance to specifically warm-up whatever they needed that day.
• Six minutes of speed drills (both for mechanics and for output), depending on the speed-theme of the day.

In-Season Example

In theory, this all makes sense (at least I hope it does). But what does it look like in real life? Let’s take you through what I did in-season with a Power 5 college baseball team.

Time is always going to be a prized resource in the sports world, but especially in-season. So, what’s a chunk of time you’ll always get with your athletes, no matter what? The warm-up. The warm-up is a simple, consistent piece of training you can use to microdose your speed training in-season.

The warm-up is a simple, consistent piece of training you can use to microdose your speed training in-season, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

Below is an example of the four-day warm-up template I used with my baseball athletes:

All Four Days: Begin with General Dynamic Warm-Up

The first nine minutes of my warm-up remain largely the same. I think with such a varied back-half of the warm-up, it’s valuable to give the athletes some consistency for their bodies and their minds on game-day.

• General dynamic stretching: jogging, backpedaling, walking quad stretch, alternating side lunges, walking lunges, shuffling with big arms, etc. Ending with some sort of low intensity plyometric-like ankle jumps. Just general things to raise the body temperature and heart rate and address some of the big muscles/movement patterns.
• Three-minute personal stretch: this is exactly what it sounds like and this is how I describe it—”You have three minutes to do what you have to do, drills/exercises/muscles that we haven’t addressed yet that you like, to get your mind and body right for the rest of the warm-up.” Some athletes do static stretching, some do more dynamic stretching, some do specific “prehab” exercises the athletic trainer or a coach back home gave them. This is also a great opportunity as a coach to check-in with the athletes.

Once those three minutes are up, we move on to the fun stuff.

Day 1: Friday Game: Acceleration

• Drills: A-series
  • Examples: A-Skipping, Double A-Switches, Triple A-Switches, 3-Hop A-Switches, Building A-Run, etc.
• Integration: Blending the drills to all out sprints
  • Examples: A-Run to Sprint, Skip-Skip-Sprint
• Output: Push-Up Start Races, 10 yards, two-three reps

Video 2. A few of the drills referenced for Day 1, short acceleration focus, including Building A-Run to Sprint and a few Push-Up Start variations.

Day 2: Saturday Game: Top Speed

• Drills: Dribbles Series
  • Example: Ankle Dribbles, Shin dribbles, Knee dribbles
• Integration: Dribble Bleed Out to Sprint
• Output: Build-Up Fly 10’s
• Example: three reps at 90% effort, 95% effort, and “+95%” effort of the player’s choice (basically 95-100%, whatever they’re feeling)

Video 3. A few of the drills referenced for Day 2, top speed focus, including Ankle-Shin-Knee Dribble to Sprint (at least however fast I could get into in 10 yards for something that’s usually +20 yards).

Day 3: Sunday Game: Change of Direction

• Drills: A-series, coach reaction 1-steps
• Examples: Lateral 1-Steps, Shuffle and Return, Crossover and Return
• Integration: Skip-Skip-Run-Stop, Shuffle-Shuffle-Run-Stop
  • This also works as a great deceleration stimulus for the week
• Output: Shuffle Shuttles, two-three reps
  • Example: Crossover-shuffle out, crossover-shuffle back, run and stop 10 yards away

Video 4. A few of the drills referenced for Day 3, change of direction focus, including Change of Direction 1-Steps (Lateral and Crossover), deceleration drills (Skip-Skip and Shuffle-Shuffle-Run-Stop), and an example of a Shuffle Shuttle.

Day 4: Tuesday/Mid-Week Game: Long Acceleration

• Drills: A-Series, Lateral A-Series
• Integration: Bounding, Bound to Sprint
• Output: 20 yard races (vary starts), two reps

Video 5. A few of the drills referenced for Day 4, long acceleration focus, including the Lateral A-Series (Lateral A-Skip) and Bound to Sprint.

Bonus: Deceleration

Deceleration doesn’t need its own dedicated day, in my opinion. It’s the most soreness-inducing because of how fast the legs are eccentrically working to slow the athlete down. But on the flip side, it’s great to really draw out some intensity from the athletes’ muscles. I try to throw in two deceleration stimuli about twice a week. This can be in a “run-stop” drill like during the integration, or you can make a 10- or 20-yard race end with “stop on the line.”

There are plenty of really smart people, like Damien Harper, who can explain the value of deceleration. Just remember that if we’re going to hit high speeds, we need good brakes—and fast deceleration is a very high and unique amount of force put on the athletes. Short and sweet, don’t forget a few simple deceleration reps per week.

Considerations

There’s one big consideration that’s worth mentioning… How do I know my athletes are hitting +95% of their best speed? It’s simple: I don’t. Without sprinting through timing lasers to objectively know if my athletes are or are not running fast enough, it’s merely a guess. The main premise of this article is assuming the athletes are going as fast as they can when it comes time for the last two-four reps at the end of warm-up. However, I still believe this is a really good option with all things considered.

There’s one big consideration that’s worth mentioning… How do I know my athletes are hitting +95% of their best speed? It’s simple: I don’t, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

All training is a trade-off. You must combine all the different variables of that day and make an efficient and effective game plan: time of year, time allotted to training, training goals, and other training the athlete has that day. Within all the factors on game day, only having 15 minutes, having to warm up the entire team, maybe being in a different city/state, and so on.

Here are a few things I can control to try to help my athletes sprint as fast as possible:

• My communication of intent. By explaining a little bit of the “why,” athletes understand their responsibilities and expectations to give their all in those last few reps.
• Rest times. Making my athletes walk back after a sprint, or a slow jog then I’ll give them 30 seconds of rest, I know their bodies are at least fresh enough to potentially sprint as fast as possible.
• Experience of the warm-up. Being intentional with the art of coaching and making the last few reps as engaging as possible. This is very simple: make it a race and call out the one or two winners. Works every time.

You might be concerned about athletes doing too much on game-day, as the game is obviously the priority. I totally understand and there’s an easy way around this. Let’s say you have four reps of 10-yard races for the end of the warm-up, you can say something like this “Starters (starting in the game that day), hop in the for first two reps, then just watch and be encouraging for the last two. Everyone else, four good races to finish, don’t lose.” The starters get their high-quality speed stimuli and the non-starters take advantage of the opportunity to get a good speed workout in.

Last, what about warming the athletes up for the other days of the week, like for practice? In this example, Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday? Those days for me were only 10 minutes for the warm-up, so there are a few reasons why I kept those simple and didn’t toss in any speed-specific themes. First, the amount of time, obviously. Second, the game days would be considered “high-intensity” not only with the speed-specific warm-ups, but also the game itself. The athletes need “low-intensity” days to follow a traditional high-low training model. A high-low training model basically means alternating high- and low-intensity training days to allow for mini, built-in recovery days within a training week. Yes, I only control 10 minutes of the entire day on non-game-days, but I control what I can control.

Getting Results

Hopefully you now understand more about the foundations of speed training, what goes into an effective speed training session (even if it’s just a “warm-up”), and how you can be creative within the constraints of a given training session to maximize your time with your athletes.

This routine was very easy to execute and produced numerous insights in watching it play out through the course of a long and grueling 14-week season with 52 games. Although I didn’t have the opportunity to get my athletes in timing lasers during this time, we had no lower-body soft tissue injuries and received positive feedback from athletes. There was enough autonomy in effort that the starters could self-modify to give themselves what they needed, there were enough opportunities for the non-starters to feel like they still got really good work in and continue making progress despite not playing, and there was enough consistency that the athletes knew what to expect on each game-day so they were mentally prepared for it.

With these real-life examples, you should have plenty of ideas as to how you can apply this in your own setting. You and your athletes grind all off-season—maintaining (and maybe making more) gains in-season can be as simple as 10-15 minutes a day and some thoughtfulness behind your programming.

References

1. Issurin VB (2008) Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 8:65–75

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

Muscular power is a skill-related fitness component that many strength and conditioning practitioners look to improve in athletes for success in motor performance. However, as early as the 1980s, the review of sports medicine and human performance literature reveals many different methods of measuring muscular power, not all of which are consistent with its operational definition born from the scholarly discipline of physics (Sapega & Drillings, 1983). While there is an emphasis on developing muscular power to improve motor performance in each athlete’s respective sport, confusion may arise because terminology related to the abstract of power in sport science literature are used interchangeably (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005).

Due to the challenges in interpreting and understanding the performance variable: power, to improve research practice, Cronin and Sleivert (2005) reviewed studies published before 2003 on the influence of maximal power training on improving athletic performance.

Before 2003, it was common in the literature for authors to confuse explosive strength, rate of force development, and impulse as terms synonymous with power (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). These terms have different and distinct meanings; therefore, the interpretation and applications of the studies’ findings may be misrepresented. This article will define the terminology commonly represented in sport science literature to enable future scientists who choose to research power, rate of force development, or impulse to be clear and consistent when discussing each respective term.

Only when there is a universal understanding of the definitions of power, rate of force development, and impulse is when strength and conditioning practitioners can begin applying the information from the research to develop training programs with clear objectives, such as improving motor performance.

Only when there is a universal understanding of the definitions of power, RFD, and impulse is when S&C practitioners can begin applying the information from the research to develop training programs with clear objectives. Share on X

Cronin and Sleivert (2005) mention a study (Newton & Kraemer, 1994) that compared different training strategies to increase muscular power but discovered much of their experimental design focused on the development of rate of force development. Another study also looked into the development of power but actually focused on impulse (Hedrick, 1993).

While these two studies aimed to investigate power, they examined rate of force development and impulse, which have different and distinct meanings to power. Therefore, prospective scientists and strength and conditioning practitioners reading their results and findings may take these terms of “power” at face value and overlook the authors’ definitions. For example, a study that measures rate of force development but claims to develop power may be compared to a study that measures impulse but claims to develop power. On paper, the two studies’ interventions aim to increase power, but at its core, they measured two different components that underpin motor performance.

In this case, we cannot and should not compare the two studies as rate of force development and impulse are two variables with different meanings, and making any comparisons would be invalid. Suppose there is a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of findings? In that case, this will affect subsequent studies, and researchers and strength and conditioning practitioners would be in a continuous cycle of being unable to interpret results and draw conclusions from research by other authors.

Therefore, to better draw conclusions from the results and findings from each other (authors and readership), the terminology must be clear and consistent. Additionally, the approach and standardization in the methodology should be considered, which will be discussed later.

With that said, this review aims to:

1. Clarify power and related, yet misunderstood terminology.
2. Outline all the recommendations and methodological flaws from Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) review on the challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on improving athletic motor performance.
3. Construct “general” rules/criterion to determine what is considered a high-quality study in the context of power research and to see if the research done by authors after 2005 have improved their methodology to make their conclusions and claims.
4. Apply the above rules in the examination of a commonly occurring discussion amongst strength and conditioning practitioners: whether power cleans are better than trap/hex bar jump squats or vice versa for developing power, thus translating to athletic motor performance.

Misunderstood Terminology

Strength and conditioning practitioners looking to develop their athletes should be encouraged to take an evidence-based approach. However, as one searches “power training for athletes” in PubMed or The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research database, terms such as explosive strength, rate of force development, power, and impulse become apparent in the discussion section of the articles. These terms have different meanings (Table 1), which the authors do not always define.

Therefore, readers who are not experts or lack the foundational knowledge of power may become confused and overwhelmed when attempting to learn about their question of interest. Furthermore, articles that do not distinctly define the terminology may misuse a term. Consistency of terminology amongst researchers and readership regarding scientific dissemination of information is critical so that the approach to the development of athletes is logical and sound. Because there is no consensus with the terminology mentioned above, it has hindered clarity. Search nomenclature in the research database did not always result in what was being looked for and, consequently, has made the investigation into this topic of study difficult.

Consistency of terminology amongst researchers and readership regarding scientific dissemination of information is critical so that the approach to the development of athletes is logical and sound. Share on X

As of 2022, it is difficult to find how the terms explosive strength, rate of force development, and impulse differ from power in one location. One must look through many different resources to fully grasp these terms. To resolve this problem, the goal of this work is to operationalize each term clearly.

Power

Power is defined as the product of force and velocity (distance/time) or the amount of work produced per unit of time (Newton & Kraemer, 1994). Therefore, a powerful individual can produce more work in less time.

For example, consider the following situation:

• Person A: Throws a twenty-pound medicine ball four feet away from the starting point.
• Person B: Throws a twenty-pound medicine ball nine feet away from the starting point.

The mass of the ball between the two individuals is the same. However, Person B is considered more powerful than Person A because Person B can accelerate the mass more and produce greater force into the medicine ball, increasing its velocity and leading to a further distance from the starting point.

Rate of Force Development

Rate of force development is a component of explosive strength and is derived by calculating the slope of force- or torque-time curves during explosive voluntary contractions (Mafiuletti et al., 2016; Komi, 2003). More specifically, rate of force development is the “force produced from the initiation of the muscle action” (Zatsiorsky et al., 2021). Therefore, an individual with a high rate of force development can produce force faster. For example, when going from a static position to a starting position in a movement, the faster an individual can produce force, the faster their body or limb will move. If we compare two high-level athletes, the individual who can produce a higher rate of force development in a specific movement will likely demonstrate superior motor ability. The “better an athlete’s qualifications, the greater the role the rate of force development can play in terms of [motor] performance” (Zatsiorsky et al., 2021).

Explosive Strength

Explosive strength is the ability to exert maximal forces in minimal time (Zatsiorsky et al., 2021). It can be considered an “all-encompassing” term. Rate of force development is explosive strength, but explosive strength is not necessarily rate of force development. This is because there are four indices, listed below, used to estimate explosive strength (Zatsiorsky et al., 2021):

1. Index of explosive strength (IES)

IES = F_m / T_m

• F_m is the peak force.
• T_m is the time to peak force.
• This refers to the ability to exert maximal forces in minimal time.

2. Reactivity coefficient (RC)

RC = F_m / (T_mW)

• F_m is the peak force.
• T_m is the time to peak force.
• W is an athlete’s weight and expresses the index of explosive strength relative to body mass. Therefore, it is a relative expression (similar to absolute strength vs. relative strength, where absolute strength is the ability to produce maximum force regardless of body weight and relative strength considers body weight).
• RC is typically highly correlated with jumping performances, especially with body velocity after a takeoff.

3. Force gradient or Start gradient (S-gradient)

S-gradient = F_0.5 / T_0.5

• F₅ is one-half of the maximal force F_m.
• T₅ is the time taken to achieve one-half of the maximal force F_m.
• The S-gradient characterizes the rate of force development at the beginning phase of a muscular effort.

4. Acceleration gradient (A-gradient)

A-gradient = F_0.5 / (T_max – T_0.5)

• F₅ is one-half of the maximal force F_m.
• T₅ is the time taken to achieve one-half of the maximal force F_m.
• T_max is the maximum time taken.
• A-gradient is used to quantify the rate of force development in the late stages of explosive muscular efforts.

Impulse

Impulse is defined as the product of force multiplied by time (Lake et al., 2014; NSCA, 2012) and is the force acting on a muscle to produce change (Zatisorisky et al., 2021).

Impulse = force * time

In summary:

• Power is the work over time OR product of force and velocity.

• Force is the product of mass and acceleration.
• Velocity is the distance over time.

• Explosive strength is the force over time (no distance component).
• Rate of force development is a method in which explosive strength can be evaluated.
• Impulse is the product of force and time.

Examples of Misused Terminology in the Literature

Rate of force development Does Not Equal Power

As Sapega and Drilling (1983) mention, two groups of investigators have used rate of force development as a measure of “power” in their studies which are still cited to this day. By precise definition, calculating rate of force development (force/time) is different from calculating power (work/time). Both studies defined their measure of “power” as force/time, which is in actuality rate of force development.

Therefore, we must be cautious and clearly understand that rate of force development is not equivalent to muscular power output. It becomes an issue if we state that rate of force development is the same variable as power. The rate of force development (force/time) is not a measurement of power, and “any application of the term ‘power’ to muscular performance measurements in (sports medicine literature) that does not represent the correct formulation (force * distance/time, force*velocity or work/time) should be unwarranted” (Sapega & Drillings, 1983).

Peak Power

A group of investigators stated that peak power was calculated by multiplying peak muscular torque by the duration of contraction (Sapega & Drillings, 1983). Again, power is calculated by work/time (i.e., torque * angular displacement /time), not torque/time.

Discussion on Misused Terminology

Now that we have a better understanding and have definitions of how terms are defined, this begs the question: Is power the key performance indicator strength and conditioning practitioners are seeking in the context of motor performance? It has been suggested that for activities that require fast force production (100-300ms), such as jumping and sprinting, rate of force development is the most important determinant of athletic success (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005; Günter & Tidow, 2006).

Moreover, a study by Slawinski et al. (2010) supports this notion as a greater rate of force development was linked to better sprint performance in elite sprinters. Slawinski et al. (2010) suggest that rate of force development contributes significantly to sprinting because “during fast limb movements, the short contraction time may not allow maximal muscle forces to be reached (and therefore), any increase in the contractile rate of force development becomes highly significant because it allows a higher level of muscle force to be reached in the early phase of muscle contraction,” which can act as the distinguishing factor between a faster and slower sprint time.

Furthermore, McLellan et al. (2011) investigated the role of rate of force development on vertical jump performance and suggested that it is strongly correlated to the vertical jump during a counter-movement jump (CMJ). By developing muscular force rapidly (rate of force development), this can increase take-off velocity and in part, be an explanation as to why a significant correlation was observed between rate of force development and vertical jump performance during the CMJ (McLellan et al., 2011). However, it is important to note that the subjects in this study were recreational men with diverse strength levels and training statuses (Table 3). Discussing the underlying physiological attributes of rate of force development is outside the scope of this review. However, in summary, it can be attributed to neuromuscular characteristics such as increased motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition (Griffin & Cafarelli, 2005; Wiegal et al., 2019).

For activities like squash, badminton, and fencing, the motor performance to quickly complete a lunge and return to the start or move off in another direction is critical for success (Cronin et al., 2003). With this in mind, Cronin et al. (2003) investigated the components that predict lunge performance. Maximal strength, mean power, peak power, and explosive strength were assessed, but explosive strength was the only predictor of lunge performance. The lunge was assessed on the preferred leg via a custom-built supine squat machine where the movement involved a forward lunge (1.5 times leg length) to a marker, and participants returned to the starting position as rapidly as possible (Cronin et al., 2003). Simultaneously, the velocity characteristics of the lunge movement were attained from a linear transducer. Cronin et al. (2003) suggest that producing maximum force earlier in a contraction (greater explosive strength) impacts the velocity characteristics of the lunge motion and increases performance.

Knowing these terms mean fundamentally different things, this begs another question, is one component: explosive strength, rate of force development, peak power, or mean power better than others at predicting a specific athletic motor performance? If so, which components better predict each athletic motor skill (throwing, jumping, sprinting)? Is there a hierarchy or are they equally weighted? We should consider this so that we do not waste resources and the time or energy of athletes because, ultimately, strength and conditioning practitioners want to develop athletes effectively and efficiently.

Knowing these terms mean fundamentally different things, this begs another question: is explosive strength, rate of force development, peak power, or mean power better than others at predicting a specific athletic motor performance? Share on X

For example, Wilson et al. (1995) investigated the relationship between a series of isometric, concentric, and stretch-shortening cycle rate of force development tests performed in an upright squat position to sprint performance. They found that concentric rate of force development was the only component that significantly correlated with sprint performance, and concentric maximum rate of force development was the only measure able to discriminate between good and poor performers. This resulted in authors discussing the “superiority of concentric rate of force development tests over and above isometric and stretch-shortening cycle rate of force development tests and suggest their inclusion in sport science test batteries” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005).

However, Cronin and Sleivert (2005) highlight that after examining the study, concentric rate of force development and force explained less than 38% variance associated with 30m sprint performance. This indicates that one specific component, in this case, concentric rate of force development, cannot adequately express or provide insight into all mechanisms responsible for 30m sprint performance. Perhaps a combination of power, strength, explosive strength, rate of force development, and impulse will provide the best predictive capabilities of a specific motor performance.

In much of the research, studies tend to either measure rate of force development or power and not both. Perhaps measuring both would be beneficial as we can explain the shared variance associated with these two components associated with motor performance. That way, we can compare and have more concrete evidence to determine which one is better. For example, hypothetically, if rate of force development and power had a shared variance of 38% and 25% to sprint performance, respectively, we could claim that rate of force development is a better predictor of sprint performance. Therefore, we would look into exercise prescription methodology that increases rate of force development which can, in turn, translate to athletic motor performance.

In much of the research, studies tend to either measure RFD or power and not both. Perhaps measuring both would be beneficial as we can explain the shared variance associated with these two components associated with motor performance? Share on X

It may not even be a one size fits all answer. Perhaps there is no tiering system of performance components, and strength and conditioning practitioners need to focus on developing all components of explosive strength (which includes rate of force development), peak power, impulse, and maximal strength to improve athletic motor performance. It may also be that different sport-specific motor skills will have different “component” profiles, and therefore, training will be individualized to improve that aspect. While this has not yet been done, it may be of interest to future research. Conversely, depending on the strength and weaknesses of an athlete, the strength and conditioning practitioner might determine an exercise during an athlete’s training plan that will cater towards the specific motor skill characteristic they must improve. Again, one component does not adequately express or provide insight into all mechanisms responsible for a performance of a task, and it is likely multiple components in conjunction with another explain success in athletic motor performance.

Methodological Flaws Outlined by Cronin and Sleivert (2005)

Cronin and Sleivert (2005) reviewed studies between 1981 and 2003. They looked at loads that maximized mean and peak power output for the upper body, loads that maximized mean and peak power output for the lower body, the relationship between measures of power and performance for the lower body, and studies that have examined the effect of load on power output and performance (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). Most studies reviewed were from the late 1990s and early 2000s (Table 2). From the review, Cronin and Sleivert (2005) magnify the issues in the fundamental definitions and terminology, common methodological errors, and problems in the choice of motor performance measures by authors, which have led to misinterpretations of research findings.

As previously discussed, consistency amongst terminology in all types of research is critical for clear communication between the researcher and readership regarding the scientific dissemination of information. Researchers must be transparent and consistent in their definitions, terminology, and methodological approaches. Furthermore, selecting an appropriate performance measure for the question of interest is critical in designing valid studies. Below are the seven primary methodological flaws outlined by Cronin and Sleivert (2005). Their goal was to eliminate confusion and clarify the type of research needed to advance our knowledge, such that we would “formulate (strong) research designs that result in meaningful and practical information that assists strength and conditioning practitioners in the development of their athletes” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005).

1. Clear understanding of each research methodology and selecting appropriate performance measures.

With methodological flaws being common in published literature, Cronin and Sleivert (2005) stated a “clear understanding of each research methodology needs to be realized so that the interpretation and application of their finding are not misrepresented.” As such, some studies look at different adaptations or outcomes that are not related to their methods. For this reason, it is pivotal for researchers looking to do their own studies to critically analyze published literature in its totality (not just relying on abstracts) before coming to a conclusion. It is also their responsibility to be clear and transparent in their methodological approach and results. The reader should not have to fill in the blanks and make assumptions because the author chose not to include information.

For example, Schmidtbleicher and Buehrle (1987) compared the effects of three types of training regimes:

1. Maximal load (90-100% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)).
2. Power load (45% MVC).
3. Hypertrophy load (70% MVC) on various neuromechanical and morphological changes.

An isolated isometric elbow extension movement was used to track these changes. Isometric and dynamic contractions have been shown to differ in physiology and neuromechanics (Wilson & Murphy, 1996). In addition, in terms of athletic motor performance, motor skills are often performed dynamically across several joints in multiple planes. The applicability of an isometric measure is not useful if we are looking to improve athletic motor performance, as it violates the principle of specificity.

2. Research design and combination of training methods.

A common problem in exercise research is having the experimental group receiving multiple variables or treatments simultaneously, making causal interpretations misleading. Many exercise variables can confound one another. In addition, a “robust and rigorous experimental design is one with a control group (which is a group that) receives no treatment, or a standard treatment whose effect is already known” (Leyland & Bott, 2021). Without a control group, the researcher’s ability to draw conclusions about an intervention is greatly weakened. Unfortunately, control groups are typically missing in exercise science research (which may be due to the small sample size), and even if a control group is included, participants not doing any exercise can present a dilemma as “they could lose adaptations, which could make the experimental exercise protocol appear more effective than it really is” (Leyland & Bott, 2021).

When doing exercise research on the athletic population, the sample size in a study can become limited due to extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria which can lead to an underpowered study. As a consequence of an underpowered study, it may have a lower probability of determining the true effect, and in the case of a statistically significant effect, the magnitude may be overestimated and produce false-positive results (Hackshaw, 2008).

Cronin and Sleivert (2005) also highlight that it is common for authors, when studying the effect of load, “to combine training methods which makes the effects of the independent variable impossible to disentangle.” For example, a study investigated the effects of maximal power training (30% 1RM) to heavy load training (75-83% 1RM) combined with plyometric training on a variety of performance measures such as jumping, cycling, and throwing (Lyttle et al., 1996). The maximal power group performed weighted jump squats, and bench press throws, whereas the combined group underwent squats, bench presses, depth jumps, and medicine ball throws. While both training modalities produced significant improvements in performance measures, saying that performance changes were due to the load effect is invalid because we do not know if the improvement was due to the load or the type of exercise performed.

Similarly, Komi et al. (1982) compared the effects of heavy load training to light load training with explosive jump training. Again, due to the experimental group incorporating additional plyometric training, observed performance changes in this study cannot be attributed to the load effect.

3. Training status of subjects.

Training status or age in the context of resistance training, defined as an individual’s training experience and background, can be classified into three components (Table 3): novice, intermediate and advanced (Leyland & Bott, 2021).

Some studies used novice weightlifters or students as subjects, as they are more easily accessible. This becomes an issue because the research findings may be compromised due to the trainability of a novice subject, thereby affecting the validity of the results. For example, strength can increase rapidly in untrained individuals due to neural adaptations (Griffin & Cafarelli, 2005). Voluntary activation of motor neurons is enhanced due to the activation of previously inactive motor units and the increased rate coding frequency (Griffin & Cafarelli, 2005). An untrained individual relative to a trained individual will have a greater pool of inactive motor units, and therefore, even if a training modality led to significant improvement in an untrained individual (novice), it does not mean it will translate to a highly trained individual (advanced). It could be that the stress applied from training to the untrained individual was sufficient to elicit adaptations, but it does not meet the required threshold to elicit adaptations in a trained individual. For this reason, with respect to athletic motor performance, a study’s sample size should be representative of the population of interest and not utilize untrained subjects, as it limits the generalizability to athletic populations.

With that said, when research studies in sports science rightfully use athletes as their subjects, it is common to see subjects identified as elite, professional, or semi-professional. However, there may be ambiguity in how these terms are defined across authors. To make comparisons across studies, it will be beneficial to see how authors define and classify their subjects with respect to the nomenclature or title they assign.

4. Failure to equate loading.

In exercise, volume load is an estimate of the amount of work accomplished and considers both the training load and the training intensity. It can be expressed as the total product of load (kg), sets performed, and the number of repetitions for each set (Leyland & Bott, 2021). External loading can be quantified quite simply; thus, reporting on load should be a straightforward process (Leyland & Bott, 2021). As Cronin and Sleivert (2005) mentioned, “equating by volume is the most common method by which research compares the effect of load on various (performance) measures.”

Volume Load = Load * Sets * Reps

In research, many studies have failed to equate loading across training protocols. As a result, it is “difficult to interpret as the reported differences between various training protocols may be contaminated by differences in training volume, rather than the kinematic and kinetic characteristics of different loading intensities” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005).

For example, an often-quoted study (Wilson et al., 1993) compared traditional weight training (6-10RM squats), plyometric training (unloaded depth jumps), and explosive weight training at the load that maximized mechanical power output (jump squats) to examine their effects on strength and power outputs. Wilson et al. (1993) concluded that after ten weeks, explosive weight training yielded the best overall results because there were significantly greater results in the countermovement jump (17.6%) and static jump (15.2%) compared to traditional weight training (5.1% and 6.8%), and plyometric training group (10.3% and 7.2%).

Despite the detailed and strict testing procedures outlined by Wilson et al. (1993), they fail to specify the volume load of each training group. Perhaps the explosive weight training group performed with greater loads, reps or sets than the traditional weight training and plyometric training groups, which is the reason why Wilson et al. (1993) observed significantly greater results. Ultimately, since the authors failed to equate loading, it is impossible to disentangle the training effects, and therefore the reader must make assumptions. For this reason, researchers must be more detailed and forthcoming in their methodology concerning training volume load when making conclusions about the efficacy or adaptations of various training protocols on performance measures. Studies that do not equate loading in some manner should be cautiously approached, as their findings are likely contaminated.

5. Movement pattern vs. loading intensity.

Another aspect to consider when changes in performance are seen between groups is the effects of the movement pattern. For example, on their first day learning a complex movement like the clean and jerk, an individual will lack coordination. However, through training practice, new motor patterns are learned, and the individual will become more efficient in the movement over time.

Concerning Wilson et al.’s (1993) study, perhaps the explosive weight training group (jump squats) did not produce the best countermovement and static jump results due to optimal load, but rather jump squat training offers greater movement pattern specificity than more traditional strength-training methods. This, perhaps, allowed the subject to unintentionally practice and become familiarized with the movement for the countermovement and static jump test. Jump squat training is described as a method of ballistic strength training and is “thought to be superior to traditional strength-training methods as the velocity and acceleration/deceleration profiles better approximate the explosive movements used in athletic performance” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). For this reason, researchers should clearly understand the movement patterns and kinematics of the movement in question, factor in motor skill learning and consider the effects on the results they obtain.

6. Test batteries: type of isoinertial assessment used in training studies.

When comparing training groups, assessments must “balance between being specific to the functional task whilst being sufficiently different from training so that it does not advantage (one group over the other)” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). Furthermore, if strength and conditioning practitioners want to improve athletic performance, the testing battery should be specific and applicable to their sport and movement of interest.

For example, if one training group is doing the squat while another is doing the leg press and the 1RM squat is assessed, it can be expected that the results will heavily bias the squat group. If the assessments are incongruent with the loads or exercises the subject is exposed to, it will be difficult to make any sort of conclusion or determination due to the principle of specificity (Leyland & Bott, 2021). The principle of specificity states that a specific type of exercise will elicit specific adaptations that lead to specific training effects (Leyland & Bott, 2021). Therefore, assessments should relate to the training the subject is exposed to.  It is also ideal to standardize assessments across a range of loads to remove bias across groups.

7. Establishing Pmax.

Maximum power output (Pmax) is the training load that maximizes the mechanical power output of the muscle. Based on the studies that Cronin and Sleivert (2005) reviewed, Pmax was selected based on previous research, meaning the same Pmax was assigned to the entire group. No research paper prior to 2003 had established Pmax for their respective subjects. This is an issue because there are discrepancies in research regarding which load maximizes power output during various resistance exercises. Therefore, training and testing all subjects at one universal load (ex. 30% 1RM) is fundamentally flawed due to interindividual Pmax differences, which are attributed to factors such as training status (strength level) and the exercise (muscle groups used). In fact, this is fundamentally flawed in all sport science research as it violates the principle of individuality. Due to interindividual differences, each individual Pmax needs to be determined, monitored, and adjusted such that the subjects train at this load to see the true effects of what is being studied.

For example, a commonly cited study (Kaneko et al., 1983) chose to examine the effects of 3 isotonic loads (0%, 30%, 60% of 1RM) on Pmax and found that the load at 30% was most effective in improving Pmax. However, the design does not mean that 30% of 1RM is the load that maximizes power output. Rather, the maximized power output could be anywhere between 30-60% 1RM. Nevertheless, many authors misinterpret these findings and cite this study as support for light isotonic loads (30%) producing maximal mechanical power output.

In addition, when studying power-load relationships, we must be cautious as some research examines the power-load relationship indirectly by investigating the relationship without reporting the load that maximized power output (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). For example, Cronin and Sleivert (2005) mention a study (Mastropaolo, 1992) where power outputs across a load range of 20-100%1RM were measured in the bench press and without statistical analysis, Mastropaolo (1992) concluded that the load maximizing power output occurred at 40% of 1RM. Not only did Mastropaolo (1992) make a claim without statistical analysis, but Cronin and Sleivert (2005) also observed that the data for power output was very similar across 40-60% of 1RM. It could be that the load maximizing power output ranges anywhere between 40-60% of 1RM, but we cannot make clear justifications without statistical analysis.

Scientists should avoid making assumptions and ensure the results’ interpretations are not misrepresented. By preventing the spread of misinformation, it will ensure the integrity of subsequent future research.

Other Cautions to Consider in the Literature

In addition to the seven methodological flaws, Cronin and Sleivart (2005) eloquently outlined considerations that must be followed when drawing conclusions from the literature on this topic of study. The cautions are discussed below.

8. Different modes of dynamometry.

Another issue that makes the comparison between studies complex is the different modes of dynamometry (isometric, isokinetic, and isoinertial) used to measure strength and power. Isokinetic and isometric assessments have “little resemblance to the accelerative (and) decelerative motion implicit in limb movement during resistance training and athletic motor performance” (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). Moreover, those who train to increase power will have limited or no access to isometric and or isokinetic dynamometry, and therefore, when comparing research, isoinertial (constant gravitational load) research should be the focus (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). This speaks to the sixth point mentioned above in relation to the principle of specificity. Performance-related fitness improvements will be specific to the type of exercise training performed, and therefore, training should be “done in a manner as close as possible to how you wish to use its benefits” (Leyland & Bott, 2021).

9. Uniarticular motion vs. multiarticular motion.

Some studies attempt to examine power through uniarticular, or single joint motion. However, athletic motor skills requiring high power outputs such as sprinting, jumping, and throwing are performed by multiple joints. If we are looking to improve these motor skills, research should focus on investigating the power-load spectrum using dynamic (isoinertial) multiarticular motion analysis.

10. Mixed terminology.

As seen in the terminology section (Table 1), the term “power” has been applied too broadly in the sport science literature, creating an identity problem for the term. Therefore, scientists and strength and conditioning practitioners who look to utilize this term, whether in research or an outcome measure in athletes, must be clear and consistent in its true definition.

11. Variety of mathematical methods are used to calculate power.

Due to the variety of methods used to calculate power output, inter-individual comparisons between studies become impossible. For example, in some studies, body mass is used to calculate loading intensity for ballistic motions such as jump squats because the subject must propel themselves and the bar. However, other studies have excluded body mass from the equation, decreasing the total mass component of force and decreasing total power output. It is then up to the reader to extrapolate this data (if even possible) before making comparisons. For literature to be easily digestible and applicable, a standard method for calculating power in resistance training movement needs to be agreed upon. 

12. Diversity in testing procedures.

All the following examples are from Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) review:

1. Studies measure power via different modalities of work

Modalities of work can differ greatly.  Some examples may include the following:

• Margaria Kalamen step test (cyclic stretch-shortening cycle test to calculate anaerobic power).
• Treadmill sprint test (cyclic stretch-shortening cycle assessment).
• Continuous jumping protocol (cyclic stretch-shortening cycle assessment).
• Wingate test (cyclic in nature but does not involve stretch-shortening cycle motion).

2. Diversity is seen in testing procedures even when the same test is used:

For example:

• In Wingate tests, studies calculated power output over different time periods with different loads.

3. Variety in motor performance measures
   • There does not seem to be an all-encompassing motor performance measure that all studies look at. For example, motor performance measures in Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) review include 5m sprint time, 10m sprint time, 40m sprint time, 100m sprint time, 40-yard dash, and vertical jump. 

All in all, research that has investigated power development and related components, such as rate of force development up until 2003, is represented by a great deal of variation in methodology. These variations make comparisons difficult, and therefore definitive conclusions are impossible.  This leads strength and conditioning practitioners in directions that may not be best practice.

Inclusion Criteria of Studies

Below is a Power Research Checklist (Table 4) that highlights the methodological flaws mentioned by Cronin and Sleivert (2005). For this paper, the checklist was used to determine the quality of research done after 2005 to see if the methodology actually followed Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations. Using this checklist will help the reader assess the quality of the research and will help determine if the authors’ conclusions and claims are appropriate for the implementation of specific methods and exercises in an athlete’s training program. The checklist itself was influenced by the PEDro scale, which was developed to determine the quality of clinical trial literature in physiotherapy evidence (de Morton, 2009). 

Because of the vast number of methodological flaws, as Cronin and Sleivert (2005) have mentioned, it is without question that one may be skeptical about the validity of the studies conducted before 2003. However, it is also gravely important to see if studies after 2005 have followed Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations. By applying and understanding Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations, research designs will be robust and result in meaningful and practical information that strength and conditioning practitioners can utilize in developing their athletes. If research designs have continued to violate Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations, it will call attention to how science in this topic of study has not moved forward since 2005 and that awareness must be made for the integrity of future research.

For the final installment of this series and the analysis of ‘power and its elusive identity,’ we chose to utilize the checklist (Table 4) and investigate this question:  Are power cleans superior to trap/hex bar jump squats (HBJS) or are trap/hex bar jump squats superior to power cleans as a modality to improve power? This has been a commonly debated topic amongst strength and conditioning practitioners. Albeit with very little substantiation. Yet, we will argue, that many have not gone down this path or really trying to determine what precisely we are examining. Perhaps we are not asking the correct question or need to further refine it.

The Discourse in Power Clean vs. Hex Bar Trap Squat Jumps

A common discussion amongst strength and conditioning practitioners within the last decade is which exercise, the power clean or trap/hex bar jump squats (HBJS), makes an athlete more powerful. The argument for using the HBJS over and above the power clean is that the power clean requires expert coaching and considerable time in learning to perform the movement properly (Oranchuk et al., 2019).

However, a fault in this question is that it is too broad. What motor performance are we looking to make more powerful? Is it sprint performance, lunge performance, squat or countermovement jump performance, change of direction performance, or possibly throwing performance? The question is not precise, and until we address the specifics of what we want to improve with these two exercises, there will be constant inconclusive discourse. Perhaps, each exercise elicits different adaptations, and comparing the two exercises should not be up for debate. With this in mind, this review looks to investigate the effects of these two exercises specifically on jump performance. Sprint performance is slightly touched upon if it is included in the studies investigated.

Power Clean and Vertical Jump Database Search

The search term “weightlifting and vertical jump” was used in PubMed and the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. In PubMed, this resulted in 36 research articles since 2005. Of the 36 research articles, 22 were immediately excluded as the results were unrelated to the effects of the power clean on vertical jump (Table 5). In the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, a filter for research published since 2005 was used and resulted in 155 results. Of those 155 results, they were screened by title and description, which led to 17 potential research articles (Table 5). Following this, the 17 potential research articles were closely examined to determine if it was related to power clean and vertical jump performance. Furthermore, by following Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations, studies that suggest untrained individuals or authors who do not indicate previous resistance training experience were excluded as they do not apply to the athletic population. Therefore, only seven potential studies remained (Table 6) since 2005.

The findings and critiques of the studies from Table 6

Hori et al. (2008) investigated whether rugby athletes with high performance in the hang power clean have greater peak power and success in jump, sprint, and change of direction performance. Participants included 29 semi-professional rugby players with experience in resistance exercises. Furthermore, participants performed the hang power clean two to three times per week for four months prior to data collection. It is unknown how the term semi-professional is defined.

The hang power clean was performed in such a way that the “subject stood and held the barbell in front of the body, started the movement by lowering the barbell above to the knee, then moved the barbell upward explosively and received the barbell at shoulder height” (Hori et al., 2008). Unfortunately, images of the movement were not included in the study. On the testing day, the hang power clean 1RM was determined. Following this, the absolute value was divided by the subject’s body mass for statistical analysis as “Baker and Nance (1999) reported that the value relative to body mass was more meaningful than the absolute value to examine the relationships between maximum strength, power and athletic performance” (Hori et al., 2008).

Jump, sprint, and change of direction performance were evaluated through jump height of CMJ, 20m sprint time, and 5-5 change of direction test time, respectively. Peak power was evaluated using a CMJ with a 40kg weight. No significant correlation was observed between the 1RM hang power clean and the 5-5 change of direction test time. However, Hori et al. (2008) observed a significantly strong correlation between 1RM hang power clean and peak power (r = 0.60), CMJ height (r = 0.51), and 20m sprint time (r = -0.57), suggesting that athletes who can perform a higher 1RM hang power clean will be superior in jumping and sprinting.

However, the authors stated that their study could not explain the cause and effect of these results. Kipp et al. (2019) suggest that the correlation between the hang power clean and CMJ performance is likely due to mechanical similarities. In addition, Kipp et al. (2019) observed positive correlations between the net joint movement during the CMJ and the net joint movement during the hang power clean, suggesting that the exercise provides greater movement pattern specificity. Similarly, Suchomel et al. (2015) suggest that the pulling characteristics of Olympic weightlifting movements with an emphasis on completing the triple extension (hip, knee, and ankle) have great transference to sprinting, jumping, and rapid change of direction.

Interestingly, Townsend et al. (2019) investigated the relationship between 1RM hang clean, isometric midthigh pull (a method in assessing rate of force development), and measures of athletic motor performance (sprinting and vertical jump) in 23 Division 1 men and women basketball players. 5-,10-,15-, and 20m sprint times, and CMJ height for the vertical jump were assessed (Townsend et al., 2019).

While the subjects were noted to have previous resistance training experience, the authors do not mention if they had training in weightlifting derivatives. In addition, there was no mention of a familiarization period for the 1RM hang clean. Therefore, it is assumed that the subjects are familiar with performing the exercise. The 1RM hang clean was performed identically to Hori et al. (2008), however, the absolute value was not reported relative to body mass. Instead, the absolute 1RM hang clean measurement was used to examine the relationship to isometric midthigh pull rate of force development and athletic performance. With this in mind, the isometric midthigh pull rate of force development was positively correlated with hang clean performance (r = 0.701, p ≤ 0.01). In addition, the isometric midthigh pull rate of force development was positively related to vertical jump performance (r = 0.57, p ≤ 0.05). This suggests that the hang clean can be a method for developing rate of force development, which can translate to vertical jump performance.

Suchomel et al. (2020b) investigated the changes in the squat and countermovement jumps following ten weeks of training with various weightlifting derivatives. The three weightlifting groups included:

1. Load-matched catching derivatives (CATCH).
2. Load-matched pulling derivatives (PULL).
3. Force-velocity specific pulling derivatives (OL).

While the authors suggest great improvements in SJ and CMJ height produced by the OL and PULL groups, the results were not statistically significant. And, after more in depth examination, the study violates several criteria on Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations (See Table 4). The volume load was equated between the CATCH and PULL groups but not with the OL group. In addition, the optimal loading (Pmax) of each respective exercise was not individualized to the subject. Finally, traditional exercises (without details on what they performed) were incorporated, making the performance changes observed by the author hard to attribute to the weightlifting derivatives because of the possible interference effect of other exercises.

Hexagonal trap bar jump squat and vertical jump performance

Barbell jump squats (BBJS), an exercise where a jump squat is performed with the barbell on the athlete’s back, have been extensively examined and associated with greater improvements in athletic motor performance (Turner et al., 2015a). Baker and Nance (1999) reported a significant relationship between relative peak power in the BBJS and sprint performance (10 and 40m) in professional rugby players. In addition, Cronin and Hansen (2005) reported significant correlations between relative peak power in the BBJS and sprint performance (5, 10, and 30m) in professional rugby players. They also reported a significant relationship between relative peak power and countermovement jump (CMJ) heights. Furthermore, Sleivert and Taingahue (2004) suggest that maximum concentric power exercises (such as the BBJS) are moderately related to sprint start performance (5m sprint time).

While the relationship between power output in the BBJS has been examined and associated with motor performance, no research prior to 2015 examined the relationship between power output in the hexagonal barbell jump squat and motor performance. It wasn’t until 2015, where Turner et al.  investigated peak power in the hexagonal barbell jump squat (HBJS) and its relationship to jump performance and acceleration in professional rugby players.

To investigate the relationship between HBJS and motor performance in rugby players, Turner et al. (2015) accurately followed Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations. CMJ and sprint performance (10 and 20m) were appropriate performance measures because they applied to the sport of rugby. In addition, participants included 17 healthy professional rugby players with a minimum of two years of structured training experience, indicating an advanced training status (Table 3).

Furthermore, the authors described what is deemed a ‘professional’ rugby player. Individual optimal load (Pmax) in the HBJS was also determined via preliminary testing where participants were tested at external loads equivalent to 10, 20, 30, and 40% of their box squat 1RM (Turner et al., 2015a). The methodology of testing procedures is detailed and provides adequate information. Importantly, peak power was calculated with the inclusion of body mass. As mentioned previously, the literature recognizes the body mass of the participant should be included in the calculation of peak power so the data can be expressed relatively (Cormie et al., 2007; Dugan et al., 2004; Turner et al., 2012).

In conclusion, Turner et al. (2015a) demonstrate that relative peak power in the HBJS is significantly correlated with sprint performance (10 and 20m) and CMJ height. The improvement in CMJ height observed is likely attributed to movement pattern specificity as the positioning of the load in the HBJS allows the athlete to closely replicate their jumping technique (Swinton et al., 2012).

Directly comparing power clean to hex/trap bar jump squats for jump performance

While studies have demonstrated how the HBJS or power cleans improve sprint and jump performance, no studies directly compare HBJS and power cleans to sprint performance. However, one study by Oranchuk et al. (2019) directly compares HBJS to a derivative of power cleans for vertical jump development.

Oranchuk et al.’s (2019) study compared vertical jump performance, isometric force, and rate of force development after a ten-week intervention using the Hang High Pull or the HBJS. The study included 14 varsity swimming athletes with at least one year of strength-training experience, including weightlifting derivatives and loaded jumps. However, this study may violate Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations as swimmers likely do not routinely jump in their sport and therefore, they are less trained in the testing modalities involving jumping.

In terms of the training program, it was positive to observe there was no combination of training methods, and volume loads were equated within each intervention group. Vertical jump performance was measured by a squat jump, and CMJ.  Rate of force development, and isometric force relative to body mass were measured by isometric midthigh pull analysis. A limitation of this study is that the authors do not describe or provide images of how the hang high pull exercise is performed and whether the subjects dropped the load at the apex of the pull. The reader must assume what a hang high pull is, which may lead to misinterpretations of the data.

Furthermore, optimal load (Pmax) was not individualized to the subjects. Instead, Pmax was selected based on previous research. According to Oranchuk et al. (2019), squat jump and CMJ significantly improved after each intervention with respect to relative peak power, but no between-group differences were observed. In addition, there were no between-group differences in rate of force development. Interestingly, the authors do not mention or include results regarding any rate of force development changes after ten weeks. While Oranchuk et al. (2019) suggest that the HBJS may be equally effective as weightlifting derivatives for improving jumping performance, the study appears to have limitations and violates several of Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations. Therefore, the reader should approach with caution the results of these findings.

Conclusion

It is without a doubt that the discourse is compelling on whether the HBJS is superior to the power clean, its derivatives or vice versa. As mentioned above, Hori et al. (2008) and Townsend et al. (2019) observed correlations between the hang power clean and the CMJ. At the same time, Turner et al. (2015a) observed correlations between the HBJS and the CMJ.

Based on these studies, these two exercises can improve CMJ, but nothing more can be said about which exercise is superior. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature to suggest that power cleans are superior to HBJS or vice versa for the development of jump performance (Oranchuk et al., 2019). In addition, more robust training intervention studies are needed to see how these exercises affect other athletic motor performances, such as the sprint, lunge, and throw.

It is apparent that through this review, studies still violate the recommendations by Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) review. If we are looking to acquire meaningful and practical information that can be applied to the development of athletes, researchers and readers should be informed by Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations. By being mindful of these recommendations, researchers can formulate robust research designs.

Furthermore, strength and conditioning practitioners aware of these recommendations can be critical of the research when investigating their question of interest.  “Is the HBJS superior to the power clean or vice versa,” is just an example of one many valid questions that could possibly arise from a curious mind who wants to help their athletes perform.  It is with great importance that before coming to any conclusion, the literature is critically analyzed.  Strength and conditioning practitioners making claims about sports performance with absolute certainty and without an evidence-based approach should reconsider how such claims can negatively affect athletes and the integrity of sports science.

S&C practitioners making claims about sports performance with absolute certainty and without an evidence-based approach should reconsider how such claims can negatively affect athletes and the integrity of sports science. Share on X

Considerations in comparing HBJS and power cleans: future research

This section will discuss considerations that should be made if prospective researchers are looking to conclude which exercise is superior.

1. The question should be specific to the sport of interest. Who and what are we looking to improve? For example, if we look at rugby athletes, sprint and jump performance will be important.
2. Research design should follow Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations (Table 4). Participant training status (Table 3) must be clearly outlined, and untrained subjects should not be used as it will limit the generalizability to the athletic population. Athletes involved in land-based speed and power sports should serve as subjects. In training intervention studies investigating the relationship between HBJS and power clean to motor performance, volume load must be equated, and training methods should not be combined.

Furthermore, the optimal load (Pmax) for each respective exercise must be identified for each individual. Swinton et al. (2012) and Turner et al. (2015b) investigated the optimal loading range for developing peak power output in the HBJS in elite rugby players and suggested an optimal loading range of 20% or between 10 and 20% of 1RM Box Squat, respectively. However, both authors highlight that peak power was optimized at a range of loads for most participants and only recommended these loads when determining individual optimal loads is deemed impractical. Similar to the HBJS, the literature suggests a wide spread of loads that maximize peak power in the power clean and its derivatives. Takei et al. (2021) identified the optimal load in the power clean to occur at 40, 60, and 70% of 1RM for peak power, while Cormie et al. (2007) reported 80% of 1RM. To add to this variability, Winchester et al. (2005) report 70% of 1RM before four weeks of hang power clean training and 50% of 1RM after training. In addition, Kawamori et al. (2005) establish that load is optimized at 70% of 1RM for the hang clean but was not significantly different from 50, 80, and 90% of 1RM. For the midthigh pull and hang high pull variation, it is suggested to be optimized at 80% of 1RM (Haff et al., 1997) and 40-70% of 1RM (Takei et al., 2021), respectively.

The variability to maximize optimal load for peak power throughout all studies is likely due to different participant population characteristics, training status and mechanical efficiency. It is clear that there is a range of loads to optimize peak power for the power clean and its derivatives as it pertains to the principle of individuality. Therefore to see the true effect following a training intervention, researchers must ensure that the optimal load is individualized and identified for each exercise.

3. Subjects identified as elite, professional, or semi-professional should be clearly defined, as there may be ambiguity in how these terms are defined across authors. How authors define and classify their subjects with respect to the nomenclature or title they assign can make for more accurate and precise comparisons between future studies.
4. As mentioned above, there are various studies identifying the optimal load for the power clean and its derivatives. To avoid confusion, research articles should provide pictures and a detailed description of how the exercise is performed. This also includes the HBJS. In this manner, if there are meaningful and practical findings, the readership can perform the exercise as instructed and reap the benefits from the results of the study.
5. If comparing the HBJS and power clean, the potential benefits of each exercise outside of athletic motor performance should also be considered. For example, power cleans may be of preference as there is an attribute to absorbing load, which may potentially be relevant to contact sports like rugby and American football. However, this idea requires scientific validation through future research. In addition, the complexity of Olympic weightlifting and its derivatives require high levels of motor control and coordination which can potentially translate to athletic motor performance. Moreover, it could be that the athlete finds the power clean more enjoyable due to the complexity over the HBJS or vice versa. In turn, based on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2015), if an athlete finds a particular exercise more enjoyable, they will likely choose and set their own goals, engage in the prescribed training program, and perform better during their training sessions.

Final remarks

In conclusion, a scientific evidence-based approach must be taken when making claims. Currently, there is not enough literature to compare which exercise, the HBJS or power clean is superior to the development of athletic motor performance. It may be that the HBJS and power clean should not act as a substitute for each other, but rather both should be incorporated into an athlete’s training program. However, until there are well-controlled training intervention studies that compare the HBJS and power clean to athletic motor performance, as strength and conditioning practitioners, definitive claims that one exercise is superior to the other should not be made. Instead, efforts should be put into designing research following Cronin and Sleivert’s (2005) recommendations, and the readership should critically analyze and critique research that violates these recommendations.

You can learn more from Carmen Bott in her latest course on ACL Rehab, available here.

References

Adami, P. E., Rocchi, J. E., Melke, N., De Vito, G., Bernardi, M., & Macaluso, A. (2022).

Physiological profile comparison between high intensity functional training, endurance and power athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 122(2), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04858-3

Agar-Newman, D. J., Tsai, M.-C., & Klimstra, M. (2022). The validity of applying a simple three-factor computational model to calculate force, power, and speed using hexagonal bar jumps. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(8), 2108. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003581

Alabbad, M., & Muaidi, Q. (2021). The effect of the Kinesio Tape on the muscle power performance of elite weightlifters. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 27, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.02.027

Arabatzi, F., & Kellis, E. (2012). Olympic weightlifting training causes different knee muscle-coactivation adaptations compared with traditional weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2192–2201. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823b087a

Ayers, J. L., DeBeliso, M., Sevene, T. G., & Adams, K. J. (2016). Hang cleans and hang snatches produce similar improvements in female collegiate athletes. Biology of Sport, 33(3), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1201814

Baker, D., & Nance, S. (1999). The relation between running speed and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(3), 230. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/1999/08000/The_Relation_Between_Running_Speed_and_Measures_of.9.aspx

Bazyler, C. D., Mizuguchi, S., Zourdos, M. C., Sato, K., Kavanaugh, A. A., DeWeese, B. H., Breuel, K. F., & Stone, M. H. (2018). Characteristics of a national level female weightlifter peaking for competition: A case study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(11), 3029–3038. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002379

Beato, M., Madruga-Parera, M., Piqueras-Sanchiz, F., Moreno-Pérez, V., & Romero-Rodriguez, D. (2021). Acute effect of eccentric overload exercises on change of direction performance and lower-limb muscle contractile function. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(12), 3327. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003359

Berton, R., Silva, D. D. da, Santos, M. L. D., Silva, C. M. P. E., & Tricoli, V. (2022). Weightlifting derivatives vs. plyometric exercises: Effects on unloaded and loaded vertical jumps and sprint performance. PloS One, 17(9), e0274962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274962

Boone, J. B., VanDusseldorp, T. A., Feito, Y., & Mangine, G. T. (2021). Relationships between sprinting, broad jump, and vertical jump kinetics are limited in elite, collegiate football athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(5), 1306. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004008

Chiu, L. Z. F., & Salem, G. J. (2012). Potentiation of vertical jump performance during a snatch pull exercise session. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 28(6), 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.28.6.627

Cleather, D. J., Goodwin, J. E., & Bull, A. M. J. (2013). Intersegmental moment analysis characterizes the partial correspondence of jumping and jerking. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825037ee

Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2007). The influence of body mass on calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-21636.1

Cormie, P., Mccaulley, G. O., Triplett, N. T., & Mcbride, J. M. (2007). Optimal loading for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(2), 340. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000246993.71599.bf

Cronin, J. B., & Hansen, K. T. (2005). Strength and power predictors of sports speed. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1519/14323.1

Cronin, J., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2003). Lunge performance and its determinants. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000070958

Cronin, J., & Sleivert, G. (2005). Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on improving athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 35(3), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200535030-00003

de Morton, N. A. (2009). The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: A demographic study. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 55(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70043-1

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-determination theory. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 486–491). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4

Dugan, E. L., Doyle, T. L. A., Humphries, B., Hasson, C. J., & Newton, R. U. (2004). Determining the optimal load for jump squats: A review of methods and calculations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18<668:DTOLFJ>2.0.CO;2

Fry, A. C., Ciroslan, D., Fry, M. D., LeRoux, C. D., Schilling, B. K., & Chiu, L. Z. F. (2006). Anthropometric and performance variables discriminating elite American junior men weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 861–866. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-18355.1

Griffin, L., & Cafarelli, E. (2005). Resistance training: Cortical, spinal, and motor unit adaptations. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology = Revue Canadienne De Physiologie Appliquee, 30(3), 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1139/h05-125

Günter, & Tidow (2006). Aspects of strength training in athletics.

Hackett, D., Davies, T., Soomro, N., & Halaki, M. (2016). Olympic weightlifting training improves vertical jump height in sportspeople: A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(14), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094951

Hackshaw, A. (2008). Small studies: Strengths and limitations. The European Respiratory Journal, 32(5), 1141–1143. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00136408

Haff, G. G., Stone, M., O’Bryant, H. S., Harman, E., Dinan, C., Johnson, R., & Han, K.-H. (1997). Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 11(4), 269. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/1997/11000/Force_Time_Dependent_Characteristics_of_Dynamic.14.aspx

Hammami, R., Duncan, M. J., Nebigh, A., Werfelli, H., & Rebai, H. (2022). The effects of 6 weeks eccentric training on speed, dynamic balance, muscle strength, power, and lower limb asymmetry in prepubescent weightlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(4), 955. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003598

Hartman, M. J., Clark, B., Bembens, D. A., Kilgore, J. L., & Bemben, M. G. (2007). Comparisons between twice-daily and once-daily training sessions in male weight lifters. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2.2.159

Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Keiner, M., Mickel, C., Sander, A., & Szilvas, E. (2015). Short-term periodization models: Effects on strength and speed-strength performance. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(10), 1373–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0355-2

Haug, W. B., Spratford, W., Williams, K. J., Chapman, D. W., & Drinkwater, E. J. (2015). Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(9), 2488–2496. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889

Haugen, T. A., Breitschädel, F., Wiig, H., & Seiler, S. (2021). Countermovement jump height in national-team athletes of various sports: A framework for practitioners and scientists. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(2), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0964

Hedrick, A. (1993). Strength training: Literature review: high speed resistance training. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal, 15(6), 22. https://doi.org/10.1519/0744-0049(1993)015<0022:LRHSRT>2.3.CO;2

Helland, C., Hole, E., Iversen, E., Olsson, M. C., Seynnes, O., Solberg, P. A., & Paulsen, G. (2017). Training strategies to improve muscle power: Is Olympic-style weightlifting relevant? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 49(4), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001145

Henderson, F. J., Sasakabe, W., Satoshi, K., Shima, N., & Shimokochi, Y. (2023). Quadriceps function and athletic performance in highly trained female athletes. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 32(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2021-0359

Hermassi, S., Schwesig, R., Aloui, G., Shephard, R. J., & Chelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of short-term in-season weightlifting training on the muscle strength, peak power, sprint performance, and ball-throwing velocity of male handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(12), 3309–3321. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003068

Hester, G. M., Pope, Z. K., Sellers, J. H., Thiele, R. M., & DeFreitas, J. M. (2017). Potentiation: Effect of ballistic and heavy exercise on vertical jump performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(3), 660. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001285

Hirayama, K. (2014). Acute effects of an ascending intensity squat protocol on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(5), 1284–1288. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000259

Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Andrews, W. A., Kawamori, N., McGuigan, M. R., & Nosaka, K. (2008). Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318166052b

Hornsby, W. G., Gentles, J. A., MacDonald, C. J., Mizuguchi, S., Ramsey, M. W., & Stone, M. H. (2017). Maximum strength, rate of force development, jump height, and peak power alterations in weightlifters across five months of training. Sports, 5(4), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports5040078

Ince, İ., & Ulupinar, S. (2020). Prediction of competition performance via selected strength-power tests in junior weightlifters. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 60(2), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.19.10085-0

James, L. P., Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., Haff, G. G., & Connick, M. J. (2022). Rate of force development adaptations after weightlifting-style training: The influence of power clean ability. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(6), 1560. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003673

Kaabi, S., Mabrouk, R. H., & Passelergue, P. (2022). Weightlifting is better than plyometric training to improve strength, counter movement jump, and change of direction skills in Tunisian elite male junior table tennis players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(10), 2912. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003972

Kaneko, M. (1983). Training effect of different loads on the force-velocity relationship and mechanical power output in human muscle.

Kavanaugh, A. A., Mizuguchi, S., Sands, W. A., Ramsey, M. W., & Stone, M. H. (2018). Long-term changes in jump performance and maximum strength in a cohort of national collegiate athletic association division I women’s volleyball athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002214

Kawamori, N., Crum, A. J., Blumert, P. A., Kulik, J. R., Childers, J. T., Wood, J. A., Stone, M. H., & Haff, G. G. (2005). Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean: Identification of the optimal load. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(3), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1519/16044.1

Kawamori, N., Rossi, S. J., Justice, B. D., Haff, E. E., Pistilli, E. E., O’Bryant, H. S., Stone, M. H., & Haff, G. G. (2006). Peak force and rate of force development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed at various intensities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1519/18025.1

Kipp, K., Suchomel, T. J., & Comfort, P. (2019). Correlational analysis between joint-level kinetics of countermovement jumps and weightlifting derivatives. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18(4), 663–668.

Komi, P. V., IOC Medical Commission, & International Federation of Sports Medicine (Eds.). (2003). Strength and power in sport / edited by Paavo V. Komi (2nd ed). Blackwell Science.

Komi, P.V., Suominen, H., Heikkinen E., & Teach, P. (1982). Effects of heavy resistance and explosive-type strength training methods on mechanical, functional, and metabolic aspects of performance. Exercise and Sport Biology (eds P.V. Komi, R. Nelson & C. Morehouse), pp 90-102. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kurz, T. (2001). Science of sports training: How to plan and control training for peak performance (2nd ed). Stadion.

Lake, J. P., Mundy, P. D., & Comfort, P. (2014). Power and impulse applied during push press exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(9), 2552. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000438

Leyland, T., & Bott, C. (2021). Exercise programming science and practice (2nd ed.). SFU Publications

Lyttle, A. D., Wilson, G. J., & Ostrowski, K. J. (1996). Enhancing performance: Maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(3), 173. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(1996)010<0173:EPMPVC>2.3.CO;2

MacKenzie, S. J., Lavers, R. J., & Wallace, B. B. (2014). A biomechanical comparison of the vertical jump, power clean, and jump squat. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(16), 1576–1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.908320

Maffiuletti, N. A., Aagaard, P., Blazevich, A. J., Folland, J., Tillin, N., & Duchateau, J. (2016). Rate of force development: Physiological and methodological considerations. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116, 1091–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6

Malyszek, K. K., Harmon, R. A., Dunnick, D. D., Costa, P. B., Coburn, J. W., & Brown, L. E. (2017). Comparison of Olympic and hexagonal barbells with midthigh pull, deadlift, and countermovement jump. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(1), 140. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001485

Manocchia, P., Spierer, D. K., Lufkin, A. K. S., Minichiello, J., & Castro, J. (2013). Transference of kettlebell training to strength, power, and endurance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(2), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825770fe

Marin, S., & Manuel, J. (2015). Effects of power training with optimal load and repetitions.

Marriner, C. R., Cronin, J. B., Macadam, P., & Storey, A. (2017). Redistributing load using wearable resistance during power clean training improves athletic performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(9), 1101–1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1360396

Mastropaolo, J. A. (1992). A test of the maximum-power stimulus theory for strength. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 65(5), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00243507

McLellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I., & Gass, G. C. (2011). The role of rate of force development on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(2), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181be305c

Meechan, D., McMahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J., & Comfort, P. (2020). A comparison of kinetic and kinematic variables during the pull from the knee and hang pull, across loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(7), 1819. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003593

National Strength and Conditioning Association. (2012). NSCA’s essentials of personal training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994a). Developing explosive muscular power: Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL, 16(5), 20. https://doi.org/10.1519/1073-6840(1994)016<0020:DEMPIF>2.3.CO;2

Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994b). Developing explosive muscular power: Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 16(5), 20. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/citation/1994/10000/developing_explosive_muscular_power__implications.2.aspx

Oranchuk, D. J., Robinson, T. L., Switaj, Z. J., & Drinkwater, E. J. (2019). Comparison of the hang high pull and loaded jump squat for the development of vertical jump and isometric force-time characteristics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001941

Otto, W. H., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., & Spiering, B. A. (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. Kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1199–1202. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824f233e

Paditsaeree, K., Intiraporn, C., & Lawsirirat, C. (2016). Comparison between the effects of combining elastic and free-weight resistance and free-weight resistance on force and power production. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(10), 2713. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000459

Parr, R. B., Hoover, R., Wilmore, J. H., Bachman, D., & Kerlan, R. K. (1978). Professional basketball players: Athletic profiles. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 6(4), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.1978.11710700

Pichardo, A. W., Oliver, J. L., Harrison, C. B., Maulder, P. S., Lloyd, R. S., & Kandoi, R. (2019). Effects of combined resistance training and weightlifting on motor skill performance of adolescent male athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(12), 3226. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003108

Sapega, A. A., & Drillings, G. (1983). The definition and assessment of muscular power. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 5(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1983.5.1.7

Schmidtbleicher, D., & Buehrle, M. (1987). Neuronal adaptation and increase of crosssectional area studying different strength training methods. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Slawinski, J., Bonnefoy, A., Levêque, J.-M., Ontanon, G., Riquet, A., Dumas, R., & Chèze, L. (2010). Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of elite and well-trained sprinters during sprint start. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ad3448

Sleivert, G., & Taingahue, M. (2004). The relationship between maximal jump-squat power and sprint acceleration in athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0941-0

Sorensen, A. M., Chavda, S., Comfort, P., Lake, J., & Turner, A. N. (2022). Intra- and interday reliability of weightlifting variables and correlation to performance during cleans. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(11), 3008. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004241

Stone, M. H., Moir, G., Glaister, M., & Sanders, R. (2002). How much strength is necessary? Physical Therapy in Sport, 3(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1054/ptsp.2001.0102

Storey, A. G., Birch, N. P., Fan, V., & Smith, H. K. (2016). Stress responses to short-term intensified and reduced training in competitive weightlifters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12400

Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale for implementation and application. Sports Medicine, 45(6), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0314-y

Suchomel, T. J., McKeever, S. M., & Comfort, P. (2020a). Training with weightlifting derivatives: The effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(7), 1808. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003639

Suchomel, T. J., McKeever, S. M., McMahon, J. J., & Comfort, P. (2020b). The effect of training with weightlifting catching or pulling derivatives on squat jump and countermovement jump force-time adaptations. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk5020028

Swinton, P. A., Stewart, A. D., Lloyd, R., Agouris, I., & Keogh, J. W. L. (2012). Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted vertical jumps. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(4), 906–913. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e589e

Takei, S., Hirayama, K., & Okada, J. (2021). Comparison of the power output between the hang power clean and hang high pull across a wide range of loads in weightlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35, S84. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003569

Teo, S. Y. M., Newton, M. J., Newton, R. U., Dempsey, A. R., & Fairchild, T. J. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump vs. Weightlifting program on athletic power development. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(10), 2741–2748. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001379

Townsend, J. R., Bender, D., Vantrease, W. C., Hudy, J., Huet, K., Williamson, C., Bechke, E., Serafini, P. R., & Mangine, G. T. (2019). Isometric midthigh pull performance is associated with athletic performance and sprinting kinetics in division 1 men and women’s basketball players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(10), 2665. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002165

Travis, S. K., Goodin, J. R., Beckham, G. K., & Bazyler, C. D. (2018). Identifying a test to monitor weightlifting performance in competitive male and female weightlifters. Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 6(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6020046

Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2005). Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development: Weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 433–437. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-14083.1

Turner, A. P., Unholz, C. N., Potts, N., & Coleman, S. G. S. (2012). Peak power, force, and velocity during jump squats in professional rugby players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(6), 1594–1600. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234ebe5

Turner, T. S., Tobin, D. P., & Delahunt, E. (2015a). Peak power in the hexagonal barbell jump squat and its relationship to jump performance and acceleration in elite rugby union players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(5), 1234–1239. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000770

Turner, T. S., Tobin, D. P., & Delahunt, E. (2015b). Optimal loading range for the development of peak power output in the hexagonal barbell jump squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(6), 1627–1632. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000802

Vizcaya, F. J., Viana, O., del Olmo, M. F., & Acero, R. M. (2009). Could the deep squat jump predict weightlifting performance? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(3), 729–734. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a04dc3

Wang, R., Hoffman, J. R., Tanigawa, S., Miramonti, A. A., La Monica, M. B., Beyer, K. S., Church, D. D., Fukuda, D. H., & Stout, J. R. (2016). Isometric mid-thigh pull correlates with strength, sprint, and agility performance in collegiate rugby union players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(11), 3051. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001416

Watkins, C. M., Storey, A. G., McGuigan, M. R., & Gill, N. D. (2021). Implementation and efficacy of plyometric training: Bridging the gap between practice and research. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(5), 1244. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003985

Wiegel, P., Centner, C., & Kurz, A. (2019). How motor unit recruitment speed and discharge rates determine the rate of force development. The Journal of Physiology, 597(9), 2331–2332. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP277894

Wilson, G.J., Lyttle, A., Ostrowski, K.J., & Murphy, A.J. (1995). Assessing Dynamic Performance: A Comparison of Rate of Force Development Tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9, 176–181.

Wilson, G. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1996). The use of isometric tests of muscular function in athletic assessment. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 22(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199622010-00003

Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J. (1993). The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(11), 1279–1286.

Winchester, J. B., Erickson, T. M., Blaak, J. B., & Mcbride, J. M. (2005). Changes in bar-path kinematics and kinetics after power-clean training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(1), 177. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2005/02000/CHANGES_IN_BAR_PATH_KINEMATICS_AND_KINETICS_AFTER.30.aspx

Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Kraemer, W. J., & Fry, A.C (2021). Science and practice of strength training (3rd ed). Human Kinetics.

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

Among the challenges strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers face is getting student athletes out of their comfort zone to develop optimal wellness and game preparation habits. For high school and college coaches, are your athletes regularly choosing fries and pepperoni pizza for lunch instead of healthier options such as fruit and protein-rich Greek yogurt, resulting in subpar sports practices or weight room sessions? Are they skipping pre-season team workouts (undertraining), leaving their timing off in practice drills? Or the opposite, are they overtraining every day in the gym, causing chronic muscle or joint soreness and affecting their baseball hitting or tackling technique in football?

Or maybe, it’s simply insufficient recovery from intense practices or games that’s hindering progress?

Certainly, adequate nutrition, exercise, and practice time all influence their mental and physical effectiveness on the field, track, ice, basketball court, wrestling mat, or in the weight room, as does physical therapy or a rehab program for overcoming an injury. But the often-underestimated ingredient your athletes seemingly trivialize for enhancing strength and speed training, sports performance, injury recovery, and recuperation from grueling practices and games is spelled S-L-E-E-P!

Although medical and fitness professionals (including school athletic trainers and strength coaches) generally recognize that sleep deprivation is a root cause of diminished mental and physical performance in academics and athletics, as well as lower resistance to illness—causing student athletes to miss classes, important practices, games, and workouts—the quandary for coaches is how to impress upon their athletes that their amount of sleep positively or negatively impacts sports performance. In a December 13, 2023 article on the National Sleep Foundation’s website (“How Much Sleep Do Student Athletes Need?”), staff writer Danielle Pacheco mentions, “In addition to nutrition and physical exercise, sleep plays an essential role in helping athletes achieve optimal performance. Unfortunately, student athletes often juggle a variety of commitments that can make it difficult to meet sleep needs.”¹

The quandary for coaches is how to impress upon their athletes that their amount of sleep positively or negatively impacts sports performance, says Jim Carpentier. Share on X

So, how much sleep should a coach and athletic trainer advise athletes to consistently get each night to gain strength and muscle in the weight room, be faster and more powerful on the field, or facilitate sports, exercise, or injury recovery? Pacheco says, “Our guidelines state that teens (ages 13-18 years) should be getting between 8 and 10 hours of sleep every night.”¹

Back to That Sleep “Quandary”

Telling your athletes to get the recommended 8-10 hours of night sleep is like the proverbial “You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink it.” Remember, they’re teenagers staying up late texting friends or watching their favorite sports team on TV or studying for two final exams or on the phone with their girlfriend or boyfriend. So, attempting to make them change their pre-bedtime routines each night in favor of going to sleep earlier is easier said than done—unless you as coach or athletic trainer can provide convincing evidence on how sleep boosts sports performance.

Citing professional athletes touting sleep as a performance aid (shown below) reinforces that convincing evidence for prompting student athletes to alter sleep habits.

1. What Can Coaches Do?

Relate to your team how professional athletes have correspondingly elevated athletic performance from improved sleep habits. One pro athlete in particular—Major League Baseball pitcher Justin Verlander—attributed his successful career in part to smart sleep habits, even swaying his teammate Alex Bregman to increase sleep (which ultimately helped lead to increased home run production).

In a New York Times July 9, 2019, article (“Justin Verlander: The Astros Ace and Sleep Guru”), writer James Wagner begins by stating: “It was early May 2018 and Alex Bregman, the Houston Astros’ star third baseman, had only one home run on the season. His teammate Justin Verlander, one of the best pitchers of this generation, noticed Bregman’s low power and hints of fatigue, and asked how many hours Bregman had slept the night before. Six, Bregman answered. And his normal amount? Six as well.” Wagner says that Verlander was “bewildered” by Bregman’s replies and told his 25-year-old teammate that “he slept at least 10 hours a night and said Bregman should start getting more hours himself.” To which Bregman responded, “I felt that’s overdoing it. You shouldn’t sleep that much. Then I started sleeping that much and, next thing you know, I hit 30 homers after that.”

As for Verlander, Wagner mentions that the pitcher’s career dominance is grounded in getting “a lot of sleep… Verlander aims for 10 hours a night. ‘And if I need more, I’m not afraid to just sleep more,’ the pitcher states.” Verlander tells Wagner that “Sometimes eight or nine hours leaves him refreshed,” and that “Other times he gets eleven or even twelve.”²

2. What Can School Athletic Trainers Do?

Tell student athletes how NBA athletic trainers recognize sleep’s positive impact on their players’ performance and how a college basketball team benefited from getting more sleep.

Tell student athletes how NBA athletic trainers recognize sleep’s positive impact on their players’ performance and how a college basketball team benefited from getting more sleep, says Jim Carpentier. Share on X

An October 23, 2014, article in ESPN Magazine (“Athlete Monitoring in the NBA”) discusses the Dallas Maverick’s athletic training staff’s focus on their players getting ample sleep. Says Casey Smith, Maverick’s Head Athletic Trainer: “If you told an athlete you had a treatment that would reduce the chemicals associated with stress, that would naturally increase growth hormone, that enhances recovery rate, that improves performance, they would all do it. Sleep does all of those things.”⁴ The ESPN article further expounds on a Stanford School of Medicine 2011 study on how extended sleep duration affects athletic performance. The study observed eleven varsity men’s basketball team players and showed that increasing sleep to 10 hours a night reduced injury risk, and improved players’ reaction times, sprint times, and free-throw percentages.³

And here’s another example where school athletic trainers can cite sleep’s relevance among pro athletes: In a November 17, 2017, article on the website espn.com (“Cleveland Cavaliers Say Adjustment in Travel Itinerary Helping Team on Road Trips”), the NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers Head Athletic Trainer Steve Spiro said: “The biggest thing for recovery is sleep. There isn’t anything better, and for these guys that are taxing their bodies through travel and through their workload on the court, and practice, and extra work or whatever, we can have all the technology in the world, but obviously a great night’s sleep plays a role into performance. There’s no doubt about it. So you have to have your finger on the pulse of it.”⁴

Other Ways Coaches and Athletic Trainers Can Compel Athletes to Sleep More

From a personal perspective, having served as both a high school strength and conditioning coach and college athletic conditioning specialist, I would repeatedly ask the basic question to each student-athlete—whether seeing them in the weight room, athletic training room, or in the hallway at school: “are you eating and sleeping well?”

Oftentimes, the athletes were startled by this simple and random question. If they replied “yes,” I followed up asking them if they had a good breakfast, for instance. Unsurprisingly, some said they didn’t have time for breakfast, or they had a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on the go. I gave them an imaginary A, B, C, D, or F grade on their response. Those that skipped breakfast got an F grade; those that had the bacon, egg and cheese sandwich got a B grade and I told them if they included some fruit with the breakfast, it would have merited an A grade.

The same grading system applied to the amount of sleep they had the night before. Those with 5, 6, or at most 7 hours got a D or F, while anyone with at least 8 or more hours got B or A grades. This was all designed to motivate them to improve their dietary and sleep habits. And don’t laugh, when they came back and asked me if I was eating and sleeping well? “Of course,” I said. “And what did you have for breakfast?” they asked. I told them fruit, a couple of eggs, oatmeal, some yogurt, water, and tea, and got between 9 and10 hours of sleep the night before—to prove a point of practicing what you preach.

• Strength and Conditioning Coaches: Instill the message to student athletes that strength and size gains will not occur—no matter how many bench presses, squats, or deadlifts are performed—unless they’re getting at least 8 hours or more of sleep each night. Almost like a bribe: You won’t get stronger or bigger unless you get more sleep!
• School Athletic Trainers: Tell injured athletes with sprains, strains, or broken bones, or other injuries, that if they want to resume sports sooner rather than later, make sure they’re getting the extra sleep and rest required for enabling a more effective and speedier recovery.
• Sports Team Coaches: Make the message loud and clear to your athletes that getting plenty of sleep is as necessary as the foods and beverages consumed and their exercises in the gym to be more alert, focused, and energized during practices and games! Continue driving home sleep’s importance the night before a big game that can spell the difference between going to the playoffs or ending the season earlier; or warning them that if they don’t take sleep seriously, they’re more likely to be lethargic and lose concentration at key points in games—making mental and physical errors that can cost the team a victory.

A Final Message

Team Coaches, Strength and Conditioning Coaches, Athletic Trainers: Practice what you preach to your athletes! Be a role model. Let them know how much better you feel mentally and physically, calmer and more patient from getting enough sleep, and that you will make sure to go to bed earlier, so you’re as refreshed and well-prepared for tomorrow’s game as the players!

Be a role model. Let (athletes) know how much better you feel mentally and physically… and that you will make sure to go to bed earlier, so you’re as refreshed and well-prepared for tomorrow’s game as the players! Share on X

As previously mentioned, during my career, I felt it of utmost importance to take an interest in the wellness of student-athletes to motivate them by those basic questions of whether they were eating or sleeping well, and giving them examples of the nutritious breakfast foods I consumed and the beneficial amount of sleep I was getting as guidelines. This further encouraged them to improve their sleep and eating habits, and show them the necessity of “practicing what you preach.”

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

Imagine you just finished writing the perfect workout plan for a day of practice. You know it’s going to be a great day on the track. The athletes are focused intently during the warm-up—it’s go time and they are ready. Suddenly, right as you are wrapping up the warm-up, a popup thunderstorm rolls in and lightning strikes in the area.

You are forced to move inside for safety.

What’s next? Do you find something for the athletes to do to stay warm and hope it’s only a 30-minute delay? Do you scrap your perfect workout plans and cancel practice all together? Or do you try to pull off a substitute workout?

We’ve all been in a similar situation before. Maybe it’s not a thunderstorm that throws off practice, but an athlete shows up too sore or with a nagging injury that prevents them from doing what you had planned for the day. Understanding that consistency in training is both a key to long-term improvement as well as a part of maintaining training loads for injury prevention, being good at Plan B training is a skill all coaches need to master.

Hierarchies and Goals in a Plan B Session

The first step in mastering Plan B training is understanding the idea of exercise classifications. The most popular exercise classification system is probably from Dr. Anatoliy Bondarchuck’s work.

At the top level of the hierarchy is the Competitive Event or exercise itself. For our track coaches, an example could be a 60-meter dash, full approach long jump, 400-meter dash, a full throw, or in the case of practice, whatever the original workout plan is.

One level below that, exists second-generation or Specific Development Exercises, which are exercises that consist of a slightly broken-down part of the full event. This could be short approach jumps for a long jumper, stand throws for a thrower, 30-meter flys for a sprinter, etc. These exercises still resemble the full event but are slightly scaled back or modified.

The next level down, third-generation or Specific Preparatory Exercises, are things that support the development of the first-generation (the Competitive Event itself) and second-generation exercises. For a jumper, this might be standing jumps into the pit or accelerations. For sprinters, it might be short accelerations or skipping/plyometric/bounding exercises. For throwers, it might be Olympic lifting or maximal strength training.

The last level, fourth-generation or General Preparatory Exercises, are exercises that do not always look like the competitive event and do not directly train the specific muscles or energy system in the same manner as the competitive event, but might be used for general health, coordination, general capacity, or active recovery. Depending on the time of the year, use of General Preparatory Exercises are cautioned, as they may actually lead to a de-training of specific event qualities.

Applying Exercise Classifications to Plan B Training

The goal of Plan B training is to find something that mimics the planned workout of the day as closely as possible in terms of both biomechanical and energy system similarity. Think in terms of movement vectors (horizontal, vertical), force production (maximal, elastic), work-to-rest ratios, and muscles involved. When using the exercise classification system in plan B training, it is important to understand that the original workout would be considered “The Competitive Event.” You then work down through the classifications as your constraints allow you to apply the next-best stimulus.

The goal of Plan B training is to find something that mimics the planned workout of the day as closely as possible, says @coachjonhughes. Share on X

I challenge coaches to make a list of exercises, drills, lifts, etc. that fit within each of the levels for their specific event they are coaching or for their commonly prescribed workouts. For speed and power competitive events, many of the specific preparatory exercises and general preparatory exercises will begin to overlap. For example, coaches can create a chart like the one below. I’ve linked to this chart to be used as a “living document”—feel free to add to it or make a copy for yourself to add to and organize in a way that makes sense to you.

Figure 2. Compatible Training Options for Sprinters

Real World Application

Assume you have planned the following workout for an acceleration day workout:

• Three 10-meter blocks
• Three 20-meter blocks
• Three 30-meter blocks

An athlete shows up and has a tight hamstring and they do not feel comfortable going at full speed for fear of risking an injury. They get through the warm-up pain-free, with only minor levels of discomfort. You agree that doing the workout as written is probably not the best idea, but you want them to get some work in so they don’t have training gaps when they return to the full training process. You must ask yourself: “how can I modify this workout to still get a similar training effect without the same high risk of injury?”

You must ask yourself: how can I modify this workout to still get a similar training effect without the same high risk of injury?, says @coachjonhughes. Share on X

This is where the classification of exercises comes into play. As stated earlier, your planned workout (in this example, block starts), is now considered your “Competitive Event.” Move down the classification system to “Special Development Exercises” and find substitute exercises.

First, you could modify intensity by removing spikes, by taking away the blocks and going from a standing start, or even going from a skip-in or walk-in start. Each regression would be considered a specific development exercise for block starts, giving the athlete a similar training effect while limiting the intensity. Both the walk-in and skip-in starts eliminate the amount of strength and power needed to overcome inertia and also decreases the amount of technical skill and thereby the mental load by not needing to go from a full four-point start. You could also reduce the distance of the accelerations. By limiting the distance, you will limit the speed the athlete attains, most likely reducing the likelihood of injury.

If you feel that these options are still too risky or the athlete does not feel comfortable with them, move down one more generation or classification to “Specific Preparatory Exercises.” Look at the biomechanics of acceleration to try to match force vectors, shapes, and types of force output. Since an acceleration is more horizontally force directed, maybe you choose a skip for distance instead of doing any actual accelerations. Skips will limit the top speed of the athlete and possibly reduce some range of motion, which will help reduce the possibility of injury, but you are still choosing an explosive movement that matches the same force vectors as an acceleration.

If the skips or other exercise you think of that fall under “Specific Preparatory Exercises” still cause the athlete discomfort, you could choose broad jumps or standing triple jumps. These also have a horizontal force component and involve overcoming inertia, which is similar to the first steps in a block start. Medicine ball power throws could also be implemented. I would have the athlete start the throw from a static position without a countermovement. This will more closely resemble the initial push out of the blocks rather than doing a throw with a countermovement or momentum involved.

Since the original workout involved repetitions to 30 meters, you could also include a few sets of exercises that resemble maximal speed sprinting. Depending on the level of the athlete, 30 meters will allow them to achieve a high percentage of top speed. Here you might implement skips for height, which involve a more vertical force vector similar to maximal sprinting. If you switch to jumps or medicine ball throws—do them with a countermovement to activate the stretch-reflex and involve momentum.

Lastly, if these exercises are still deemed too risky, maybe you drop down one more level to “General Preparatory Exercises” and switch to a bike. By using a bike, you can still try to mimic the work-to-rest ratios of the workout, so the athlete does not lose any specific fitness. When transferring a workout to the bike, you want to try the best you can to match similar work-to-rest ratios and force outputs. For an acceleration-themed workout, you would want to use extremely high levels of resistance on the bike to match the high strength outputs required from acceleration. An example acceleration-themed bike workout is below:

• Three to five sets of three repetitions of 7-10 seconds with VERY HIGH resistance.
• Use 60-90 seconds of recovery between the repetitions and 3-5 minutes of rest between the sets (similar to what you would have been having the athlete use if they were on the track).

Let’s look at a full example of what you might have come up with for the modified plan B training session. (Options are only limited by what you can come up with, how the athlete tolerates each exercise, and what your other external constraints are. There is no perfect plan B session that is all-encompassing or “one-size fits all.”)

1. Three sets of three broad jumps starting from a paused, static start (90-second set rest).
2. Two sets of three underhand forward medicine ball throws, from a paused, static start (90-second set rest).
3. Three 20-meter skips for distance (walk back recovery).
4. Three 20-meter skips for height (walk back recovery).
5. Three 30-meter dribble progressions (10 meters over the ankle, 10 meters over the calf, and 10 meters over the knee) (walk back recovery).

With the workout above you have accomplished several things.

1. Between exercises one and two, the athlete has performed 15 reps of explosive “starts,” overcoming inertia like the first push out of the blocks. (Since these will not be as taxing as a full block start, I increase the volume slightly compared to the nine in the original workout.)
2. The athlete achieved 210 meters of volume of skips and dribbles with similar work-to-rest ratios and force vectors of what would have occurred during the original workout. (Again, this is slightly more volume than the original workout since the intensity is lower.)
3. You have most likely relieved some mental stress that the athlete would have accumulated from missing a training session altogether and helped keep their confidence high.
4. You’ve helped eliminate a training gap within the return to play process and maintained some acute training load for the day.

Implementing Your Plan Bs

This identical process can be used not just for athletes that are not at 100% for the day, but also for days when the weather cancels your plans or you are constrained by facilities, space limitations, etc.

My advice is to sit down and make a list of exercises you know and classify them based on the classification system used above. Once you have a large list, organize them further into specific regressions and progressions, or group them based on your common daily training themes. Use the chart I provided as a starting point and organize it in a way that makes sense to you. I encourage you to share it with others for feedback, improvement, and the possibility of learning more.

Once you understand this framework and begin to implement Plan B training when needed, it will become easier and easier to adjust on the fly in practice when interruptions arise, says @coachjonhughes. Share on X

Once you understand this framework and begin to implement Plan B training when needed, it will become easier and easier to adjust on the fly in practice when interruptions arise. The better you are as a coach at programming Plan B work, the faster the athletes you work with will return from injury, and the better the athletes you work with will progress due to the reduction of missed training time that may result when plans are scrapped with no alternative work prescribed.

Let me know your thoughts and feedback on this approach to Plan B training (and share your exercise classifications) on X (formerly Twitter): @coachjonhughes.

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

Here in the Midwest, the weather changes by the hour. The weather app will say it should be great to be outside, with no chance of thunderstorms or snow—but then when it is time to go out, the dark clouds roll in. Now, it may not be a bad thing if you have an indoor facility. But all of a sudden you and every other program are looking for any space to get something out of the day—depending on who has it scheduled, you and your athletes may be out of luck. No weight room, no track, no nothing—except for, maybe, a wall.

Sometimes, wall drills can get a bad rap. There are plenty of social media posts showing why they are bad or why they are good. I am not here to enter that debate. I want to take it back to something more fundamental than the scissoring/high kneeing of the leg. I want to get back down to the foot.

Why So Much on the Foot?

The longer I have been coaching, the more I’ve begun to see the foot as the limiting factor in performance: the foot’s relative ability to absorb force or to redirect force seem to be keys in how fast you run. If a foot collapses on contact, that energy is dissipated (usually in the form of heat) and can’t be returned. The collapse is usually an indicator that the foot doesn’t have the strength to keep the structure of the foot. The structure of the foot would mean as little deformation of the tendon and bone structure as possible—the more the foot deforms, the longer it takes to reform to give propulsion. And, also, the longer it is then on the ground bleeding energy.

The longer I’ve been coaching, the more I’ve begun to see the foot as the limiting factor in performance: the foot’s relative ability to absorb force or to redirect force seem to be keys in how fast you run, says @korfist. Share on X

Once that energy is ready to come back, the foot is the last body part on the ground that will finish the push in a certain direction. If the push is not forward, the body will adjust the other parts so the sum of the movement will be toward the target (Don’t believe me? Watch someone run with and without a blindfold and see the difference in form.). So, the more the foot projects forward, the less the rest of the body has to compensate.

If we add some neurological aspects to this idea, the body will always go to its strength at the finish of the movement. Every great sprinter looks the same at toe-off, but there are variations to get to that point. Every great basketball shooter looks similar when the ball leaves the fingertips, but there are variations to get to that point. Frans Bosch makes this point in his book Strength Training and Coordination.

So, if we can identify what that finished position in sprinting is, we can strengthen that position with the intent that we will finish perfect.

Great, so where does the wall come in? We want to get strong in the finish position, which is toe-off. Thanks to Ike Newton’s 3rd law, we know that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if Object A acts a force upon Object B, the Object B will exert an equal and opposite force upon Object A.”

If I push into a wall with 20 Newtons, the wall will push back with 20 Newtons. More importantly, if I drive my body forward through my foot with 20N, it will push back with 20N. If I learn to hold that for a longer period of time, I will gradually develop more strength. Now, the wall can become useful.

Position #1: Basic position.

Lead knee goes into the wall, back leg is positioned behind the hips.

• The knee should be behind the hips.
• Knee is completely straight—this is important, because the quad tends to take over for the plantar flexors.

The back foot on the ground has to have the toes pulled up off the ground. This teaches the intrinsic muscles of the foot to stiffen. In this position, drive off the back leg through the wall. Initially, I like to push for longer periods, as long as a minute, to build endurance. You will be amazed at how fast athletes fatigue in this position. Eventually, we go for short hard bursts. The goal is feeling the glute work through the foot.

Video 1. Barefoot athlete in the basic position feeling their heel and big toe.

Position #2: Same as Position #1, but now raise the heel up and forward, strengthening not only the plantar flexion through the hip, but also the direction of where the athlete pushes.

Ideally, if a coach is watching from behind, they will see the heel raise and go slightly inside the ball of the big toe. The goal is to rotate over the big toe joint. Athletes who lack that range of motion or direction will push to the side or only come up an inch or two. Athletes who have been in the squat rack too long will bend their knee to help finish—a lack of plantar flexion strength. Quads can push too slowly for too long to have a big impact on a great start. I try to aim for 30 reps.

Video 2. “Your heel is a rudder.”

Position #3: Similar to Position #1 except the athlete will bend their knee as far as possible towards the ground.

To do this, the heel has to rotate forward and up. Ideally the bottom of the foot will be perpendicular to the floor. The idea is to develop the strength to hold a horizontal drive position.

Video 3. The goal is to get your knee as close to the floor as possible and your heel as perpendicular as possible.

Position #4: Same as Position #4, but now push the heel forward and follow principles of Position #2—the heel has to drive in, not out.

One Day Better in Any Conditions

The end game is the idea that we not only worked on getting stronger in our finish position, but also learned how to guide the energy. And, more importantly, we didn’t miss a workout due to bad weather or the girls’ lacrosse team getting the track in the stadium.

The end game is the idea that we not only worked on getting stronger in our finish position, but also learned how to guide the energy, says @korfist. Share on X

Regardless of any shoe policies in the school, we start with shoes and socks off and find a wall. Socks off, so that we don’t slip and also so I can see what the foot is doing. We will get into the position and hold for up to 2 minutes. Most will not make it, but I want it to get competitive at the end so my athletes don’t just stop when slightly uncomfortable or if they start shaking. We can finish with some line hops, toe pops, or single-leg hops. We then go home and hope for better weather or more favorable scheduling the next day.

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

Many sports performance coaches are familiar with the force-velocity curve, but most don’t fully grasp how it can help inform our training. In this piece, I propose we rethink the utility of the force-velocity curve when it comes to us giving athletes what they don’t naturally develop through sport. Some sports, like basketball, see athletes spend the lion’s share of their time more or less distinctly in one area of the strength curve while neglecting other regions. Performance coaches can tend to double down in that one area, giving it too much volume in programming when perhaps we really should be feeding these athletes more of what they don’t have in order to ensure more well-rounded development.

Some sports, like basketball, see athletes spend the lion’s share of their time more or less distinctly in one area of the strength curve while neglecting other regions, says @RewireHP. Share on X

We’ve all certainly heard discussions centered around athletes being more friction or muscular-driven, while others tend to be more elastic-driven. But how can this potentially inform our decision-making around training basketball players in new ways? And where does the famous strength curve fit into this? I won’t warm up and clear my throat too much, but allow me to give some brief background context.

Archetypes and Differentiators: The Why and How

Some sports are mainly contained to a certain area of the curve (e.g., powerlifters living in the maximal-strength, low-velocity region). But did you know that certain preexisting structural body shapes can inherently make athletes more “naturals” in certain areas of the curve, too?

I will get to how basketball’s home on the curve lends itself to certain tissues being loaded while others are underdeveloped, but it’s also important to know that certain athlete’s structures could do the same thing. Structure dictates function, and that means some athletes inherently may be overdeveloped or underdeveloped in some areas.

Muscular-driven athletes represent more raw force producers that tend to do better producing force in concentric-dominant fashion (e.g., gutting out a lift in an unlimited amount of time) or what’s sometimes referred to as maximal strength. These athletes tend to shine at things like traditional lifting or box jumps from a standstill.

On the flipside, their springier, elastic counterparts tend to do better accomplishing movement tasks with more rhythm and timing, pulling off movement tasks in a much narrower window of time in order to store and release elastic energy in eccentrically-driven actions.

The former could look something like an offensive lineman in football or a powerlifter; the latter, a basketball player or a high jumper.

Caveats certainly exist. For example, motor familiarity with certain patterns helps with things like coordination. A basketball player—as elastic and fluid as they might be in jumping—likely won’t be as much of a natural at, say, throwing a baseball. Training up any motor pattern is likely going to build upon one’s starting point, regardless of whether they’re naturally competent at it or not. So, that’s obviously a thing.

Next, athletes can certainly train up to improve their abilities on either side of the spectrum, too. I don’t want to come off like I’m speaking in absolutes or at all painting a picture that these things are one’s destiny, either. More just each athlete’s starting place. Comparative norms or an athlete’s given strike zone is an important consideration as well. Even the less-elastic NBA players are still going to present with more elasticity than other populations. Just less so in their own demographic. Keep that in mind when I’m referring to a given hooper as being “less elastic” and similar descriptive language.

I should also probably mention there are different stereotypical structural shapes and breathing strategies (being stuck in an inhaled vs. exhaled state) that tend to correspond to a level of these elastic/frictional outputs (or functionality) here. I’ll keep it brief because—although highly valuable to understand and something we factor into our own process in working with athletes—I want to keep this article fairly straightforward.

Speaking of competency in different motor patterns as well as types of movement strategies, shape can play a role here. For example, athletes shaped like a barrel are probably going to be better at anti-rotation and raw strength. Again, the examples of lineman and iron sports athletes come to mind. On the flip side, cylindrical-shaped, inherently “skinnier” athletes (structurally-speaking, not really as it relates to body comp) tend to be inherently better at turning. Think about most high-level baseball pitchers, such as Randy Johnson, torquing a fastball. Other shapes certainly exist, too, like triangles and upside-down triangles—while not their destiny, these different structural archetypes all present with inherent strengths and weaknesses as it relates to thriving in certain movements.

While not their destiny, different structural archetypes all present with inherent strengths and weaknesses as it relates to thriving in certain movements, says @RewireHP. Share on X

I bring this up because elastic athletes tend to—on average—be narrower in nature and present with a narrower infrasternal angle (angle of your bottom ribs). Frictional or muscular-driven athletes tend to be wider in general and also present with a larger infrasternal angle.

Getting back to the central point, when it comes to shape, structure can certainly dictate function. I think the notion of elastic vs. muscular-driven athletes tends to come off as being very bro science-sounding and more lore than science. And yet—although theoretical and all models are wrong to some extent—there does seem to be a good amount of concrete, observable evidence to suggest there is something to these concepts.

I also bring them up because in many instances as youth athletes get further down the pipeline into growth spurts and puberty, they tend to (on average) get recruited towards or nudged towards sports that inherently reflect their shapes by coaches and parents.

A refrigerator-shaped kid with size and strength may get recruited by football coaches. The long-armed, lanky youth ahead of his peers in stature often gets nudged by parents towards a sport like basketball or volleyball and away from something like wrestling. Not in every instance, but in many. This tends to get magnified the older and further into development youth athletes are.

Athletes may find themselves siloed in excess to one part of the force-velocity curve at the expense of more well-rounded development, says @RewireHP. Share on X

All this collectively means that athletes—both through sport and inherently—may find themselves siloed in excess to one part of the force-velocity curve at the expense of more well-rounded development.

This has big-time durability and performance implications, as well.

Considering Inherent Strengths and Weaknesses With Sporting Demands

Now that some of the background is out of the way as it pertains to how and why athletes may present in these ways, just keep in mind the central point of all that was being able to identify elastic/eccentric-driven/narrow ISA individuals as well as muscular/concentric-driven/wide ISA individuals and how we might look at training them differently.

Now, we’re onto the meat and potatoes question of how we, as strength coaches, fold in the types of forces—and corresponding tissue demands—they’re encountering in sport.

Although being able to identify these inherent movement and breathing strategies can help shape programming needs by feeding athletes what they don’t have inherently—as well as amplify natural gifts—it’s critical to assess the physical demands of the sport and work backwards from there.

When it comes to basketball, this means we’re talking about a more elastic-driven sport on average.

Now, how does this relate to the force-velocity curve?

Rethinking The Curve

I’m going to assume that anyone reading this article is no doubt familiar with the force-velocity curve, but I’m going to propose a different component of its utility.

Traditionally, the force-velocity curve gets discussed as it pertains to including different types of training within one’s programming in order to adequately “surf the curve” and include sufficient amounts of everything in an athlete’s programming. Obviously, that’s not the only way it gets discussed, but it’s by far the most common.

However, in this discussion, our main takeaway should be considering the force-velocity curve as it pertains to dominant movement strategies and corresponding force demands imposed on athletes by a given sport (in this case, basketball).

Basketball players are mostly elastic, reactive athletes. If you look at them on a force-velocity curve, they trend towards the lower right. But rather than thinking about force or velocity in a traditional way, think about what tissues are being loaded here.

Different tissues tend to be loaded more on each side of the continuum. Because hoopers tend to live in this region of the curve, this means they’re utilizing the elastic, fascial, musculotendinous complex far more on average than, by contrast, weightlifters or offensive linemen. Think about a powerlifter thugging out a big lift. His muscles are chiefly being taxed (in an unlimited amount of time at that) in order to accomplish a task—grinding through a movement to move a load past a sticking point. Tendons are no doubt being taxed as well, just in a different, less “elastic” capacity.

Very different force, time—and thus, tissue—demands.

Hoopers tend to encounter far more springy forces associated with storing and releasing elastic energy.

Here’s the takeaway: many reactive/elastic athletes lift the same way they play sports, bouncing the weight up and down quickly. They rarely—if ever—spend time on the left side of the continuum.

Hoopers are generally among the most springy athletes you’ll meet. They often can jump out of the gym, but cannot squat their own bodyweight. While we can’t train just muscle or tendon alone without recruiting the other, we can preferentially bias some of these tissues far more than the others.

Making a concerted effort to include really slow resistance patterns or control patterns (integrated core exercises) in training can be helpful here. Slowing down helps us really load the muscles so that they can become stronger and the athlete’s ability to recruit them becomes more ingrained. Otherwise—if left to their own devices—the way they execute strength movements may not fully capture all the benefits we’re looking to develop.

Well-designed strength work is certainly a capable foundation to unlock explosiveness in elastic athletes on the performance side, says @RewireHP. Share on X

Well-designed strength work is certainly a capable foundation to unlock explosiveness in elastic athletes on the performance side. In “Rethinking the Big Patterns,” Dr. Pat Davidson references an article that highlights the impact of eccentric and dynamic maximum strength on change of direction (COD) ability.

In the article, Keiner et al. (2014) demonstrated that long term strength training for soccer players (at least two years) led to improved COD capabilities compared to players who did not strength train.

There’s also benefit to be had on the prevention side as well.

By helping athletes recruit a wider array of tissues to accomplish movement tasks, we could be mitigating some of the usual wear and tear on their tendons and ligaments that comes with absorbing the brunt of forces encountered in their sport. Thus, there’s inherent value in terms of prevention.

As a bottom line in training, athletes may need to be fed what they aren't getting through playing their sport, and thus a solid chunk of their programming should go towards addressing these other needs, says @RewireHP. Share on X

If we’re choosing the right resistance patterns, we can pull this off without compromising movement quality. As a bottom line in training, athletes may need to be fed what they aren’t getting through playing their sport, and thus a solid chunk of their programming should go towards addressing these other needs. You could potentially say the same thing about certain athletes on the opposite end of the spectrum, as well.

Strength Training Considerations For Hoopers

My purpose in writing this article was because all too often coaches look at the strength curve from a perspective of “well, the sport lives here so I mainly need to feed them more of that. Plyos, plyos, agility, elasticity, athletic patterns, with a side of plyos.” Meanwhile, I think it could be helpful to skew a liiittle more in the opposite direction, without overdoing it.

Here’s what I tend to draw from all this in a programming context:

Basketball players need both, and the off-season is where we tend to get after it a bit more with regards to athletic, more elastic-driven patterns.

In-season, their sport is almost entirely plyometrics (meaning, elastic-dominant force demands). I don’t need to feed guys getting heavy minutes even more of that. As a matter of fact, it could make them more injury prone by adding extra city miles to their already-taxed wheels.

Some of the guys out of the rotation or who have less minutes from a load management perspective can still get after it a bit in this area, but I’m mainly going to feed my high usage guys types of low CNS-tax resistance patterns, control patterns (integrated core exercises), and relevant correctives as needed.

Well-designed strength training can be a critical piece of development that contributes to a more well-rounded, robust athlete, says @RewireHP. Share on X

In summation, many are familiar with the force-velocity curve, but it can also be helpful to rethink its utility when it comes to giving athletes what they don’t have.

In the case of basketball players, well-designed strength training can be a critical piece of development that contributes to a more well-rounded, robust athlete. By thinking about their development holistically, we can feed them more of what they don’t get (but need) to an extent through playing their sport while also amplifying their strengths.

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

Keiner M, Sander A, Wirth K, Schmidtbleicher D. Long-term strength training effects on change-of-direction sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jan;28(1):223-31. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318295644b. PMID: 23588486.

Meng Q. Study on Strength and Quality Training of Youth Basketball Players. Comput Math Methods Med. 2022 Aug 18;2022:4676968. doi: 10.1155/2022/4676968. Retraction in: Comput Math Methods Med. 2023 Sep 27;2023:9815867. PMID: 36035292; PMCID: PMC9410854.

Caparrós T, Peña J, Baiget E, Borràs-Boix X, Calleja-Gonzalez J, Rodas G. Influence of Strength Programs on the Injury Rate and Team Performance of a Professional Basketball Team: A Six-Season Follow-Up Study. Front Psychol. 2022 Feb 1;12:796098. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796098. PMID: 35178009; PMCID: PMC8845446.

Eils, Eric & Schröter, Ralph & Schröder, Marc & Gerss, Joachim & Rosenbaum, Dieter. (2010). Multistation Proprioceptive Exercise Program Prevents Ankle Injuries in Basketball. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 42. 2098-105. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e03667.

Understanding & Preventing Non-Contact ACL Injuries – American Orthopaedic Society For Sports Medicine

Knee Injuries In Athletes – by Sports Injury Bulletin

ACSM Sports Medicine Basics. (2017). Resistance Training and Injury Prevention.

de Hoyo, M. Pozzo, M. Sañudo, B. Carrasco, L. Gonzalo-Skok, O. Domínguez-Cobo, S. Morán-Camacho, E. (2013). Effects of a 10-Week In-Season Eccentric-Overload Training Program on Muscle-Injury Prevention and Performance in Junior Elite Soccer Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 10(1): 46–52.

Faigenbaum, A. Myer, G. (2010). Resistance training among young athletes: safety, efficacy and injury prevention effects. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(1):56-63.

Fleck, S. Falkel, J. (1986). Value of resistance training for the reduction of sports injuries. Sports Medicine, 3(1):61-8.

Hopkins, G. (2014). Sports Injuries: Prevention, Management and Risk Factors (Sports and Athletics Preparation, Performance, and Psychology), 1st Edition (ISBN: 978-1634633055)

Lauersen, J. Andersen, T. Andersen, L. (2018). Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(24):1557-1563.