Blog

We squat to build leg strength, we sprint to get faster, and we jump to increase distinct force-time characteristics. In other words, we use different methods to optimize our lower limb capacity with the ultimate goal to improve sports performance, yet we frown upon closed change of direction (COD) drills due to their lack of specificity. If we want to prepare our athletes for unforeseeable worst-case scenarios in situ, however, these COD drills are a highly specific tool that builds physical antifragility.

This post aims to increase our understanding about the why of COD drills, then highlights the how, and finishes with practical examples showing the what. By no means have I originated the ideas presented here by myself, but rather from constant discussion about all things physical preparation with Sophia Nimphius (@DocSoph) and Anastasios Karamitros (@powerathleticsgymtraining).

Acknowledging Uncertainty in Our Decision-Making

Many approaches and coaching philosophies exist in the S&C community, although we share a common and universal denominator: I want my team or athlete to win! With this in mind along with my understanding of my role from a purely physical point of view, my goal is to help my athletes experience as much quality and quantity of deliberate practice as I can, absent any pathology. The only way to get better players is to give them opportunities to accumulate as much game exposure as possible (see Image 1).

Due to our limited training time, we need to pick methods that have the greatest potential while also having a beneficial risk-to-reward ratio to build antifragility specific to the demands in our sport. The solution for this exercise selection problem, however, depends on:

• The degree of uncertainty in our programming. Knowing what the athlete’s limiting factors are and how they’ll adapt to certain interventions is a highly complex and fluctuating process differing not only between athletes but also within the same athlete with respect to time.
• The amount of variance in our exercise selection is infinite. Thanks to Instagram and Twitter, we have access to a never-ending number of drills and exercises. We also can manipulate sets and reps, frequencies, durations, and work-to-rest ratios.
• The amount of scientific evidence to support our decisions is very small. Research experiments only tell us what happened under precisely defined conditions but not what happens considering all conditions that exist in reality. Philosophically, it is impossible to conduct research that’s as complex as reality, and applying evidence from reductionist research is only beneficial in theory. Also, we see a high interindividual response to every intervention, which makes it impossible to predict any adaptation on the individual level. But research evidence does provide a spectrum of adaptation that might occur.

The solution lies in simplicity and pragmatism. Up until recent attempts to translate research from ecological psychology in the hopes of facilitating S&C practice, closed COD drills were an integral part of many programs for a long time. This long presence provides a “Lindy-proof” of the justification and application of closed COD drills in the pursuit of building antifragile athletes.

It seems that the pendulum has now swung toward open skills with proponents selling the belief that drills without a perceptual-cognitive element won’t help our athletes.

On a side note, how perceptual-cognitive abilities that do transfer to in situ scenarios are best trainable is another topic. But keep in mind, there have been researchers studying this question for decades who have not come up with a definitive answer. Luckily the S&C community solved this problem with various types and progressions of 1v1 and mirror drills (I say this sarcastically).

Simplicity and Pragmatism of COD Drills

During COD tasks, athletes need to use their eccentric strength to decelerate or brake momentum and their isometric strength to maintain a stable and efficient intersegmental alignment—and not leak energy through potential weak links during the transition period. They also must use their concentric strength to reaccelerate in the new direction within 200ms on one leg while effectively controlling the center of gravity over the base of support.

Trying to determine which physical capacity is the limiting factor for each athlete while trying to improve it with established methods in subsequent intervention periods seems like an Ivory-Tower approach, assuming the availability of adequate resources to do so. What if deficits in any COD task—in a closed drill or in situ—are due to a lack of movement experience in controlling the athlete’s body positions and avoiding unnecessary movements, while effectively controlling and using mechanical braking forces to change direction? What if this is only present in one direction or off one limb and we’ve missed identifying this deficit?

If only we had a training method that addresses all of these potentially limiting factors with a high degree of mechanical specificity. Exposing athletes to a handful of simple, and therefore “non-Instagram-able,” COD drills in basic configurations will inevitably target—albeit with different emphases—all of the capacities and abilities mentioned above. Although we deal with complex systems, we certainly can help with simple yet effective interventions. Simplicity on the surface is often mistaken as a lack of effectiveness while entirely ignoring its benefits.

Prescribing these simple drills, however, requires a high degree of confidence about their effectiveness in what they can achieve. Increasing our pragmatic understanding about a couple of key variables we can manipulate to elicit a mechanical overload and build antifragility is good enough to ensure they work satisfactorily.

Favoring simplicity and pragmatism in my approach for antifragility, I use this heuristic in my daily work: force is force, and the accompanying strain to the body is strain to the body. It doesn’t matter which stimulus we use to elicit certain loads, surely our passive structures will adapt to it.

Specificity of Worst-Case Situations

As an S&C coach, I want to prepare athletes as much as possible for any biomechanical and physiological worst-case scenarios that can happen in their particular sport. I can minimize their risks from experiencing loads that put them in a suboptimal position to succeed in their task. When considering COD movements, one cannot ignore the accompanying injury risk to the knee and the prevalence of ligamentous pathologies in many invasion sports.

Closed COD drills prepare athletes for biomechanical and physiological worst-case scenarios in their sport, says @DanielKadlec. #ClosedCODdrills Share on X

One common biomechanical denominator associated with ACL injury risk during sidestepping tasks are knee valgus moments (KVM) that cause strain on the ACL. Loads exceeding the tissue capacity of the ligament will inevitably compromise an athlete’s orthopedic health. With this understanding, we can reverse engineer the causal relationship between KVM and ACL injury risk into COD drills. The idea is to microdose KVM within a specific movement pattern, supercompensate, and subsequently increase tissue capacity.

We can reverse engineer the causal relationship between knee movements & ACL injury risk into closed COD drills, says @DanielKadlec.#ClosedCODdrills Share on X

We know from biomechanical research that such variables as entry velocity, cutting angle, trunk alignment, and preparation time before the cutting motion have a direct relationship with the magnitude of KVMs. Manipulating at least one of these variables alters the mechanical demands upon the athlete, assuming sufficient motor competence to execute the drills with adequate intent.

• Entry velocity. Faster approach speeds result in greater KVMs. Prescribing distinct run-up intensities before the COD task or increasing the run-up distance affect the subsequent loading magnitudes. As most ACL injuries in situ occur at a travel velocity of 3.5-5ms^-2 and KVMs are maximized at 5.5ms^-2, this seems to be a sufficient speed to work toward. It’s also been reported that an ACL rupture occurs 17-50ms after ground contact during the weight acceptance phase. Hence, one can argue that maximizing exit velocity is necessarily needed in the pursuit of experiencing worst-case loads.
• Cutting angle. COD made to greater angles up to a certain degree result in greater KVMs. Cutting angles between 45-90° tend to be the range where the majority of non-contact ACL injuries happen. Athletes might perceive their affordances for these COD tasks as appropriate and miss to decrease their entry velocity sufficiently in the steps before the final cutting steps. The potential energy of the travel system then exceeds tissues capacities.

In other words, athletes think they can handle such aggressive COD movements, but “reality is often disappointing” (Thanos, 2018). Although during COD tasks of 90-180° high magnitudes of torque act on the athlete in all planes and directions while twisting and turning, no athlete will do that without having decelerated to a sufficient amount before (i.e., slam the foot into the ground and turn while traveling at a high velocity). Hence, this has a lower priority in my set-up, assuming the athlete has a proficient deceleration capacity (see Image 2).

• Trunk alignment. Lateral flexion and rotation of the trunk away from the intended COD during the final cutting step result in greater KVMs. Failing to align the trunk (this includes the lumbo-pelvic complex, torso, and arms) in a favorable position during the COD task decreases trunk sway and increases injury risk. Disturbing or delaying an adequate trunk alignment during a COD task with appropriate task constraints can further prepare the athlete for worst-case scenarios. Holding a weighted implement in one or both hands or crossing the arms throughout the tasks are simple methods to sufficiently alter the movement pattern.

• Preparation time. Less time to prepare for a COD task results in greater KVMs. Manipulating the time available to determine the direction an athlete cuts is likely one of our most impactful variables. The more time an athlete has to prepare, the less strenuous the COD tasks is, as the athlete experiences lower loads (see Image 3).

We can visualize this in a continuum: pre-planned COD drills followed by unplanned COD drills in response to a human stimulus, which are followed by an unplanned COD drills in response to a generic stimulus (i.e., flashy light or cone color). This might get confusing, as we define unplanned drills as open COD drills.

The only intention I have with these unplanned COD drills is to chip away an athlete’s preparation time and then increase mechanical loading and have zero expectations to improve any perceptual-cognitive abilities. Although generic stimuli are regarded as highly unspecific to react to—with which I agree—they are a potent tool to prepare for similar in situ scenarios when almost no time is available to prepare. Examples include times when vision is compromised, a ball has a funny bounce, or avoiding tackles. Also, as better athletes tend to have superior perceptual-cognitive abilities (see Image 4), COD drills in response to a human stimulus might not elicit sufficient loads to build antifragility further.

Video 1. Examples of how to manipulate variables to prepare an athlete for biomechanical worst-case scenarios.

Manipulating any of the variables mentioned above to elicit a sufficient mechanical load can help prepare your athlete for possible in situ worst-case scenarios, which are unavoidable. If your athlete experiences a load that results in high KVMs in situ for the first time, you have done an insufficient job preparing your athlete. The best case in this situation is that the athlete loses the 1v1 situation and the opponent scores. The worst case is either a hamstring or bone-patella-bone graft as your brand new ACL.

The argument that movement patterns in closed COD tasks and open COD in response to a stimulus are different—so we must train a different skillset separately—is flawed and redundant. Yes, movement kinematics are significantly different, but we use COD drills to enhance the underlying physical capacity in the same way we use all sorts of vertical jumps to increase various lower limb characteristics (think RFD or stiffness). Never have I seen an athlete on the pitch perfectly execute a CMJ as we do in the gym all the time. Both are methods to trigger adaptations to increase an athlete’s physical capacities.

Embrace the Chaos

As with all interventions, a periodized approach is possible. When going from low load to high load, we can do:

• slow to fast entry velocity
• low to high cutting angle
• absence to presence of task constraints
• pre-planned to unplanned to affect preparation time
• a combination of all variables

Also, the amount of exposure per leg is plannable and quantifiable. While this all is in accordance with every text-book, it lacks skin in the game. On day one of preseason, athletes will start being exposed to all sorts of movement patterns in their particular sport. You can either convince your head coach to only run drills without any COD—as you need to progress load intensities over weeks (right?)—or you can start to microdose worst-case loads in your training.

Another popular approach to reducing high-risk movement patterns is to explicitly focus on isolated kinematic features, such as distinct joint positions or segment interactions throughout the motion, and ingrain them repetitively. Whether this approach alters the movement pattern favorably outside of the particular drill is highly questionable.

As we know, movement is a function of the organism, the tasks, and the environment, and I want my athletes to be successful despite their situation. Hence, I very rarely cue distinct body positions or movement sequences. Instead, I expose my athletes to variable conditions (a constraints-led approach) and work on the underlying physical capacities so they can explore what movement patterns are best for each of them in their situation.

My Two Cents on COD for Sporting Success

With my work—increasing the physical capacity and preparing for worst-case scenarios—I have my athletes experience greater quantities and qualities of deliberate practice as well as high volumes of game exposure. The approach involves various simple and pragmatic COD drills to lower the risk of failure in worst-case scenarios and create success despite the often-compromised position they’re in.

Despite all the available evidence and the global experiences of the S&C community, “everything that is done in this world is done by hope” (Martin Luther, 1483-1546). We can only hope to do our athlete a service with our well-intended and reasonably justified interventions while acknowledging the inherent complexity of uncertainty of our profession.

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

References

1. Lee, et al. “Effects of Pivoting Neuromuscular Training on Pivoting Control and Proprioception.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise2014; 46(7): 1400-1409.

The keen strength and conditioning coach is well aware of the value of monitoring performance in the gym with velocity-based training (VBT) devices. Still, the application of VBT is underused in a very specific way—monitoring performance in upper body vertical pulling exercises.

While there are many examples of exercises that can create more specific adaptations for sport performance through the help of VBT devices, we’re just breaking the shadows of the dark ages in using this technology to help build a program that creates more powerful chin-ups and pull-ups. Consequently, we may be failing to fully take advantage of how vertical pulling can serve as a puzzle piece to improve our athletes’ power and speed in their respective sports.

This omission is likely inadvertent, as many of us believe we’re checking off the upper body pulling boxes by simply including chin-ups, pull-ups, and their related variations in our program. With the assurance that resembles a citizen performing basic civil duties, we pat ourselves on the back and go on our merry way programming vertical pulling in a program and then offer more conviction about optimizing pressing power development using VBT.

While there is efficacy in our application of eccentric and isometric principles to vertical pulling improvement, I fear we may believe the illusion that we’re programming vertical pulling for the most optimal athletic development. I hope to present this question as a worthy one: “Is my athlete more powerful in vertical pulling?” You may concede you never deemed the question important. You may also find you don’t like your answer upon deeper reflection.

We Believe in Power but Do We Believe in Vertical Pulling for Power?

Power is a Holy Grail of sorts for many strength and conditioning coaches, and we pursue the development of this quality with much devotion. The ability to increase the amount of work performed per unit of time is a critical ability that allows our athletes to compete at a higher level of performance in competition.

If I were to poll the readers of this article, we would all likely agree that an athlete improving their back squat numbers in the weight room does not guarantee enhanced vertical jumping ability (power expression). Through the Dynamic Strength Index (DSI), we can observe the relationship between maximum force and ballistic force. And, if we conceptually observe an explosive strength deficit, we can typically deliver future programming tactics that contain wisdom to drive more intentional adaptations to remove the deficit.

Ironically, I’ve observed that our vertical pulling programs usually stop at simply increasing force potential with weighted pulls or improving total rep count with unassuming concentric actions. And we don’t seem alarmed by the lack of conviction in being explosive in the way we would for other movements.

We can perform strict form vertical pulling with high intent for speed to improve power production, says @RichterJeff. #VerticalPullingForPower Share on X

Whether or not we approve of kipping pull-ups, many of us may be hesitant to emphasize the concentric speed in vertical pulling for fear of replicating the kip. Nonetheless, I’ve found that it’s possible to perform strict form vertical pulling with high intent for speed to improve power production.

Of course, obtaining strength and competencies in the body weight movement are key, and this is where we should start. Many athletes may struggle with completing one rep, but in what other movement is the mountaintop of our athletes’ abilities getting stronger and not more powerful? When I realized I was a hypocrite in this regard, I chose to research what I was missing. Surely there was a reason I didn’t see coaches having their athletes pull for power—right?

The Posterior Oblique Sling and Implications for Training

Understanding fiber type composition of the latissimus dorsi and the myofascial connections, or “trains” (as coined by Thomas Myers), have implications for how we can optimize the training process and the results we can expect from a vertical pulling program that’s intentional about power development. Though fiber type can vary considerably from person to person, we can still make thoughtful considerations using the research we do have.

We know from research performed by Bret Contreras¹ that the latissimus dorsi is a major contributor when it comes to chin-ups and pull-ups, both weighted and unweighted. With high mean and peak maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), it’s hardly a surprise that vertical pulling is the primary means through which we can target growth and hypertrophy in the lats.

Though some research points to an equal distribution between fast- and slow-twitch fibers in the lats,²other research unequivocally claims that the lats have a predominance of fast-twitch fibers. And the greater size and strength of these fibers hint that the lats are a muscle specialized for phasic and powerful activity.³

What seems even more certain is the intimate connection between the lats and the contralateral gluteus maximus—or the posterior oblique sling as coined by some to describe this relationship. To the best of my knowledge, Andry Vleeming was the first researcher who unveiled this interesting association.⁴ I’m not sure, though, if it was Vleeming, Thomas Myers, or another who first coined the actual phrase posterior oblique sling. The posterior oblique sling is a facial connection consisting of the latissimus dorsi muscle, the opposite side gluteus maximus muscle, and the interconnecting thoracolumbar fascia.

Vleeming’s objective was to study the role of the posterior layer of the thoracolumbar fascia in load transfer between the spine, pelvis, legs, and arms. He found that in vivo, the “superficial lamina will be tensed by contraction of various muscles, such as the latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus and erector muscle, and the deep lamina by contraction of the biceps femoris. Caudal to the level of L4, tension in the posterior layer was transmitted to the contralateral side.” He also concluded that “anatomic structures normally described as hip, pelvic, and leg muscles interact with so-called arm and spinal muscles via the thoracolumbar fascia” which allows for effective load transfer between the spine, pelvis, legs, and arms—an integrated system.

Since then, Seung-Je Shin investigated the effect of different gait speeds on the muscle activities of the latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus muscles relating to the posterior oblique sling system.⁵The results showed a significant increase in latissimus dorsi muscle activity with a treadmill speed of 5.5 km/h compared with 1.5 km/h and 3.5 km/h. The gluteus maximus muscle activity significantly increased in the order of 1.5 km/h < 3.5 km/h < 5.5 km/h.

The researchers concluded that arm swing connected to increasing gait speed influences the muscle activity of the lower limbs through the posterior oblique sling system. Though future research would be useful to see the association at faster speeds, it seems we are on a telling path.

Assuming the quality movement competencies of the lats and the hips, the stored kinetic energy that’s built up in the lengthening gluteus maximus and latissimus dorsi during the running gait can be released explosively as the muscles shorten for propulsion forward. The implication is that training the lats and gluteus maximus to become more powerful should enable greater physical robustness that can influence faster running times.

Training the lats & gluteus maximus for more power generates faster running times, says @RichterJeff. #VerticalPullingForPower Share on X

Our obvious focus on a powerful hip extension in training certainly seems to highlight our determination to equip our athletes to run faster. But the question we must ask ourselves is this: “Does my vertical pulling prepare the posterior oblique sling to be a complementary effort of both the lats and glutes contributing to powerful movement?”

Due to the adaptations we can create for explosive athletic movements, training the vertical pull to have a greater expression of power can be a valuable addition to our physical preparation program.

Though the intent for this article is not to be a “corrective exercise” guide, in today’s day and age, some folks will be upset if I didn’t pause to remind the reader of the following:

• Vertical pulling may not be appropriate for every individual at a given moment in time. If pull-ups or chin-ups hurt, they should be avoided, and a professional therapist may have to be consulted to diagnose the problem.
• If you go into lumbar hyperextension or forward neck movement while trying to perform supine shoulder flexion, you should address this movement dysfunction.
• Short and stiff lats can lead to hyperextension-related back issues and aggressive pull downwards on the scapula that should be counteracted with appropriate exercises.

As Shirley Sahrmann points out: “Contraction of the lats creates an extension force on the spine and tilts the pelvis anteriorly. If the muscle is short, the back extends as a compensatory movement when shoulder flexion stretches the muscle to the limits of its length. In the patient with low back pain that occurs with extension, the shortness or stiffness of this muscle contributes to pain when he/she reaches overhead.”⁶

Quality movement in the lats is not a given and shouldn’t be assumed. We should, however, seek a resolution through the recovery of quality function immediately. So does this mean we avoid vertical pulling exercise during this time? Possibly, but that may be a mistake in some situations.

Some compelling research should make one cautiously reflect on the decision to eliminate vertical pulling from their athlete’s program. The available MVC research shows that chin-ups and vertical pulling may be a potential corrective exercise for those with poor lat movement qualities. Yes, short and stiff lats can lead to hyperextension-related back issues. But did you know that a body weight chin-up results in an MVC mean score of 249.0 and peak of 461.0 in the lower rectus abdominis?⁷This is simply astounding data and research with exciting implications.

As Bret Contreras writes, “Probably the most shocking result of this entire experiment was the level of rectus abdominis activity elicited by a body weight chin-up! It beat out any other abdominal exercise, weighted exercises and all, in mean and peak rectus abdominis activity. Chin-ups are the ultimate ‘anti-extension’ exercise for the low back.”⁷ I want to note that Bret tested 52 other exercises.

Could there be a helpful “anti-extension” low back exercise when, ironically, the prime mover is the lats through which a contraction is an extension force on the lower back? Could it be that upper body vertical pulling is a helpful fix for lower back issues stemming from short and stiff lats? With proper mechanics, it very well may be, and l look forward to investigating this more in the future.

Using VBT for a More Powerful Vertical Pull

For vertical pulling, it appears supinated, pronated, and neutral grips produce very similar muscle activation in the latissimus dorsi.^{8, 9} Therefore, the choice of grip may very well come down to which grip is accessible and which one the coach deems best from a risk-reward standpoint due to mobility considerations and injury history.

If you have VBT resources, I recommend obtaining your athlete’s peak power output and velocity in body weight vertical pulling and with weighted loads for those athletes with the strength to do so. Why is this a worthwhile cause? Similar to using VBT for other exercises, we’re trying to gather data for the following reasons:

• Objectively measuring progress (meaning whether power improves the exercise) is better than subjective analysis for ensuring training is strategically managed for more calculated improvement.
• It’s well documented that visual or verbal feedback enhances an athlete’s performance.^{10, 11}
• The luxury of ensuring an athlete is training in the proper window of velocity to create the intended adaptations is helpful, to say the least.
• Using velocity as a cutoff point to ensure “quality reps,” when applicable, allows for deliberate quality control of a working set.

The cuing for the vertical pull test is fairly simple. Once the athlete understands proper pulling mechanics, the cue to “pull yourself up as fast as possible” from a dead hang start produces a fairly straightforward test. If we can teach our athletes to lift hundreds of pounds off the ground for “speed” reps, we may be overreacting to the degree of difficulty required to get them to perform a pull-up explosively with proper form.

Though there may be a nuance in how certain VBT products can validly record data in this movement, the reliability of data largely comes down to consistent testing protocols. Rather than viewing this through the lens of a once-in-a-blue-moon test, there is merit in continually gathering peak power output regularly and observing trends with how peak power improves over time for a given load.

Also, through the groundbreaking work from Mario Munoz-Lopez¹² looking to analyze the load, force, and power-velocity relationships in the pull-up exercise, we know there are almost perfect individual load-velocity (R² =.975 ± 0.02), force-velocity (R² =.954 ± 0.04), and power-velocity (R² =.966 ± 0.04) relationships in the pull-up. This allows us to predict the velocity at each %1-RM as well as the maximal theoretical force, velocity, and power. This can be a valuable tool for coaches.

Most significantly for this article, Munoz observed that the load that maximized power was 71.0% ± 6.6%1-RM. Based on my use of VBT with vertical pulling the past few years, I find this number very agreeable. As you can see from the chart, an 82-kilo athlete with a 122kg 1RM on the pull-up (body weight + additional load) would have maximum power potential right around their actual body weight.

So what are the implications for an athlete with lesser strength in the pull-up or one who can’t perform the pull-up with any additional weight? Body weight vertical pulling will most certainly be too much load to elicit the highest possible power output in the exercise. For example, an athlete who can perform a vertical pull only one time with their body weight would need to deload their body weight by about 29% to realize power training benefits.

Unfortunately, this is an all too common situation. An athlete who has to deload their body for maximum power in vertical pulling has theoretically untapped potential for power expression in sport since ultimately we are trying to get an athlete to move more efficiently and powerfully with their body weight on the field of play. It’s also imperative that my motorsport clients (both pit crews and drivers) excel in explosive vertical pulling.

For my athletes who have explosive vertical pulling deficits (inability to hit maximum power with at least their body weight), I’ll take them through focused blocks at high force-low velocities, medium force-medium velocities, and low force-high velocities to narrow the deficit gap. Perhaps the most underused application is vertical pulling at low force-high velocities. Improving in this spectrum of speed is vital for athletes to reap the benefits of power development.

Improving #VerticalPulling at low force-high velocities is vital for athletes to reap the benefits of #PowerDevelopment, says @RichterJeff. Share on X

Low force-high velocity training for an athlete with an explosive vertical pulling deficit is a unique case, as the authors from the Munoz study stated: “If absolute maximal power capabilities are to be developed, subjects should use an assistance that would reduce body weight and, therefore, could produce higher movement velocities. Also, power was shown to be highly correlated with maximal velocity but not to maximal force. Therefore, athletes who wish to focus on power development might benefit from training with no load, or very light loads moved at high speeds to produce high power outputs.”

When an explosive pulling deficit exists, the coach has to uniquely and safely manipulate the training environment to offer external assistance from clever variations that provide the right amount of assistance. Assisted band variations are not unheard of. However, getting an athlete with an ego to use an assisted band variation when they can perform a rep unassisted requires pragmatic explanations of the power adaptations that you’re trying to achieve. A relationship built on trust goes a long way in accomplishing this.

Although power correlates highly with maximum velocity, I still program vertical pulling at high force-low velocities to enhance maximum strength—though this approach is not fully comprehensive as it leaves out additional power adaptations.

As a result, power adaptations from pulling may not be fully realized in an athlete, both strong and weak. And this is largely due to tactical errors in programming and failure to program quality exercise variations at high force-low velocity, medium force-medium velocities, and especially low force-high velocities.

I recommend compiling a chart of an athlete’s velocity and power metrics at a variety of loads as a starting point to understand how to train smarter for the specific adaptation you’re seeking and to monitor progress on the journey.

When using bands for either assistance or resistance, it’s critical to know how band tension affects the movement’s load. Through either a load cell or bands from brands with that information already available, a coach can know how to specifically dose the necessary tension to create optimal stress for the desired outcome.

I’ll conclude this post with the actual exercises I use for all three spectrums, so you have options to “plug and play.” Part 2 for my next article will discuss my programming strategies to arrive at the best short-term and long-term adaptations for vertical pulling power.

I hope you will consider the value in training your athletes to achieve more power in their vertical pulling. There is much to be gained.

High Force-Low Velocity Vertical Pulling

Video 1. Dumbbell Weighted Pulls 80% 1RM and Above. Weighted pulls at and above 80% 1RM are fantastic for developing maximal strength qualities in the vertical pulling movement.

Video 2. Weighted Eccentric Supramaximal Load. One of the best ways to help an athlete break through plateaus in maximal vertical pulling is adding supramaximal loads at the top of the movement and having the athlete focus on controlling the eccentric portion of the lift for an intentional time frame. Depending on the session’s goal, I may add in an explosive body weight rep after dropping the weight. This method isn’t revolutionary; many coaches have seen success with this approach for squatting and bench pressing with weight releasers.

Medium Force-Medium Velocity Vertical Pulling

Dumbbell Weighted Pulls at 40-75% 1RM.

Video 3. Final Half Band Resisted Neutral Grip Chin-up. One of the first progressions to a band resisted rep I use resists only the final half of the movement. I place a heavy dumbbell on a taller box to get the band up higher and act as an attachment base. The cue to an athlete should be to aggressively attack the first half of the movement to meet the band resistance with as much power as possible. Know your band tensions and how much weight is added at the top of the movement.

Video 4. Final Three-Quarter Band Resisted Neutral Grip Chin-up. My next progression is the final three-quarter resisted band movement where I place the heavy dumbbell attachment base on a lower box. The same cue applies where the athlete should attempt to greet the band tension with aggression.

Video 5. Full ROM Band Resisted Neutral Grip Chin-up. The final band progression sets the band tension to load the entire movement. In most cases, I set the dumbbell attachment base on the floor.

Low Force-High Velocity Vertical Pulling

Video 6. One-Quarter Rep Band Assisted Neutral Grip Chin-up. I use carabiners attached to the cinch anchor at the top of the rack to create the necessary length so that only the first one-quarter of the movement is assisted. I apply this method based on circumstances. It may be the last progression for an athlete in the assistance category and could be a great option for those athletes who need a bit of additional assistance to achieve maximal vertical pulling power (71% 1RM). Know your band tensions and how much load is being removed.

Video 7. Three-Quarter Rep Band Assisted Neutral Grip Chin-up. The three-quarter assistance method generally removes any additional carabiners hanging from the cinch anchor. As more band assistance stays throughout more range of motion, don’t lose sight of pulling aggressively through the entire ROM! This is the most important cue for assisted reps—you still have to attack the rep.

Video 8. Full ROM Band Assisted Chin-up. This is a great first progression for a weaker athlete to get assistance throughout the entire ROM. At the top of the movement, the band should not lose tension.

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

References

1. Contreras, Bret. “Inside the Muscles: Best Back and Biceps Exercises.” TNATION. March 15, 2010.

2. Johnson, M., et al. “Data on the Distribution of Fibre Types in Thirty-six Human Muscles: An Autopsy Study.” Journal of the Neurological Sciences 1973; 18(1): 111-29.

3. Paoli, A., et al. “Myosin Isoforms and Contractile Properties of Single Fibers of Human Latissimus Dorsi Muscle.” Biomed Research International 2013; 2013(1): 249398.

4. Vleeming, A., et al. “The Posterior Layer of the Thoracolumbar Fascia: It’s Function in Load Transfer from Spine to Legs.” Spine 1995; 20(7): 753-8.

5. Shin, S., Kim T., & Yoo, W. “Effects of Various Gait Speeds on the Latissimus Dorsi and Gluteus Maximus Muscles Associated with the Posterior Oblique Sling System.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science 2013; 25(11):1391-2.

6. Sahrmann, Shirley. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndrome. Mosby. 2001.

7. Contreras, Bret. “Inside the Muscles: Best Ab Exercises.” TNATION. 5/17/10.

8. Dickie, J.A., et al. “Electromyographic Analysis of Muscle Activation During Pull-up Variations.” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 2017; 32:30-36.

9. Anderson, V., et al. “Effects of Grip Width on Muscle Strength and Activation in the Lat Pulldown.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2014; 28(4):1135-42.

10. Weakley, J., et al. “Visual Feedback Attenuates Mean Concentric Barbell Velocity Loss and Improves Motivation, Competitiveness, and Perceived Workload in Male Adolescent Athletes.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchahead of press 2017.

11. Wilson, K., et al. “Real-time Quantitative Performance Feedback During Strength Exercise Improves Motivation, Competitiveness, Mood, and Performance.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2017.

12. Munoz-Lopez, M., et al. “Load-, Force-, and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pullup Exercise.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 2017; 12(9): 1249-1255.

The opportunity to take part in the medical care and performance enhancement training of athletes is greater than ever before. Professional teams, educational and health care institutions, and private facilities are evolving, and employing strength and conditioning professionals, health care specialists, sports scientists, nutritionists, etc. to assist athletes in achieving their optimal level of performance on the field of play. When an unfortunate incident occurs and an athlete is injured, requires surgery, or presents with physical irregularities, they likely will require medical care, as well as physical rehabilitation. In recent years, the medical professions of orthopedic sports medicine and sports rehabilitation have placed a strong professional emphasis on injury prevention and return to play at preinjury levels of performance.

Planning for the athlete’s performance enhancement training and sports rehabilitation program design should include a proven philosophical foundation that will result in a successful outcome. It is acknowledged that certain athletes are genetically more physically gifted than others—i.e., strength levels, elastic abilities, etc. That stated, this blog post will present a brief narrative of a performance enhancement training philosophy and foundation founded years ago by my good friend and one of my mentors, Hall of Fame (HOF) strength and conditioning coach Al Vermeil.

Planning for an athlete’s performance enhancement training and sports rehab program design should include a proven philosophical foundation that will result in a successful outcome. Share on X

During his illustrious career, Coach Vermeil has attained seven World Championship rings and is the only S&C coach to win world championships in two different American professional sport leagues, the National Football League and National Basketball Association. His “Hierarchy of Athletic Development” has been recognized and utilized by S&C professionals around the world, including additional HOF S&C coaches who have secured national and world championships as well.

Our practice has also modified and adapted Coach Vermeil’s hierarchy as a foundation in our sports rehabilitation and return to play philosophy^1,2for the successful treatment of the athletes placed in our care. Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development, as well as the modified rehabilitation model, is presented in figure 1.

The Stages of the Vermeil Hierarchy

There are six “levels” of the hierarchy. The first two are:

1. Evaluation/Testing – Every athlete, whether engaged in the performance enhancement training or sports rehabilitation environment, will require evaluation and testing to determine such criteria as their medical and training history, sport(s) and position of participation, exercise contraindications, etc., as well as a demonstrated presentation of all physical assets and deficits. The S&C and/or rehabilitation professional should incorporate a proven system of evaluation/testing, where a comfort level with the preferred testing model is also present for ease and confidence during the implementation of this process. This evaluative/testing process will help determine the valuable information necessary for the establishment of the overall training and/or rehabilitation program design.
2. Work Capacity – This is the ability of the athlete to physically perform exercises with proper technical proficiency repetitively over time, without the inducement of excessive physical fatigue. During the course of training or rehabilitation, physical fatigue will occur as a result of the effect of participation in prolonged exercise execution. This includes, but is not limited to, participation in daily, weekly, and monthly programmed sessions over the duration of the entire training and/or rehabilitation period.

The establishment of an ample work capacity enables the athlete to appropriately recover after the conclusion of one training/rehab session and before the next scheduled session. Share on X

The establishment of an ample work capacity will enable the athlete to appropriately recover after the conclusion of one training/rehabilitation session and before the next scheduled session. An appropriate work capacity will also provide a “work capacity reserve.” This reserve is essential over a prolonged season schedule, as well as for the unique circumstances that arise during game day competition, where teams are required to continue play for extended periods of time (i.e., overtime, double overtime, sport tournaments, etc.).

The establishment of a sufficient work capacity will ease excessive fatigue. The onset of excessive physical fatigue may result in a number of undesirable physical adaptations. These include, but are not limited to, decreased muscle force output, reduction in the rate of force development, poor technical exercise performance, changes in joint biomechanics, poor kinesthetic awareness, disproportionate distribution of applied exercise stresses, and possible overuse-type soft tissue injuries (e.g., sprains, strains, tendinitis, etc.).

One method to consider for improvement of the athlete’s work capacity is the programming of Javorek exercise complexes. S&C coach Istvan Javorek established these exercise complexes, and athletes may perform them, when appropriate, with either a barbell or dumbbells. These complexes require the athlete or patient to perform 5–6 distinct exercises, one immediately after another, for a prescribed number of specific exercise repetitions, to ultimately complete a single complex “cycle.” In addition to the enhancement of the athlete’s work capacity, Javorek complexes also provide the following advantages:

• Enhanced overall joint mobility.
• Enhanced exercise technical proficiency.
• Stimulation of the neuromuscular system.
• An increase in overall strength levels.

The remaining levels of the hierarchy include the enhancement of the physical qualities that are necessary for the athlete to achieve their desired level of athletic performance. It is important to note that the ideal enhancement of a specific physical quality is dependent upon the optimal development of its physical quality predecessor, with the physical quality of strength serving as the foundation. For example, if strength is defined as the ability to produce force, and the physical quality of explosive strength (power) consists of a velocity component during exercise execution, then if an athlete is unable to produce adequate levels of force (strength), how can they possibly produce adequate levels of force rapidly (explosive strength)?

Place emphasis on the improvement of the specific physical quality desired during the specific phases of the enhancement training or rehabilitation cycle. Share on X

It is also important to mention that all physical qualities, as determined by the S&C and/or rehabilitation professional, may be trained simultaneously. However, they should place the emphasis on the improvement of the specific physical quality desired during the specific phases of the enhancement training or rehabilitation cycle.

3. The Physical Quality of Strength – As previously noted, this is the foundation from which all other physical qualities evolve. Therefore, the optimal development of this foundational physical quality is essential during the athlete’s participation in both the athletic performance enhancement training and rehabilitation settings. The human body was created for movement, yet how is movement possible without the application of force?Enhanced strength qualities will provide improvement in the application of force, rate of force production, joint stability, soft tissue and joint “stiffness” (a requirement for an optimal stretch shortening cycle to occur), body propulsion, deceleration, and change of direction capabilities, as well as injury prevention. With skill and athleticism deemed equal, it is the stronger athlete who will usually prevail during athletic competition.

With skill and athleticism deemed equal, it is the stronger athlete who will usually prevail during athletic competition. Share on X

4. The Physical Quality of Explosive Strength – This physical quality is the first to introduce a velocity component during exercise execution. Power is defined as force x distance divided by time. Time is now a factor, requiring athletes to perform exercises at higher velocities compared to strength type exercises. Explosive strength may be developed from a number of modalities, which include, but are not limited to, the application of weighted implements such as a barbells and dumbbells, medicine balls, jumps, throws, and sprinting. It is important to note that the execution of explosive strength type exercises requires the athlete and/or an external resistance to be displaced from one position to another at high velocity while maintaining proper technical exercise proficiency.
5. The Physical Quality of Elastic/Reactive Strength – This quality relies upon the stretch shortening cycle (SSC) and the ability to exert force during a high-speed movement. The SSC is the basis of plyometric type exercises and is a natural muscle/tendon function where a soft tissue complex is stretched immediately before a concentric muscle contraction. This exercise eccentric/quasi-isometric/concentric contraction results in a more forceful output than a concentric contraction alone. To optimize elastic energy contribution, there must be a brief transition period (amortization) between eccentric and concentric contractions. Dr. Dietmar Schmidtbleicher classified the SSC as either slow, e.g., >.25 second ground contact time, or fast, e.g., <.25 second ground contact time.³




6. The Physical Quality of Speed– The achievement of ideal movement velocity (e.g., sprinting, jumping, throwing, etc.) relies on the athlete’s genetics and optimal enhancement of all of the aforementioned physical qualities in combination with their demonstrated exceptional and economical technical proficiency with high-velocity movement skill attained via coaching and repetitive movement skill practice.

Figure 2 presents a 100-meter sprint task, which demonstrates the interrelationship of all these physical qualities.

In a review of figure 2, you will observe the relationship of all the physical qualities of the hierarchy of athletic development during an athletic endeavor. At the initiation of the 100-meter sprint, the physical quality of strength plays a significant role in the athlete’s forward propulsion/movement from a dead stop position. Explosive strength then evolves as velocity is incorporated into this athletic task. The athlete continues to achieve higher sprint velocities where elastic/reactive abilities play a significant role and then concludes with them reaching optimal maximal speed velocities.

If you review the diagram in figure 2 in reverse, you will observe the following. The athlete will likely not achieve optimal velocities of the physical quality of speed without the optimal development of the physical quality of elastic/reactive strength. Optimal levels of elastic/reactive strength will require the optimal enhancement of the physical quality of explosive strength. Finally, the athlete will not reach the desired levels of the physical quality of explosive strength without the optimal development of the physical quality of strength. Thus, this particular review demonstrates the interrelationship for physical quality enhancement, as well as the rationale for each specific physical quality’s dependence upon the optimal development of its predecessor in the athletic development hierarchy.

The Hierarchy of Athletic Development: Rehabilitation Modified

The injured and/or postsurgical athlete will likely present with very specific, as well as related, physical deficits and anatomical insults and/or changes as compared to a “deconditioned” athlete. Therefore, additional modifications are made to the hierarchy to accommodate for this special rehabilitation classification of athletes.

Our modification of Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development for rehabilitating athletes includes a mobility/movement and a muscle reeducation/work capacity component. Share on X

As in Vermeil’s original Hierarchy of Athletic Development, evaluation and testing are performed. However, this process is now more specifically influenced by the medical condition and pathology of the athlete and will include any and all surgical interventions. Upon conclusion of the evaluation and testing level of the hierarchy, the additional rehabilitation modifications include the following:

1. Mobility/Movement – This added level of the rehabilitation hierarchy requires the athlete to re-establish the joint mobility, soft tissue compliance, and movement skill patterns required for activities of daily living and serve as a segue to resume “athletic type training” active exercise performance. Injured and postsurgical patients will, over time, advance their mobility and movement patterns to progress to the eventual removal of assistive devices such as crutches when resuming a normal lower extremity gait pattern on all surfaces. Sit to stand, acyclical and cyclical activities, and other additional patterns of movement also need to be restored.

The same may be said for the post-injured or postsurgical upper extremity and spine patient. Suitable technical exercise performance cannot occur without the athlete able to demonstrate specific movement patterns while maintaining and, when necessary, appropriately altering precise exercise postural positions.

2. Muscle Reeducation/Work Capacity – After the incidence of injury and/or surgical intervention, a muscle and/or muscle group(s) may “shut down,” so to speak. An example would be the arthrogenic muscle inhibition of the quadriceps muscle group after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery⁵. This muscle inhibition is due to noxious accumulative factors, including, but not limited to, the episode of injury, the invasive feature of surgery, and the requirement of a tourniquet (length of time) during surgery. Once a strong active muscular contraction is restored, this achievement, in association with the restoration of mobility and movement, will allow for the performance of suitable exercises and the progression to the work capacity phase of the hierarchy.

The continued advancement of the hierarchy remains the same during the course of rehabilitation as it does during athletic performance enhancement training; however, exercise selection, training modalities and techniques, and program design may differ. Regardless of the methods and exercises utilized, the desired achievement of the optimal development of all physical qualities stays the same.

The Necessity for the Application of Stress (Exercise Intensity)

The application of stress is required during the athlete’s exercise performance for physical adaptation to take place. The body goes through various physiological changes when placed under stress. This stress response of the body is exhibited in general adaptation syndrome (GAS), which was first described by Hans Selye, a Viennese scientist⁴.

GAS occurs in three stages: the alarm stage, the resistance stage, and the exhaustion stage. In regard to exercise adaptation, each stage is as follows:

1. The Alarm Stage – During the alarm stage, a stressor in the form of exercise “intensity” is applied to the athlete. The exercise intensity may consist of an applied external weight, specific exercise velocity, box height, jump height or distance, etc. It is important to note that the athlete must be unaccustomed to the applied stressor. Once a stressor is applied, the body moves from its baseline or homeostasis to the alarm stage. During the alarm stage, the body perceives this applied stressor and reacts with a “fight or flight” response, as the sympathetic nervous system is stimulated and the body’s resources are prepared to meet the threat or danger (i.e., the applied stressor).
2. The Resistance Stage – In this phase, the body resists and compensates (adaptation) as the parasympathetic nervous system attempts to return many physiological functions to normal (homeostasis) levels. However, as observed in figure 3, adaptation to the applied stressor exceeds the baseline of homeostasis while the body focuses resources against the applied stressor, remains alert, and is now prepared for the same stressor (i.e., intensity) when reapplied in the future.

For the athlete to remain unaccustomed to the applied stressor, and continual adaptation to occur, the intensity levels of applied stress must appropriate increase over time. Share on X

This is the reason why appropriately programmed and applied stressors must be unaccustomed in nature. For the athlete to remain unaccustomed to the applied stressor, and continual adaptation to occur, the intensity levels of applied stress must appropriately increase over time. These stressors should not only include enhancement of the described physical qualities, but progressions in exercise volume that will enhance work capacity as well.

3. The Exhaustion Stage – This is the last phase of Selye’s GAS. In this stage, if the stressor(s) continues beyond the body’s capacity, the resources become exhausted and the body becomes susceptible to disease and/or death. Note how the line on the graph enters the “detraining” zone and continues to descend below the baseline of homeostasis. During exercise performance, the exhaustion phase (i.e., excessive fatigue) is synonymous with overtraining. Overtraining may lead to the previously mentioned negative physical adaptions, including soft tissue type overuse injuries. Therefore, an appropriate level of work capacity established prior to the athlete’s initiation into the “formal” training period will help athletes resist exhaustion during physical enhancement training.

Also note that the athlete may plateau or enter the detraining zone due to a lack of appropriate stressor (i.e., intensity) application. A repetitively applied “accustomed” (i.e., the same intensity-level stressor) or too low an intensity stressor (i.e., too light an applied weight, too slow an applied velocity, etc.) will likely not result in the positive physical adaptations desired. Thus, too low a level of applied stressor may result in the discarding of valuable athletic enhancement training and rehabilitation time.

There is an absent response phase in Selye’s GAS model and that is the phase of recovery. Whether in the performance enhancement training or rehabilitation environment, the athlete must be permitted to adequately physically recover in preparation to perform optimally in the next scheduled enhancement training or proper rehabilitation session. Many factors contribute to the athlete’s recovery. These include, but are not limited to, proper exercise programming, suitable nutrition intake, proper sleep patterns, specific and proven recovery techniques, and, yes, the aforementioned establishment of an appropriate work capacity.

Modify, Adapt, and Apply It

Coach Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development has served as a valuable philosophical foundation model to assist in program design for both the athletic performance enhancement and sports rehabilitation environments. The physical quality of strength is the foundation of this model, which must also coincide with an appropriately programmed application of stress. It should also be acknowledged that the establishment of a work capacity is essential before the introduction of formal training, and the application of levels of “high intensity” are relative to the physical demonstrated abilities of the individual athlete. The utilization of the Hierarchy of Athletic Development, its modification as adapted to the sports rehabilitation setting, and the appropriate periodic application of unaccustomed stress will ultimately result in the desirable physical qualities and performance achievements of the athlete.

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

References

1. Panariello, R.A., Stump, T.J.S., and Maddalone, D. “Post-Operative ACL Rehabilitation and Return to Play after ACL Reconstruction.” Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine. 2016; 24(1): 35–44.

2. Panariello, R.A., Stump, T.J.S., and Cordasco, F. “The Lower Extremity Athlete: Post-Rehabilitation Performance and Injury Prevention Training.” Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine. 2017; 25(3): 231–240.

3. Schmidtbleicher, D. “Training for power events.” Strength and Power in Sport. 1992; 1:381–395.

4. Selye, H. “The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.1946;6(2): 117–230.

5. Sonnery-Cottet, B., Saithna, A., Quelard, B., Daggett, M., Broade, A., Ouanezar, H., Thaunat, M., and Blankney, W.G., “Arthrogenic muscle inhibition after ACL reconstruction: a scoping review of the efficacy of interventions.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017; 53(5): 1–11.

For many years, upper body training with baseball athletes has been considered something of an enigma. A team physician once told me that baseball athletes should only focus on DB movements for the upper body, where athletes must use a weight that they can lift for 25+ reps. While this may sound shocking, that thought process was often commonplace in baseball. Not only was upper body lifting supposed to be only endurance-based, but the list of exercises often started and stopped with just a handful of available movements. Overhead press…NO WAY! Use a straight bar for anything and somebody’s shoulder might explode!

In my opinion, training the upper body with throwing athletes is not necessarily the what, but the how. The movement is what matters. Moving correctly is priority No. 1. If you take care of movement, the list of exercises that overhead athletes have at their disposal goes up exponentially.

Training the upper body with throwing athletes is not necessarily the what, but the how. The movement is what matters, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

It’s no secret how important the scapula is in the health of an overhead throwing athlete. A stable scapula gives rise to a healthy and mobile glenohumeral joint. The human body is a stabilizing/mobilizing machine to create motion. Look no further than Mike Boyle’s information on the “Mobility/Stability Continuum” for clarification that summarizes the body’s organization in movement. If you’ve read Mike’s book, you understand the importance of stability in the scapulothoracic joint. For the shoulder to effectively move, the scapular complex must provide stabilization.

While absolutely true, it must also be made mobile. Scapulohumeral rhythm is the kinematic interaction between the scapula and the humerus. The interaction of the two is important for optimal function of the shoulder. Sue Falsone uses the term “scapular mobility” in her book “Bridging the Gap” and I absolutely agree. The scapula must be trained to MOVE.

All too often, I see coaches and athletes purposely try to keep the scapula from moving in an exercise. They pin the scaps down for the duration and move through the arms on pulls, pushes, etc. The thought that the scapula must be stable has been taken too far out of context in some situations. Not only is this not training proper motor control of the scapular stabilizers, but it puts undue stress through an overhead athlete’s money-maker: the shoulder.

The more experience I gain, the more I realize that there may be no bad exercises, just bad exercises for that particular person. Are the movements we have coined “bad for baseball” for decades really all that bad?

I’ll be the first to admit that for years, I observed the ban on overhead pressing. You never would have seen one of my athletes pushing something overhead. Why? It’s bad on the shoulder. What opened my eyes that it may not be as bad as we’ve come to believe? Our own in-house EMG studies on serratus function. Moving the arm overhead is what the serratus does. How can we train it any better than that? The further the arm went up, the more serratus function improved.

To select exercises for athletes, you need to determine two things. The first is whether or not the movement is sound, as in: Do they have poor movement patterns that break down and expose them to risk of injury? Can they do the movement? And second, does their body optimally allow for that movement to occur?

Some athletes don’t have what it takes anatomically to perform an exercise. An athlete with deep hip sockets will never squat ass to grass, and for an overhead athlete with a type 3 hooked acromion process, the struggle to get full humeral flexion overhead may not be worth the fight. Anatomical features matter in an athlete’s body and will often dictate what they can and cannot do.

With that being said, let’s take a look at the four most common patterns I associate with upper body training for baseball athletes and the errors in motion that limit the full benefits of those movements. These four primary patterns are the horizontal push and pull and vertical push and pull.

Horizontal Pulling

Horizontal pulling is first on the list for good reason. The horizontal pattern may be the most important upper body pattern for baseball athletes, yet it is often the most overlooked. Young athletes forever and ever will train what they can see in the mirror—the frontside. Ask an eighth grader if they know how to bench press, then ask if they know how to do a reverse pull-up or horizontal row.

Across the board, horizontal pulling is the most common weakness we find in incoming athletes, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

Recently, I had a junior college athlete enter our foundation program who could easily perform 30 strict rep push-ups, yet struggled to do five—yes, five—quality reverse pull-ups. Across the board, horizontal pulling is the most common weakness we find in incoming athletes.

Movement

The scapula should retract straight back with horizontal pulls. I actually prefer to cue athletes to pull back and down slightly into depression with the movement. One of the reasons for the addition of cueing depression into the mix is to keep athletes from shrugging as they pull. Many athletes will compensate retraction with hard shrugging or elevation, utilizing the more dominant upper traps as they pull. This is a huge compensation pattern and one we don’t want.

Famed therapist Vladimir Janda classified the upper traps as overactive and facilitated, while the scapular stabilizers like the rhomboids and middle and lower trap were classified as weak and inhibited. Slight depression helps athletes stay out of the overactive upper trapezius.

Humeral Hyperextension

A big issue with pulling movements is athletes don’t incorporate the scapula at all. Motion occurs at the glenohumeral joint, compensating for a motionless scapula. Essentially, the arms do the work instead of the scapular stabilizers. The shoulder will dump forward into anterior tilt as the humerus drives into hyperextension.

An easy catch to see if your athletes do this is to observe if the elbow is behind the body at end range with the center of the shoulder forward of that. Focal points for horizontal pulling should be built around the elbows. Cue athletes to pull through the elbow and not the hands.

Stuck Scapula

Another big mistake I see many athletes make is not releasing the scapula on the eccentric lowering of a horizontal pull. Athletes will try to keep the scapula packed together throughout the entire movement instead of allowing it to fully release and navigate around the rib cage. In essence, they hold an isometric contraction of the rhomboids in a mid-state of retraction.

We want the scapula to release and move around the rib cage into end range. Strength and motor control go hand in hand with motion and we need full and proper motion to occur in all upper body patterns.

The scapula needs to be trained to MOVE and MOVE WELL! It is not meant to be locked into place. Don’t think this means stability. Motor control throughout full ROM are vital.

— @ZachDechant
November 20, 2018

The scapular stabilizers need to develop the coordination of proper pulling patterns. Holding the scaps pinched together is not the human body’s optimal movement. We want to fully develop the ability to contract and relax the muscle through full ranges of motion. We want the scapula and glenohumeral joint to work together in an optimal combination.

Exercises

Reverse Pull-Up

The reverse pull-up, or horizontal row as many call it, is our bread and butter for teaching the horizontal pull pattern. Bodyweight mastery should be our first priority in strength development with untrained or low training age athletes. The reverse pull-up not only provides the opportunity to develop the horizontal scapular pull pattern, but also addresses glute firing, pelvic control, and posterior core stability for athletes. Only when athletes have mastered the reverse pull-up do we advance into other forms of strength development.

Other variations:

• Cable low rows
• Single arm DB rows
• Chest supported rows
• Single arm standing cable row

Horizontal Pushing

On the flip side of horizontal pulling is pushing, the most known upper body pattern in athletics. Everybody loves the bench press. Which brings us to the elephant in the room, the barbell bench press with baseball athletes. Is the bench press the devil that baseball coaches everywhere make it out to be? Definitely not.

The devil isn’t always in the exercise itself, but in how an athlete performs the movement or in the athlete’s anatomical variances themselves. There’s plenty of research out there that corroborates a positive correlation with throwing velocity and the bench press. Many of the studies aren’t directly related to the bench press itself, but strength training in general. Many cited using the bench press in the strength protocols that garnered velocity improvements.

In one study that did specifically look at the bench press, the researcher took 14 elite senior handball players and found that throwing velocity was related to absolute load in the bench press. That doesn’t mean you should run out and start benching to hit 90 mph off the mound, but it tells us that horizontal pushing movement is important.

Throwing a baseball creates large internal rotation forces in the humerus. Those internal rotators consist of the massive pecs and lats. Yes, pushing is important. The issue often lies in how athletes do it, and how much of it they do. For years in baseball circles, the DB bench press was THE upper body exercise of choice. As you’ll see, the bench press leaves a lot to be desired for scapular motion, but is certainly not the devil for baseball athletes that it’s made out to be. There are advantages and disadvantages to its use as I’ll discuss below.

Movement

What many people fail to realize is that horizontal pushing and pulling movements are the exact same scapular patterns. The scapula moves into retraction and protraction, circumnavigating the rib cage. The only difference is the emphasis of the muscles concentrically performing the movement. The most common issue with pushing movements is, again, the athlete’s inability to move through a full range of motion.

What many people fail to realize is that horizontal pushing and pulling movements are the exact same scapular patterns, says @ZachDechant. Share on X 

Lack of Protraction

Take the push-up, one of the Big Five patterns in my foundation program. With push-ups, many athletes don’t fully protract the scaps at the top of the movement. Often, at the top of the movement, we see a chicken-winged appearance with a valley between the medial borders of the scaps. Athletes aren’t fully capturing one of the most positive benefits of the push-up, which is protraction, as well as serratus activation.

Cue athletes to keep pushing and reach the upper back as high as possible. Here, an external cue is great. I hold a hand an inch above their body and tell them to try and touch their upper back to my hand. This is one of most important aspects of horizontal pushing movements—scapular protraction. This is a large reason why the push-up and its many variations make up such a large part of my foundation program with incoming athletes. I want scapular motor control. Back to Janda and his Upper Crossed Syndrome (UCS).

The serratus anterior is another commonly weakened and inhibited muscle. This is one of the big reasons why variations of the bench press aren’t in my foundation program. Laying on the scaps while pressing doesn’t allow for scapular movement around the rib cage. That’s not to say the bench press has no use in the baseball population. It certainly can be a healthy addition to a program, depending on the volume of its usage and, again, the movement itself.

Scapular Anterior Tilt

Poor movement patterns exist with horizontal pushing the same as they do in pulling. Athletes commonly dump forward into scapular anterior tilt as they reach the eccentric end range in pressing movements. This is where the exercise selection itself doesn’t matter and movement quality does. Whether on a push-up, DB bench press, or barbell bench press, if the humerus moves into hyperextension and dumps the scapula into anterior tilt, the exercise no longer matters. It’s all the same result: added stress and possible aggravation in the front of the shoulder. Do it enough times and you’ll be sidelined.

Whether on a push-up, DB bench press, or barbell bench press, if the humerus moves into hyperextension and dumps the scapula into anterior tilt, the exercise no longer matters. Share on X

Athletes need to learn to retract the scaps posteriorly while in the eccentric or lowering phase. As the humerus moves toward the body’s midline, the scapulae retract. Allowing the scaps to move back frees up space for the glenohumeral joint and eliminates the shoulder driving forward or the scapula dumping into anterior tilt. An athlete who does not posteriorly retract the scaps will again compensate with humeral motion, putting unnecessary stress on the soft tissue structures surround the GH joint. Horizontal pushing and pulling movements should be the same regardless of which side does the work.

Exercises

Push-Up

It’s no secret that the hand pick-up push-up is my go-to with our incoming athletes. The benefits of push-ups start with scapular patterning and motor control, and they also teach athletes to stabilize the anterior chain. Again, you should teach low-level athletes how to control their own body weight first.

Other variations:

• Barbell bench press
• DB bench press and variations
• Single arm cable press

Vertical Pulling

Vertical pulling, just like the horizontal patterns thus far, requires scapular motor control and full ranges of motion. Athletes often lack the ability to get into the full overhead positions required by vertical pulling and pushing. Soft tissue restrictions are often at the top of the list when it comes to full humeral flexion, but again, anatomical variances can often factor in.

The prime movers with vertical pulling are the lats. Not only are they a prime mover in internal rotation and the throwing motion, but their fascial connections are in large part responsible for human reciprocal motion such as walking, sprinting, and swinging.

Two common errors athletes make when vertical pulling are not using the scapulae at all and arching the spine to achieve overhead motions, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

Movement

The biggest issue with the vertical pulling movements is the pull itself. Often, athletes do NOT use the scapulae at all. Done correctly, the scapulae should move into and out of upward rotation throughout vertical plane pulling movements. The top of a vertical pull and push, if frozen in a still frame shot, should look the same on the scapula. The exact same can be said for the bottom positions as well.

If the bottom of your pulldowns or top of your pull-ups look like this…
-chin poked out
-shoulders rolling forward
You’re doing it wrong. Pull through elbows instead of hands and don’t pull too far! Shoulders should never move forward.

— @ZachDechant
July 8, 2019

Chin Poke

With vertical movements, we often see the hunched-over chin-up/pull-up, with the chin jutting forward over the bar and the shoulders rolled forward. Many athletes pull with the arms only and dump into anterior tilt—a common theme. Again, cueing athletes to pull through the elbows has shown positive results for increasing the efficacy of scapular movements.

Rib Flare

Another common error throughout vertical pulling is arching the spine to achieve overhead motion. A large rib flare is often a compensation pattern for a lack of overhead motion. The latissimus muscle originates from fascial connections throughout the spinous process from T7-L5, as well as the pelvis iliac crest. Anything having to do with the lats also has an effect on the lumbar spine, and vice versa. An athlete lacking full overhead flexion will arch through their low back to achieve the desired positions for what they deem a proper vertical pull.

Exercises

• Pull-up and variations
• Lat pulldown
• Cable pulldowns
• Straight arm pulldowns

Vertical Pushing

The topic of overhead pressing in baseball has long been the elephant in the room. Is it the dreaded shoulder killer that everyone thinks it is? For years, I stayed away from the overhead press. Much of the negativity toward the overhead press results from either the poor movement itself or athlete anatomical variances. Just like anything, one size does not fit all.

Much of the negativity toward the overhead press results from either the poor movement itself or athlete anatomical variances. Just like anything, one size does not fit all. Share on X

There are certain athletic populations that shouldn’t squat based upon their hip anatomy. The same is true with overhead pressing. There are athletes who don’t and will never have full adequate overhead flexion. Whether soft tissue restrictions or bony anatomical issues with the clavicle, some athletes just aren’t made for it. With that said, the benefits of overhead pressing make it hard to shy away from in some form or fashion.

Movement

Reaching or pressing overhead requires high degrees of freedom not only of the glenohumeral joint, but the scapula as well. Full flexion or abduction overhead means large motion from the scapula. About one-third of the total overhead motion comes from scapular assistance when raising the arm.

During shoulder flexion/abduction, there is about 120 degrees of movement that occurs at the glenohumeral joint, while 60 degrees occurs at the scapulothoracic joint, creating a 2:1 ratio. This movement is known as the scapulohumeral rhythm. Missing pieces of that ratio means compensations will occur. The body will find a way to do what needs to be done. If overhead motion is what an athlete needs, they will find a way to achieve it, whether that occurs from a flared rib cage and additional forces put on the spine, or the shoulder taking added stress.

Upward Rotation

The biggest benefit of overhead pressing or reaching of some kind is scapular upward rotation. The importance of upward rotation in an overhead sport cannot be exaggerated. The serratus anterior, upper, and trapezius contribute to upward rotation. The serratus anterior is the beast that we need working well for healthy shoulders in baseball athletes, yet it’s another one of Janda’s UCS-inhibited muscles that is commonly shut down.

The biggest benefit of overhead pressing or reaching of some kind is scapular upward rotation. The importance of upward rotation in an overhead sport cannot be exaggerated. Share on X

The mind-muscle connection has shown to be successful for us here. Trying to have athletes tap into upward rotation movements with the scapula has been key. The all-important serratus anterior is a crucial piece of the puzzle and is a muscle with which athletes often have no clue how to connect.

Instead of simply pushing the weight, we prefer that athletes visualize wrapping the scapula around the rib cage into the armpit. We want them trying to create the mind-muscle connection into the serratus muscle to feel that movement occur. External cues such as reaching as far as possible or reaching for an object can assist here as well. However, I still want them internally focusing on what they feel and connecting dots to the motion itself.

There are many ways to circumvent the problems associated with athletes who struggle getting overhead. For those coaches who just don’t have the means or ability to screen for such issues, there are plenty of variations that still garner the benefits of overhead pressing without putting athletes at risk. Does overhead pressing mean we’ve gone back to the old days of behind-the-neck military-style pushes? No, there are plenty of movements that we either don’t have to absolutely load or are range-of-motion-restricted that can still give us benefits. I list some of them below.

Exercises

• KB carries
• KB presses
• Landmine pressing variations
• Variations of Turkish get-ups
• Wall slide variations

Achieving Stability Through Motion

No matter the task, the scapula needs to be trained through full ranges of motion. Don’t get so caught up in the stability of the joint that you paralyze it. Only through full motion do you create intermuscular coordination and stability throughout. Teaching the scaps to move means optimal function for a healthy shoulder.

No matter the task, the scapula needs to be trained through full ranges of motion. Don’t get so caught up in the stability of the joint that you paralyze it, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

The fact of the matter is that there should be few exercises that you can’t include in your exercise bank. The real key may not be in an exercise itself, but how the athlete performs it. It comes down to the athlete’s anatomical makeup, how you coach the exercises, and the volume to which the athlete does them.

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

Boyle, Michael, et al. Advances in Functional Training: Training Techniques for Coaches, Personal Trainers and Athletes. On Target Publications, 2015.

Falsone, Susan. Bridging the Gap: From Performance to Rehab. On Target Publications, 2018.

Sahrmann, Shirley. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes. Mosby, 2008.

The months following college graduation and being shooed into the real world can be a challenging time for anyone. This is especially true for those in fields where there is no one straightforward pathway leading to the professional world and earning a living. Landing a great job in the field of human performance can happen via many different routes; however, there are some fundamental steps that you must take so you can appear as a particularly valuable up-and-coming strength and conditioning coach. Preferably, over the course of a few weeks/months, you need to form a plan of action that effectively maps out your journey to ultimately obtain your dream job.

This article aims to provide the essential steps to take for those who aspire to be in the field of human performance. I have implemented many of them into my own plan for going forward in my career.

The Field Is Competitive – Start with Education

Obtaining a secondary degree through enrollment in graduate school is a crucial step for any aspiring performance coach. This is because, whether you want to work for a team or private company, they will most likely want to see that you have garnered skills and knowledge past that of a bachelor’s degree, especially with how competitive the job market for performance coaches is. Every professional team has only two or three performance coaches/sport scientists, which affords these teams the privilege of only taking on the most skilled and most knowledgeable coaches.

Whether you want to work for a team or private company, they will most likely want to see that you have garnered skills and knowledge past that of a bachelor’s degree. Share on X

Essentially, the first phase of becoming a high-level performance coach is to acquire basic education on the human body that can be used in a multitude of fields. In my case, this came in the form of human anatomy and human physiology classes during undergrad as part of my PT major. Without a solid base of knowledge of the human body and its processes, it is difficult to develop a deep understanding of human performance in athletics. You must be aware of which muscles are being worked and which anatomical movements are being utilized so they, as coaches, can make corrections. This enables the athletes to develop correct form for a given exercise, which could ultimately help them avoid injury.

After undergrad, it is important to become educated in the more specialized areas that specifically pertain to sports science. To do this, the best option is to enroll in a graduate program. As mentioned before, as a candidate for a job in performance, your value and appeal are far greater if you are bolstered by multiple degrees. These show that you have put in years beyond a traditional bachelor’s degree to master your craft. At the same time, of course, to become even a proficient coach, you must have plenty of practical experience with coaching athletes. This doesn’t change the fact that an awareness of both the basic and more advanced concepts concerning sports science must occur first.

Obtain a Master’s Degree in the Profession

Of course, finding the right school for your graduate program is also of great importance. For me, the process was similar to finding the right college in terms of my comfort with the location and size of school. However, I felt that I placed far greater focus on the curriculum the program provided and how well that matched up with my interests.

For instance, I found some programs that were labeled “Master’s in Exercise Science,” but when I did more digging, the career paths the program offered were vague and did not directly relate to sports performance. Ultimately, I found a program that allows for multiple different pathways, but it defines in its curriculum that one common avenue students take is that of sports science. This meant the program devoted a segment of its classes to sports-science-type material.

Another important consideration in choosing the right program is the potential for connections, which can, in many cases, directly or indirectly lead to a career after you complete the graduate program. While concept knowledge is the foundation for any performance coach, establishing your network of professionals will be more important for landing a desirable job. Ideally, if you can establish a network, you will have people to connect with as soon as you complete your degree, as opposed to earning your degree and then having to essentially start from scratch.

While concept knowledge is the foundation for any performance coach, establishing your network of professionals will be more important for landing a desirable job. Share on X

While still deciding between schools, I was able to establish connections with people in one program, and I was fortunate enough to get a graduate assistant position in athletics at the university I will be attending. This opportunity for quality, practical experience while I attend classes was crucial for me, and it ultimately made my choice of school an easy one.

Along with a graduate degree to your name, it is also necessary that an aspiring performance coach consider obtaining certifications. Like the added appeal created by a graduate degree, having special certifications proves to those hiring that you are knowledgeable. It also shows that you are willing to put in a significant amount of time toward your passion of sports performance.

Many coaches agree that the first certification you should pursue is the CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist). It is widely considered step 1 for working directly with athletes to enhance performance.

The certification test’s content is formed around the book, “Essentials of Strength and Conditioning” (4th edition). The book is pretty long and densely packed with material, but it is essential that those who want to pass the exam get through it in its entirety. Ultimately, the studying period consists of considerable time and effort over multiple months for most people, but if spaced out correctly, it can be very manageable.

So how do you give yourself the best chance of passing on the first try? The first step after registering for the CSCS is to determine the amount of time you need to study so that you’re fully prepared to crush the exam. The NSCA website provides a basic chart for the length of time needed to study—it considers whether you already have practical experience or a bachelor’s degree that involved health science. Regardless of your starting position, however, you should map out your studying so you can progress at a steady pace for maximal absorption of the information.

For instance, in my case, I had earned a bachelor’s degree in health studies and had a few semesters of the BU DPT program under my belt, which proved very helpful on the exam. Fortunately, a lot of the beginning sections of the book covering human physiology and gross anatomy were review for me. However, even with my previous education, I still had to devote around two months toward my preparation to feel fully prepared come test day. Ultimately, there is no shame in taking as long as you need to prepare so you can ideally pass the exam on your first try and not have to retake it, which requires an additional fee.

Get Focused and Schedule Your Study Times

In terms of my actual preparation during the two-month period, I first wanted to get through the entire book before worrying about practice questions. My schedule involved trying to get through a chapter every day, which allowed me to organize my thoughts around a set of certain concepts during one sitting. This method is great for thorough absorption of the material and maximal understanding of the concepts.

The reason you need to be so thorough is that most of the questions on the exam are application-based and necessitate a deep understanding of the theories. In other words, there will not be many questions that simply require you to recall a specific piece of information (i.e., What is the rest period with exercise that involves the phosphagen system?). Instead, most questions involve multiple concepts. These types of questions require a deeper understanding of the subject than a mere surface-level understanding involving memorization of individual facts.

In addition to devoting each day to one chapter of concepts, another method that contributes to maximal information absorption is creating an outline of notes from each chapter. My routine was to get through around three chapters and then create an outline for those chapters. (I found that making the outline for more than three chapters resulted in too much information at one time.)

The purpose of creating a separate outline is so that, at a later time, you are able to look over the material in a timely manner while still getting a thorough summary of all the important concepts that might show up on the exam. Ideally, your outline should be much easier to digest than the book. It should be in your own words and be void of any fluff information that isn’t essential to the concept being discussed. With this in mind, the outline must have headings, bullet points with sub-bullet points, and bolded/underlined words to stress the importance of the key ideas.

Once I felt like I had a comprehensive understanding of the book’s concepts, the next step in my preparation was working on practice problems because getting used to the type of question and level of detail is instrumental in being prepared for test day. It took some time to experiment with different sites and programs that offered free questions, but ultimately, I found that the vast majority of the questions on those free sites did not represent the level of difficulty of questions on the actual CSCS exam. This is not to say these free questions did not have any use—they proved helpful for reinforcing very basic concepts which may help those just starting their preparation.

I found the best source of questions that were actually representative of questions on the test was the NSCA website. Unfortunately, it will cost you a fair amount of money per question. However, it is undoubtedly the best way to simulate taking the exam as far as the level of difficulty of the questions as well as practicing the ritual of answering a large amount of questions consecutively.

This aspect of preparation may be overlooked, but I found that building my mental stamina was more important than I had initially thought. The exam requires you to answer around 90 questions and then, after a short break, answer another 100+. With this in mind, I believe mastering the NSCA’s practice questions should be essential to your overall study plan.

Mastering the NSCA’s practice questions should be essential to your overall study plan for the CSCS certification exam, and don’t overlook building your mental stamina. Share on X

I studied diligently for around two months and two weeks, and when test day arrived, I was feeling anxious but confident that I could showcase my grasp of the material. Most questions on the actual exam required a fair amount of thinking and the usage of multiple different concepts to arrive at what I believed to be the best answer. There were, of course, some questions that caught me completely by surprise. They didn’t rattle me too much, however, as there are essentially infinite possibilities for questions that can be derived from a 700-page textbook that is densely packed with material. Ultimately, I found the exam relatively challenging, but it’s very manageable if you employ the right preparation during the correct time frame.

Get Experience So You Can Start Coaching

Besides gaining a graduate degree and earning various certifications, what can an up-and-coming performance coach do to advance their own competence while also presenting themselves as a valuable candidate for a job? From meeting various people in the industry to discuss career trajectory, I have found that jobs value practical experience or internships that are representative of a setting that you want to be part of in a full-time role.

First, simply spending time in high-level settings that are well organized and employ science-based methods can be crucial for development as a strength coach. By just witnessing the normal functioning of a facility, you can take note of what you like or maybe what could be improved, which then immediately gives you a more informed opinion on how strength and conditioning facilities should be run. Additionally, during such internships, it is important to connect with the main coaches involved with the team or company and pick their brain regarding their strategies for enhancing performance and how they articulate their methods to their athletes. Again, by taking notice of your S&C coach’s specific plan and strategies for improving athletes, you are developing your own knowledge and examining which of those methods yields results and which may not.

For instance, on a basic level, some strength coaches who train college soccer teams may go extra light with load when in-season, while others may try to continue their player’s strength and power gains while threatening to cause unnecessary fatigue. Besides their strategies, I like to observe a coach’s demeanor, delivery of information, and general tone set with their players. To me, these interpersonal skills are all important because an athlete’s perception of a strength coach is arguably more determined by that coach’s personality/demeanor than by the specific methods that coach employs.

Something I have learned is that there are multiple ways to command respect from your players and motivate them to be dialed into the weight room. I have been an athlete at the mercy of a “yeller” S&C coach who does not allow any fooling around, and I have witnessed a more reserved coach who, without raising his voice or overcompensating, had his players completely locked in and committed to being productive with their lift/practice.

There are multiple ways to command respect from your players and motivate them to be dialed into the weight room. I aim to form my coaching style around my personality. Share on X

When I think about what type of performance coach I aim to become, I first consider my personality and plan to form my coaching style around that. The thinking behind this is to avoid overcompensating and employing communication/mannerisms that are in conflict with my true personality because that will create a feeling of disingenuity. I believe if I am simply myself, it will result in better communication with athletes, since they typically pick up on any false personality immediately and will most likely react negatively. At any rate, having quality time observing your superiors interacting with their athletes before you need to be responsible for your own athletes is an essential step.

Continuing Education – A Life-Long Pursuit of All Great Coaches

When pursuing a career in the arena of human performance, the most difficult part is undoubtedly getting started. As mentioned in my previous article, I made the switch from physical therapy to performance, so in essence, I had to start from scratch with my plan of action to land the best job possible. Although it took me some time and energy to formulate this plan, I eventually got there and felt confident in my direction.

The best method to go about this is reaching out to respected people in the field and simply meeting to chat about career trajectories. That way, you will be more familiar with the various paths taken by established coaches and sport scientists. Then it is time to take action.

Of course, there are many ways to land an incredible job, but in order to be perceived as a valuable, skilled candidate, it is crucial to first earn a graduate degree at a program that matches your interests. This is then followed by earning extra certifications like that of the CSCS, which means studying effectively while managing your time efficiently. Finally, you will want to get a large amount of practical experience under your belt in the form of an internship or graduate assistant position.

At this point, bolstered by a vast knowledge of the field, experience with athletes and seasoned coaches, and a network of professionals willing to help, you should be ready to go after your dream job. As an aspiring sports scientist myself, I aim to follow these guidelines so I can ultimately follow my passion of working with elite athletes while making a real difference in the world of human performance.

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

How do you really know that the program you have written is the cause of your athletes’ positive adaptations? How do you know they aren’t just achieving success in spite of your program, due to their natural ability and genetics? As a coach, it is a tough question to answer, not only because of the complexity of understanding the human body as an ever-changing organism, but also because it forces us to acknowledge that we might not have as large of an influence on our athletes as we initially thought.

The challenge for all coaches is to truly discover what are an athlete’s drivers of adaptation. We must seek and problem solve to determine the key stimuli that make this athlete better, and then begin to direct more of our training program toward this.

The challenge for all coaches is to truly discover an athlete’s driver of adaptation, says @dylhicks. Share on X

Across the 2017–2018 season, I was coaching a group of mainly short and long sprint athletes. During this season (including a few months prior to the season starting), I was working with a young sprinter who went from being a solid club-level athlete to running the third leg on the 4x100m at the 2018 World Junior Championships in Tampere, Finland. It was a good achievement for both of us to get to this point; however, I think this stage is where many coaches can get it wrong.

Upon further reflection, this achievement had little to do with the program that I wrote. Yes, he came into a group with more structure and specificity, and some senior athletes to work with and learn from, but the athlete had a better-than-average level of natural talent and, along with hard work and consistency, the performances were brought out. The drivers of adaptation were specificity and determination.

But this information does not guide future training programs or provide insight into what type of training the athlete best responds to. I’m not underestimating my role in the process, but I believe many coaches could have achieved the same given the circumstances. In instances like this, it is likely still unclear what the true driver of adaptation is—assuming they are healthy, most young athletes will continue to improve on a simple diet of specificity.

But once the athlete moves into the senior ranks and the “teenage testosterone” boost no longer provides PR’s every time they hit the track…then what? What are you going to do to improve your athletes at this stage?

Much of this blog post consists of my initial thoughts on a podcast from HMMR Media with Stu McMillan of ALTIS, where he discussed (and I’m paraphrasing) how to progress the program (and athlete) once the training principle of intensity is exhausted. As with the example above, with young athletes, specificity and intensity are the major drivers of adaptation. As a coach, this is the easiest programming you will ever do. You could go on autopilot for several seasons using the same program and tweak these principles, and the PR’s will keep coming. Everyone will think you’re a genius. Often, other athletes see this progress and want to join the training group, without critically analyzing what is driving adaptation.

I have not been coaching anywhere near as long as Stu, but I have coached athletes at both the start and toward the end of their respective careers and know that thinking the same stimulus will drive adaptation is crazy (something he also referred to in that discussion). It’s like comparing an old car whose odometer has circled back around to a new car that is being driven out of the dealership. In my opinion, true coaching begins here.

I’ll be the first to admit, I have messed this part up. I failed to study my individual athletes and discover what was driving their adaptation(s). For some that I coached, they either didn’t adapt or they got worse, and at the time I didn’t recognize why. Not acknowledging this would be ignorance on my part.

Understanding Adaptation

The first thing coaches need to be aware of is the length of time it takes for adaptations to occur. Some coaches know this information anecdotally, while others defer to the science. I don’t believe it really matters, but you need to know the rough timeframe of how many exposures (sessions, weeks, months) to the stimuli will provide the adaptation you desire, along with the residual training effect of how long the adaptations will remain if you do not train them frequently¹ (figure 1). For example, anaerobic, aerobic, and alactic adaptations all occur and dissipate at different rates and, therefore, must be trained accordingly.

Too often, coaches change the theme (or priority) of the program before the adaptation occurs, says @dylhicks. Share on X

One area I think coaches can improve in is providing greater training time throughout the cycles to allow the adaptation to occur. Depending on the nature of the training focus or theme, adaptations occur over weeks to months and you cannot rush them. It takes as long as it takes. Too often, coaches change the theme (or priority) of the program before the adaptation occurs, usually because the month ended, the cycle concluded, or they want to try the “flavor of the month” training session.

The process of introducing the stimulus and stress; allowing time for motor learning, skill acquisition, and responding to the stress; and then stabilizing and adapting to the stress is important to understand for training design. Vladimir Issurin’s work in regard to block periodization—where he describes the training process and how adaptations occur across mesocycles—can be a useful starting point with its introduction of the following terms: accumulation, transmutation, and realization.¹

Although these concepts are not the sole focus of this article, the classification across cycles can be varied to understand training design. One variation of Issurin’s original work, and one which I think is effective for understanding the concept of adaptation along with training design, is detailed in figure 2. The visual is not specifically a reference to block periodization, but it provides a thought process of how coaches could think about applying stress to the system. Sometimes I think coaches write the sessions without truly thinking about what adaptations they want the session(s) to elicit.

To determine adaptation (stabilization and realization) for my sprint group, a common session I used during the SPP involved running 5 x 60m reps at approximately 90–95% (not all-out), with 6–8 minutes’ rest between reps (figures 3 and 4). Over time, I wanted the athletes to demonstrate quality across all reps (specific work capacity), rather than having two strong performances and then dropping off for the final three. The session demands the athlete to put together a strong drive phase and transition to maximal velocity, but also show good speed endurance qualities across the series of runs (30–45 minutes), perhaps simulating multiple warm-ups and races in a day (albeit quite concentrated).

You can see the cumulative and mean time diminish across the weeks, which corresponds with a 1.7% performance change across four weeks. This is significant across a 60-meter distance and demonstrates a positive response to the stimulus. Having too much range in the rep times (one fast time, some in the middle, final rep significantly slower) probably wouldn’t demonstrate adaptation to this session and would require greater analysis of why this athlete has not responded to the imposed demands.

Anecdotally, I think coaches introduce a new stressor before the athlete has even responded/reacted, let alone stabilized against the previous stressor. Be boring and keep repeating the same series of sessions until you can see the athlete has adapted. How you do this is up to you—voila, the art of coaching!

Using the athlete mentioned above as an example, during that season I made a priority to streamline the training process and focus on three themes all season, with acceleration as the priority (micro-dosed each session) and—for the majority of the time—little variation in structure. Our focus was:

• Tuesday: acceleration
• Thursday: maximal velocity
• Saturday: speed endurance

Rocket science, I know! But I was just trying to control the variables by keeping the training pattern the same to observe when things were changing (for the good or the bad). Many coaches add too much to the recipe, leaving them unable to identify what is causing the change. You can’t determine which sessions or structure of sessions are driving adaptations if you keep changing the type of variable, or if you change them too frequently.

You can’t determine which sessions or structure of sessions drive adaptations if you keep changing the type of variable, or if you change them too frequently, says @dylhicks. Share on X 

Responders vs. Non-Responders

From a medical viewpoint, it would be beneficial to understand why some patients respond favorably to a certain cancer treatment or intervention while other patients do not. This would create a discussion of responders vs. non-responders. Why did group A respond positively to the cancer drug, but group B showed no changes? The same can be said for coaching interventions. Why do some athletes adapt, respond, and improve, while other athletes stagnate?

Again, this is multifactorial, but the quicker we, as coaches, try to understand why, the better. In regard to sprinters, I’ve seen various means to classify athlete types in the hope that the classification assists training direction and, ultimately, performance. Sprint athlete classification types (figure 5) have included athletes who are focusing on pushing or pulling, show a central or peripheral fatigue response, or those we think have a dominant percentage of type IIA or IIB muscle fibers.

Most of these classifications are a guess, relatively ambiguous, and subjective; however, they serve the purpose of discovering where the bulk of the training program should be directed. If coaches can match up the classification type with their training program, we may end up with more positive athlete response(s) compared to non-responders. One thing that can become a roadblock in this situation is the coach’s training philosophy or system. Assuming the coach discovers what drives adaptation to the athlete system, if they refuse to compromise on their training system, then improvement is ultimately limited.

Using Testing to Classify Athletes

When classifying athletes, all we are doing is making large-scale assumptions about which “bucket” we can place them in. We make our best guess, but it must still be a fluid process between buckets if necessary. Two simple tests (and a ratio) you can use to classify sprint athletes are the squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), and the eccentric utilization ratio (EUR).

Jump tests are easy to administer and require limited equipment, and performance (jump height/maximal power) is often a strong indicator of overall athleticism. Squat jumps are commonly used to measure concentric strength (starting strength), whereas the countermovement jump is a measure of reactive strength of the lower body². To determine jump height and maximal power, you can access a force plate (figure 6).

I recently purchased two PASCO force plates, which are reasonably affordable (albeit not as robust as Kistler plates, etc.) If you don’t have access to this technology, you can purchase the MyJump2 app for less than $15 to determine jump height and maximal power (plus other variables). Once these values are known, you can calculate the EUR by dividing the CMJ value (cm or watts/kg) by the SJ value (cm or watts/kg) for either height or power (figure 7).

Assuming there are no coordinative issues regarding jump technique, when comparing these two athletes, you could uncontroversially assume that Athlete A relies more on their mechanical (concentric) ability to transmit force than their ability to use the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and elastic/reactive strength. Using very broad stereotypes, Athlete A may be strong through acceleration; however, they lack the ability to keep “bouncing” once they’re into the maximal velocity and maintenance/deceleration phase. This athlete may be a typical 60m/100m type.

Athlete B shows a EUR that suggests they have a strong level of elastic strength and can use their SSC/connective tissue effectively. Again using stereotypes, this athlete may still be quite good during acceleration, but may in comparison excel to a greater degree while at maximal velocity, maintaining their “bounce” and being the more typical 100/200m athlete. This is where they can show strong speed endurance qualities and often run past other athletes in the closing stages of both sprint events.

This is just one example of using testing to classify athletes. You could use many field-based (or track) tests to determine current status and the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete.

Training Systems

Another thing McMillan discussed in the aforementioned podcast was how some athletes change training groups and then adapt (or respond) positively to the new training system, going on to perform well. Others, however, do not. As he mentioned—and I wholeheartedly agree—there are numerous reasons this could be the case. It is easy to throw stones from the sofa while watching an athlete underperform at the elite level, without ever knowing the context.

When athletes change training groups but don’t perform to the same level (assuming they are healthy), I strongly believe the coach hasn’t discovered what drives the system. Share on X

Seeing the same situation at a lower level in my own context, when athletes change groups and don’t perform to the same level, assuming they are healthy, I strongly believe the coach hasn’t discovered what drives the system (and I’ve made this mistake too). Often, this is because the athlete has not been there long enough, and the sample size of sessions is too small. It’s a tough spot to be in. Track and field is a results-driven business. No one wants to hear excuses.

If the training system they have come into goes against what drives adaptation, some hard decisions need to be made by both the athlete and the coach. For example, if intensity has always been the focus of the previous training system, and the athlete moves to a training group where this is not the major focus, you will initially have problems. The stimulus the new system provides will likely not exceed the adaptation threshold, and so improvement will likely halt. The coach now needs to get creative.

Adapting to the System

Magical things happen when you find that athlete who instantly responds to the program you are writing. And, as all good coaches do, you keep feeding the beast with this type of training, and the athlete keeps improving until they have adapted to the stimulus. At this point, most coaches would revert to manipulating typical training principles (e.g., volume, intensity, frequency, density, etc.). However, it is still the same system and philosophy. Once athletes (usually senior athletes) have adapted, you reach the point of diminishing returns: You cannot keep giving them more of the same type of training and expect it to provide a new stimulus and higher performance level.

I believe this is where the undervalued training principle of variation could be appropriately utilized. While still appreciating the athlete classification and the driver of adaptation, I’d challenge coaches to experiment with using an alternate system with these athletes—still specific to the overall goal (such as sprinting), but with enough variation in the programming to elicit a new stress response. After all, that’s all we, as coaches, are trying to do for our athletes.

1. Stress their system.
2. Allow time to adapt.
3. Watch them perform.

I don’t believe variation of the same training system is the same as changing the programming mindset to elicit a new stress. This is where elite coaches show their true colors. Yes, it is an experiment, but all coaching is. Not recognizing athlete stagnation is a coaching error. You need to have a regular, systems-based approach to determine when they are no longer adapting to what you are writing. It is not up to the athlete to determine this, yet they will likely voice some opinion if things are not going well once the season begins.

Not recognizing athlete stagnation is a coaching error. You need to have a regular, systems-based approach to determine when they are no longer adapting to what you are writing. Share on X

At a certain training age, it may be time to forget if it’s not broke, don’t fix it, and in some form break the athlete down. This process will look different in every case, but if you are looking to drive new adaptations, this may be just what the system needs.

Focus on the Adaptation’s Driver

Focusing on the drivers of adaptation is an important concept to understand in order to appropriately program for your athletes. To determine the driver(s) of adaptation, coaches should try some of the following:

• Use typical testing protocols or regular workouts to classify your athletes.
• Link classifications to what YOU think drives adaptations.
• Match up the classification of athlete with workouts that are directed to their driver.
• Incorporate regular structures into training cycles to determine rate of adaptation (internal/external, subjective/objective monitoring).
• Assuming they are healthy, if athletes are not responding to the workouts, assess whether they have already adapted to the stimulus, it’s the incorrect stimulus for them, or the training system must be varied due to their training history.

All we are doing as coaches is experimenting with workouts and hoping they positively impact the athlete. The quicker we know what type of workouts will drive adaptation, the faster we will see improvements with our 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

1. Issurin, V. “Block periodization versus traditional training theory: A review.” The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.2008; 48(1): 65–75.

2. McGuigan, M., Doyle, T., Newton, M., Edwards, D., Nimphius, S. and Newton, R. “Eccentric utilization ratio: Effect of sport and phrase on training.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2006; 20(4): 992–995.

I have been fortunate to work with world champions in professional sports, Olympic gold medalists, Special Forces operators, and some of the most successful coaches in the world. During that time, I’ve begun to recognize certain skills that separate the great from the very good. First, I will tell you that getting to the top of the mountain is a tremendous accomplishment—and the hardest thing to do is to stay there.

Look at a few of today’s most accomplished teams and how often they’ve returned to the pinnacle, from the time of the first championship to their current run: The New England Patriots have won six in 18 years, Alabama’s Crimson Tide football team has won five in 10 years, and the Golden State Warriors have won three in five years, but each only has one back-to-back championship. Because these teams are always in the playoffs, it’s easy to take for granted how damn hard it is to win a championship!

In my experience, the truly elite demonstrate three character traits in a superior manner to those who are unable to remain successful, says @CoachSchwartz8. Share on X

This article is not about the average performer or the ones not living up to their potential. It’s about those who already have the fundamental skills to succeed: work ethic, consistency, and the requisite talent. Furthermore, it’s not just about reaching the highest level of performance but finding methods to sustain that performance. In my experience, the truly elite demonstrate three character traits in a superior manner to those who are unable to remain successful.

As a strength and conditioning coach, my ability to teach and lead in the development of these traits is as important as my efforts to enhance athleticism.

Sacrifice

As mentioned, all top performers work hard. Good performers, however, train relentlessly, and then perhaps go home and eat poorly. Or they don’t unplug early enough so they can get a proper sleep. Or they will allow themselves to be consumed by social activities or partying. All of these lapses hinder recovery and inhibit the next training session. Over time, these less-than-optimal training sessions accumulate and add up to a poor performance. Great performers, on the other hand, prioritize their training and their recovery.

A number of years ago, I began working with an extremely talented, but still young, fighter. He had all the tools a champion fighter needs—precision, power, speed, and timing. During training camp, he was laser-focused: diet, training, sleep, and mentally prepared at all times.

Between camps, however, it was a complete 180. He would then show up for our next camp out of shape and 20–25% off from being on-weight. Consequently, the first three weeks of our eight-week camps were then dedicated to getting him back into the condition necessary to actually get in a high volume of skill work.

Skills win fights. Don’t be confused—I can get a fighter stronger, faster, and more explosive, BUT if they haven’t gotten in enough skill work…they’ll be the best athlete getting knocked out. This fighter had the talent to get away with his lifestyle in Amateurs and early on as a Pro, but it clearly wasn’t going to work as a long-term strategy.

I can get a fighter stronger, faster, and more explosive, BUT if they haven’t gotten in enough skill work…they’ll be the best athlete getting knocked out, says @CoachSchwartz8. Share on X

If you want buy-in from an athlete, simply talking won’t work—you have to earn your stripes and get skin in the game. In this instance with the fighter, I began tracking his progress during camps and showing him how much he had regressed, coupled with the amount of time it took us to get his performance measures back to where he had been at the previous fight. Then, I made deals with him—he could eat steak during camp, have one session/camp where we regen only, have an extra off day, and the anaerobic conditioning emphasis sessions would only happen in the first three weeks. Then, we’d transition to more speed and power for the remaining five weeks, which was my intent all along.

The key to the deal, though, was that to earn those considerations he had to show up to camp no more than 10% over weight—meaning, if we’re fighting at 140 pounds, two months out he would be at 154. Anyone who has experience with weight-class athletes knows this is a tiny weight cut, but that was the point: We wanted to focus on skill development and enhancing recovery. Fatigue impairs skill acquisition, yet athletes put themselves in this situation when they wait for camp to emphasize conditioning.

The other part of the deal was that on day 1 of camp, he had to be able to spar an entire fight while we rotated in fresh partners. The first S&C session also had performance goals in challenges such as the prowler, incline sprints, upper back, and core work. If he failed in any of the areas, the test ceased—but then, the deal was off.

This was simply meant to identify preparation; it wasn’t intended to be a punishment or some threat looming over him between camps. Of course, we worked together to ensure success. We ate together and went to the grocery store together, and I spoke regularly with his mother and wife about nutrition and recovery. We formed a plan using activities he enjoyed as our main strength and conditioning modalities between camps.

At the first camp, he held up his end of the deal: He was 10% from making weight and hit all of the performance markers. At the second camp, he was at 10% again and crushed the performance markers. At this point I trusted that we would never take a step backward in this regard, so we never did the performance test again. It’s worth noting that through the greater commitment to training between camps, his upper back and core strength were no longer considered weak points, and we could now focus the entire training camp on his long-term development.

Over the next 5 ½ years, he won world titles in four weight classes and went 9–1 in title fights.  From this, I learned that making deals with athletes is a successful strategy to gain greater sacrifice on their end. As their strength coach, my commodity is their programming. I have no problem creating individualized programs, but that comes with the agreement that the athlete will be 100% compliant with sports medicine, including corrective/pre-hab work, the dietitian in body comp, fueling and hydration, sport psych in stressed-performance training, etc. If I were in the collegiate setting again, I would include academics and social conduct as well. An athlete fully committed to all these areas deserves increased autonomy and input toward their own success.

“The Good and the Great are only separated by their willingness to sacrifice.” –Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

It is critical to realize that those sacrifices being made need to actually improve performance.  The commitment to be great seemingly leaves no time or energy for anything else; there is, however, a massive difference between being a martyr and being a champion. Spending 80 hours doing what you could have accomplished in 50 doesn’t mean you’re more dedicated.

There’s a massive difference between being a martyr and a champion. Spending 80 hours doing what you could have accomplished in 50 doesn’t mean you’re more dedicated, says @CoachSchwartz8. Share on X

Often, our personal relationships are compromised in our pursuit of excellence (a point that may hit home with my fellow coaches). The stress involved with a strained family life is often so consuming it diverts the energy and focus that need to be devoted to the pursuit of excellence.  Now, we’re stuck in a vicious cycle. While I agree that being elite requires some imbalance, it’s necessary to prioritize the support structures that will keep us moving forward. The needed sacrifice in this instance is our efficiency—being efficient doesn’t mean doing less; in my experience, it means doing more quality and meaningful work in less time.

Time management is something that I’m sure most people will find significant in our section on strengthening deficiencies.

Strengthens Deficiencies

No matter how great a performer is, if they were to rank their skills, by process of elimination there would be a bottom three. These three abilities may not be a “weakness” in comparison to the competition, but they are definitely at the low end of the performer’s personal skill set. Good performers usually half-heartedly address these issues or ignore them completely. They rely on the rationale that they’re good enough, and by utilizing their strengths they won’t be exposed.

The elite performers I’ve been around give due attention to these less-developed skills. For example, I trained a medal-winning wrestler who routinely got beat in sparring because he chose partners whose strengths could expose his own weaknesses. He was completely dedicated to this process. No matter how bad it got in sparring, he would continue down the path of most resistance and not turn to his own strengths in order to gain an advantage. By doing so, he became a much more complete wrestler and enjoyed a decade of championship performance.

I have a simple system I like to use: Do More, Do Better, Do Less. For example, when training fighters at the beginning of each camp, I meet with the head coach and the fighter to do an evaluation of how the last camp impacted the fight and, from there, we develop our new fight plan. From this conversation, we identify what was working and how much we want to invest in it this camp, as well as what wasn’t as beneficial and how we can become more efficient and effective.

Video 1. Tire battling is great for building “structural strength” to fight out of the clinch or Front 7 engagements. Strengthening deficiencies is one of the hallmarks of a great athlete.

Almost always, the Do More and Do Better are designed to address deficiencies. Particularly after a convincing win, it is difficult for a champion to identify where we need work, because everything seemed to be on point. This process, however, is critical to sustained success. I absolutely DO NOT believe the old saying “You learn more from a loss than a win.” Both outcomes provide unique learning opportunities.

“Winning masks a lot of problems and allows a lot of people to cheat themselves.”– Jay Bilas

In order to strengthen deficiencies in time management and recovery, I use Omegawave with my athletes as a more objective measure and tool to improve education and communication. During periods of travel, when training options may not be ideal, athletes have to make modifications in their training. Omegawave is not only a way to monitor their readiness and recovery, but the data also provides us with a platform to discuss how training, travel, diet, and stress impact their measurement results.

I’ve found that when training options are limited, athletes tend to go back to their favorites and what they most enjoy, which usually gets them away from the emphasis on strengthening deficiencies. For example, I have a power athlete who is very type A and loves to push his own limits. Based on his trend data in Omegawave, however, we’ve discovered that a 30-minute aerobic development session every 7–10 days provides him with a tremendous recovery stimulus.

On a recent trip, his readings started to decline, which I brought up in a discussion. Only then did he mention stalled performance in his strength/power work and a lack of energy. Deeper into the conversation, we realized that he had forgotten to do an aerobic session for about three weeks. Once he began implementing these sessions again, everything corrected in a few days. Objective measurements provide an insurance policy that nothing has been overlooked or forgotten during the course of subjective monitoring.

Objective measurements provide an insurance policy that nothing has been overlooked or forgotten during the course of the subjective monitoring, says @CoachSchwartz8. Share on X

Identifying and persistently addressing deficiencies helps reduce the risk of failure. Although uncomfortable, it’s an essential piece of the process to maximize performance. Our next point addresses a similar concept, but from a different angle.

Is ‘All-In’

Whether we want to call it the “fear of failure” or even the “fear of success,” a lot of performers hold back slightly due to the fear that giving an absolute 100% and still failing is worse than having a built-in excuse. Performers who are merely good might self-sabotage by not emphasizing the preceding two character traits or taking the shortcut on conditioning, film, skill work, missing a training session, etc. Basically, those athletes might find ways to give 99%, so if things don’t go well, they can blame the missing 1% and then have a plan for the future.

“The little details add up until they represent significant differences.” – Bill Belichick

It’s a hell of a thing to truly “trust the process.” Very few athletes have this ability naturally. More often than not, it takes the assistance of those around them. This is where culture has its largest impact. Trust is key to attaining elite performance.

The performer has to trust that those supporting them will do as they say, are capable of helping get them to perform at the elite level, and have a deeply vested interest in their success. Only under these conditions can the performer truly trust that all the preparation will get them to the pinnacle. Please don’t misunderstand this to be soft and cuddly mush—those in supporting roles for the performer have to be honest, especially when uncomfortable. They, too, must be relentlessly demanding to keep the performer raising the standard with all three of these traits.

I have been fortunate to be part of a trio of major “culture changes” within Division I football programs (two as an assistant and one as head of strength and conditioning). Collectively, these teams won five games the previous year and then 19 our first season together. The first step is consistency of message and operation. Everyone who comes into contact with the athletes has to be on the same page at ALL times. This way, the expectation is set and being modeled by example.

Actions will always speak louder than words. There is no such thing as extra work, only work that needs to be done to accomplish your goals. When the athletes see this commitment from their coaches and all support staff, it goes a long way toward building trust.

There is no such thing as extra work, only work that needs to be done to accomplish your goals, @CoachSchwartz8. Share on X

There also has to be a belief structure. In these three situations where we set out to change team culture, the core beliefs have varied from our toughness to our work ethic, and in one case it began with simply getting the athletes to believe they had the talent necessary to win. In each situation, it was important to identify what the players valued and the areas where we, as coaches, needed to build their confidence. However, the toughness, work ethic, and talent need to be challenged and given an opportunity to be displayed in training.

There will be setbacks and teachable moments along the way. Every situation is a little different and will require a unique approach. Only through belief can you improve the behaviors and outcomes. This concept of culture change is a monster, worth a book of its own. I’m simply showing how culture is necessary to enable athletes to tap into that last 1% for elite performance.

So, there you have it—three critical character traits that basically demand you to defy human nature. No one enjoys giving up immediate gratification, working on things that are a personal struggle, or allowing themselves to be vulnerable. But those who stay on top of the mountain conquer these challenges. There are many factors involved in achieving greatness, but when you boil them all down, you’re left with one concept that covers many areas: Be willing to do what others aren’t.

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

Over the past five years, I have been closely reviewing the number of ACL injuries requiring surgery in the National Football League. In many ways, this examination has been for the purpose of determining the efficacy of off-season training protocols in keeping athletes healthy, with the ACL being the “canary in the coal mine,” so to speak. Much of this has been connected to the changes in the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in professional sports, which now often don’t require athletes to train with the team staff. Of course, we must consider many factors when it comes to the causes behind these types of injuries, but the data can be helpful when cross-referenced with both situational and environmental changes occurring over time.

I have accumulated the following unofficial data by watching injury reports through conventional media, examining posts on NFL Fantasy Football websites, reviewing posts on social media, and talking to people close to the data. Interestingly enough, fantasy football reporting has been one of the more expedient and accurate means of tracking injuries and man games lost to injury in recent years. Whenever money is on the line, people will find the information that they need to make an informed decision.

The accuracy of the data is only as good as the sources, but at least it gives us a rough idea of the injury numbers each year. Table 1 outlines the observed data for the last 10 years, including an incomplete number for the current NFL season, showing some interesting trends since the introduction of the new CBA in March 2011. Although it was introduced in 2011, it was followed by a lockout that ended in late July 2011, so the effects of the new CBA rules were not fully realized until the following years.

 

1. Improved Physical Preparation in the Off-Season

It is important to start off on a positive note and give credit where credit may very well be due. I have been involved in a number of professional development events with the NFL in the past few years, including a number of NFL Combine gatherings. I have been included among a broad range of elite experts and professionals brought in to provide insight into injury prevention and athlete resiliency. Both medical staff and physical preparation staff have been the audience, and a good deal of practical information was exchanged.

I would like to think that much of this information has been passed on and implemented in both the off-season and in-season environments to give players a better chance to perform at a high level and stay healthy. This could very well be one of the reasons the pre-season ACL injury numbers are significantly lower than previous years. Professional sport requires that all employees retain a mindset of eternal optimism as an effective mental health strategy.

The difficult part of this situation is that team staff members have not been given any additional time to implement these specific strategies. The NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement is not due to be altered until 2021, and teams are still bound by the current agreement, limiting off-season work with players. Perhaps teams are simply getting smarter and more efficient with the limited time they have with players, such as the five weeks of dedicated strength and conditioning time.

One year of reduced NFL pre-season injuries is just a blip on the radar, and we must continue to monitor the situation, especially as we transition into a new CBA era, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

My own work with teams has been focused on being more effective and efficient in a shorter period of time in order to effect sustainable adaptations and strategies for players. Trimming the fat has been a prime objective with no wasted effort, accounting for every minute of training time. However, this approach has significant limitations if players are non-compliant once they leave the training facility.

Let us assume that team staff members have been able to make inroads on the issue of injury prevention. Time will tell as we move forward this season and next, and beyond. One year of reduced pre-season injuries is simply a blip on the radar, and we must continue to monitor the situation, particularly as we transition into a new CBA era.

2. Risk Avoidance for Older Players

The recent lessons of the NBA have been front and center for NFL coaches and executives. Having your top players go down with a catastrophic injury at the worst possible time is not a solution for success. The term “load management” has made its way through professional sports, and sitting players on the bench seems to be a viable solution to all of the teams’ injury woes. And, seemingly, the waters of the “anti-fragile” swamp have drained away in recent years, as making players more resilient in the off-season just does not seem to be viable strategy in the minds of many. Resting players is easier to implement and label as a “sports science” intervention, regardless of what technology tells us.

We must ask ourselves if the top players in the NFL are being “load managed” more than ever in the pre-season and not being given the opportunity to rupture a ligament or tendon in games that are considered worthless. The better players have also had a few more years in the league and may not be considered as youthfully durable. Thus, the bulk of the pre-season game load is being shouldered by players who have just completed 3–4 years in college under a strength and conditioning program that requires them to be in attendance for more than six months outside of the season.

It does seem that we see fewer and fewer appearances by each team’s top players in pre-season games. Has this trend influenced the ACL injury totals this year? asks @DerekMHansen. Share on X

While sitting out stars makes sense, this is not a new development, as starters have often been held back in pre-season games to not only preserve their health, but also evaluate new talent for the roster selection process. However, it does seem that we are seeing fewer and fewer appearances by each team’s top players in pre-season games. Has this trend influenced the ACL injury totals this year? It is difficult to make this connection without tracking the minutes of all players in the pre-season over the last 10 years and comparing them against regular season playing minutes.

It still remains a compelling discussion, as more and more teams and players are complaining that the pre-season games are worthless and detrimental to the health and longevity of players, as well as the fortunes of individual teams in the regular season. It will be interesting to see how the pre-season is handled in the upcoming 2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement, as team owners will likely not choose to give up the revenues earned from those games. Only a move to the 18-game regular season model, with two pre-season games, may be attractive to owners. However, the injury implications of such an arrangement could make it even more costly for star players.

3. Rule Changes and Enhanced Enforcement

Some may attribute the reduction in pre-season ACL injuries to a change in rules and the way NFL officials are calling penalties, particularly those of the “targeting” variety. Are defensive players changing their approach to tackling and hitting their opponents, resulting in fewer catastrophic injuries? While this may be the case, the opposing argument has been that since NFL officials are trying to minimize traumatic brain injuries on the field, defensive players have decided to tackle and place hits below the waist, resulting in an increase in knee injuries. In addition, the expansion of instant-replay reviews by officials may make players adjust their behavior on the field, resulting in fewer serious injuries.

While rule changes may be part of the recent shift in pre-season ACL injuries, a longer-term evaluation of the effect of rule changes must be performed to truly understand the impact of on-field officials on injury patterns. Players don’t change behaviors that have been developed over their entire football careers in four games. Often, making players overtly think about their on-field movement strategies can create more coordination problems and apprehension that can lead to injury.

While we can be in favor of rule changes that minimize serious injury risk, it is difficult to ‘legislate’ fewer injuries in a game that is inherently dangerous, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

While we can be in favor of rule changes that minimize serious injury risk, it is difficult to “legislate” fewer injuries in a game that is inherently dangerous. This can be observed with the changes to both the “kick-off” rules and the rules around “defenseless players” implemented in the last 10 years. The pre-season total for ACL injuries has shown a general increase over this same time period, despite the shift toward rule changes intended to reduce injuries.

Sports leagues often make rule changes to give the impression that they are trying to improve the health of the players and the safety of the game. Whether or not the rule changes actually improve safety remains to be seen. For every penalty that is issued for a hit to the head, will there be an unintended consequence experienced years later? Will excessive stoppages due to instant replay reviews allow the players to cool down and stiffen up more during a game in cold weather? In any event, more data must be collected to determine the true causes of injuries, as well as determine if new interventions are rightfully improving the situation.

4. Dumb Luck

In a pre-season when “Smart Luck” decided to end his NFL career and move on to other aspects of life, “Dumb Luck” may be the reason that fewer players have torn their ACL so far this season. As was mentioned earlier, a positive outcome this year may simply be a blip on the radar that comes and goes due to factors out of control of the players and the staff around them. Injuries can rarely be explained by a single variable. The problem with declaring the current reduction in pre-season ACL injuries a “victory” is that if this year is actually a “dumb luck” anomaly, teams and players may start to relax on the key prevention measures that have kept the injuries from exploding beyond current levels.

In a sport such as American football, the need to be vigilant on all aspects of biomechanics, tactical preparation, and physical training is as important as ever to maintain the health and well-being of all players. Recent statistics show that the number of high school boys playing football continues to fall, with participation in 11-player football dropping by 30,829 participants to 1,006,013—the lowest mark in almost 20 years. The influence of injuries and the long-term health implications reported among NFL players have trickled down to the youth sport level, making parents and kids think twice about participation. Everyone in football—especially the NFL—has a stake in making the sport safer, but also in changing perceptions of the sport.

Another recent study showed that more individuals suffer concussions from recreational activities such as cycling, skateboarding, and horseback riding when compared to competitive sport, but we haven’t seen Will Smith examining brain slices from Shaun White yet. While we all want to celebrate victories around injury reductions from year to year, we should also be taking a more global approach to improving all aspects of professionalism, planning, and preparation around the sport to minimize bad luck and maximize good luck.

Moving into the Regular Season

As we start the 2019–20 NFL regular season, many of us will be watching closely to see if there is a spike in injuries—particularly those of the ACL variety—when the games count and full starting rosters are put on the field. Additionally, as players accumulate training and competition load week to week, exacerbated by travel demands, inclement weather, and field surface variability, we may get a more accurate indication of their resiliency and durability. I would love to see the current pre-season ACL injury total result in fewer than 25 cases for the season. However, I am much too pragmatic to believe that this is a sign of things to come, given the lack of change in physical preparation time, the complications around cleat-field interaction, and the nature of the sport itself.

At some point, the NFL and its teams will begin to seriously examine the trends and start making connections with key variables that can fall under their control, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

At some point, the League and its teams will begin to seriously examine the trends and start making connections with key variables that can fall under their control. A clear and comprehensive evaluation of what is required and permissible in the off-season must be undertaken. Everyone is making significant sums of money—much more than ever before in the history of the League—so moving in the direction of improving game safety will only improve the public perception of the sport. If more star players are removed from the picture with serious injuries, particularly after being shelved for most of the pre-season, teams will falter, and fan followings will decline. Factor in the trickle-down impact of these injuries on youth participation, and now you have a serious problem around your sport over the long term.

Unfortunately, collective bargaining tends to become more about power, control, deal-making, and perceived victories than what is best for everyone. If injuries are simply written off as the cost of doing business or an occupational hazard, the problem will persist and perhaps even grow in magnitude.

Burying your head in the sand and hoping that ‘load management’ will be the solution is akin to giving Chernobyl clean-up crews longer coffee breaks on the job site, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

A simple examination of injury statistics around other industries such as mining or construction demonstrates a significant downward trend in injuries and fatalities in the last 20­–30 years due to acknowledgement of the problem, organizational changes, and cooperation between business owners, management, and employees. Professional sports should be no different. Burying your head in the sand and hoping that “load management” will be the solution is akin to giving Chernobyl clean-up crews longer coffee breaks on the job site. The risk has not been reduced. The inevitable has simply been delayed.

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

Let’s just admit it already: Quantifying exercise technique is really hard. This is one reason we love to look at kinetic variables in the weight room over kinematics. It’s simply an easier measure to understand how much load an athlete has on the bar versus how they performed the exercise and if they utilized the correct muscles within the strategy altogether. Obviously, as coaches we always attempt to influence this within the day-to-day training process, but get three coaches to watch the same exercise and you’ll likely have three different interpretations of technique and strategy.

Despite the difficulties in quantifying movement proficiency, we haven’t stopped trying. Movement screens and assessments have created a buzz within our industry for a long time. Like many of my peers, I’ve been a serial user since the day I got into the profession. But each time I implemented an assessment, the results never seemed to move the needle. More often than not, I was left frustrated and confused, eventually throwing my hands up as I questioned the efficacy of assessing altogether. Soon, I’d discard it completely, until the next big wave of proponents had me jumping back on the wagon.

I came to realize that I had undervalued, overlooked, and disregarded the use of assessments because I was using them for all the wrong reasons. Now I understand the benefits. Share on X

What I came to realize is that I had undervalued, overlooked, and even disregarded the use of assessments because I was using them for all the wrong reasons. So, it’s time to address those reasons head-on and detail the benefits we have found by bringing back a formal movement assessment. It is my hope that these insights may positively impact you within your environment.

The Benefits of a Formal Movement Assessment

There are a variety of reasons for the utilization of a movement assessment, from improving communication and unity among your staff to improving your filter for complex movement. Here are eight of the most significant reasons to implement a movement assessment within your environment.

1. Establishes a Common Language Around Foundational Movement Among Your Staff

Having a quick way to create context with your colleagues is time- and energy-efficient. This enhances everything, from day-to-day general training conversations to the more formal discussions surrounding challenging cases with specific athletes. This point is enhanced with interns, as it is common practice to have multiple intern classes per year coming into our program. A movement assessment has been a great tool to save precious time in getting them to understand the attention to detail we believe necessary for movement proficiency. It’s also an important step to begin creating a common language to refer to moving forward.

2. Establishes a Common Language Among Strength and Conditioning and Sports Medicine Around Foundational Movement

This point cannot be emphasized enough when working with others due to the varying perspectives and biases we inherently carry into our everyday practice. This perspective provides the lens through which we see to train our athletes. But every lens is different, and this creates a challenge, as there is overlap in care among the same athletes when working in a team environment; most notably with the sports medicine staff. In order to navigate this overlap, it is useful to have a basis of understanding that can be cultivated through a movement assessment. This leads to a more detailed and a shared understanding of movement proficiency—something that we can all agree is important for optimizing athletic performance.

3. Trains Your Coaching Eye

A movement assessment has the ability to help you learn to be more reliable in the analysis of foundational movement and train your coaching eye. The scoring criteria intentionally limit options of what to look for. Limiting options is useful to reduce complexity and think more clearly and specifically about what you’re looking at. Doing so repeatedly establishes a consistent process, which can transcend the movements you are evaluating and help you on the floor in real time with other patterns. Improving our coaching eye is a never-ending endeavor, as we continuously work to improve our ability to see, interpret, and intervene with the complex behavior of movement.

Video 1. Very basic patterns like lifting the leg reveal more than just hamstring length, these are a direct window to motor control. Asymmetry is a very pragmatic clue to coaches if an athlete has a clear difference between legs.

This point is magnified when it comes to younger coaches and interns. When others work within your system and seek your guidance in learning it, it is your obligation to teach them the skills of detailed coaching. We have found no better way to teach movement and discuss technique than through a formalized assessment.

A movement assessment has the ability to help you learn to be more reliable in the analysis of foundational movement and train your coaching eye. Share on X

4. Utilizing Objective Criteria Decreases Biases

Our foundational movement assessment is objective. You perform a movement pattern and then receive a score. Without objectives, we rely more on opinion and intuition. While these qualities are essential in everyday coaching practice, they have the potential to lead us astray. When we are able to establish a common understanding utilizing objective criteria, we are better able to think clearly and have more informed discussions with respect to foundational patterns. Those informed discussions could then lead to better interventions to support athlete development.

5. Demonstrates to Athletes That Technique Is Important

Performing a formal movement assessment demonstrates to athletes a core principle of our philosophy: Technique is important. When it comes to training athletes, what gets measured matters. If we only quantify loads on a bar or height in a jump during testing or training sessions, we send a very clear message about what matters to us. Highlighting movement strategies and creating a road map for improvement via targeted interventions puts the athlete at the center of their training plan around quality movement. I have found that objectivity within an athlete-centered training model creates the most successful long-term results and buy-in.

Video 2. Fundamental movements like lunging are great learning opportunities for coaches. Athletes who struggle with lunge patterns can be further screened to see if it’s a familiarization issue or true dysfunction.

6. Conveys How Athletes Change over Time

The assessment establishes baseline criteria for each athlete around their preferred strategy to accomplish movement tasks. Having objective baseline information is important when working with athletes long-term. Within the college setting, athletes will mature, grow, and develop continuously. We can then put this objective information into their “doctor’s chart”-like athlete profile within our system, along with the rest of their physical performance metrics, and give insight into how they change over time.

7. Establishes Baseline Movement Criteria in Return-to-Sport Cases

While we work tirelessly to reduce the occurrence and severity of sport-related injuries, it is a rare thing to find an athlete who plays at a high level and goes completely unscathed. Having objective baseline movement criteria becomes incredibly important following an injury in the return-to-sport process, as it can elucidate compensations, asymmetries, and their confidence in loading certain patterns.

Additionally, in my role as the strength and conditioning coach, I have a seat at the table with the support staff when discussing when an athlete will be physically ready to return to sport. This decision is often difficult and multilayered, especially if the injury was severe. I have found that the more objective the information I bring to that decision, the more confident I become that I am putting the athlete in the best possible position to return.

8. Improves Our Filter for Complex Movement

It can be said that what gets measured can be managed. We must measure and have a process in place ahead of time to manage the information we receive from our assessment. Dealing with complexity begins with putting defined borders in place, while acknowledging that the borders are just there to limit variance, collect data that actually means something, and manage that data within our environment.

Overall, the assessment criteria provide a filter that directs athletes toward a proper starting place in their loading progression for specific patterns within their training program. Share on X

Overall, the assessment criteria provide a filter that directs athletes toward a proper starting place in their loading progression for specific patterns within their training program. It’s a direct line from assessment to program. This filter has the added benefit of catching the outliers in pain or asymmetries. It also gives us data in the form of clear and concise notes regarding why the athlete has failed to meet the movement standard and why they were scored the way they were. We can then use this data on the floor during actual training sessions to help guide athletes. Having these useful filters is critical and necessary when dealing with large volumes of people.

Why I’ve Thrown Out Movement Assessments in the Past

While the benefits have proven useful, it would be hypocritical of me to claim that I have consistently utilized the same formal movement assessment for prolonged periods of time. Before I was able to create our current assessment and subsequent process, I needed to address the reasons for those inconsistencies. This section outlines those reasons.

They take too long. Everything in our environment comes down to time cost. If it takes 10 minutes to perform an assessment on one athlete then, unfortunately, that time cost does not pay off. We are currently responsible for 450 athletes. A 10-minute assessment per athlete would be 75 hours of assessing. We also have to consider the inevitable class conflicts, illnesses, and other extraneous variables that come up when athletes miss the designated assessment session. This makes us unable to justify the time cost, both for the initial evaluation and the subsequent follow-up evaluations.

With time as our guide, we created an assessment that can be performed over the course of two days, taking the place of our typical performance prep for the day. The assessment takes less than 15 minutes by one coach for up to 25 athletes. Anyone who has ever worked within the college setting knows this is a tall task. In order to ensure efficiency, every single detail of the screen must be hashed out with precision.

They didn’t predict injuries. Not that they were ever supposed to. But when you connect the dots from identifying movement impairments to intervening on those impairments and making improvements, that statement seems logical enough. Injuries should decrease. Yet, I have come to realize that no one piece of information will ever be the holy grail in predicting anything. When it comes to injury, we know things such as previous injury history, structural evaluations, acute and chronic workloads, fitness level, technical proficiency of sporting movements, etc. must be considered to even begin having that conversation. Nonetheless, while the information may not establish risk, it does give us a data point that we may use to connect one more dot in our process.

I attached emotion to the results. It’s hard not to. As a strength and conditioning coach who believes movement proficiency is very high on the priority list, it takes a bit of undressing your ego to get over this one. I believe in my athletes moving well, having great technique on fundamental movements, and having a good understanding of foundational concepts with which they can become more self-sufficient.

A movement assessment really objectifies all those things. It uses foundational movements performed with body weight and minimal cueing requiring the athlete to understand and execute the movement. If my athletes scored lower, I felt this was a reflection of me failing them in one of those ways. Those views have changed quite significantly. Like a stoic philosopher, I try to view movement strategy with as little judgment as possible nowadays.

My athletes, and any human beings for that matter, are not machines that have function and dysfunction. There is no right or wrong way to move. There is no good or bad way to move. We utilize movement strategies that help us accomplish whatever tasks we are striving to accomplish. In this case, that task is the completion of some designated movement for an assessment purpose. How the athlete does so gives insight into how I may best load them in order to decrease collateral damage as much as possible, thus increasing the reward-to-risk ratio along the way in preparing them for sport. That is all.

The analogy I think of regarding a movement assessment is that it’s akin to an eye exam. We get our eyes checked annually in order to get the right prescription (and so we’re not a complete liability behind the wheel). Once we get the results of the exam, we are filtered to a prescription that enhances our vision. We don’t seem to get emotional about having to wear contacts or glasses like we do when one of our athletes scores a 1 on a squat screen.

When we go back to the eye doctor, chances are we will still need contacts the second time around. No big deal—prescribe accordingly and move on with life. We must remember that our perspective of the results determines the emotion we may attach to them. Scoring isn’t trying to establish if something is good or bad, right or wrong, functional or dysfunctional. It is just a first layer to improve our filters and understand what we are seeing.

Movement strategy is plastic and can change quickly, for reasons that have nothing to do with interventions that I can control. I realized that a lot of things impacted the way athletes moved, and these things came up every single time. When we assess, it’s just taking a snapshot in time. As we know, movement can be very plastic and change quickly. Sleep, soreness, time of day, warm-up, cueing, mood, etc. all have the ability to alter how the athlete may present that day. I wasn’t comfortable acknowledging that these factors would come into play each and every time I assessed. At some point, when you work in the real world, you consider the limitations, make a note of them, and move on. If we were to wait for perfect scenarios to evaluate our athletes, we wouldn’t have any data.

If we were to wait for perfect scenarios to evaluate our athletes, we wouldn’t have any data. Share on X

When screens don’t filter you directly to loaded, trainable exercise progressions, it makes programming very hard. This is best explained with an example. If we perform a mobility screen for the glenohumeral joint in which the individual shows limitations and the suggested course of action is a contraindication of all overhead exercises, this makes things tricky from a training standpoint. This is especially true if the athletes being screened are overhead-dominant athletes for whom this avoidance of position would be a form of neglect. This neglect can be more damaging in its own right.

Video 3. One of the most popular screens is the overhead squat. While it’s obviously useful for snatching athletes, it’s an important overall squatting pattern that exposes movement incompetencies and joint limitations.

This example applies to all courses of action in which the results of a screen do not directly filter an athlete to a loaded, trainable exercise progression. My environment also requires me to write multiple programs for multiple teams all at once. Being responsible for that many moving parts becomes impossible without a straight line from assessment to trainable exercise. And while I must respect movement proficiency to the highest level, my job is to prepare athletes for the physical rigors of sport competition.

Video 4. Adding a heel raise reduces the demand for ankle mobility and adds even more information when compared to the basic overhead squat. Athletes who make large improvements in technique and have joint restrictions from past sprains can benefit from mobility prescriptions.

If the results of my screen aren’t aligned with my role within this, then it can cause more confusion than understanding. Our assessment takes you from the objective score to a trainable exercise directly. I elaborate upon this in detail in the upcoming sections.

What We Evaluate

All of the previous information provides context for both the benefits we’ve seen with a movement assessment and the reasons I’ve thrown them aside in the past. We have whittled down the movements that impact our training process the most. It goes without saying that this may not be what matters to you in your environment. I am completely fine with that.

An assessment, or really anything you do, should make sense to you in your environment. Share on X

An assessment, or really anything you do, should make sense to you in your environment. The goal is to solve your problems in ways that work for you and improve how you do business. While we believe there is merit in what we are looking at, if the movements don’t apply to you, use the framework and adapt things as necessary. But pay close attention to all the details involved, as the logistical problem-solving is equally as challenging as the formation of the assessment itself.

Video 5. The classic toe touch is simple and easy to administer. Athletes don’t need to be contortionists to be injury-free or perform, but motions such as this are gold for a quick appraisal. The end range of motion isn’t going to create a champion, but it will explain how they are restricted kinematically.

We are looking to understand our athletes’ strategies for accomplishing four foundational movement tasks utilizing only their body weight. These foundational movement tasks are:

1. Bilateral squat via overhead squat
2. Unilateral squat via in-line lunge
3. Bilateral hinge via toe touch
4. Unilateral hinge via active straight leg raise

The individual setup utilizes a 2-foot board with two red painted stripes and a 4-foot chalk outline of a two-by-four that has five lines spaced 3 inches apart starting 9 inches from the front line.

During an assessment, we utilize four setups spaced 6–8 feet apart. We place a waiting cone 5 feet behind each designated assessment area, and then we walk down the line, assessing one athlete at a time. The monetary investment of all of this equipment is less than $10.

The scoring of the strategies of each foundational movement goes from 0–3. A score of 0 indicates that the pattern causes pain and a 3 indicates that the pattern was performed meeting all outlined objective criteria. With the exception of toe touch, for which we have created our own 0–3 scoring criteria, these are taken directly from the great work of Gray Cook and Lee Burton’s Functional Movement Screen.

I present the scoring criteria and verbal instructions for each movement below. Featured is the actual scoring sheet utilized on the floor with our teams. As we assess each individual athlete, we read the instructions directly from the sheet. This minimizes time and energy and improves consistency.

Additionally, the number of repetitions assigned for each of the four movements aligns with the technical pieces we evaluate for that movement. For each rep, we look directly at one specific aspect of the movement to evaluate. For example, during the overhead squat assessment, there are three elements of the squat that we evaluate. These are: A) arms and torso parallel with tibia, B) femur below parallel, and C) knees aligned over feet. For rep 1, I look solely for the athlete to execute criteria A, for rep 2 I look for criteria B, and so on. This enhances the focus on one specific aspect of the movement. This also keeps personal bias from creeping in, as I often attempted to justify what I was seeing in real time. Both points increase reliability and save time and energy.

When recording the score on the sheet, there is an A, B, C, and score listed. When I watch an athlete perform the assessment, if they are unable to comply with the designated criteria, I simply mark the letter and move on. This allows me to understand which criteria they failed without having to take the time to make notes. Additionally, once athletes have completed all the repetitions, I simply circle the final score. Again, this improves reliability, saves time in writing out the score for each athlete, and saves the mental energy of thinking through all the reasons why I am seeing what I am.

You may think that these details are a bit over the top. If so, you’re probably right. You may not need to go to such great lengths for efficiency in your environment. But solving the logistics of my current environment is brutally hard work that I refer to as the dirty work. It isn’t so much about technical knowledge as it is taking technical knowledge and detailing every single piece of it to make it work. I cannot emphasize this point enough, as I believe this can hold us back from doing great things with challenging situations. It is my hope that the simplicity of this process does not discount its importance.

Next, we must consider the meaningfulness of the information we collect. As stated before, in order to be meaningful, it is crucial that the information collected is immediately relevant to our actual training process. The implications of that statement are enormous.

In order to be meaningful, it is crucial that the information collected is immediately relevant to our actual training process. Share on X

This is why we only evaluate the four movements that we do. In the past, I have been a victim of paralysis by analysis from looking at too many things all at once and not being able to connect the dots from screen to program. We assess squat and hinge movements because every athlete utilizes these movements in some form, and they require many subtle individual adjustments from athlete to athlete. Additionally, by evaluating only these four, we have been much more successful at looking beyond just these movements for other, seemingly unrelated, movements as well.

In order to know what to do with the information we collect, we must take the score and filter it to our exercise menu for each movement of bilateral and unilateral squat and hinge with designated levels from 1–3. For the purpose of this article, I have listed our squat exercise menu, which includes every version of squats we use.

When an athlete performs the overhead squat assessment, the score they receive gives them access to all the versions of squat for their score and below on their initial evaluation. It simply filters the athletes into buckets so we can establish that starting place. By having a designated squat movement in our lifting program, we can then have the athlete write their starting version directly on their sheet and guide the sets and reps accordingly. This can get them lifting that very same day, as opposed to sorting through all the different pieces of the assessment and attempting to connect the dots later on.

As stated previously, this filtering system improves our process immensely. We are much more likely to catch outliers before we get into more complex exercises, during which athletes may mask certain things. We also have a baseline objective score that we can refer back to as we load our athletes now and down the road. Both of these have been incredibly helpful, even with all of the acknowledged limitations.

A second point to address before moving on is how quickly we may progress an athlete forward within the exercise menu. For example, if an athlete scores a 1 on a screened movement and starts on level 1 of the menu progression, they rarely stay there for long. In fact, it is not uncommon to move the athlete forward that same day. This is where utilizing all the other contextual factors comes into play. Questions such as who is the athlete I am working with, what is their training age, what sport do they play, what time of year is it, what kinetic qualities are we after, etc., all become very relevant.

On top of that, we must acknowledge that exercises are skills that are task-specific and require different strategies to perform (this is yet another potential drawback of an assessment itself). The way we strategize to accomplish one exercise may be useful for “cleaning up” how the athlete performs the movement on the assessment. That being said, with this assessment I am still able to confidently run the volume of athletes I work with through my filter and catch outliers before they slip through the cracks.

Tweak the System as Needed

It is my hope that there are some points within this article that give you a new or refreshing perspective on movement assessments that improves what you do. At the end of the day, improving your own filters and processes and the training of your athletes is what matters most. More often than not, that requires some introspective analysis and problem-solving within your environment that forces you to tweak things to fit for you. There is no shame in realizing that someone’s system just doesn’t work for you exactly as proposed. It also doesn’t mean there is no value in that system.

There is no shame in realizing that someone’s system just doesn’t work for you exactly as proposed. It also doesn’t mean there is no value in that system. Share on X

When it comes to movement assessments, I bet that the debates will rage on. Some people love them, and some people hate them. Some people will continue to love them, while some people will continue to hate them. As an industry, we have a tendency to polarize topics and swing the pendulum from side to side. When you’ve been at this a while, you will eventually see that pendulum settle somewhere in the middle as we realize that the opinions of both camps have some validity. For me, the pendulum of movement assessments has settled, as I believe in the value created irrespective of the shortcomings.

No one piece of information will ever tell the whole story. A movement score can’t tell you everything about movement. It can’t solve your injury problems or make your athletes better lifters in the weight room. There will always be more that you need to address and consider, but you need to see it for what it is. It’s another chapter in the story of an athlete who has value to bring to the conversation.

It is as objective and as unbiased as possible. It helps give context to discussions that become more meaningful and insightful, both to colleagues and athletes alike. It filters athletes to get them traveling down the right path in training quicker and safer so that you can get on with building monsters. And it supports your personal growth and development as a strength and conditioning coach.

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