Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The progression I briefly mentioned goes kind of like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Strategy #1– Quick Low Box Jumps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Strategy #2 – Straddle Jumps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Strategy #3 – Lateral Power Shuffle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Strategy #4 – Lateral Reactive Shuffle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Strategy #5 – Elevated A-Skips

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

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

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

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

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

Going Low Is a Smart Move

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

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

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

Enjoy implementing low box training into your program!

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

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

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

MIN: Typically two. 

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

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

MAX: When do these sessions occur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIN: Twelve.

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

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

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

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

MIN: Yes.

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

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

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

MIN: Yes.

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

MIN: Works for me.

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

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

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

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

MIN: Interesting. How do you measure athlete preparedness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Scene 1

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

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

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

MAX: How so?

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

MAX: What do you mean by intent and intensity?

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

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

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

MAX: Yes.

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

MAX: Are there others?

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

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

MIN (pulling out cell phone): Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIN: Exactly.

MAX: Brilliant. What other factors influence intensity?

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

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

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

Day 1. Acceleration

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

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

Day 3. Curved Sprints

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

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

MIN: And here is the actual program.

Key for Table 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAX: Wow. I have a few questions.

MIN: Shoot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAX: Maybe we should Skype once a month?

MIN: Nobody’s got time for that.

MAX: Truth.

End Scene 2

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tactical Coactive

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

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

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

Fostering Effective Decision-Making

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

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

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

Tactical Player Load

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

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

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

The Technical Coactive

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

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

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

Spatial Awareness

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Context

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

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

Manipulating Complexity and Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Psychological Coactive

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

Spirituality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotion

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

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

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

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

Cognition

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

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

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

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

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

The Physical Coactive

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

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

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

Are Our Players Strong Enough?

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

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

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

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

Are Our Players Fast Enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determining Limiting Factors

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

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

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

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

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

Health: The Most Important Factor for Sustainable Success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more at fergusconnolly.com.

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.