Blog

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.

This article is probably not what you think it is—it will have little to do with business (something I know nothing about anyway), and more to do with enhancing your coaching skills. One of my goals over the previous summer was examining how to be a better salesman, so that I could do a better job of communicating to others in the program why we do what we do and get them more involved—these people primarily being athletes, coaches, therapists, and administrators.

You see, after 5 years of working as the head strength and conditioning coach in a university, I figured I had things pretty much figured out. Our teams were showing up, working hard, and getting great results. Then I noticed that whenever we brought in a new coach or new group of athletes (AKA “freshmen”), I had to gain that trust and sell myself all over again. Sure, developing a great team culture of “this is how we do things” helps, but in order to get everyone on board, I needed to step up my game because some people didn’t catch on right away or were used to a different style of training. They didn’t fully trust what we did in Sparta (our weight room), as it was unfamiliar to them.

So, I kept doing my best to enhance my art of coaching skillset by being myself, treating others with respect, explaining why we did things, and getting results. But this only went so far with the group of disbelievers—there were still those that were hesitant to fully commit to the program (athletes) or advocate for what we did in our weight room (coaches). It was then that I realized that I couldn’t just be satisfied with being a great coach and let the results speak for themselves—I needed to learn to sell what we did so that both coaches and athletes would be enticed to dive in deeper. Learning to sell would arm me with more persuasive tactics, better communication methods, and a deeper understanding of what the end user (i.e., the buyer) wanted so I could package my message accordingly.

I couldn’t just be satisfied with being a great coach and let the results speak for themselves—I needed to learn to sell what we did so that both coaches and athletes would be enticed to dive in deeper, says @chergott9. Share on X

What follows is a summary of what I have been doing over the last year to enhance my impact across our teams by being better at selling what we do in Sparta. It encompasses what I have learned as well as what I plan to do better in this area of being a “salesman” in the collegiate S&C sector.

If you want to be better at selling your product (program, methods, etc.), you need to push a little further into just how you communicate with your stakeholders and persuade them that what you are doing is best for them and their athletes at this time. The eventual goal is that your athletes buy in and work hard, coaches trust you, therapists get along with you, and your admin lets you do your thing. Here are some strategies that I have found that help and will hopefully give you some guidance as well.

1. Show How Great You Are

One of the best ways to increase buy-in and have people be happy with the work you do is to be good at it. This means delivering results, being a nice person, and being someone that athletes enjoy training with and coaches enjoy talking to. No amount of “selling ability” will save you if you simply suck at your job.

One of the best ways to increase buy-in and have people be happy with the work you do is to be good at it, says @chergott94. Share on X

Once you have that aspect covered, it all comes down to demonstrating your ability. Now I am not talking about “nerding out” on your athletes with the science of training or walking around with your many certifications in a booklet to show your coaches. I would always prefer to remain humble and have my good work be passed along from athlete to athlete (or coach) through word of mouth. Nothing helps sell others like a good testimony. In fact, I started asking athletes for a quick 2 to 3 sentences on the impact our S&C department has had on them and posted them on our social media page to help with this very thing. If a respected athlete says you are doing a good job, it goes a long way in swaying others to buy in more.

Another great way to demonstrate to others that you are crushing it is to show them when given the chance. Again, don’t walk around with your accolades in your hand, but when meeting with coaches about their team, have your testing data ready to share. That way, if they come at you with questions about your methods, you can show that it is working. Hard to argue with cold, hard facts. If an athlete starts to question or doubt, again, this can be a good time to mention that the process has worked for others and how, with your help, other athletes in the program were able to meet specific goals. This is not a time to beat your chest, go over the top, or be annoying (we all know that person)…but when given the opportunity, you need to be your biggest advocate and show people that you know your stuff and prove it!

2. Explain the “Why” of Your Program

If you want people to do what you need them to do, you need to know why you are doing it and be able to communicate that to each group in a different way so it speaks to their needs.

If you want people to do what you need them to do, you need to know why you are doing it, says @chergott94. Share on X

For example, you have your team do Olympic lifting. Great! Why? If it is because some Power 5 school is doing it, that isn’t going to cut it. You have to know the real why, so that you can communicate it effectively. As Michael Boyle puts it, you need to be able to know your stuff well enough to explain it to a 7-year-old or your grandmother. Yeah, you have to know it really well.

And that answer will change by group/team/individual. For example, each of the groups you interact with will be asking a different question about what you do and you need to have an answer for each:

• Athletes: “How will this help me get better (bigger/faster/stronger)?”
• Sport Coach: “How will this help us win games?”
• Therapist: “How will this help reduce injuries?”
• Admin: “How will this make us better and make an impact on the athletes?”

So… how will Olympic lifting accomplish each of those things?

My solution for this is to know the why that is right for them and learn to speak their language. When an athlete is asking why they are doing something, being able to explain it in a way that will demonstrate the performance gains (or even aesthetic ones) will go a long way.

With a sport coach, therapist, or admin, they might not get the chance to ask you “why” as often (as you simply don’t see them as much), but when they do it matters. I’ve been in meetings with sport coaches where they shredded my programs and demanded to know why we were doing certain exercises over others (for example, trap bar jumps instead of hang power cleans with hockey players). In order to understand their side and be able to clearly and effectively communicate the why, I had to ask more questions. “What do you like about doing hang cleans for your team?”

Turns out, they wanted power production and saw a video on pro athletes doing it.

So, I explained how trap bar jumps developed power in a more sport-specific (and force-time-specific) way than cleans, how it was safer for their wrists, would save time and energy for them to train harder on the ice (less time/mental energy to learn), and showed demos of pro athletes who were doing trap bar jumps. Conversation was much smoother after that.

So, while you knowing the “why” of your program is vital, it is even more vital that you can communicate that message to the various stakeholders so they can grasp it for themselves. Like learning to speak multiple languages, it will take time, but it will make you more versatile in how you communicate and who you can reach with your message.

So, while you knowing the 'why' of your program is vital, it is even more vital that you can communicate that message to the various stakeholders so they can grasp it for themselves, says @chergott94. Share on X

How is this done? Study the sport, have a reason in your head each time you program an exercise, and whenever you see an athlete perform that movement, remind yourself why (and feel free to remind the athletes why in a start-of-session briefing). Explaining your message is much easier if it is top of mind. Not rehearsed (this isn’t as difficult as you think it is). It is as simple as watching your athletes move as you normally do, but as they execute a movement and you are watching their form, just a quick note of “that split squat is going to help their sprint speed while reducing the load on their spin” to yourself is all you need to keep it top of mind and ready to fire off when asked.

3. Communicate on THEIR Terms

This is one I struggled with for a long time. I am a big email guy. I will shove emails down your throat all day, but please don’t call me (the introvert in me hates that). However, I have learned that I need to communicate with my audience the way they are most receptive to, not just the way I want to, if I want to communicate my message and make sure the stakeholders are receiving it.

What I mean by that is everyone has a method of communication they prefer. Once again, I love email. Most athletes prefer text or social media DMs. Male ice hockey players love phone calls for some reason. Regardless of what it is, you need to communicate to them when able and appropriate. I am not saying you should send DMs to athletes all the time about important info. But knowing someone’s preferred communication method can help them respond to you in a timely fashion (and/or even receive the message in the first place).

Knowing someone’s preferred communication method can help them respond to you in a timely fashion (and/or even receive the message in the first place), says @chergott94. Share on X

This means I text or call our coaches, post on Instagram more often, and send messages into the team group chat through our weight room leaders. I’d still rather send an email—most often I still do, and the message to the team is simply “Hey, can you tell your teammates to check their email?” This has greatly increased the receptivity of my communication and reduced the amount of “Oh, I didn’t see that email” coupled with a blank stare when I bring up a topic/point I made before.

It also depends on what your message is and what medium works best. For example, I have a sponsorship through a supplement company to get a discount on their products. If I want to communicate info regarding that deal and give out my discount code, it would make sense to send it via email as most people probably order things online through their laptop instead of their phone (I mean, at least I do anyway). If I have a message I need to communicate on a Saturday, guess what? I’m not using email as everyone goes dark until Monday. So, if that is the case, I send a text or a message in the team chat to make sure everyone sees it.

Knowing the recipient’s communication preference is important, but so is understanding the logistics of your message and the implications of acting on it as well.

Sales Bonuses

Some extra ways I have found to increase my “selling ability” to athletes and within the department are:

• Be a good storyteller. Analogies are huge for me to get my message across in a way that makes sense instead of just spitting science at people all the time.
• Highlight successes. As Dale Carnegie states, “Be lavish in your praise.” If you want people to go the extra mile for you, highlight them when they do. This can be in a weekly email newsletter or social media post. By letting people know you “see them” and appreciate them, it will increase buy-in all around.
• Be adaptable. Whether it is for an injury, wanting a recovery session due to a tryout camp coming up, or an athlete who wants to spend a little more time working on their sprint form, being willing and able to modify the program to suit the needs of that person goes a long way in showing you care and demonstrating that you will work for them if they work for you.

One last helpful tip I can share is that last summer I reread How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, which that has loads of tips for this exact topic and is a must-read for anyone working with other people.

Peace. Gains.

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 profession of strength and conditioning is a gratifying and rewarding career choice. One of the aspects that makes this true is the collegiality amongst coaches who are willing to help you improve the performance of your athletes and educate and mentor you to become a good strength and conditioning coach so that you, in turn, can help others advance the strength and conditioning profession.

However, I have also noticed what appears to be a shift in the strength and conditioning profession with the popularity of various social media sites such as X (Twitter), which give a voice to coaches on specific topics and issues related to strength and conditioning. The following article will address four issues that I have noticed in the profession and ways that, as coaches, we can improve these areas, which could enhance the strength and conditioning profession.

Problem 1: Younger coaches need to understand and learn some of the older training methods used by pioneers in strength and conditioning, which have produced some of the world’s top collegiate, professional, and Olympic athletes.

One of the issues I see is that younger coaches are not taking the time to learn and appreciate the older methodologies of strength and conditioning and are more focused on understanding the newer methodologies of training or what they see on social media. Most of these supposedly new training methodologies are not new at all. For example, one of the newer training methodologies you see on social media is how we have started to focus on plyometrics. There are countless videos that show athletes jumping up on 50-inch boxes or even higher that are not using correct jumping and landing techniques, which could lead to serious injury.

Younger coaches need to understand and learn some of the older training methods used by pioneers in strength and conditioning, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

To ensure that your athletes are jumping and landing with the correct technique, good plyometric training should start with a progression:

1. Low-volume non-countermovement jumps
2. Countermovement jumps
3. Double contact
4. Continuous jumps

Following this progression ensures that the tendons and ligaments are getting stronger and able to adapt to the imposed stress and demands that will be placed on them in various training sessions.

Each phase of the training should have a specific goal. For example, non-countermovement jumps do not use the stretch shortening cycle and are a good exercise for improving the start. Countermovement jumps start to utilize the stretch shortening cycle, which trains the ability of the athlete to apply more force and move faster. The double contact jumps work on being elastic, and the continuous jumps work on further improving that elasticity. Good programming will include jumps, hops, and bounds in the sagittal, frontal and transverse plains.

Similarly, another training methodology that I see frequently used is accommodating resistance. Accommodating resistance training is designed to improve the bench, squat, and deadlift by adjusting the resistance in the exercise’s concentric or eccentric contraction to align with the strength curve using bands and chains. The use of accommodating resistance is a popular training method used by experienced powerlifters to increase the bench, squat, and deadlift to overcome a sticking point and ultimately then add a few pounds to their maximum lift. The problem is that some coaches use bands and chains on younger athletes who have not yet developed relative or absolute strength—coaches should be aware of why accommodating resistance has traditionally been used and how to use this training method appropriately with their athletes.

The Westside, Triphasic and Heavy Supramaximal Training could be good training systems for more advanced athletes; however, the root of these training programs comes from the basic training principles that the Eastern Bloc countries have used for years. The Westside is composed of Soviet and Bulgarian training methods, which include a maximum, dynamic, and repetition workload and the conjugate periodization model. This training system could be used for training powerlifters or even advanced weightlifters, but I do not think this training system would be a good way to train a middle or high school and even a collegiate athlete.

Triphasic training is a system that involves training the eccentric, isometric, and concentric lifting phases in different training blocks with the goal of stressing these areas in the various exercises to improve strength and power by using a modified, undulating periodization model. The Triphasic style of training stems from a training system called the Complex Parallel that the Soviets used in the 1960s to expose athletes to several areas of focus for each workout.  Supramaximal Training (a newer training method, considered part two of Triphasic training) is a form of eccentric training with higher loads that athletes are typically not accustomed to.

These can be effective training methods for various sports or athletes; however, the specifics of them can also be very confusing for a younger strength and conditioning coach or intern just entering the profession. At this point, they may not yet have the basic knowledge to discern which program would be best for the level of athletes they are currently working with.

Older, more experienced coaches can find ways to reach out to younger coaches and educate and mentor them so they understand the basic training methods and systems of periodization, strength, power, speed, plyometrics, and conditioning to reduce the chance of injury and improve athletic performance. If we want to improve the strength and conditioning profession, we need to understand that young coaches (or even experienced coaches) learn what they’ve been taught and then figure out what hasn’t been taught on their own. One of the problems with not being taught the correct way and trying to figure it out on your own is that you just might develop training programs and exercise techniques that do not improve athletic performance, but instead lead to serious injuries. Younger coaches also need to contact some of these older coaches for help and mentorship so they can learn and develop into more well-rounded strength and conditioning coaches.

Problem 2: Arguing on social media without recognizing it can burn bridges for the future.

Another stumbling block I see is the amount of arguing on social media sites (often on X). We all have an ego, and sometimes, we let our egos and emotions get in the way of our thinking. As a coach, I know it might not be a good idea to let your ego get in the way of professional behavior, and I have also fallen into this trap. I do not think that most coaches who participate in this behavior realize that what they are doing is unprofessional and could burn bridges that might limit other opportunities for you down the road in your career.

If you disagree with a coach, first try messaging them to discuss the concern privately. This shows professional respect for the coach and develops a positive relationship you might need in your coaching career. The coaching profession is a tight knit circle of coaches who, more than likely, have come from branches that connect somewhere on the coaching tree. I once got into a discussion with a coach on X concerning a training system that he posted online, and he had called out several experts and well respected coaches online while advancing his own training style. I responded to him online and quickly realized that I had only added fuel to the fire. I then sent the coach a private message informing him why I thought his posts were not professional—he replied, thanked me for letting him know, and apologized.

I think every coach should take the time to read Coach Kurt Hester’s book Rants of a Strength and Conditioning Madman. Coach Hester states:

“Brand yourself to your athletes and not on social media. When your career is over and the only thing of any substance is how many lives you impacted and not how many ‘Likes’ you accumulated.”¹

We can seem so caught up in creating our next social media post and seeing how many likes and followers we can get that we may have forgotten why we are in this profession. I’ve also done the same, simply regurgitating information I have read or heard on a podcast while trying to increase my follower count or get easy likes on social media. Some coaches appear to equate the number of likes and followers a coach has to their knowledge of strength and conditioning. Every coach in this profession needs to understand that in a heated moment, you might have crushed or embarrassed a coach and put a W in your win column. Still, in reality, you actually just put an L because a burned bridge and unprofessional behavior can foreclose future opportunities in this and other professions.

A burned bridge and unprofessional behavior can foreclose future opportunities in S&C and other professions, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

Problem 3: Coaches not providing credit for where they learned things.

As professionals, we need to take the time to give credit to the coaches who have taken the time to show us and mentor us on some of the training systems that they have used to achieve success. We have all learned something from someone else at a clinic or conference, or been given a simple answer to a question that has provided us with the correct information to help our athletes or clients.

You can give credit to another coach you learned from during your next presentation, or in a discussion with another coach you could be having. I have learned a lot from Michael Boyle at MBSC, Lee Taft, Lance Walker, and several others in the field of strength of conditioning, and I always try to recommend their books and videos when talking with other coaches in the field. Giving a coach credit can go a long way in developing a relationship with that coach. As Isaac Newton said,  “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”—likewise, we need to take the time to recognize the giants in our profession.

Giving a coach credit can go a long way in developing a relationship with that coach, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

Problem 4: Not being willing to pay it forward.

Finally, a last issue I’ve experienced is the opposite of the above—fellow coaches not answering another coach’s question. I remember approaching a well-known coach at the NSCA Coaches Conference in San Antonio years ago—he told me I had to schedule an appointment to meet during the conference to answer any questions.

To be good at anything, you need to be willing to invest in your education, which takes time and can be expensive; however, just because you invested time in yourself does not mean you are too busy to answer a coach’s question or give them professional career advice. I have heard from younger coaches that when they asked an experienced coach a question, they were directed to buy one of their programs and told they would find their answer in the program. Experienced coaches need to take the time and be willing to share information, because younger coaches are in the development/growth field and “hoarding” information knowledge only hurts other athletes who want to get better.

I think some coaches are so advanced in this profession that they have forgotten they were once eager young coaches who just wanted to get better and achieve an advanced level in strength and conditioning. Some caution is understandable, there are coaches who will ask a question to draw you into an argument or try to embarrass you—and in a situation like this, it is always best to be professional and move on. You will also have coaches who are too lazy to read on their own to learn or attend a clinic; as a professional, you can discern these types of coaches.

I think some coaches are so advanced in this profession that they have forgotten they were once eager young coaches who just wanted to get better, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

Final Thoughts

As a strength and conditioning professional, I have stopped arguing with coaches on social media sites over a training philosophy or the videos they post with bad exercise techniques. If you do not agree with a coach or want to know more, take the time to reach out to the coach and discuss it privately to maintain and develop a professional relationship.

Additionally, always take the time to give the pioneers in this profession credit for their contributions to strength and conditioning. We would not be where we are today if not for the mistakes they made along the way and their successes, both of which have helped make us better coaches. Always be grateful for the opportunity to answer a coach’s question and give back to the profession. If you are too busy to answer a question, you are too busy to be in this profession. The strength and conditioning profession was founded on coaches helping coaches. Finally, I heard a well respected expert in strength and conditioning, Coach Lance Walker, state: “In our profession, everyone gets better and that doesn’t make us very special. People Just Get Better When You Work Them.”  This should make you realize that we may not be as remarkable as we think.

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

Reference

1. Hester, K. (2019). Rants of A Strength and Conditioning Coach Madman

A common theme throughout the strength and conditioning field revolves around the purpose, if any, that “speed” or “agility” ladders serve. I used quotation marks around the terms “speed” and “agility” because we know that ladders do not inherently train speed or agility in athletes. So, what can this attention-grabbing piece of equipment help with? Before we get into some potential benefits of using what is often deemed silly, let us first look at what these ladders do NOT do.

“Speed” ladders do not directly improve speed. Speed training can be broken down into:

• Technical work
• Acceleration work
• Max velocity work.

Within each of these categories, there are also primary, secondary, and tertiary speed training exercises. Primary exercises directly improve speed by specifically training with the appropriate speeds and technique. An example of a primary acceleration exercise is a pushup start.

Secondary exercises assist in speed training, but the speed or technique might be slightly altered. An example of a secondary acceleration exercise is a heavy resisted sprint: a sled pull so heavy that sprinting technique is broken down. The athlete is still receiving force production training that can benefit acceleration, but with a reduction in specificity due to technical breakdown.

Lastly, tertiary exercises complement the positions and characteristics of speed training, but in a much more general sense. An example of a tertiary acceleration exercise might be a broad jump: a plyometric exercise that targets horizontal force production, but which looks and feels nothing like sprinting. All of these types of exercises have their place in training, and although ladders often require athletes to move at higher speeds, the drills primarily used with ladders are very unlike sprinting.

“Agility” ladders also do not directly improve agility. Agility is defined by the NSCA as “the skills and abilities needed to change direction, velocity, or mode in response to a stimulus” (Haff & Triplett, 2016). Like with speed training, the ladder does not encourage the use of proper mechanics for changing direction and becoming more agile. Furthermore, most ladder drills do not incorporate changing direction, velocity, or mode in response to a stimulus, which is a key component of agility.

So, Where Do Ladders Fit into Athletic Development?

Here are four areas where athletes may benefit from the use of ladders in training.

1. Warm-ups

Ladder drills can be beneficial in raising the heart rate of your athletes. In following the RAMP protocol (Haff & Triplett, 2016), the warmup should begin with activities that elevate “body temperature, heart rate, respiration rate, blood flow, and joint fluid viscosity via low-intensity activities.” The ladder can certainly accomplish all of these when done appropriately.

Video 1. Two-foot and alternating lead foot.

Video 2. Hopscotch—try to imagine the ceiling just above your head, and keep the same height the entire time. No bouncing up and down!

Additionally, sticking with the RAMP protocol, the ladder may also serve to potentiate the nervous system for subsequent training. In fact, 2023 NFL Offensive Player of the Year, Christian McCaffrey has a video in which he discusses beginning his training sessions with the ladder. In the video, he explains that he uses the ladder to get his “feet warm,” his “hips moving,” and “brain synced up” with his body. Incorporating ladder drills in this way can provide a similar stimulus to more traditional track-based drills, like A-marches and A-skips, giving coaches another tool in their toolbox for athlete development.

Video 3. Always popular, “The Icky Shuffle.”

Incorporating ladder drills to potentiate the nervous system can provide a similar stimulus to more traditional track-based drills, like A-marches and A-skips, says @coachtj_cahill. Share on X

2. Coordination/Timing

Using the ladder in your warmups can not only serve the purpose of warming the athlete up, but you might even be able to get some coordination improvements as well, depending on the training age of the athlete. Younger or newer athletes will certainly experience rapid improvements in their motor control and coordination.

Video 4. Hip Switch and Snake: Encourage your athletes to pace themselves here. These drills are not about speed, but rather coordination and timing of contractions.

Using the ladder in your warmups can not only serve the purpose of warming the athlete up, but you might even be able to get some coordination improvements as well, says @coachtj_cahill. Share on X

Video 5. In/Out Series with multiple variations.

Challenging the body with ladder drills done at faster paces can help improve the rate coding ability of your body (Enoka & Duchateau, 2017). Rate coding is the speed at which neural impulses are conducted to the individual motor units within the muscle (Deschenes, 1989)—this can be key for enhancing Rate of Force Development (Enoka & Duchateau, 2017), which is critical for improving sport performance (Iguchi et al., 2011; Sheppard et al., 2008). Some of the ladder drills shown above, like the “Lateral 1 In, 2 Out” or the “Snake” are examples of drills that can help improve rhythm and coordination in your athletes.

3. Extensive Plyometric Contacts

Using the ladder can also increase the number of extensive plyometric contacts within a session. Although extensive plyometrics may not be as effective as more intensive plyometrics at training Rate of Force Production, they still serve a purpose in helping athletes develop adequate tissue tolerance and capacity for handling more intense plyometrics.

Video 6. Scissors. Cue opposite arm action with your athletes: the left arm moves with the right leg and vice-versa.

This might be most beneficial during a general physical preparation (GPP) block, to help prepare the athletes for more intense movements later on. Additionally, training our athletes to repeat submaximal plyometric efforts can also be critical for sports that require more endurance and repeated efforts, such as soccer. Each drill shown in this article can be strung together for a quick ladder series before your training sessions, and you can add sets to the series as the weeks go on and your athletes build up a plyometric base.

Although extensive plyometrics may not be as effective as more intensive plyometrics at training Rate of Force Production, they can still help athletes develop tissue tolerance and capacity for handling more intense plyometrics. Share on X

4. Engagement

“You need to get him/her going on the agility ladder this offseason.” This is a common suggestion that I hear from parents, athletes, and coaches alike. Ladders attract a lot of attention, especially when elite athletes are completing the drills smoothly and gracefully.

Many athletes acknowledge the significance of being able to execute their movements on the court or field with fluidity, and recognize the ladder as a way of improving this quality. This engagement factor of using ladders should not be overlooked.

Video 7. High Knee Crossover & Speed Crossover. The goal here is speed! You can drive intent by putting two ladders side by side and having athletes race against each other.

Athletes want to use the ladders (though often for misguided reasons), and this desire alone can be enough to drive intent, and bring about the aforementioned improvements to timing and coordination. Of course, as with any training plans, it is important to inform athletes and coaches of the WHY behind everything you do, and drive the education of your athletes.

Video 8. Carioca pattern.

Taking it to the Training Ground

Returning to the opening section—where I discussed primary, secondary, and tertiary exercises for training speed and agility—you might classify ladder drills as tertiary exercises for accomplishing this goal. Increasing rate coding and coordination between the brain and the rest of the body can indirectly increase speed and agility, as well as athletic performance.

Are there more specific and more beneficial drills for training speed and agility? Absolutely. By no means should ladders REPLACE sprinting drills or change of direction/agility drills, says @coachtj_cahill. Share on X

Are there more specific and more beneficial drills for training speed and agility? Absolutely. By no means should ladders replace sprinting drills or change of direction/agility drills. But are there appropriate uses of ladder drills in training? Of course. By adding ladders to your coaching toolbox, you can spice up your warm-ups, reap some enhanced coordination benefits, add in some extensive plyometric contacts, and drive greater intent from your athletes.

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

Deschenes, M. (1989). Short review: Rate coding motor unit recruitment patterns. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 3(2), 34-39.

Enoka, R.M., & Duchateau, J. (2017). Rate coding and the control of muscle force. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 7, 1-12.

Haff, G. G., & Triplett, N. T. (2016). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4^th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Iguchi, J., Yamada, Y., Ando, S., Fujisawa, Y., Hojo, T., Nishimura, K., Kuzuhara, K., Yuasa, Y., & Ichihashi, N. (2011). Physical and performance characteristics of Japanese division I college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3368-3377.

Sheppard, J. M., Cronin, J. B., Gabbett, T. J., McGuigan, M. R., Etxebarria, N., & Newton, R. U. (2008). Relative importance of strength, power, and anthropometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(3), 758-765.