Blog

Before reading this article, I want you to close your eyes, sit still, and relax. I want you to imagine the most amazing high-performance sport program you can. Conjure up imagery of every detail and every aspect. With your eyes closed, take your time looking around—what do you see?

Labs? Testing? Grandiose facilities?

Make a list. Think, also, about some of the common phrases and slogans you’ve heard:

• At our High-Performance Summer Camp, we strive to help athletes reach their true potential
• Our High-Performance Program is the best in the country!
• Join our High-Performance Team and apply now
• Cutting edge programs
• Ground-breaking methods

Is high performance a spacious training environment with shiny new equipment? Does it include a coaching staff wearing matching Polo shirts, all moving about the facility to collect data using sophisticated computer tech? Is it about extensive laboratory testing or predictions of Olympic medals?

Or, is high-performance something else?

What Exactly Is High Performance?

If I were to ask you to define the term, could you? Is it even a definable and measurable construct? Is it something we can all picture and agree on?

Now, imagine you’re an athlete or a new practitioner seeking to be part of a high-performance program. Would you know what to look for? Would you be aware of the common denominators shared between all high-performance programs? And would you be able to identify what is missing?

My point is, the world of high-performance programs and high-performance sport are not clearly defined. Meaning we have no current checklist that neatly outlines what a high-performance program is (or is not); however, it seems everyone is offering this type of service.

Since the term itself is unclear, I decided to pretend I was a prospective athlete looking for a high-performance program using nothing but a handy internet search engine. During my non-scholarly Google crusade, I came across several definitions of high performance:

“High-performance sport or elite sport is sport at the highest level of competition… where the emphasis is on winning prestigious competitions” (Wikipedia, 2019).

High-performance sport overlaps with professional sport but is not the same; for example, the English football league system and Minor League Baseball include lower divisions whose teams’ members are full-time professionals. On the other hand, elite competitors at the Olympic Games or World Games in some minority sports may be part-time or rely on government grants. Likewise, student athletes, especially in college sports, are often high performance despite being amateurs (Wikipedia, 2019).

Clear as mud right? Okay, googling further:

In high-performance sport, “Administratively, National governing bodies for a particular sport often have separate administrative units for supporting elite athletes and for administering mass competitions. National Olympic Committees are often concerned with the funding of athletes likely to win Olympic medals. National Training Centers and Sports academies have also popped up with the goal of developing and nurturing promising young athletes. Such institutes may set goals in terms of national ranking on the Olympic medal table” (Wikipedia, 2019).

Thanks, Wikipedia, but this does little to help the prospective athlete or budding practitioner—or anyone else for that matter—seek and ultimately find a high-performance program to help them reach their respective goals. Perhaps many people think that the realms of high-performance sport are untouchable and reserved for only the very elite (whatever that means) and that it requires a state-of-the-art facility and a testing laboratory to do any real, valuable work.

High-performance programs are about the attitude of people running it & their drive to do what's necessary to develop the athletes, says @carmenbott. Share on X

In reality, high-performance programs are about culture. And culture is more about the attitude of people working for the athletes and the drive they demonstrate to do what is necessary to foster the athlete’s development. Notice I did not use the adjective elite. Since there is no current definition of a high-performance program that offers a “bells and whistles” insight, I’ll take a stab at honing in on the level of professionalism, service, and drive necessary to live up to that title. As an athlete or a practitioner, these are the qualities you should shop for.

I want to share this insight with athletes, their parents, and potential practitioners looking to join a high-performance team of professionals. Having coached in several different environments that were all deemed high-performance, I found some environments were much better than others. And from this lens, I’d like to share my view on the key targets of a high-performance culture that all high-performance sport programs should embody.

Target 1: Consistency

High-performance culture must be about the consistency of service delivery. Every single day, each staff member must show up with the same level of vigor, drive, and patience they did the day before. A staff that can perform and deliver—no matter the circumstances—sets a level of modeling for the athlete that is imperative. Energy and focus must not fluctuate.

Target 2: Growth Mindset

A high-performance culture is about a growth mindset. We can improve every day. Complacency and procrastination have no place in a high-performance environment. High-performance team members must admit their knowledge gaps and demonstrate their resourcefulness by doing daily research for the betterment of their professional development. It might involve looking up an answer to a question, seeking a new drill to improve a motor skill or a consulting with another professional. Get better every day.

Target 3: Calculated Risk-Taking

A high-performance culture is about calculated risk-taking. Sometimes a risk needs to be taken. Meaning, there is going to be doubt about a training method, or a taper, or even a training schedule. We cannot predict every outcome, and sometimes we are faced with uncertain circumstances. These are times to be brave. And to put the eggs in one basket and confidently face the storm. At worst, we’ll learn from our errors. We instill this in our athletes, do we not? Well, again we must practice what we preach. This does not mean we are whimsical or emotional in our decision-making; it means sometimes we risk a negative outcome. And such is life.

Target 4: Collaboration

A high-performance culture is about collaboration. Barriers to this often include fear and ego. If you approach another professional and express an opinion and they are not open to discussion, don’t take it personally and don’t bother “going in the ditch.” Not everyone is ready for you and new ideas. You need to know this and instead seek those who are not afraid of debate. Debate and collaboration are the same in my mind. We can disagree and approach problems very differently from one another but still arrive at a similar end point.

Collaboration means we can disagree & approach problems very differently from one another & still arrive at a similar end point, says @carmenbott. Share on X

True collaboration is about knowing the strengths of those around you and putting your ego aside when you need to ask for help. Collaboration, though, works best when two or more individuals have a similar value system and work ethic. If you find people just want to milk you for your knowledge, find a new colleague. That’s not reciprocity, and it’s not about the athlete.

Target 5: Frequent Communication

A high-performance culture is about frequent communication with athletes. Very little is new in sport science in terms of training methodology. However, we can be innovative about how we deliver programming. With so many accessible platforms for high performance athletes, it’s easier and faster to communicate than ever before.

Besides the face-to-face communication during training sessions, it’s important to touch base with athletes regularly and ask for their feedback: text, instant message, phone, or video chat. Athlete feedback should be the basis of our decision-making, and we won’t know how athletes are feeling or experiencing the training until we ask. Having a close relationship with high performance athletes is not unprofessional. Trust must be built, and it’s through open channels of communication where we can be foster it even further.

Target 6: Aligning Core Values

A high-performance culture is about aligning core values. In the world of sport, the performance team is large with many moving parts: sports medicine, physiology, psychology, statistics and analytics, strength and conditioning, the board, coaching staff, and more—and at the center of it all is the athlete. Each team member must be aligned in core values, and this needs to be clearly defined and communicated from the outset.

Each performance team member must be aligned in core values, which need to be clearly defined and communicated from the outset, says @carmenbott. Share on X

I’ll take this further and suggest a written document of standard operating procedures, a code of professional conduct, and a communication stream. Each member must be selfless and in it for the athlete’s benefit, not for their glory. Having said that, all team members should be recognized and appreciated for their work; praise and acknowledgment are important.

Target 7: Basis in Science

High-performance culture revolves around science and the scientific method. All team members must make choices based on what the body of evidence suggests as best practice. A high-performance program is not about the latest fitness trend or nutritional supplement. It’s also not about the general population. Athletes are special, and we must make informed choices for them based on scientific evidence. It’s okay to be cutting edge and innovative, but the evidence still must be founded upon rigor. Meaning, science that applies to an untrained soccer mom does not mesh well with an NFL superstar. Not. The. Same.

Target 8: Modeling

A high-performance culture is about modeling. Each team member must be living and breathing excellence. I am not saying perfection, but it’s important that we show our athletes that we, too, are executing a high-performance lifestyle. We’re eating well. We’re sleeping well. We’re communicating well. We’re engaging in self-care. We’re not allowing ourselves to burn out. We are healthy, fit, and strong, and have a relentless appetite for good hard work. Plus, we are fun to be around!

Without a foundation of high-performance culture and solid teamwork of caring individuals, the extras lack significance, says @carmenbott. Share on X

High performance sport is not about anything tangible, is it? It’s about the culture of a team, agency, or organization made up of amazing humans who, on a daily basis, are role models for athletes and who place the athlete at the center of all their decision-making. The shiny hubcaps are the fancy facilities and world-class laboratories. Without a foundation of high-performance culture and solid teamwork of caring individuals, the extras lack significance.

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

Late last year, we learned that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was considering including esports—competitive computer gaming—at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. This news was generally met with derision from the sporting community, which advocates that sports should include some form of physical performance.

Philosophical questions aside, the Olympics need to remain relevant as time progresses, keeping the next generation interested in the whole movement and ensuring advertisers have a worthwhile market to justify their sponsorship outlays. It’s not only the IOC that’s exploring the use of computer games. Manchester City, for example, recently announced an esport-specific sponsorship partnership, viewing esports as a crucial way to break into the Chinese football market.

Beyond esport competitions, emerging evidence suggests that computer games along with virtual reality (VR) have the potential to revolutionize more traditional sports. For example, a common issue with sports training is managing physical load. We generally understand that too much load leads to undue fatigue and increases the risk of injury. As such, coaches have to limit their athletes’ exposure to physical stress. Computer simulation-based training can completely remove, or at least reduce, the physical component of training, allowing for more total training to occur and, ideally, larger improvement.

Performance training with #virtualreality can reduce physical load, allow for more total training, & improve tactical skills, says @craig100m. Share on X

A second issue for sport coaches is their ability to produce realistic training environments. As much as they try, it can be hard to replicate the heat of competition. This is especially true for tactical training. If you’re setting up your team to carry out a specific action to reduce the effectiveness of an opposition player—and you don’t have the specific opposition player to practice against—it can be tough to understand if your intervention will be effective.

Building on this latter point, a number of NFL teams have shown interest in VR-based training for their quarterbacks—perhaps most famously in the case of Tom Brady. In theory, VR-based training allows the quarterback to become immersed in the game, spotting their receivers in the pattern and picking the ideal pass in their progression while avoiding defensive players. This adds to the hours of game footage the players watch to hopefully provide additional realism above that of the game tape.

How Effective Are Computer Games and Virtual Reality in Enhancing Performance?

There are a few studies in this area, all of which suggest computer technology has potential. A 2009 study, for example, randomized 32 university students to undertake bowling training on a Nintendo Wii or no training at all before a bowling skill test. The researchers found that those who trained on the Wii had better bowling performance.

A more recent 2019 table tennis study found similar results. Here, subjects underwent a table tennis assessment and then were randomized to receive either six VR table tennis training sessions or no training at all before undertaking a second table tennis assessment. Again, the VR training group showed significantly greater improvements in real-world table tennis performance compared to the control group. Comparable results for darts throwing have also been reported.

There are still plenty of questions in this area that require resolution. First, we need to understand better how computer games and VR might sit alongside physical training. In both the table tennis and bowling studies, the subjects either undertook VR training or no training at all.

But what happens if the control group undertook actual table tennis training, as opposed to doing nothing? We’d assume that they would show greater improvements. But we should also consider how this would work throughout a 3-month training program, especially with training load and injury risk. Might we expect that strategic computer games and VR sessions in replacement of, or in addition to, more standard physical training sessions would lead to greater performance enhancement? Time will (hopefully) tell.

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that computer-based and VR training potentially can enhance sports vision—the ability to detect relevant stimuli and execute the correct skill in a given match context. It’s not yet entirely clear, however, how well they’ll transfer to real world performance.

Fortunately, a 2017 study by Rob Gray gives us some initial insights as to whether training carried out in a virtual environment transfers to the real world. Here, Gray randomly assigned 80 experienced, male baseball players to one of four groups:

• A virtual environment group that faced 30 virtual pitches
• A real-world group that faced 30 real pitches
• An adaptive virtual environment group which faced 30 pitches varied according to an athlete’s skill level
• A control group

The training groups undertook two 45-minute sessions per week for six weeks. All sessions were in addition to regular training sessions. Overall, the adaptive virtual environment group showed the greatest improvements in batting performance. That this group outperformed the athletes who underwent real-world batting training suggests that there’s sufficient transfer from VR training to real-world performance, at least for baseball.

High school baseball players who underwent #virtualreality batting training performed better than those who had real-world training, says @craig100m. Share on X

Interestingly, these subjects were high-school baseball players. In general, around 0.5% of high schoolers are drafted into the MLB; in the five-year period after this study was completed, 10% of the adaptive virtual environment group were drafted, which suggests that this type of training may drive longer-term changes—which is clearly very promising.

Implications for High Performance Athletes

As identified in a recent review, the majority of these studies use beginners as opposed to advanced athletes. This could skew results because beginners generally require less work to improve. They also tend to show improvements from a variety of different interventions, regardless of the general efficacy of a specific intervention. As such, we clearly need more research on high-level athletes, a group in which improvements tend to be difficult and hard-won. If computer game and VR training enhance performance in this group, then they’re likely here to stay.

Visual and Perception Training

An area in athletics where VR may be useful involves my own training history. I’ve written before about how I was responsible for the Great Britain 4x100m relay team’s disqualification at the 2008 Olympic Games, which was somewhat of a career-defining experience for me. I had trouble seeing the checkmark in relation to the incoming runner, and this, combined with the high-pressure environment and my inexperience in running 4^thleg, caused me to leave early.

In the three weeks before the Olympics, I took part in five relay training sessions with about 20 changeovers and three different incoming runners. This meant that, heading into the Olympic Games, I only had 8-10 changeovers practiced with the guy handing the baton to me, none of which occurred in a race situation.

It’s clear how VR could have assisted. By wearing a headset, I would have trained my visual-perceptive system to better spot the checkmark and the incoming runner. I could modify the size of the checkmark, making it smaller to test my abilities. I could vary the speed of the incoming runner. I could alter what he was wearing. I could have eight avatars of the same incoming runner in different lanes, making it harder for me to spot the right one. I could change the weather, making it sunny or wet, which affects how easy it is to spot the checkmark. And, crucially, I could have practiced this daily with no physical strain in addition to the physical changeovers I practiced in the real, physical world. VR would have augmented my improvements and, perhaps, helped avoid my costly mistake.

There is a huge amount of potential here. By reducing the physical training load, it may be possible to increase the total training volumes undertaken by athletes, allowing them to enhance their cognitive, visual-perceptive, and skill-based performance. This is good in the sense that practice makes perfect. As with physical performance, however, this aspect will need to be monitored to avoid burnout.

Return-to-Play

Another potential area is the return-to-play of a previously injured athlete. Typically, athletes who have undergone an extended absence from their sport due to injury return a bit rusty. By using computer games and VR, it may be possible to maintain and even enhance their psychological skills during injury, enabling them to slot back into the team once they return to full fitness. Return-to-play is an area of huge promise and, as the prices of these technologies drop and validation increases, it’s likely to become more common in teams across a variety of sports.

Concluding Thoughts

There are still many aspects surrounding these technologies that we don’t fully understand in a sport setting, and many more typical brain training games have little evidence supporting their use within sports. Accordingly, we need a far greater body of research before these technologies become mainstream. At present, they represent an interesting glimpse into the future of 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

As a high school coach, I am responsible for the development of a sizeable group of athletes each and every season. I have written before about my belief that athletes need to first become better movers in general.

I love keeping it simple in the weight room. Nothing makes me happier than a good-looking squat or deadlift, but chasing numbers in the weight room is not something that I care to do. I know that an athlete adding strength slowly with an emphasis on technique is the best choice. Strength is a skill that needs to be developed.

I tell my athletes that running fast should look effortless because there is nothing beyond top speed except coordination erosion, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

Coaches often give cues such as “project your hips” or “stay tall.” These are good cues, to be sure, but they assume that athletes understand the movements and the feel behind what we are trying to say. There are plenty of simple options with large groups that allow athletes to develop general motor skills and feel full ranges of motion while under control. I don’t always have the time to write a specific program for each kid, so on circuit days or in warm-ups I choose items that will allow me to enhance the main workout, depending on the need. Most of our athletes have a low training age, so I believe improving general qualities will absolutely enhance the specific tasks.

Classifying the Routines and Movement Patterns

Sprinting is a complex activity that is dependent on many other things. To improve the act of sprinting, I believe you can attack it through certain exercises that break sprinting into its components: posture, hip/trunk control, and ankle stiffness. Working on the individual parts in conjunction with quality sprint training can strengthen the whole, especially with developmental athletes.

Posture

“When posture is correct, movement of the limbs is often correct.” –Mike Young

This fact drives most of our training. An athlete who displays correct posture will appear to be more fluid. Correct posture in speed work, as I view it, starts with the head.

I look for a relaxed head and neck with no tension. I want my athletes’ eyes looking out ahead. Trust me, trying to convince them not to turn their head and check out the competition in the middle of the race is often a challenge by itself. I have athletes who bobble their heads left and right, and up and down. I need to devote time in practice to working on this so that I get more quality reps in practice. To get better at calculus, a math student needs to do calculus, but hopefully they have also taken a few algebra classes along the way and know their math facts.

Sprinters should display a stacked vertical posture: neutral neck and head, hips up and forward with a slight posterior pelvic tilt. Doing this will allow for better front-side mechanics. It will become easier to run fast. I tell my athletes that running fast should look effortless because there is nothing beyond top speed except coordination erosion.

Better force application through better posture is the best way to lengthen stride, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

Sometimes wickets are used as a means to artificially increase stride length. I think communicating in this way leads to overstriding and an increase in braking forces. Better force application through better posture is the best way to lengthen stride. Because of better force application on the ground, which allows more time to properly position limbs for ground contact, there is less braking force. It all starts with correct posture. No matter what the athletes are doing in practice, they should understand this.

Hip/Trunk Control

Hips are commonly cued or referred to in certain drills. As mentioned earlier, a common cue during the wicket drills or block starts is for the athletes to project their hips. My athletes have poor hip control, as do lots of high school athletes. The important thing to know is that even though we want stable posture, there is still rotation present. This is normal, but I never want to see over rotation that lacks fluidity.

One of the best examples of this is Usain Bolt. He is able to control the rotation of his hips and use it to explode powerfully forward. This is an advanced athlete who has years of experience and movement on his side. My athletes need time to explore and acquire these skills in simple fashions.

I need my athletes to be able to do these three starting skills:

1. Move between anterior and posterior pelvic tilt with control.
2. Disassociate their pelvis from their trunk (or vice versa).
3. Disassociate their hips with good posture (one side in flexion, one in extension).

The definition of disassociation is “the disconnection or separation of something from something else.” Hip disassociation means being able to move the hip in its socket without compensating elsewhere—hip mobility.

It sounds like a huge undertaking, but I try to keep it as basic as possible to avoid it becoming time-consuming. As I have written previously, sharpening the tools that I already have is the best bet. The athletes will get better at the exercises and I will get better at pointing out certain things because I see them and use them so often.

Ankle Stiffness

When posture is correct, lower limb stiffness will increase naturally because there is more time to be properly positioned to absorb the force. I have always considered that although posture improves ankle stiffness, directly working on ankle stiffness can also improve ankle stiffness.

In sprinting, lower limb stiffness is a good thing. Dynamic Achilles and calf work increase elasticity and allow for better force absorption and production. This results in less ground contact time and higher vertical displacement, which leads to better foot strike positions closer to center of mass. This goes hand in hand with the aforementioned importance of posture.

Although posture improves ankle stiffness, directly working on ankle stiffness can also improve ankle stiffness, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

These exercises also highlight the importance of dorsiflexion and proper strike with the ball of the foot. The athlete can be made to actively feel the sensation of good foot strike and stiffness. Feeling this can enhance more specific work like block starts, fly work, and wicket runs.

The Exercises

Here are some exercises that I use to address the aforementioned movement patterns. Some are fun, some are specific, and some are a little strange. I am always playing around with different variations of exercises to add a different dimension or new challenge to the movements. I want my athletes to become more athletic and to move more fluidly while never straying too far from the basics.

Jumping Jack Variation (Front Jacks) – Posture Focus

I like this basic exercise because it is a fun and easy way to get the day started by working on a posture-specific exercise. Front jacks are done like traditional jumping jacks, but the arms abduct/adduct opposite to the legs in the sagittal plane rather than the frontal. This adds a bit of chaos to the timing and rhythm of their movement. Timing and rhythm benefit all sprinters and athletes.

I ask my athletes to keep a relaxed head/neck and start with hips up and forward. I love drills like “prime times,” but the athletes I work with tend to want to lean back too far and display incorrect posture with too much posterior tilt and feet cast out from their center of mass.

This sagittal jumping jack variation serves as a great reference point for rhythm and appropriate positioning with more specific items. Once they have had some repetitions of this drill, I often add a rotational component to the exercise. Can the athletes still rotate with good timing, symmetry, and rhythm? I prefer for them to return the arms to the thigh as a cue to not push their hips too far forward and disturb their neutral pelvic position.

Video 1. What may be a great warm-up for some athletes is a great coordination drill for others. Jumping jack variations are timeless and very safe on the joints.

Jumping Jack Variation (Scissor Jacks) – Hip Disassociation

This is another simple variation of the traditional jumping jack. I can easily demonstrate these with a group of 30-40 athletes and they can be done anywhere. They keep things light and fun as well. In addition to correct posture, scissor jacks also give meaning to vague cues such as “isolate the hip.”

This exercise calls upon athletes to move in the sagittal plane between hip flexion and extension, keeping the hips hiked while not disturbing the neutral pelvic position. The arms retain the frontal plane movement of the traditional jumping jack with a clap overhead as a cue to “stay tall.” Again, throughout the whole movement I want the athletes to exhibit control and rhythm. I have also done rotational scissor jacks with my athletes to provide an additional challenge.

Video 2. The scissor variation provides another option for coaches who want change but still challenge coordination. Focus on sharp stiffness and not on time or volume when implementing this drill. 

Figure 4 Glute Bridge – Hip Flexion and Extension

There are a ton of great drills out there to teach this. We have used hip thrusts in the weight room, and I think there is a great benefit to doing these with sprinters. We have to get to that point first. This allows me to teach movement patterns commonly seen in the weight room and on the track to large groups of athletes at different levels.

This basic movement is great to teach hip extension unilaterally. One leg in the sprint cycle will be in hip extension at toe off and at max vertical displacement. Squats and deadlifts also require extension of the hips. As Tobey and Mike explain in “Single-Leg Glute Bridge”: “Strength and stability in the core of the body…provides an optimal platform through which distal limbs can function… As such, muscle strength and power of the hips and pelvis are critical components of the overall impact of both resistance training and athletic performance in a multitude of sports.”  The glute bridge puts this all together.

I look for the athlete to start lying down with one knee up, with their other leg crossed over in an externally rotated hip flexor stretch. I usually like the heel to rest right above the knee. The leg on the ground should have the heel driven into the ground with the toes up, and the arms should be anchored to the floor, palms down. With the glute, they should extend their hips with control until their pelvis is neutral. After a short pause, they should return to the floor and repeat for the desired number of reps.

Once exposed to this movement, athletes could progress to a single leg hip thrust with shoulder blades on a bench with the chin tucked and then, finally, barbell hip thrusts.

Video 3. A simple glute bridge is a great way to bring awareness to an athlete. You can add this exercise to warm-ups or recovery days.

Cat/Camel – Lumbopelvic Dissociation

This is a great exercise to help reduce stiffness in the body, strengthen the core, and free up the limbs for good movement. As someone who has had a slew of nagging back issues, I myself have gotten great benefits from doing this simple exercise.

The goal of cat/camel is to move seamlessly with control between anterior and posterior pelvic tilt, as well as display good spinal flexion and extension to improve thoracic mobility. This is also used as a point of reference when cueing good posture. “Remember the cat and camel drill that we did? Yeah. Stay tall, right between those positions.”

Do your athletes understand how to move their pelvis independently of their femurs and back? Coupled with the t-spine mobility in the movement, these are things that also help with squat mobility and reducing compensation patterns such as the “butt-wink.”

For simplicity, I like to have athletes start on all fours in a quadruped position.

• The athlete keeps their hands under their shoulders and their knees under their hips. They should have a partner place a hand on their lower back and watch their femurs.
• Without changing the position of their femurs, they should arch their lower back into their partner’s hand (spinal flexion). Be sure they move slowly through the movement, including the lumbar and thoracic spine, and maintain a good breathing rate.
• Pause and hold here and then extend the pelvis towards the floor and allow the femurs to still retain their original position.

Video 4. While many coaches are familiar with the cat and camel yoga asana, it’s perfect for sprinters and jumpers to learn motor control. The spine and hips are important to speed athletes, and this exercise does more than mobilize the spine.

Pelvic/Trunk Dissociation Drills

These are used to control motion of rotation and strengthen core muscles with better lumbar-pelvic rhythm. Sprinting has some rotation. Trunk stability doesn’t mean rigidity. I need athletes to be able to separate their hips from their trunk to better learn to control movement at max velocity.

I need athletes to be able to separate their hips from their trunk to better learn to control movement at max velocity, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

Slower runners can often appear stiff and tight when sprinting, which makes them unable to “load to explode.” I see this most often when I do lower-intensity hurdle top/board accelerations/runs with my athletes. The hurdle top is held across their back and it is visibly obvious to the coach when over rotation is occurring because of faulty backside mechanics and lack of trunk control/strength.

I believe most of my athletes can benefit from working on pelvic and trunk control.

The first exercise is more of a diagnostic tool, although it could certainly be done for reps.

They hold a PVC or a light bar across their shoulders with their arms folded over in slight hip hinge position. Without moving the bar from its parallel position to their body, I want to see if they can isolate their hips from the belt and swivel about, left to right, in a controlled manner. If they can’t do it without turning their shoulders, I may have a partner hold their shoulders stable. If they can do it now, this lets me see whether it is a stability issue (trunk strength) or a mobility issue.

When it comes to sports like basketball, football, and soccer, I think this is an important skill. To exhibit optimal trunk rotation in sprinting, I think athletes need to explore and improve their own movement with control. I never cue this, but I try to put them in positions to do it naturally. Sometimes telling them too much causes overthinking.

Video 5. Twisting is about rotation while keeping the pelvis under you, so adding this drill is great for teaching an athlete how to control their upper and lower torso. Because of its low stress demand to the body, you can place this drill anywhere in a program.

From here, I prescribe a similar exercise, except they can plant the bar into the ground and use it to go through controlled ranges of motion with their hip swivel again. They should breathe properly and focus on moving with control. These are great for not only control, but trunk strength as well. They should feel a deep burn while doing this.

Video 6. Teaching relaxation of the spine is important for athletes, including sprinters and jumpers. The bar adds a relaxation element to the movement equation.

The last drill is the pelvic dissociation dance. I have athletes stand on a line to make sure that the only movement that occurs is from the hips and below. They can rapidly swivel and switch between the left and right side while keeping the trunk stabilized and not rotating.

Video 7. Dance is an activity that promotes control and fluid movement. Adding motions outside an athlete’s comfort zone expands their horizons with coordination.

Ankle Rocker Squat – Ankle Stiffness

Ankle rockers are great in warm-up routines, as are ankle rocker jumps. I recently used the ankle rocker squat. Ankle rocker is the position of the foot/ankle when going from stance to toe off. Chris Korfist says, “That movement is the ability of the ankle or body to get the center of mass through the midstance phase and create forward movement.”

Ankle rocker squats are done the same way as ankle rocker jumps. I have athletes use a body bar with the opposite-side arm for balance since the exercise is so challenging. I have them move the knee over the foot first without changing their hip position (in between big toe and second toe), then get the hips into position by hinging. I look for the torso to be at about the same angle as the shin. From here, they drive through their big toe into a calf raise with control while extending their hip. This is similar to the propulsive action of toe off during sprinting. This attacks not just their ankle mobility, but also their strength at this range of motion.

Video 8. Single leg ankle rocker squats are excellent for maintaining ankle mobility and for teaching a solid co-contraction of the hips and knee. Use the bar to help add balance so the athlete can focus on pushing down and up.

Wall Drill Foot Pop – Ankle Stiffness 

The wall drill foot pop is more a tool for teaching footstrike, a rigid ankle, and to not cast out to apply better force (squash the bug). This is a motor skill with a sprint-specific focus. It has almost the same setup as regular fence/wall drill, but they start flat-footed and with a more vertical posture. Athletes should drive the ankle down, striking with the ball of the foot, and they should feel themselves pop upwards. This is an elastic response similar to the stretch shortening cycle of sprinting that results in vertical force and good vertical displacement. This allows an athlete to see that striking the ground in proper position close to their center of mass is a beneficial thing for them.

I sometimes have them purposely do the same exercise with the foot out from them (cast out) to see if they get the same “pop” (they don’t). I want them to avoid this habit of casting out and, more than that, understand the negative effects that this action has. The next time we do wickets and they try to artificially lengthen their stride rather than “projecting over with the hips, and driving down with their foot,” the wall pop becomes another great reference point.

Video 9. Ankle pops won’t transform an average athlete into a power dunker, but they’re great for working plantar flexion and posture. Again, this exercise isn’t a plyometric activity, but it’s a good preparatory movement.

Single Leg Stair Drop

This is another thing stolen from Chris Korfist. The single leg stair drop is a great way to teach absorbing force with the correct part of the foot. I usually don’t have athletes start too high up on the stairs, for obvious reasons. They start by grabbing the railing with their inside hand and hop with the opposite leg. I find hopping backwards keeps the hip loaded more, rather than the knee loaded when hopping forward. It also allows them to land dorsiflexed.

I have never done forward drops because there would be too much reaching/plantar flexing causing braking forces. I want to avoid this. Once again, the hips are cued to be up and forward. When they drop, athletes should make an effort to minimize collapse and stay stacked in their posture. My more-seasoned athletes can string together most of the stairs without much of a pause. Newer athletes usually have a pause between. The truth is, I don’t think it matters. It is a great drill that drives home an important concept.

Video 10. Landing is a skill that you should learn first before rushing to higher heights. Just low amplitude works well for youth athletes, and the training effect is enough to make a difference in performance.

Programming the Drills

Correct posture, hip control, and lower limb stiffness are key pieces in becoming a better sprinter. Sprinting is comprised of all of these things at once in a delicate balance. The challenge then becomes sorting out where we insert these items without overtraining.

Correct posture, hip control, and lower limb stiffness are key pieces in becoming a better #sprinter, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

I use an x-factor circuit one time a week to program many of these items. The stations are centered around feet/ankles, hips/pelvis, core/trunk, and a lower-intensity plyometric such as a landing drill. I don’t want this day to be another thing to recover from. It serves as a low-intensity remediation day to reinforce key concepts that I will not always be able to get to.

An x-factor day might look like this in the early part of the season:

1. 3×5 ankle rocker squats each leg or 3×5 stair drops each leg (ankle stiffness)
2. 3×8 cat/camel (lumbopelvic disassociation) or pelvic disassociation dance 3×10 each side
3. Jumping jack variations (posture and hip disassociation)
4. 3×5 each leg figure 4 glute/bridge with 2-second pause (core/hips/glutes)
5. 3×5 landing drill snapdown from a 10” stair/step (low-level plyometric)

The athletes rotate through the stations. This is pretty much the layout for the season. On a deload week, the x-factor day may just be playing a game such as “medball volleyball.”

The low reps and focus on movement enable me to set up the rest of the season. If the movements are stale or “mastered,” I may swap them out for something along the same lines and purpose, but with a bit more of a challenge. This doesn’t mean I do away with them completely. Often, they are just moved to the warm-up.

On days when we sprint or accelerate, some form of hamstring, glute, hips, and trunk exercises are included. It depends on what I want to see out of my athletes. Some drills, like the wall drill foot pop, I do early in the season right before doing wicket drills. It makes sense to put it there for me, but it might not for you.

Always Changing

The truth is, I don’t know which of these pieces I will keep from season to season. I experiment with the simplest movements that reach the most athletes at once. Consideration of the following questions always help me program exercises:

• Can I do it myself and describe it effectively to the athletes so they can see and feel it?
• Do I have space, time, equipment, etc. to do this?
• Is there value in this drill/exercise to support sprinting?
• Is it safe and something that benefits athletes in the long term?

I experiment with the simplest movements that reach the most athletes at once, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

I want everything I do to be easily achievable and understood by the athletes, and to support the segmented pieces of sprinting. I try to be innovative when possible and ask questions about how to improve a certain movement and where to put it to make the most sense.

• Can I add a band to this? Do I need to?
• Is higher better or harmful for this athlete?
• What does adding weight accomplish?
• Is this a maximum velocity or acceleration tool?
• Well, this is getting stale. How do I make it seem new without compromising quality? What new dimension can I add?

These inner dialogues have made me rethink and solidify my stance on certain things. Think about what works for your athletes, as well as what skills they need in the weight room and on the track. Most importantly, make sensible progressions and never over-complicate things.

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

Jump squats have always had a place in performance training. That’s because the exercise is a variation of the popular and effective back squat. A jump squat consists of performing a traditional squat while moving at a high enough speed to leave the ground and jump in the air. Intuitively, it’s an effective performance training exercise because the movement is explosive and ballistic. What makes the jump squat even more appealing is that we can teach and learn it at the same time as the traditional squat, so it’s a two-for-one deal.

With the challenges that come from teaching and learning Olympic lifts, jump squats would seem to be a particularly good alternative because of their simplicity and effectiveness. The exercise does, however, have limitations and shortcomings that curb its training effects. Consequently, rather than being a core lift, it’s considered a supplemental one.

I’m going to discuss first what limits the jump squat from being a staple, go-to movement for performance training. Then, I’ll talk about how the limitations have been overcome so we can look at the jump squat as a staple movement when developing power, explosiveness, and speed.

Two Limitations of Traditional Jump Squats

1. High Impact Ground Forces

I was introduced to the jump squat in 1996 during my sophomore year of high school, which also happened to be the year I had the greatest strength gains in my life (on a per year basis). Beginning the previous year as a freshman, I had maxed out at 135 lbs. on the bench and power cleans and squatted 200 lbs.

By the end of my freshman year and the beginning of my sophomore year, I had increased my one rep maxes for the bench press and power clean to 240 lbs. and squatted 350 lbs. That was an incremental increase of 77% on the bench and power cleans and 75% on squats in a matter of a year. My incremental strength increases then started to slow down drastically following that initial burst—to say the least—which is normal.

During this period, even though my strength levels had skyrocketed, it was not until we started doing jump squats as part of our lower body regimen that I experienced a significant increase in my explosiveness, speed, and jumping ability. Unfortunately, those results were short-lived. After doing jump squats for about a week, the landing forces blew out my hamstring to the point to where it came off the bone. It was a serious injury, and I had to deal with the repercussions for years afterward. It also discouraged me from ever wanting to do jump squats again.

It makes sense that when you increase the amount of ground impact forces an athlete has to absorb, the risk of injury also increases. The nature of playing any sport means there’s going to be an inherent amount of impact and wear and tear the body will have to withstand. And high impact situations occur in any sport.

Theoretically, reducing the wear and tear or the ground impact forces in training will reduce the risk of injury. That’s because a lot of injuries are caused by the accumulation of the heavy workloads performed during training and competition.

As I learned the hard way, traditional jump squats put the body through enough substantial ground impact forces that they can lead to injury. Landing with the load on the lifter’s back sends the forces of the falling bar through the body’s center mass. One small breakdown in landing technique could cause a serious injury, as in my case. But even with the soundest landing technique, the increase in the volume of ground impact forces puts any athlete who performs the traditional jump squat at a higher risk of injury.

2. The Inability to Effectively Train a Balanced Mix of Speed and Strength Simultaneously

In studies that measure a jump squat’s power production, there is a very consistent trend. When the load exceeds about 30% of your one rep max, the power output starts to decrease (see Figure 1 below). Contrast that with Olympic lifts and their derivatives, where you can continue to increase power output up to about 70 to 75% of the one rep max. This means traditional jump squats (having to land with the loaded bar) are nowhere near as effective as training peak power output with heavy loads.

This limitation is a big reason why jump squats aren’t used as a staple lift in performance training; they don’t effectively train a balanced mixture of speed and strength, which comes from training power with heavier loads. This reduces the ability to develop functional power that translates to competition: when jump squatting with lighter loads, there isn’t enough strength training, and when jump squats are performed with heavier loads, there isn’t enough speed training.

In theory, mixing lighter jump squats with the heavier ones will train more balanced levels of speed and strength. But that’s a far less efficient use of time and energy than performing Olympic lifts, which train speed and strength simultaneously.

Another reason traditional jump squats are not as effective in training power relates to the high impact ground forces athletes have to absorb when landing the jump squat. As humans, we have a protective mechanism that preserves our body, or at least helps us avoid injuries. If the body naturally senses that we’re at risk of injuring ourselves, it subconsciously begins to shut down muscle activation to preserve itself.

A perfect example of this is the impact force of a tackle generated by an American football player in pads compared to that of a rugby player without pads. This video shows both scenarios—an American football player and a rugby player both giving their greatest amount of exertion to deliver the biggest blow. The rugby player is arguably bigger and more powerful than the American football player. But the American football player can deliver a far greater level of force (more than double) on impact than the rugby player.

A plausible explanation is that that the pads deactivate the football player’s self-preservation mechanism, as opposed to the rugby player whose lack of protection exposes them to the impact. You can do this experiment at home. Actually, I don’t want anyone to really try this, because it could lead to serious injury. So instead, imagine yourself mustering the force and speed to punch a brick wall as hard as you can, barehanded. Simply thinking about that pain and potential for injury makes me cringe. Next, imagine throwing the same hard punch against a softer surface, like a punching bag or a mattress.

We don’t need a measuring device to know which scenario would produce the greatest amount of force on impact. Unless you have no regard for your wellbeing, the greatest amount of impact force will be produced by the scenario where the body is not feeling a greater risk of injury.

The same self-preservation mechanism kicks in on jump squats when the lifter begins to place more than 30% of one rep max onto the bar. The lifter subconsciously reduces their effort during the concentric phase, knowing very well that what goes up must come down, and the landing will place the body under an immense amount of ground impact forces.

Basically, the body’s response is to diminish the impact by slowing down on the exertion (concentric) phase of the movement. The consequence of the subconscious shutting down of muscle exertion during the concentric phase is the limitation of speed and force levels that relate to power production with heavier loads.

Two Ways to Overcome the Limitations of the Jump Squat

 1. Reduce the Jump Squat’s Ground Impact Forces

One excellent way to reduce the ground impact forces in jump squats is to eliminate having to land with the loaded barbell on the lifter’s back. The most straightforward way to do this is to simply release the barbell off of the lifter’s back so they don’t have to catch it. It’s something you can do on a platform with bumper plates. But when you want to do multiple repetitions one right after another, getting the bar back onto your shoulders will be a whole other challenge.

Video 1. Jump squats using the XPT, a power rack that catches the bar for the lifter at the top of the lift.

As an alternative, you can use a machine that has a safety catch. I invented the XPT, a power rack with a safety catch, for this very purpose. I experienced both the positive and negative effects that come from jump squatting. Can you blame me for learning from my past when I blew out my hamstring? That moment was a big motivator for me to come up with a way to do jump squats without having to land with the weight on your back. A power rack that can catch the bar for the lifter diminishes the negative effects of ground impact forces without compromising the positive effects of jump squatting.

2. Effectively Train Power by Jump Squatting with Heavy Loads

As established earlier, as loads greater than 30% of your one rep max are added to the bar, your power production incrementally decreases. The lifter’s self-preservation mechanism kicks in because the body senses the landing will increase their risk of injury.

Turn the jump squat into a safe lift to effectively train speed and power simultaneously, says @BradyPoppinga. #jumpsquat #powertraining Share on X

This changes when the lifter has full confidence they won’t have to land with the loaded barbell on their back. As displayed in the graph below, peak power output increases when the lifter does not have to absorb the free-falling bar above the 30% one rep max threshold to about 80%. This adjustment turns the jump squat into a lift that trains both speed and power simultaneously, which arguably places it in the same category as Olympic lifts for developing power effectively.

From my experience, jump squatting with the ability to release the bar at the top of the movement and reducing ground impact forces, allows for optimal power production and development. I believe in the theories about jump squatting with no catch—not only because they make sense, but also because I’ve personally put them to the test.

Releasing the bar at the top of a jump squat offers safe, optimal power and speed development, says @BradyPoppinga. #jumpsquat #powertraining Share on X

For about six years, I’ve exclusively trained power by performing different variations of jump squats with varying loads without having to land with the loaded bar. I’ve increased my power production at a greater rate than any other point in my life. And bear in mind that this is six years removed from when I trained obsessively with Olympic lifts and other methods that are common in performance training while playing college and pro football.

It’s hard to argue with these results, particularly considering my age (39 years old ) and my injury history (three knee surgeries, including two ACL reconstructions, a herniated disc, and chronic knee pain), along with the wear and tear that comes from playing college football and almost a decade in the NFL.

Training power exclusively with jump squats without catching the bar transfers to the platform, says @BradyPoppinga. #jumpsquat #powertraining Share on X

I’ve also concluded from my experience that exclusively working power through jump squats without catching the bar transfers to the platform. I don’t work power clean technique at all—I don’t even train on the platform. I only get on the platform to demonstrate the level of proficiency I’ve been able to attain just by doing jump squats with no catch.

Video 2. As you can see in the video, I was able to power clean 308 pounds three times in a row after training exclusively by jump squatting with heavier loads on the XPT.

In the video above, my technique is horrendous, and I’m sure all the technique gurus out there are cringing just watching it. But the reality is that I’ve never in my life been able to power clean 308 pounds that many times and at that speed. So from my experience, there’s no way I can sit here and say that jump squatting with no catch is not a comparable developer of power as Olympic lifting, especially with how well it translates to the platform.

Final Thoughts

What if a jump squat without catching the barbell is just as effective as Olympic lifts in terms of power development but with less wear and tear on the body? Ultimately, this is the question we have to answer.

What coach or athlete wouldn’t love to train optimal power and decrease injury risk? Imagine from a trainer’s perspective that teaching proper lifting was as simple as teaching the basics of the bench and squat and their variations and then adding explosive movements built on these fundamental movement patterns—like jump squats with no catch.

It would optimize the athlete’s learning curve and increase the proficiency of implementing a fundamentally sound training program. These are questions and ideas that should always be in the back of the mind of any trainer or athlete who is serious about getting the most from their time and energy invested, either in training themselves or others.

We no longer need to look at jump squatting as a supplemental lift. With time, and as we begin to pull back the layers, jump squatting will become a staple performance movement—as long as there’s a way to release the barbell at the top of the lift without having to catch it. That’s where the jump squat’s properties will evolve from a supplemental lift to a foundational performance-enhancing movement.

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

An increased vertical jump is possibly the most important developmental goal for a basketball player. I have worked in basketball for over a decade—including at the professional and international levels—and no matter what you do in training and what S&C program you look to put in place, the same question comes back from players: Will this increase my vertical leap?

I’ve seen a lot of training advice online and in magazines, and it usually focuses on very high-volume plyometric activities, without much thought behind logical progressions and long-term impact. The usual problem is based on the fact that most players are not physically developed well enough to tolerate high-volume plyometrics without risk of injury.¹ Anyone who has worked in basketball or other jumping-dominant sports will know that knee injuries are all too common.²

The problem is that most basketball players are not physically developed enough to tolerate high-volume plyometrics without risk of injury. Share on X

Studies have shown that basketball players can make more than 60 jumping movements in a game, with perhaps more in daily basketball training sessions.³ Do they really need more jumping on top of that? And a more important question: What will this increased jumping do to their bodies?

I am reluctant to prescribe high-volume jumping activities for a new athlete solely because they’ve requested them. Instead, I try and get them to buy into a long-term program that I know will get results. This isn’t always easy, as the foundational basis of training isn’t as desirable and doesn’t offer an obvious direct transfer to jumping ability. Expedience is not my aim, however, and it shouldn’t be for an athlete, either. We are often too quick to offer a fast solution to athletes, rather than taking the time to work with them and get them to understand that most things that will benefit them take time and effort.

Specific Jumping Ability and the Performance Chain

The evidence is quite clear with regard to the optimal progressions required to develop an increased vertical jump.^4-8What I am talking about is the application of force, and what we find with many athletes is that their ability to generate force is limited because they are not very strong. Over my years of testing, I have used 1RM scores/estimates as well as an array of jump protocols. These include a squat jump (SJ) with a pause at the bottom, a countermovement jump (CMJ), and a drop jump (DJ) from a 30-centimeter box. Each of these jumps, along with the 1RM score, tells us something different about how the athlete generates force and is therefore a great diagnostic tool.^9,10

My common findings with basketball players are that they have a relatively low 1RM, along with a large difference between their SJ and CMJ scores. I also often look at a jump using a step-in and an arm swing, like they would when jumping in basketball. This is where you suddenly see the skill application of jumping ability. While the basketball player shows modest SJ ability, their basketball-specific jump is very impressive, sometimes as much as 100% higher than their SJ.

What this tells us is that they have already trained their specific jumping abilities a great deal, and there are limited gains to be made by purely focusing on this aspect. It doesn’t matter how much more jumping they do—they will not improve their jumping ability more because they have reached their ceiling. Instead, then, we must look at the weakness (which, in this case is literal weakness). By increasing their strength and overall force-producing ability, we will increase their overall capacity to jump higher. We are, in effect, increasing the ceiling. To put it another way, all things being equal, the strongest athlete will be the one who can jump the highest.

Once athletes hit their ceiling on jumping ability, increasing their strength and overall force production will increase their overall capacity to jump higher. Share on X

So, we can now use our knowledge of S&C to work backwards along the performance chain. We start with the vertical jump and look at what physical qualities it requires. We then work backwards to power, then to strength, and then to hypertrophy and movement ability. Of course, the labels that I use here are not true physiological variables, since what I am really talking about is the ability to produce force in a limited period of time. (Less than half a second for a CMJ, but different jumps in a basketball game might need to be performed in different time periods. It therefore makes sense to develop an array of jumping abilities).¹¹

The rationale, therefore, is that to perform a vertical jump, you must go through a flexion and subsequent extension of the ankle, knee, and hip. This must be done with high levels of force, in a relatively short period of time, in order to propel the body into the air. This means that we need to produce a high-impulse or take-off velocity.

Now, in order to create a large impulse, we need to get our high threshold motor units to fire very quickly. We also need to use the spring effect of our muscle-tendon unit and coordinate the movement as efficiently as possible. The graphic below highlights some of the variables we may wish to consider.

First Steps to a Higher Jump

The performance testing that we have already carried out gives us an indication of what we need to work on first. We know that the athlete already has good jumping skills and has trained this jumping movement a lot during their sport, so we can infer that there may be limited benefit to performing more jumping drills. We also know that they are relatively weak and that their force-generating capacity is limited. So, we should certainly look at developing their levels of muscular strength. Research tells us that this can be done through high-intensity resistance training (>85%) to improve neural drive and develop the type II fibers.⁴

However, force-producing capacity is also determined by the cross-sectional area of the muscle, and therefore, if our muscles are relatively small, our overall ability to produce force is limited.¹² So, we must also look at increasing the size of the muscle. This can be done by introducing moderate- to high-intensity resistance training, with higher volume. But we must also be mindful that the mass of the athlete will affect jump height, so overall hypertrophy should be kept somewhat minimal, with a focus on the type II fibers.

In order to train at this required volume and to develop an athlete who will be as robust and injury-free as possible, we must also consider their tissue capacity and resilience, and ensure that the basic movement skills are in place. If we have an athlete who has done very little work with weights and does not display good mobility through the ankle and hip, then we must first look to develop these skills. This can be done using an initial block of training at a lower intensity, with slow controlled movements, through a full range of motion. This should help ensure that optimal muscle balance is in place, which could be a factor in future injury occurrence.¹³

What we have done here is work backwards from the endpoint of the vertical jump, ensuring that all of the relevant prerequisites to performance are in place. So, we can now start by training the foundational movements, such as full squat, split squat, deadlift/RDL, and step-up. This ensures a balance of squat and hinge movements with both one and two legs. We implement this with some relatively high-volume training and moderate intensity and look to develop these movement qualities first.

Once our athletes are competent and have developed some muscle size and tendon/ligament strength, we can then increase the intensity of the training and focus on developing the output from the high threshold motor units and type II fibers. It is important by this stage of training to emphasize maximal intent when lifting. Even if the intensity/load is high, meaning that the observed velocity is low, the intent should be that they’re going as fast as possible.

Following that, we can then look to recruit this new, higher level of force in a shorter period of time and look to coordinate the movement as well as possible. This will involve:

1. Loaded and unloaded jumps, initially through a full concentric portion of a movement, and then progressing to incorporate the countermovement/ stretch-shortening cycle.
2. Next, we can develop a reactive element through bounding and repeated jump activities.
3. The final stage may be to try and sustain these improvements while under fatigue, while also looking at developing different jump strategies.

A good analogy for this process is to think of our muscle fibers as individuals on a sports team. Now, if that team has no individual star players but is drilled so well that members outperform their expectations, this is the equivalent of the basketball athlete with relatively weak muscle fibers. Even though the individual force-generating ability of the muscle fibers is relatively low, the coordination and skill element are trained well enough to display good overall results.

We want to train our athletes so they have the all-star team of muscles, but also drill them well enough with jumping movements so they outperform their own expectations. Share on X

Now, you can think of the opposite scenario, which would be an all-star team with superstar players who have never trained together, and therefore underperform in competition. This would be the situation where someone is very strong and powerful but has never trained the jumping mechanism sufficiently, and therefore the overall measure of their jump is surprisingly low. What we want to do is train our athletes so that they have the all-star team of muscles, but also drill them well enough with jumping movements so that they outperform even their own high expectations. This is the Olympic-level athlete. This is the Dream Team.

A One-Year Plan

If we now consider a full season, we can plan how to develop these qualities, and we can perhaps predict that if we stick closely to this plan, we will increase our jumping ability by 3-6 inches by this same time next year. I have found exactly this with many of the athletes I have worked with, and the great thing is that they then become role models for others the following year. Players see the athletes who bought in and the results that they have achieved, which serves as motivation for them to also buy in.

The following training plan that I present offers a rough guide that would be suitable for most basketball athletes. However, it does not incorporate exercises for other parts of the body, and it does not consider individual needs or the demands of scheduling. Your athletes may require different intensities or volumes, which can be judged through good monitoring and coaching. Exercise selection could also be different.

The individual coach may prefer a different squat pattern exercise or a different power exercise, such as a clean. The specifics of this are not as important as the thought process behind such programming. However, the ideas presented here can be successfully implemented into the training schedules of most athletes. This is the basis of what I have used with hundreds of basketball athletes over the past decade, with excellent results.

(I should also note that some low-level jumping and stability work should be done right from the start of the training cycle. This can include hop + holds and box jump + land type activities.)

May–June: Movement + Hypertrophy

This block will develop the foundational movement patterns and tissue quality, which will be required for the season ahead. It will use unilateral and bilateral leg exercises, as there are different benefits to gain from each type of exercise. The seated calf raise is included to enhance the calf musculature and, in particular, the soleus and Achilles tendon. The intensity is not the most important aspect of this phase, but it should ideally be over 60% max.

July–August: Strength + Hypertrophy

Using similar exercises as the previous training block, this phase will look to develop higher force outputs and elicit some gains in lean muscle mass. This will be achieved through higher intensity, possibly up to 80% max.

September–October: Strength

This is the final block where strength gains will be the main priority. This will be achieved through intensities of around 85% max. This should develop the high threshold motor units and type II fibers.

November–December: Strength + Power

This is where we begin to incorporate the higher velocity (power) exercises, such as loaded jumps. Initially, this is done using a full range of motion, with a focus on the concentric portion of the lift. This will enhance neural drive, synchronization, and overall contraction velocity. The intensity on the jump squat would be up to 40% max and the intensity on the back squat up to 90% max.

January–February: Power

This next block looks to develop the counter-movement aspect of the jump, which means an improvement to the functioning of the muscle-tendon unit. You will likely be able to lead to a higher intensity with the trap bar jump in comparison to the squat jump, which is useful as we are hoping to develop force across a range of velocities. Notice that key lifts such as the back squat and hip thrust are still included to help maintain muscle balance, strength, and mobility. The use of the bands on the back squat means that we can overload the top portion of the lift more, which relates more specifically to the vertical jump.

March–April: Power + Speed

In this final phase, the goal is to work on the reactive capacity of the body, with a focus on velocity and more specific basketball movements. The jump squats would be loaded minimally, with perhaps just the 20 kg bar used. The plyometric and basketball-specific jumps would be unloaded. This would also be a good time to incorporate other speed or agility work, if desired.

Understanding Long-Term Power Development

As a final note, I would emphasize that this program is suitable for the “typical” basketball athlete, which, in my experience, is more than 95% of all basketball players. There may be situations where the athlete is well-trained and developed in the hypertrophy and strength areas and would therefore benefit more from direct power training and jumping activities. However, this is the exception, not the rule.

I have, however, encountered athletes like this who have transferred from one sport to another. An example, which is common in rugby, is an athlete who displays good 1RM strength and a reasonable SJ, but a comparatively poor CMJ or DJ. This may be an athlete that you can program for differently, but this should be determined through proper diagnostic testing and evaluation.

We often start by being too specific in what we try to achieve with basketball players, instead of looking at the prerequisites that need to be in place. Share on X

To summarize, the framework and rationale outlined here are appropriate for the vast majority of basketball athletes looking to increase their vertical jump. While this does not go into specifics regarding the types of jumps and plyometrics to perform, this outline does justify a sustainable and effective approach to vertical jump development. The point is that we often start by being too specific in what we are trying to achieve with basketball players, instead of looking at the prerequisites that need to be in place. I would hope that coaches and athletes consider these elements when designing and developing training programs, and that they will appreciate the long-term benefit of training in this manner.

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. Brazier, J., Bishop, C., Simons, C., Antrobus, M., Read, P.J. and Turner, A.N. “Lower extremity stiffness: Effects on performance and injury and implications for training.” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2014;36(5): 103-112.

2. Arendt, E. and Dick, R. “Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer: NCAA data and review of literature.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995; 23(6): 694-701.

3. McInnes, S.E., Carlson, J.S., Jones, C.J. and McKenna, M.J. “The physiological load imposed on basketball players during competition.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 1995; 13(5): 387-397.

4. Kraemer, W.J., Fleck, S.J. and Evans, W.J. “Strength and power training: physiological mechanisms of adaptation.” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 1996; 24: 363-397.

5. Cronin, J.B. and Hansen, K. T. “Strength and power predictors of sports speed.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2005; 9(2): 349-357.

6. Wisløff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R. and Hoff, J. “Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004; 38(3): 285-288.

7. Baker, D., & Nance, S. “The relation between running speed and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.1999; 13(3): 230-235.

8. Markovic, G. “Does plyometric training improve vertical jump height? A meta-analytical review.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2007; 41(6): 349-355.

9. Bobbert, M.F., Gerritsen, K.G., Litjens, M.C. and Van Soest, A.J. “Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height?” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1996; 28: 1402-1412.

10. Nuzzo, J.L., McBride, J.M., Cormie, P. and McCaulley, G.O. “Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008; 22(3): 699-707.

11. Cormie, P., McBride, J.M. and McCaulley, G.O. “Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: impact of training.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009;23(1): 177-186.

12. Chavda, S., Bromley, T., Jarvis, P., Williams, S., Bishop, C., Turner, A.N., Lake, J.P. and Mundy, P.D. “Force-time characteristics of the countermovement jump: analyzing the curve in Excel.” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2018; 40(2): 67-77.

13. Newton, R.U., et al. “Determination of functional strength imbalance of the lower extremities.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2006; 20(4): 971-977.

By William Wayland

The squat has become a contentious issue of late, and the questioning of its applicability has been explored extensively across this website, including these two must-reads by Carl Valle and Bryan Mann.

Squatting is an important athletic development tool and it should absolutely be trained in conjunction with unilateral work. This is not an either/or scenario, but an optimization through intentionally programming the concurrent or sequential application of both. The back squat can often stymie athletes and coaches coming to it late in the game, especially if steps were skipped during development phases for the athlete.

If you are after extensive guides on the anatomy and physics of the barbell back squat, I’d suggest going to read other articles on SimpliFaster or Greg Nuckols’ über guide on squatting. This article will focus on applied coaching challenges and how to overcome them.

Let’s get the squat depth talk out of the way first. Squat depth has been shown to have a significant effect on muscular development at the hip and knee joints, particularly with respect to the glutes. For instance, with on-the-road squatting, working with a population of traveling athletes means variance in the availability of equipment, so having the door knob squat or solid bodyweight squat as options opens up a world of possibility and consistency.

The key takeaway here is that movement quality drives loading strategy and not the other way around, says @WSWayland. Share on X

The key takeaway in this article is that movement quality drives loading strategy and not the other way around. This may require “going back to school” for some athletes, but the longer-term payoff is worth the investment of time, even if this means mastering the bodyweight squat for a short period of time before moving on to loaded variations. To quote Carl Valle, “Barbell squatting is relevant, so if you can do it right then continue using this king of exercises.”

Having a rough plan for progression is a fundamental key to getting an athlete up to that clean, desirable back squat. I’ve seen instances of athletes rushed from a respectable bodyweight squat to a mediocre partial squat in a matter of weeks, primarily for the sense of progression, but also to feed the coach’s (and possibly the athlete’s) ego.

The Bodyweight Squat

The bodyweight squat is an absolutely overlooked exercise on the path to achieving a squat. You will occasionally come across athletes who can’t achieve this otherwise simple ask. The propensity is to progress people straight to a goblet squat or to entirely skip any sort of unloaded skill work and jump straight to a barbell squat. This is where the quarter squat phenomenon (to be covered later) in otherwise active trainees/athletes comes from. Coaches often talk about the necessity of bodyweight basics, but overlook this entirely to chase barbell numbers.

The bodyweight squat is an absolutely overlooked exercise on the path to achieving a squat, says @WSWayland. Share on X

This inability to perform a simple bodyweight squat is often seen in outsized athletes dealing with big body weights or leverages that rob them of stability. This is also a skill I find lacking when we run new intakes of youth athletes; the inability to bodyweight squat often rides along with an inability to perform other simple bodyweight skills. The simple act of proper generation of tension in the upper extremities can often alleviate perceptive instability.

Video 1. Simple mobility exercises that teach posture are foundational to squatting with a great pattern. Bodyweight movements are about teaching control, so make sure the athletes value them and don’t rush to add load to a bar.

Things like reaching have positive and negatives outcomes, as reaching helps provide counterbalance but can lead to excessive torso lean. Crossing the arms in a faux front squat can also be useful, but what I’ve found more useful is a position akin to a volleyball spike held at shoulder height and then focused on screwing the elbows downward, switching on the pecs and lats. Another novel strategy is having an athlete tightly hug themselves or something else, like a foam roller or med ball.

These are all strategies that require adjustments, then retests, and then further adjustments. Further progression can come in the form of simply loading the bodyweight squat with a vest or chains or both, and it’s entirely possible to make solid progress using this approach with very large athletes.

Anchored Squat

There is a subset of squatting that really doesn’t get the recognition it deserves as the squats aren’t considered true strength lifts in any meaningful sense. I’m calling this class of movement “anchored squatting,” but I’m probably not the first to think of this. By anchored, I’m suggesting that a single point—either the lifter or the load lifted—is in contact with anything external to the closed chain squat pattern.

The anchored squat ranges from door knob to band-supported to hand-supported safety bar squatting or supported belt squatting. The commonality is this: Giving an anchor eliminates the primary block to the full squat, which is compensatory shutdown due to perceived or real loss of stability. The doorknob squat is generally a great starting point for the absolute novice or the squatting-averse. By allowing a backward weight shift and a tall torso, it encourages the athlete to sit deeper into their squat.

The doorknob squat is generally a great starting point for the absolute novice or the squatting-averse, says @WSWayland. Share on X

This can then be progressed a number of ways, introducing the suspension squat using rings or a suspension trainer. Both these movements allow for backward weight shift. More-advanced anchored exercises mitigate forward weight shift, which is a limiter to stability once the athlete becomes more confident with their squat pattern. Movements like landmine squats and hand-supported squats place support anteriorly, but that is about as far as the similarities go.

Landmine squats are often touted as a useful squat alternative, and they are, to a point. The positioning of the landmine means the athlete can lean into the movement but still be challenged from a lateral stability standpoint, as the landmine arm still has a large degree of movement. It does come with one drawback: It can’t be loaded in a meaningful manner (much like the goblet squat). But it does make a good option when stuck in a gym with no rack or means of doing a moderately loaded squat variation.

Video 2. Healthy athletes can benefit from a heavy dose of anchored squat patterns. Some coaches add breathing elements or other skills, but make sure the movement is done properly.

The hand-supported squat or the Hatfield squat is a full circle of sorts: squatting with a safety bar and holding on to the rig, handles, or a bar set in the rack. This then allows the athlete to overload an already well-established squat pattern by taking out the limiting factor of anterior stability. It’s not uncommon to see athletes using 25% or more on top of their conventional back squat. I’ve increasingly seen it used as crutch to get athletes under a bar at the expense of good-quality movement; this is often demonstrated by dramatic hip shift, overuse of the arms, and a collapsed position.

Anchored squatting sits on a spectrum of options, but is always inherently inferior to traditional closed chain squatting. This is why this type of squatting can be used as a learning tool and discarded when viable; as an accessory movement to target specific facets of the squat pattern; and/or at its extreme, a means of novelty/stress reduction while maintaining a squat pattern in a training program.

Back Squatting in a Meaningful Fashion

The path to better back squats often lies in achieving a better front-loaded squat. Anterior loading acts as great way of achieving a smooth squat pattern. This can start with doorknob squats, move to plate-loaded front squats, progress to goblet squats, Zercher squats, and finally front and then back squats. This is because resisting anterior load is easier than trying to resist axial load for the uninitiated.

Scott Thom, writing for Just Fly Sports, said: “Why front squat first? The front squat:

1. Forces you to keep your elbows up and pointed straight ahead, teaching you what it feels like to keep a big chest and maintain vertical posture through ROM of squat.
2. Teaches you how to push your knees out and point your toes in the same direction as your knees. Thus, helping you to understand what it feels like to open up your hips.
3. Forces you to sit back, or your heels will come off the ground. Helping you feel what it means to have your weight balanced. If your weight is too far back and you’re not clawing your big toe into the ground you will feel off-balance.”

The front squat is preferred as a starting point for the back squat because it encourages a movement-strategy-first approach. I can always spot the athletes who have spent time front squatting versus those who have not just from looking at their back squat. The athlete who has not taken these steps will approach squatting with trepidation and, at worst, turn every back squat into a partial one.

The front squat is a preferred starting point for the back squat because it encourages a movement-strategy-first approach, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Notice that I make no mention of wall squats and/or overhead squats as progressions. Wall squats are often ugly movements that wind up with an athlete having to reach, but also lean, excessively anteriorly to achieve a good squat position. This is the same reason the overhead squat gets no mention, as it primarily becomes a shoulder/t-spine mobility challenge, which is outside the scope of this article. Overhead squats are often a display of mobility rather than a means to improve it or load the lower body in any meaningful fashion. The overhead squat must be earned, and in my experience, it has limited meaningful transfer. It’s an impressive display of strength, but that’s all it is—largely a display.

Video 3. Eccentrics are not just for stressing the body, but also challenging the brain. Heavy eccentrics provide major benefits to athletes by challenging upper centers of coordination while also training the general nervous system.

The partial squat is often the calling card of an athlete who has missed out on much of the aforementioned preparation. Partial squatting is often a subconscious compensation for unfamiliar joint positions and, importantly, a loss of balance. We know the benefits of loaded partial squats, but the majority of people perform them as a protective strategy rather than a performance-oriented one.

Idiosyncrasies are the common explanation of the partial squat apologists. But it is easy to differentiate an athlete who is comfortable in the squat at any depth from an athlete who lacks confidence, which is usually denoted by an inability to harness any sort of rapid eccentric action and a slowing tacking to a depth they feel is deep enough. Thus, the subsequent concentric phase is usually ropey as a result. This is often a case of loading strategy driving movement quality, rather than movement quality driving loading. I’ll explore this idea with two further examples.

Pragmatic coaches like Alan Bishop make extensive use of squat wedges. Cry and moan about it being a crutch all you want—it works well in populations typified by ankle stiffness limitations such as basketball.

Squat Progression

– Movement quality drives loading strategy
– Range > Load

Squat Low, Jump High
⬇️⬇️ 30 days of training ⬇️⬇️ pic.twitter.com/hUmDArVroF

— Alan Bishop (@CoachAlanBishop) February 13, 2019

The squat wedge ostensibly acts to artificially lengthen the Achilles tendon and reduce “excessive forward trunk flexion.” Much like the thinking behind weightlifting shoes, this allows for forward knee translation and greater knee flexion. This isn’t the crutch some think it is as it patterns good movement. The wedge can be employed in various fashions: I’ve seen athletes who can squat perfectly well with bodyweight without a wedge, then as soon as they are loaded, compensatory shutdown for whatever reason stops them from achieving meaningful depth.

The introduction of the wedge allows for a positive flow to training. This is an example of movement quality preceding loading, even if that movement quality is assisted in a sense. Because athletes have greater movement availability, they can practice using it, which will further grease movement capability. Contrast this, however, to the “fix” below, which often causes more problems than it fixes.

The bench/box squat is an example of an approach that is a crutch that can pattern bad movement. Divorced from the powerlifting or accelerative strength context (usually for those who can full squat or a return-from-injury case), this often becomes a recipe for problems. The thinking is sound: Lower the height of the box/bench until the athlete can perform the movement with a full squat. However, this doesn’t ever seem to play out as progression strategy. Why? Because it is often a loading-led approach rather than a movement-led one.

Because it is often loading-led rather than movement-led, the bench/box squat is an example of an approach that can pattern bad movement, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Rather than dropping the load and focusing on good mechanics, a shoddy loaded squat to a box is still a shoddy partial squat. The then subsequent introduction of greater depth at crucial angles with the same loads means complete system failure more often than not. I’ve seen otherwise stable squats to a high box reduced to panic-inducing mornings with the mere introduction of an extra inch or two of depth. This is because the inherent pattern is still faulty, and more range of movement won’t fix that. Things like proper forward knee movement and minimization of trunk lean are abandoned in favor of “finding” the box.

As you can see, there are two strategies here that try to improvise pathways to a better squat: One manipulating simple mechanics to allow for greater movement, the other incremental to foster movement under load. Movement-led approaches to fundamental movement patterns allow for long-lasting capabilities rather than shortsighted compensations.

Here are a few strategies for tying all this thinking together:

1. Have a Written Strategy for Navigating the Path to a Back Squat

The one we use at Powering Through Performance looks something like this.

6 Point Kneeling > Bodyweight > Bodyweight+ > Anchored Squat > Anterior Squatting > Back Squat

Because we have a number of coaches coaching different athletes over time, we can pick up where another has left off. Having an agreed-upon progression framework prevents us from undermining each other’s work. Do we deviate from this structure as needed? Of course we do—a path allows for deviation from that path.

While yours could be different from mine, having progression strategies in place for most exercises is not a bad thing. There is also no harm in selling the progression strategy to athletes so they can see a viable pathway to achieving outcomes both they and the coach want.

2. Understand the Difference Between Building Dependencies and Competencies

This sounds outwardly simple. But it is easy for coaches to make what seem like logical deductions to tackle problems and end up building further compensations that hinder the athlete in the long run. I’ve seen this in athletes who have been coached into a corner with dependencies on things like landmine/goblet squats (usually stemming from fear of load) or partial squats (load addicted, but unwilling to step back). The trickiest dependency to navigate is the one built from injury or injury anxiety, either real or imagined, or enforced through a poor choice of words from another coach or physio.

3. Have a Regression Strategy

A lot of traveling athletes who often conduct training alone and/or see their coach infrequently will, on occasion, need regression. Athletes will often build dependencies all on their own. I have had terse conversations with athletes unwilling to try anything other than their chosen, unproductive squat variant, sharing a regression plan and a subsequent follow-on progression strategy. You are more likely to get good buy-in if they understand why regression occurs and the benefits of doing it.

4. Understand That Anchored Squatting Is a Pathway or a Plan B, Not a Holding Pattern

The general population can thrive on novelty and modest difficulty, so the rationale of anchored variants makes more sense here than in athletic populations. Anchored movements can be learning movements—a supplementary/plan B exercise as circumstances dictate. Problems start to creep in when they’re used as a crutch movement because, generally, loading isn’t really high enough to manifest any meaningful lower body stress.

The aim of this post wasn’t to coach back squats per se, but to think about how we get there. A lot of coaches do this intuitively, but it’s clear, evidenced by what we often see on social media, that not everyone is quite so intuitive. While this acts as excellent fodder for disparaging others, I ask why these situations occur.

There are a number of steps between taking someone from being squat-deficient to a full bodyweight squat to the finally axially loaded endgame. For the strength training inclined, it’s easy to be full of answers. However, when you are confronted with populations of athletes that are perhaps less inclined towards lifting—especially those willfully combative when it comes to change or progressing/regressing—having a plan in place is part of winning the battle.

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

Charlton, J.M., et al. “The Effects of a Heel Wedge on Hip, Pelvis and Trunk Biomechanics During Squatting in Resistance Trained Individuals.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017;31(6):1678-1687.

Schoenfeld, B. “The Biomechanics of Squat Depth.” NSCA

In the grand scheme of things, most technology gets in the way of both the athlete and the coach. If you had to break it down, most technology winds up being a distraction, is difficult to integrate, or simply doesn’t deliver on its promise for one reason or another. In fact, this website exists in part to sort through this technological white noise and provide a distillation of what really works where it counts—in the trenches.

Preamble aside, occasionally you come across a tool so profound, it changes you as a coach. Not many things have ever done this for me. After having researched, experimented, refined, and refined some more, I can say that the NeuFit Neubie electrical stimulation device has been a game-changer for helping me deliver best practices to my clients. I remember, years ago, my curiosity watching transformations with certain trainers using the device and their training system to seemingly train athleticism into clients.

The NeuFit Neubie electrical stimulation device has been a game-changer for helping me deliver best practices to my clients, says @coopwiretap. Share on X

I wound up delving further down this rabbit hole, and so here we are. I’m thankful to say I’ve integrated the technology into my workflow. The benefits address such areas as dramatically accelerated performance rehabilitation, enhanced dialogue between nervous and musculoskeletal systems, shortened corrective exercise time to effect (enhanced neuromuscular activation), enhanced contract and relax cycles, pain relief at the “source,” and beyond.

The bottom line is that most training systems are output-based, but the Neubie electrical stimulation device enables you to get in at the input level.

The Technological Difference

In previous articles, SimpliFaster has done a great job articulating how EMS has been used in human performance throughout history, while also providing concrete examples for going from theory to practice.

The Neubie (“Neuro-bio-electric Stimulator”) is my chosen device type in this space, but it’s not the only player. There are two main differences compared to existing technology. These differences allow us to use the Neubie within training systems to improve outcomes for athletes in a wide range of situations.

The first difference is that it uses DC (DCEMS) as opposed to AC. The therapeutic benefits of DC, particularly on tissue healing, have been known for many years. But there had always been a limitation because DC would also burn the skin. The device offers a solution to this problem, using a combination of waveforms that includes a carrier frequency that enables the DC signal to penetrate the skin and fatty layers of tissue and penetrate to where it’s needed to have a meaningful effect.

The second difference has to do with its effect on the neuromuscular system. The Neubie has a unique combination of frequencies and waveforms that reduce the protective contractions normally seen with traditional e-stim units. At a therapeutic level of current, where an AC device would cause the body to lock up and be unable to move, this technology still permits users to actively move and allows us as practitioners to combine it with our own library of movement protocols. This effect allows us to emphasize eccentric contractions, amplify the sensory/afferent inputs to the nervous system, and create an opportunity for accelerated neuromuscular reeducation. Because of the unique artifacts of the waveform, we can use the device to create outcomes that are vastly superior to what can be accomplished with traditional devices.

The neurophysiology of the vast majority of tech on the market (e.g., TENS, Russian stim, interferential, etc.) is, again, that of alternating current (AC). When turned up to a high enough level to net change in the neuromuscular system, these devices cause the body to engage in protective co-contractions. There are plenty of benefits to be had with this type of technology, which have been covered on this site previously. Though there can absolutely be some positive in-the-moment neuromuscular activations, as well as in the mechanical pumping of blood, lymph, and other fluids, this approach ultimately creates more problems in the neurological control of movement.

The current from traditional devices actually reinforces many compensatory and dysfunctional movement patterns that impede the body’s healing processes and ideal movement strategies. This can contribute to the cycle of pain, reduced mobility, and movement deficiency.

The Neubie’s technology allows me to almost ‘feed’ information into the nervous system of the athlete, says @coopwiretap. Share on X

The net effect is that you, the coach, are almost able to tap into the athlete at the software level when everyone else is trying to do so at the hardware level. You’re weak? Try harder in this way! You’re imbalanced? Shift more to this side. You get the idea.

The technology in the Neubie has been a game-changer in that it allows me to almost “feed” information into the nervous system of the athlete. From there, your creativity is the only limiting factor.

Corrective Exercise and Reconditioning

There are many concepts within the rehabilitation, reconditioning, and movement prep worlds that need reconstitution. Whether you subscribe to PRI, FRC, DNS, neurokinetic therapy, or classical PT exercise, the same complaints about inconsistency of regular benefit acquisition and time to profit are repeated at least some of the time. In each case, this iteration of EMS provides a solution for enhanced quality of work and accelerated rate of desired results taking effect.

When you’re dealing with an athlete post-rehab, it is often the case that they are presented to you with requisite mobility and range of motion access, but are not yet ready to be loaded and/or engaged in a ballistic fashion. A quality return-to-play program can substantially accelerate results. A quality return-to-play program in conjunction with DCEMS can push these boundaries even further.

Rather than give a singular example of a reconditioned athlete, I’ll just put it out there that I regularly get feedback from physical therapists that the athlete is anywhere from 30-50% ahead of schedule and is pushing new boundaries in their athletic function. Furthermore, the same PTs are often confused as to what “new” exercise prescription to assign clients when they go in for their mandated checkups after hearing what we’ve been doing in our sessions. I’ll be fully transparent in that this can alienate you from those in the rehabilitation setting with a scarcity mindset, but it also has the potential to make you best friends with those who truly work in the interest of best practices.

I regularly get feedback from PTs that an athlete is anywhere from 30-50% ahead of schedule and pushing new boundaries in their athletic function, thanks to DCEMS, says @coopwiretap. Share on X

Athletes on the injured list can have the dialogue between their nervous and musculoskeletal systems stimulated, which cuts down on time out. A big reason that this type of current works well is this simulation of the body’s own internal “current” signals. Though forward-thinking trainers and coaches can absolutely affect the nervous system, ultimately this is done through “hardware” manipulations of the body’s soft tissues. The ability to mimic the athlete’s own internal neurological signaling artifacts makes corrective exercises, movement prep work, and specialty reconditioning exercises take effect more dramatically and at a more accelerated rate.

This is huge because I see so many trainers and coaches ultimately turning their athletes into patients. You spend HOW much time on movement prep and corrective exercise?

Experientially speaking, I have dramatically cut down on the amount of time it takes me to get an athlete to kinesthetically “feel” and inhibit or activate a certain muscle. Almost every movement-therapy-oriented practice has been criticized for issues with repeatability, difficulty of implementation, and getting said corrective exercises to become staples in clients’ movement strategies (“downloaded” into the nervous system, in other words). Let me repeat that. I’m not saying that there aren’t systems that are easier or better or more efficient than others—I’m saying that there are gaps in everything, and these are the trees to bark up that constitute a quality movement therapy system. If you could improve the best movement therapy program and save time doing it, that’s a no-brainer to me.

Look, you’re never just doing rehab/injury prevention or performance—you’re doing both. Health drives performance and solving these baseline mechanical/structural pathologies is often a missing piece in unlocking performance ROI. For me, if I can hack my workflow by outperforming my previous standards while concurrently accelerating them without cutting corners, that becomes a win for my athletes, which in turn is a win for me.

It’s not that you become reliant on a certain tool, but like anything, you dose it where you need to. Prometheus and fire. In this case, this tool allows you to deliver best practice here and also gives you more time to focus on performance, which is what we, as trainers, should be doing at the end of the day.

Scan and Treat

The emphasis on the sensory/afferent side of the nervous system also allows us to do a scanning, “diagnostic” process known as mapping. In this process, we scan an electrode around on the athlete’s body to identify areas of neurological dysfunction, which manifest as “hot spots.” The concept is that the scanning process picks up the dysfunctional patterns associated with protective responses in the body, including patterns like excessive tension and muscle inhibition.

Once identified, these hot spots can be cross-referenced with a table test, strength tests, and movement screens for further validation. In my experience, these hot spots are in line with what we’ve teased out via the above—only with more efficiency and precision. From here, stimulated treatment over the target area in conjunction with the requisite manual muscle neural therapy techniques, corrective exercises, and movement prep work almost always nets improvement in pain relief, increased range of motion, better strength expression, and greater ease or quality of movement (exercise economy)—even in just a few minutes of active treatment.

The ability to hit the scanning process is huge because it results in less time wasted and leads to a more surgical plan for best results. This is not where the benefits of the diagnostic piece end, however—these neurological glitches often help identify governors that the brain has placed on the neuromuscular system.

I’ll give you an example: A basketball player gets injured and has completed his rehab and is reasonably far along into his reconditioning training pipeline. He’s been fully cleared to play, yet his vertical is still not what it was—let’s say 25 inches, to use an easy number. It used to be near 40 inches. When the athlete is structurally ready and has had ample time to recomp his athleticism via training, yet still isn’t maximally expressing his athletic ability, it’s time to look at the brain.

A governor or limiter in this context refers to the brain fearing for the safety of its host athlete organism. The brain works on a protect-perform continuum. If the brain fears that the safety of the athlete is in jeopardy because they cannot “survive” the landing from a 40-inch vertical, then guess what? Their vertical isn’t going to be 40 inches even if they have the innate ability. This is akin to driving with one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake, neurologically speaking, and the athlete’s inability to fully express/fire their nervous system will be impaired. This is essentially the key variable in many instances of replicating transfer of training and is referred to in many classical training research studies, including those from Verkoshansky, Bondarchuk, and Marinovich.

Back to the point. The Neubie has allowed me to pinpoint and dissolve many of these neural limiters in my athletes.

Rewired Isometric Holds

Isometric hold variations occupy a valuable piece of real estate in my training system. That being said, I feel most coaches have a “black box” understanding of isometric holds. In other words, you do this input and you get this output. It’s important to remember that the reason we introduce isometric holds is because they ultimately grant the athlete deeper and more controlled access of the nervous system, which in turn enables proper recruitment of the musculoskeletal system.

With that warm-up out of the way, it’s not difficult to see how you can use this type of EMS to further deepen, enhance, and customize isometric holds. I’m not here to argue theory of application, either. Your own creativity is the limiter here. Let’s hold some varying ideas in the same arena. You could take Jon Bruney’s long-duration isometric holds for strength sports and hypertrophy and use the Neubie to dial up the muscular contraction level to forcibly overload the involved muscle groups. You could also take a Yuri Verkoshansky approach and overload the requisite muscles for a much shorter period of time. I believe it was Verkoshansky who warned that excessively long isometric contractions could cause excess muscle tone or tension.

It’s not difficult to see how you can use this type of #EMS to further deepen, enhance, and customize isometric holds, says @coopwiretap. Share on X

In fact, I like to think the machine actually can unite varying schools of thought. When you are holding near the end range of motion, the body typically tightens to protect itself from injury. This is why such isometric holds can lead to increased tension. With the Neubie, you can send a signal to balance muscle tone and ensure the appropriate activity. This dynamic helps reduce the body’s need to “protect,” allowing it to move more efficiently through greater ranges of motion and optimize the muscle tension-length relationships in training.

In the example provided, I’m rewiring a simple wall sit. Instead of a quad-dominant endeavor, I’m using the technology to force the athlete (myself) to pull themselves into position with their posterior chain like a bow and arrow. My goal is to create more repetitive tension (and relaxation technically) in the posterior chain while keeping the quads relaxed. The resultant effect is optimal posterior chain neuromuscular function, bringing with it speed, injury prevention, and explosiveness (reactive strength).

If you’re a sadist, there’s an added benefit to dialing up the current while using breathing as the remote control to your remote control (your nervous system), to maintain a parasympathetic state and respond to the exercise and electrical current combo instead of reacting to it and seeing the brain “bail” on a neuromuscular level. I’ve seen a benefit with this in conditioning work and performance anxiety, believe it or not.

High Stim Trap Bar Deadlift

The use case for this technology with strength work is huge. You can use it to pattern in appropriate muscle activation grouping and, to some extent, muscular firing sequences. The use case with this trap bar deadlift example is a bit easier to unpack.

Instead of working with the typical muscular activations here, I add stimulation to the hips and glutes and thus augment the athlete’s movement strategy. By emphasizing certain muscle groups, we can train proper form into the athlete more efficiently, make exercises safer, and increase strength types via total and accelerated contraction velocities. We can reprogram previously learned improper form and movement strategies as well.

Stimulated Sporting Movements

A major use case for this type of electrical stimulation is tuned sporting movements. By allowing the athlete to perform movements they see in their sport with the attached current, you can positively affect a number of factors relating to human performance.

Video 1. The use of EMS with shadowboxing training isn’t going to transform anyone into a champion overnight, but it does provide a learning opportunity for everyone. Don’t look to EMS as being sport-specific; treat it like a diagnostic for coaches who need to design better training programs.

In the example here, we have an MMA fighter shadowboxing on proprioceptive pads while concurrently being stimulated by the Neubie. My evaluation process also includes simple film analysis (really the first movement screen you should start with). This athlete had issues with fluid movement in his hips, including striking, takedown, and sprawling needs. Issues with keeping hands up, shoulder fatigue, and maintaining “snap” in strikes as the fight/training wore on were also all previous problems.

In addition to isometric holds, corrective exercise, and movement prep work, the current here enables proper muscular activation and overloaded contraction and relaxation cycles. Furthermore, the current on his shoulders, again, contracts at rates of hundreds of times per second. Both of these are beyond what will be seen in the fight, especially if this exercise is done in an appropriate intra-fatigue setting. Please note that muscle oxygen monitoring should be done here as well to help identify physiological performance limiters.

The net effect was better performance on takedowns, clinch work, sprawls, striking posture, and distance management, with the athlete specifically expanding movement range and quality in the hips. The shoulders also became more or less a non-factor limitation in training. Yes, these things improved with a proper training regimen, but I believe the Neubie enabled this to happen better and faster.

Manual Overload Technique

One of the simplest use cases with the Neubie technology is muscular overload technique. The concept (as with many other examples provided here) can be extrapolated and inserted into many exercise modalities. The idea here is to place the electrodes on the key muscles involved to promote a greater muscular contraction than can traditionally occur at the given weight.

If an athlete is dealing with some type of injury, nagging pain, strength deficit, or anything in between, you can use this technique to manually stimulate the muscle fibers to contract at a higher degree than the given weight used. In addition to providing a greater stimulus to the muscle for more strength and/or power, this also has a seat at the table in programming deloads. If you’re able to maximally stimulate muscles without unwanted CNS costs or functional systems stress when you’re, say, chasing supercompensation or unfavorable Omegawave scores, this can be a great, creative workaround.

A simple use case with the Neubie is muscular overload technique, where electrodes placed on key muscles promote a greater muscular contraction than typically occurs at the given weight. Share on X

To further riff on the deload concept, Charlie Francis and others have notably used EMS during both deloads and rest days while sleeping to stimulate muscle fiber without weight-bearing load. If an athlete comes in to the facility on a rest day or conditioning day, we can have the extra benefit of muscle stimulation without adding excess stress and potentially disrupting the adaptive processes of the body. This is also a great peaking tool if you want to stimulate the dialogue between nervous and musculoskeletal systems without DOMS close to competition and/or in season.

Once again, the limiting factor is your own creativity.

Speed Strength Eccentric Overload

Why is it that when eccentric overload gets discussed, it’s always done at slow, maximal strength? In non-iron sports, the eccentric is almost always done in the speed-strength continuum. Failure to feature these in program design is failure to introduce the athlete to both high-velocity neuromuscular contractions—a key applied stretch shortening cycle need—and sport-specific tendon adaptations, which are the load-bearing features and storage-release of kinetic energy.

Video 2. Eccentric strength of the legs is valuable in sport and jumping off a box onto two legs is great for many types of athletes. Make sure you progress carefully, as it’s a demanding exercise.

In this example of speed strength eccentric overload with altitude drops, we don’t address all of those, but we do use gravity to transmit a high-velocity force into the body for high-speed deceleration training, bulletproofing tendons, training timing, coordination, kinesthetic awareness (propriospinal process), and high-speed force absorption.

I use the EMS to uncork some added overloaded muscular tension. This is key for athletes who have a less favorable tension-length relationship and fall more on the latter side.

Plyometric Bench Throws

I learned this one from Nick Curson of Speed of Sport and the Marinovich Training Systems from their work with combat sports athletes and MMA athletes. This is a plyometric exercise for bench pressing that’s both safe and highly effective. It allows you to train a pressing movement for the upper body at plyometric speed.

Video 3. At first glance, bench throws and stability ball exercises can look a little gimmicky, but trust that they’re great for athletes who need upper body power. Use the right equipment and trust the ball is for challenging the body and not for excessive balance.

Though funky-looking and simple, pay attention to both the movement itself and the posture of my feet and hips. Though the bench press is great in its own right, it often results in poor neural adaptations and fragments the athlete’s body and movement into isolated sections. Bondarchuk, Verkoshansky, and Colgan all discuss the need to introduce a specific link of muscle firing sequences in training, but it’s my opinion that most coaches and mainstream schools misinterpret this literature into non-holistic exercise modalities in program design.

The posture adds a component of full body involvement as seen in the muscular recruitment on the football field. The ball adds a proprioceptive component for controlling the trunk, limbs, and load in space. The speed of the load allows us to empower the athlete with the speed of sport in the gym for upper body plyometrics—something that’s hard to come by.

There’s also a “power endurance” neural and physiological component at play here, which matters even more in combat sports. In fact, many combat sports athletes report that this is a novel supplement to their training programs that not only provides neural adaptations for punching power, but also is helpful because it doesn’t freeze their scapula in place. Football players love it as a supplement to their bench pressing. Many have gone so far down that maximal strength combine protocol that they have poorly developed changeover speed and slow contraction-relaxation rates. It only makes sense that if you’ve plateaued on combine-style maximal bench pressing, you dose in some varying neural looks.

The Neubie charges this exercise by providing maximal muscular contraction overload for additional power. The unique current also provides a great stimulus for the relaxation component of the stretch shortening cycle by driving the relaxation abilities and rates of athletes.

Video 4. Quad strength is about smart closed chain movements that focus on specific overload. You don’t have to do leg extensions to get development— just know how to recycle equipment the right way.

Remember, this technology isn’t the answer for everything, but it can absolutely serve as a catalyst for your own training concepts to take shape, as well as an empowering tool for healing. In my experience working with the Neubie, I feel like I have a significant advantage when it comes to keeping my athletes healthy and performing at a high clip. Using this iteration of EMS is almost akin to having a direct line of communication straight to your athletes’ nervous systems.

Using this iteration of #EMS is almost akin to having a direct line of communication to your athletes’ nervous systems, says @coopwiretap. Share on X

If you have the opportunity, I recommend trying this technology from a client perspective first. I encourage anyone equipped with this Promethean tool to follow the advice of the Soviets: Use your creativity with the Neubie to raise the ceilings of health and performance in your athletes.

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

In a 100m sprint, the fastest athlete wins. That is to say, the person with the highest maximum velocity almost always takes the gold. Hence it’s obvious to see why improving this quality is of prime interest to sprint coaches. But what is the best way coaches can squeeze out these improvements in their athletes?

We’ll often hear phrases such as:

• Train fast to be fast.
• Spend all your time running above 95% or below 75%.
• Train maximum speed all year round.
• Sprint as fast as you can, as often as you can, while staying as fresh as you can.

It seems pretty logical. If you want to get faster, you must frequently run at maximal velocities in training. This makes total sense, and I want to agree with it—but lately, I’m not sure I do.

Over the past year, I observed some interesting patterns with an athlete I coach. When I dug a bit deeper with further analysis, I realized many of my previous athletes matched these patterns. This article is effectively a presentation of my findings so far. While incomplete, the findings raise some salient points about how we approach speed as sprint and horizontal jumps coaches. So let’s call this the start of the conversation, a conversation I’m hoping other coaches will contribute to.

Typical Seasonal Observations

Below are the general observations I’ve made while collecting speed data over the past five years, explained in the context of my typical training setup.

Autumn and Winter General Preparation and Specific Preparation Phase. Athletes spend time running at submaximal velocities (80-95%), focusing on improving their technical model and building various physical capacities.

Spring Pre-Competition Phase. The natural increase in outdoor temperature means it’s now more sensible to do maximal speed work. We get out the Freelap timing system, and athletes run maximally in training. This typically means complete runs over distances of 40-80m or flying runs over 10-30m, with full recoveries.

Summer Competition Phase. Throughout this phase, we typically do maximal speed work 1-2 times per week. Looking back at all the Freelap data I accumulated, I found athletes appeared to fall into two distinct groups: those whose times steadily improved on average every 2-4 weeks and those whose times either plateaued or got slightly slower. Let’s refer to the former as racers and the latter as trainers (I’ll elaborate on these distinct groups later).

This pattern occurred with almost all post-pubertal sprinters and jumpers, who I trained within a consistent setup of 4-6 days per week. These are retrospective observations based on the speed data I collected, which was part of my normal record keeping process. I didn’t test different training modalities to see the results, which obviously would give a stronger evidence base for my assertions. What I do have, however, is an in-depth case study of an athlete who I currently work with.

Case Study

I am in year two of working with an athlete who I’ll call Sophie. Sophie is a long jumper who fits into the trainer category—she ran fast training times in pre-competition phases, but failed to improve on these throughout the year following the maximal speed work. I performed this case study with a long jumper rather than a sprinter because I had the logistics to control what I needed to (indoor facility, stable technical modal, stable lifestyle factors, etc.).

Really, though, this doesn’t matter. The information works for sprinters: substitute an approach run for an acceleration run over 30-40m where the athlete reaches a maximum of about 95% of their peak velocity (more on this later) and all the same assertions apply. Our case study covers 14 weeks from October 18, 2018 through to January 23, 2019. Throughout this period, the only significant change in her program was from her sprint- and speed-based sessions. You can see her typical setup below.

This training week’s set up is designed specifically for Sophie as an individual. It is ultimately one of many setups I use for speed and power athletes. Explaining any further why certain components were selected would detract from the point of this article. Sophie’s case study provides a genuine attempt to reliably note one athlete’s response to different speed stimuli over 14 weeks.

Weeks 1-7

Sophie’s sprint and speed session for the first seven weeks was an alactic short speed endurance (ASSE) session. To determine her speed capabilities, I chose to measure the velocity of her long jump approach run in training. Approach runs provided a great insight into her expression of speed capabilities without having to perform a stand-alone test regularly. And given how stable her technical model was during her approach runs, there was less likely to be noise in the numbers.

Sophie started training in a good place before this case study. Last season she had an approach velocity personal best (PB) time of 8.85 m/s, achieved during an outdoor session in August. We used an ATS II Stalker radar gun for this measurement and all of those performed in the case study. Data for Sophie’s approach velocity from weeks 1-7 is presented in the graph and table below.

Coaches who have used speed gun technology extensively have suggested to me that about 0.20-0.25 m/s was a meaningful change in velocity, which supports the assertion that an adaptation has taken place. Summarizing the data from Figure 2 and Table 1, Sophie improved around every 3-4 weeks, equalling her best from last season by week 4 and eclipsing it by week 7.

Transition to Speed

Sophie was running faster on the runway than ever before. With the indoor season approaching, we had a perfect opportunity to intensify the ASSE session to a maximal speed session. Remember, this was the only change in the programming—all other training components (exercises, intensity, and density) stayed relatively similar, with only micro changes in volume for fatigue management. The maximal speed session consisted of 6x50m with full recoveries, in line with typical maximal speed training prescriptions.

 

Weeks 7 to 10

In speed session 1, Sophie reached a maximal speed of 9.65 m/s in a 50m run. From research, we know that the maximal velocity value reached in a 100m race has a near perfect correlation with 100m time performance. We can calculate the time an athlete would likely hit in a 100m race if we know this maximum speed value using a formula supplied by PJ Vazel. Sophie’s maximal speed of 9.65 m/s translates to a 100m time of 11.92s.

In session 1 with no previous maximal speed work, it looked like she was in good shape given that her season best was 12.15 the previous year and her PB was 12.05. Not only was she faster on the runway, but her flat speed appeared to improve as well.

• • On the Monday of week 8—5 days following speed session 1—there was a slight drop in approach run velocity to 8.90 m/s.

 

• • This was accompanied by a slight decrease in velocity achieved on Thursday in speed session 2 (9.50 m/s).

 

• • Neuromuscular fatigue measurements collected using MyJump countermovement jump data stayed consistent, suggesting Sophie had sufficient central nervous system (CNS) recovery and had plenty of the resources required to sprint fast.

 

• • On the Monday of week 9, her approach run velocity (9.00 m/s) was again slightly below the pre-intervention value.

 

• Then on the Monday of week 10, her approach run velocity was the lowest it had been for six weeks (8.85 m/s), even following a recovery week, which in previous training cycles had resulted in a bump in velocity.

If maximal speed work is such a potent stimulus, why wasn’t it making her faster? Various periodization textbooks suggest maximal speed adaptations have a neural nature and that we should expect some change within 1-2 weeks upon initial implementation of this new stimulus. If this were the case, I should have seen a positive change by this point.

I deloaded volume in the recovery week between weeks 7-10 the same way I deloaded the ASSE component in weeks 1-7 since I had given her body a reasonable chance for supercompensation from the max speed stimulus. But by week 10, her approach run velocity was back to where we were six weeks earlier.

I can accept the argument that two weeks of dosage might not be enough to see a reasonable change. In previous seasons, however, we continued this speed phase for long periods—up to 3-4 months—and similarly saw no improvements. We just weren’t willing to risk the same thing happening this season, given that she previously did so well up to that point. Therefore, Sophie and I agreed that it was time to pull the plug on the max speed sessions.

On the Thursday of week 10, the ASSE session returned and replaced the maximal speed runs in the Thursday session. By week 11—5 days following the ASSE session—her approach run velocity again reached 9.10 m/s. This was the level it had reached before the maximal speed phase. Two weeks later in week 14, before Sophie started her competition cycle, she reached a new approach run velocity PB of 9.20 m/s.

Following this at the peak of her indoor competition season, she was measured in training at 9.30 m/s and in competition at 9.50 m/s by the national team biomechanist (Table 4). More importantly, Sophie achieved an indoor PB performance in the long jump, improving her best by 26cm. It appeared we had made the right call to stop the maximal speed sessions.

Some of you might think that the increase in velocity was due to supercompensation from the maximal speed training. I contend this was not the case because of the time period that elapsed between these points. It took 25 days following the last maximal speed stimulus before her approach run velocity returned to pre-speed phase levels (Thursday of week 8 to Monday of week 11) and 42 days before she had a worthwhile increase (Thursday of week 8 to Monday of week 14).

Programming

In the past, when I saw athletes respond in ways similar to Sophie after introducing maximal speed work, I asked myself a lot of questions:

• Did I do too much or too little volume?
• Were densities too high or too low?
• Should I have done flying runs or completion runs?
• Did their technical model deteriorate?
• Did they need more time to recover from races?
• Did they lose physical qualities they were reliant on like max strength, elasticity, and endurance?

Ultimately, there are so many variables that can influence sprint performance in a training program. Over a number of seasons, I tried addressing the questions above by playing with different variables. Over and over again I saw little change, which brought me back to one key question: Does every athlete need to run maximally in training to get faster?

Maximal Intensity vs. Maximal Effort: Not All Speed Is Created Equally

I’ve got some thoughts on why Sophie’s velocity data changed in the way it did.

If you ask an athlete to run at maximal effort in training, they’ll likely attain anywhere between 90-100% of their competition race velocity. This could occur in either a completion run of 40-70m or a flying run over 10-30m, off a 30m build up.

Some coaches claim sprinters will not hit within 5% of their highest race velocity in training, but that simply isn’t true. I’ve witnessed this happen at all levels. I even saw two very elite athletes who both ran 6.5 consistently during an indoor season and went head to head regularly in training where one hit multiple 0.84s splits while the other struggled to dip under 0.90s.

How close an athlete gets to their maximum will, of course, be affected by components such as the weather, the competitiveness of the environment, fatigue level, and whether timing devices are used, etc. It’s important to note that this maximum is also theoretical from race data and is ever changing.

Some athletes can’t get above 95% of their race speed in #training no matter the stimuli, says @ross_jeffs. #racespeed Share on X

This is a broad general overview, and we can take it further. My theory is that you can potentially divide sprinters into two groups based on an estimate of what percentage of max speed they can hit in training:

1. 1. Athletes who can’t normally get above 95% of their race speed in training no matter the stimuli they are given—the racers.

 

1. Athletes who tend to be able to reach >95% and can attain race speeds relatively easily in training, provided they are fresh—the trainers.

Let me give you a typical example from my junior group this year. Two athletes I coach recently ran indoor 60m PBs of 7.22 (Athlete 1) and 7.20 (Athlete 2), respectively. Two weeks earlier, I’d used Freelap to time a 60m rep in a training session, and Athlete 1 ran a flying 30m split of 3.05s while Athlete 2 ran 3.21s.

Using Ken Jakalski’s sprint projection chart, which can reliably convert split times to race times and vice versa (Table 5), Athlete 1 was at the same pace in training as he was in racing. Meanwhile, Athlete 2 was off the mark and visibly slower in training. There was always a clear difference between the two in training. Undoubtedly, Athlete 1 was a trainer while Athlete 2 was a racer.

I had played down how important this was previously, assuming certain athletes were lazy trainers. It was only when I started collecting detailed velocity data that the relevance of this hit home. It has helped me to explain the patterns I’d observed from previous years.

Some athletes should not run at maximal velocities in #training because they overstimulate their CNS, says @ross_jeffs. #maxvelocity Share on X

I believe the trainers are doing themselves a disservice by running at maximal velocities in training, as they stimulate their CNS beyond what is necessary for adaptation. Whereas racers are unintentionally training at a sweet spot of somewhere between 90-95% where adaptation can take place, preventing them from frying their CNS to the same extent as the trainers. It’s worth noting that since the race in question, I restricted how fast Athlete 1 ran in training, and he managed to take his time down further to 7.14s three weeks later.

The Why and the How: Insights from the Field

When I came to these realizations, I did some research looking for support for the idea that running at maximal velocities regularly in training can be detrimental to sprint performance. I struggled to find much available to support my theory. There are, however, a couple of quotes that I think are worth highlighting.

“One of the things we found to increase overall speed qualities was that maximal speed runs had to be done at least 88% maximal velocities, with better results around 92%.”—Dan Pfaff (conference video circa 2005/2006)

“It’s very costly to try to run at top speed (100% as in PB velocity) even once a week. Psychological fatigue and strain on CNS are too much. Maybe once in the pre-comp phase. But ideally, use the competition instead. The training effect of pure speed training is poor. It’s the icing on the cake in pre-comp phase.”—Paraphrased conversations with PJ Vazel.

It was very interesting that Dan made such specific prescriptions, which provided some support as to why Sophie was getting so much from the ASSE sessions. After hearing this, I went back and measured the velocity of one of these sessions with the radar gun, and most of the time she was hitting between 90-93% of her top speed. PJ’s comments echoed what I found when I introduced maximal speed work to Sophie and so many other athletes: it was an enormous strain on the CNS and exceeded what they required for adaptation.

Training Recommendations

It seems that doing regular maximal velocity sessions—where about 100% of an athlete’s PB speed is reached—can be overkill for the CNS. If any athlete (racer or trainer) did 4-6 60m races at PB speed in one day, how long do you think it would take them to bounce back from that? I used the analogy of maximal strength in a previous article. Do we ever lift maximal to get stronger? Rarely. Max sprinting is another form of maximal expression of the CNS, so why would it be very dissimilar?

#Maximal speed training does not mean it's necessary to run at maximal speed, says @ross_jeffs. Share on X

It’s not a case of whether you do maximal speed work, but rather how you do it and define it. Maximal speed training does not mean it is necessary to run at maximal speed. I am sure outliers exist, and for coaches out there who don’t like working in absolutes, I’m not suggesting you go and tell your athletes to run at 92% because how can they internalize that? Coaches can be intelligent about manipulating training variables.

• • Lower the arousal levels in practice, keep them out of competitive runs, and don’t let them think they’re being timed or tested.

 

• • If you decide to test, use very low volumes and implement a post-race recovery training strategy if they hit PB times.

 

• • During completion runs of 40-70m, focus on mechanics, race modeling, rhythm, relaxation, fluidity, and implement incomplete recoveries as we used for Sophie in her ASSE runs.

 

• Try sprint-float-sprint or use Charlie Francis’ intensity limits with shortened acceleration zones of 10-30m or less to cap the top speed attainable in these runs.

Final Message

I was able to draw a better conclusion on this topic only after collecting reliable data. As a community of athletics coaches, we have to do a better job of breaking through bias and assumptions to refine what actually makes athletes faster and what is noise. It’s the crossover lines on a Venn diagram between the art and science of coaching. It is easy to make assumptions based on the successful programs we see online. But are those programs made up of pre-pubertal high school athletes? Did the coach win the genetic lottery with all his athletes? Or, more worryingly, was it drug-fuelled in a world where CNS fatigue doesn’t exist?

I concluded that sprinting at actual (not perceived) maximal velocity is not necessary to get faster, and essentially, doing it regularly in training can be counterproductive. Train the underpinning qualities of velocity, chase the relevant speed numbers not the maximal ones, and don’t worry about those athletes who can’t ramp it up in training because come race day, they will show up.

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

Many people don’t think golf is a sport, never mind that golfers need performance training or sports science. On the surface, it is hard to argue with them. In the world of golf, we don’t even use the terms “sport science” or “performance training.” For some reason, we decided to call it “golf fitness” instead.

The historically based image of golf is that of a game where people smoke and drink, and their biggest challenge is getting the club around their beer bellies. The only reason a golfer sweats is if it is hot outside. Golfers don’t even need to walk! They can just sit in a cart for the over 6 miles of course and only need to stand over their ball for 10 seconds or so at a time. They make a single swing of a stick weighing less than 2 pounds, and then get back to sitting.

Could you imagine athletes like Usain Bolt drinking a Bud Light between races? Of course not! John Daly? Of course, yes!

The golf performance training world is quite young compared to other more-established sports such as track and field, football, and basketball. When you talk to professional golfers from the ’90s, ’80s, and earlier, they will tell you that there was one Tour trailer at an event and there were more guys in there with a scotch in their hand than a weight. Then came Tiger Woods, and everything has been changing for the past 20 years.

Some Context on the History of Golf Performance

In order to understand how golf performance training has progressed to where it is today, it is important that you quickly understand how technical golf swing instruction has developed. The reason for this is because golf instruction has heavily influenced the course of golf performance over the past two decades, with the latter industry mirroring much of the former in how information was passed down.

To understand how golf performance training has progressed to where it is today, you need to understand how technical golf swing instruction has developed. Share on X

The technical side of golf (how the golf swing is taught) is entrenched in theories and the experiences of great players and great coaches. There was minimal scientific basis in much of the early teachings; rather, it was more along the lines of “a mentor taught me this way so I will teach you that way too because he worked with a great player.” Today, instruction is light years ahead of where it began, but only because there are more instructors producing scientific research and data than ever before.

The point of this digression is to demonstrate to you where instruction started and emphasize the fact that “good ol’ boy science” based on what the great players and coaches were doing was rampant in the early years, much like golf fitness.

Great golf players are determined by wins, just as in any other sport. If they won a lot and had a “good looking” swing, historically, teaching professionals would coach their amateur golfers to swing like them. This started with 2D video and has continued into the 3D kinematic and force plate kinetic worlds to an extent. Similarly, in the golf fitness world, if a winning player works out a certain way, it has often just been accepted that all golfers should be working out that way too.

Great coaches are also historically determined by wins, but not their wins—their players’ wins. If a golf coach worked with a single great player, oftentimes their career would be made, and they would be considered a great coach. More players quickly followed and their “stable” of players multiplied.

This is how many of the early golf fitness coaches and authorities came to be as well. As with the early years of instruction, little actual science or testing was done to confirm whether the majority of the methods actually worked. They were just accepted and passed down to each generation because they previously worked with great players. While that pattern is changing today in both instruction and performance, “good ol’ boy science” is not even close to extinct.

To return to the golf performance world, it all started with a number of early adopters in the golf fitness field who worked with the world’s best players. It has continued to gain steam as a legitimate field and area of expertise since. Unfortunately, the tradition of how golf instruction developed bled heavily and predominantly into the development of this field and led to a lot of bad information and poor results along the way.

Luckily, there has been a minority of sport performance coaches and scientists who actually started looking at the science and physiological demands of golf early on. They began developing the resultant training that would be required to elevate the game to where it is today.

While the minority was doing that, however, the majority of the field went with the “it has to look like a golf swing to be a golf-specific approach.” We also were drawn heavily into the idea that if an exercise is hard, it must be even better when we make it complex too. Hence, the “swing a golf club while standing on a Bosu ball” exercise was born and even featured in Golf Digest, one of the major publications in golf, with the No. 1 golfer in the world doing it.

Some of my other personal favorites include the Bulgarian split stance jumps with rotation and transverse medicine ball slam for “maximal rotational power development in your swing” or the myriad or “max strength” exercises on a physioball. But perhaps my all-time favorite is the “hold a 5-pound dumbbell in both hands and swing with the same motion as your swing to strengthen your golf swing and clear you to return to play after surgery if there is no pain.” These are unfortunately still happening today…a lot.

Forget the scientific fact that if you stand on an unstable surface, your movement recruitment and sequencing patterns totally change and you train a totally different pattern.¹Forget the fact that if an exercise is too complex, you lose the ability to train maximal strength or power.²Disregard that in order to develop maximal strength, you want as little as possible of your body’s energy focused on not falling off a ball, and instead focused on exerting maximal contractile force.²The No. 1 player in the world had a golf club in his hand, was standing on a physioball, and was featured in Golf Digest doing it, so this must be the way we should train golfers.

The golf fitness industry has historically failed to accept that the only true sport-specific training is the sport itself. Share on X

The golf fitness industry has historically failed to accept that the only true sport-specific training is the sport itself. The mantra, instead, became “the more exercises we can invent that look like the golf swing, the better golfers we will produce.” While this line of thinking is slowly dying off, it is still very present in mainstream arenas such as the Golf Channel and social media. I personally can’t keep up with the number of new training devices and products that continue to come out daily from this line of thinking. Unfortunately, the average golfer is still very much drawn to the idea of “golf-ish” exercise to improve their performance.

The New Age of Golf Performance Training

As the field has matured over the past two decades and the minority has been able to educate and share their findings with more strength coaches and medical professionals, we have begun to see a shift in the field and the golf community. It’s slow, but it is shifting. Both are moving toward accepting and understanding the value of golf performance training and its importance to delivering results on the increasingly competitive and lucrative stage of golf.

Take a look on the PGA or LPGA tours and you will no longer see beer bellies as the norm, but the exception. There are now two trailers on tours, and they are busy from sunrise to sunset.

If you watch the Golf Channel whenever Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka play, you will undoubtedly hear comments from the commentators about their workout regimens and how “fit” they look. They will also talk about how far they can hit the ball and the new generation of golfers who are “fit and explosive.”

The reason? We are now seeing a direct correlation between how far a golfer can hit the ball and how much money they make.³

Having data showing that if you create more power, there is a correlation to making more money, aka playing better, is great! However, we are also seeing an increasing number of high-profile players who swing the club really fast getting hurt. Resiliency and longevity are starting to become higher profile concerns as the sport continues to evolve.

For golf as a larger industry, longevity should be the No. 1 concern, as the industry is combatting the baby boomer generation aging out of playing due to injury, loss of distance off the tee, and subsequent loss of enjoyment. This leads to them dropping club memberships and shifting their attention and dollars to other activities.

These elements, among others, are starting to drive an increased desire among golfers as a whole to “show me the data.” Because of this, we are in the most dangerous time for golf performance training since its inception.

Golf fitness coaches, new companies, and new products are coming out of the woodwork with the “latest and greatest” exercises and protocols to improve your golf swing speed at deafening volumes. They know golfers want to see data, so they use phrases like “we have found” and “our research shows” but there is rarely any actual research shared. Sure, they share general numbers, such as you will increase by “x” amount in your first session alone, but if you ask them to share how they found that, the science behind it, or other answers to probing questions, there will usually be crickets. If you do get a response, it is typically along the lines of “our research is proprietary.” There certainly are exceptions to this, but they are rare.

If you know a golfer, you know they will not blink at dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars on a quick fix or improvement they are told will help them play better. They also are conditioned to see a Tour player using a device or doing an exercise and immediately think they should be doing that too. Put these two things together with deceptive data marketing and you have a recipe for poor outcomes based on “good ol’ boy science” and the potential for easy money.

The Science Behind Golf Performance Training

The ultimate sport-specific expression of power in golf is club head speed. Every mph increase a golfer is able to achieve with their swing speed equates to just about 3 yards of added distance, assuming similar launch conditions.⁴

The average elite golfer age 17-30 swings the golf club at 113 mph.⁵The length of time it takes their downswing to accelerate from 0 mph to 113 mph is under 1 second, and this is only the 50th percentile. From our research here at Par4Success, of over 600 data points, the 90th percentile is above 120 mph.⁵We have compiled percentiles for all ages/sexes, and all of these numbers are available at our website for free if you are interested in how speeds change over life and development.⁵

Golf is an anaerobically driven sport with incredible accelerations and max speed and 3-5 minutes on average between swings in competition, depending on pace of play. Hip rotational speeds on the PGA Tour are around 600 degrees per second, torso rotational numbers are in the 800 degrees per second range, and hand speeds are in the 1500 degree per second range or more.

The best players on Tour are some of the most explosive rotational athletes on the planet. What increases their need for solid strength and conditioning is that they have to do it week in and week out, playing 5-6 days per week during a season that spans over 11 months! It also includes travel around the world, which makes recovery and resiliency a huge issue as their “off” days are more often than not spent traveling to the next event.

The four elements that influence how fast a golfer will swing are equipment optimization, technical efficiency, mobility, and power. Share on X

There are four elements that need to be considered that influence how fast a golfer will swing. The first two are outside the realm of strength and conditioning: equipment optimization and technical efficiency. The second two that need to be considered are mobility and power.

Mobility in Golf

Mobility for golf can be quite complex if you get into the weeds of wrist angles, elbows, etc. At a minimum, you should look at the overall athletic movement competency of your golfer.

Whatever your preferred system is doesn’t matter to me, just have one. It could be a formal system such as the SFMA or just generally looking at squatting, hinging, and overhead mobility. I honestly couldn’t care less what you use, but please have a system to consistently assess and objectively place your athlete at a starting point. This is a critical step that gains you an understanding of where your performance plan needs to start.

Look at the overall athletic movement competency of your golfer. Look at the critical rotary centers: hip internal, thoracic, shoulder external, and neck rotations. Share on X

What I do care about, however, is that you look at the critical rotary centers of your golfer. The areas of rotation can be condensed into four main centers: hip internal rotation, thoracic rotation, shoulder external rotation, and neck rotation. Any limitation in one of these areas leads to unwanted lateral movement and loss of posture in the golf swing.

A decrease in internal rotation of the lead hip in a golfer is highly correlated to low back pain.^6,7The fact that more than 50% of golfers experience back pain at any given time makes it the most common injury in golf.⁷In our clinic, we have also seen limitations in any of the rotary centers lead to technical compensation and injury in other parts of the body that end up taking up the slack.

One recent example in a golfer was an injury to the lead hand thumb at transition. This was due to limited trail arm shoulder external rotation and thoracic rotation to the trail side. It ended up placing increased stress on the lead hand thumb. The added stress ultimately led to injury, as well as decreased distance and accuracy. We also noted a significantly weaker grip strength on the lead side. This suggested decreased resilience to the vibratory stresses experienced during impact, likely also contributing to the injury.

Once the trail arm shoulder external rotation and thoracic rotation were fixed, the thumb was treated locally, and the decreased grip strength was trained up. We ended up seeing an increase in speed compared to prior to injury and an increase in accuracy without any future return of the injury.

Golfers need competency in all four rotary centers. If competency doesn’t exist, the compensations they have to make often lead to decreased performance and injury. Share on X

This example illustrates perfectly the importance of competency in all four rotary centers. If that competency does not exist, the compensations that will have to be made often lead to decreased performance and injury. It is very common in golf for a back injury, the most common injury in the game, to be caused by a lack of rotation in one of the four centers.

Identifying a fail is the first step, but the real impact will be made by determining why the fail is occurring. Identifying why allows you to quickly implement positive change and deliver improved results. When you are successful with this, you will see positive changes in the golfer from not only a power perspective, but also a longevity one.

Power in Golf

Creating power in golf boils down to the same physiological requirements as any other sport: how much force the golfer can create and how quickly they can deliver it. At Par4Success, our questions initially centered around figuring out what types of movements were most important for golfers to develop power in. This led to a three-year-plus study looking at 600+ data points to determine which tests would correlate most highly to club head speed with golfers.

Figure 1 shows the three power tests and the anti-rotational test that we found to have high correlations to club head speed. It is important to note that the table of 600+ data points is for golfers ages 10-70. Do not take this overall table to be reflective of all golfers at all ages, as there were stark differences within the age brackets and the corresponding r-values.

We have broken down the correlations by age brackets for more age-reflective and actionable data in our full research report and noted a significant change in each test’s r-value based on the age and developmental level of the player.⁵I would encourage you to look at the full report if you work with golfers and/or are interested in how the r-value for each value changed in relation to the age of the athlete.

Figure 1. Par4Success conducted a 3+ year study looking at 600+ data points to determine which tests correlated most highly to club head speed with golfers. This table shows the four tests—three power and one anti-rotational—that we found to have high correlations to club head speed. (Note: The table is for golfers ages 10-70. Do not take this overall table to be reflective of all golfers at all ages, as there were stark differences within the age brackets and the corresponding r-values.)

As evidenced by the data, it is critically important to train golfers as a whole to be able to express power in ways that would improve performance in these tests (vertical, linear, horizontal, and rotational force generation). What this means is that as coaches, we need to assess where a player lacks power creation and work to train those areas up without neglecting to continue to improve their strengths.

As coaches, we need to assess where a player lacks power creation and work to train those areas up while continuing to improve their strengths. #golf Share on X

I want to be clear that this data does not mean that we should train the specific tests, however. In fact, we rarely have our athletes do any of these tests in their actual training programs. Instead, we train the strength, speed, and skills required in the sport of golf as demonstrated by these tests.

How to train power is very well-researched in other sports and needs to be looked at and understood by any coach deciding to work with golfers. A player’s location on the speed-strength continuum, their training age, their goals, and even what they will be able to accomplish genetically should all be considered.

I believe it is also critically important to the development of golfers that we base our training systems, particularly with our elite athletes, on the science around peak power production such as the incorporation of Olympic lifts. Unfortunately, incredibly popular but unproven training ideas dominate the golf fitness world (i.e., throwing a 6-pound medicine ball against a wall will produce insanely powerful and resilient golfers).

Traditional and proven methods are more often the best option to train power than the new shiny thing that caught your attention or the movement that looks like the golf swing. But if the new shiny thing ends up being proven, don’t be close-minded and refuse to try it.

The Future of Golf Performance

The future of golf performance lies in my above statement. We need to prove that the traditional golf fitness methods we use really produce meaningful performance gains. When doing this, we need to challenge the traditional methods at a scientific level, not a case-by-case level, to determine which produces better performance objectively. Progress needs to be rooted in the true sports science of power and speed development without ever losing sight of the importance of empirical evidence.

The future needs to be wary of new methods and products with bold claims but unshared proprietary data. Traditional methods that fall short in quantitative results must be reconsidered. We need to focus on asking ourselves: How do we really know this works, and how do we know this is the most efficient way to achieve our goal? Is it because science showed us or because “x” expert or professional said so? The future is in researching and proving that what we are doing works.

Progress in golf performance must be rooted in the sports science of power and speed development without losing sight of the importance of empirical evidence. Share on X

For instance, we ran a small 20-golfer preliminary study in 2018, looking at the effect different types of rotary training might have on club head speed. We compared Exxentric’s kPulley eccentric flywheel to traditional bands and cable machines (the accepted industry norm) and saw some interesting results. We found double the increase in club head speed when utilizing eccentric flywheel rotational training compared to bands and cable machines over a six-week period. This should lead to questions of potentially more efficient rotary power training.

We also took a look at the incredibly popular overspeed training phenomenon that is helping golfers across the globe increase their swing speed. The system utilizes a 20% lighter club, a 10% lighter club, and a 5% heavier club. We assessed kinematic data with each of the clubs and also looked at a 66% lower training volume protocol to see what it would bear.

Our initial study of just over 20 golfers showed undesirable kinematic sequence changes with the 20% lighter club. It also demonstrated almost double the club head speed improvement with the lower volume protocol. This suggests only using the single 10% lighter stick, while requiring strict rest-to-work ratios adhering to glycolytic recovery needs to assure quality of repetitions, might be a more-efficient and more-effective training option.⁸

This study led us to do a follow-up study, which we are currently in the middle of. The initial study only spawned more questions as to the most effective ways to impact positive speed improvements.

Another one of our studies over three years looked at the relative benefit of triphasic training versus traditionally periodized training (higher reps with lower weight progressing to lower reps with higher weights) on club head speed in different age groups. We noted that traditional training produced a 50% greater increase in clubhead speed in juniors (10-16 years old) relative to the expected 12-week average.⁵

Comparatively, traditional training produced a 10% worse result in adults 50 and older. We essentially saw the inverse results with triphasic training relative to each group.⁵The numbers in this study are quite a bit larger and therefore more easily expandable, but nonetheless, my hope is that this sparks follow-ups and future research into the area of golf performance.

These are just three examples of the studies we have completed in an effort to put some publicly available information and data behind what golfers are doing and be able to show them why. In the coming years, the idea that kinetic sequencing and power profiles for each specific player can maximize training program effectiveness will likely emerge. This might be based on what some would call a golfer’s “swing DNA,” and we could then look to develop training protocols to support the kinetic forces they most utilize in their swing. Theoretically, it makes a ton of sense, but we will have to wait and see if it pans out.

As we push forward in the golf performance industry, we need to continue an incredible emphasis on meaningful data. Share on X

To wrap up, the golf fitness industry has turned into the golf performance industry on the backs of some insanely smart and driven individuals early on. While we are a heck of a lot further into the realm of sports science and data-driven performance results than when we started, we still have a long way to go.

We need to display the discipline and drive to continue to push forward with incredible emphasis on meaningful data. The greatest thing I can hope for 20 years from now is for someone to send me this article and tell me that I was dead wrong on every single point I brought up. The email would come attached with all of the data from their research proving me wrong. That would be a great day for the world of golf and golf 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

References

1. Sternlicht, E., et al. “EMG Comparison of a Stability Ball Crunch with a Traditional Crunch.”Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007;21(2):506-509.

2. Cressey, E.M., et al. “The Effects of Ten Weeks of Lower Body Unstable Surface Training on Markers of Athletic Performance.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007;21(2):561-567.

3. Dusek, David. “By the Numbers: Distance Off the Tee Really Does Pay Dividends.” Golf Week. 4/22/18.

4. Tutelman, Dave. “What Is a MPH of Clubhead Speed Worth?” Swingman Golf. 7/7/15.

5. Par4Success Public Research Data.

6. Vad, V.B., et al. “Low Back Pain in Professional Golfers: The Role of Associated Hip and Low Back Range-of-Motion Deficits.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004;32(2):494-497.

7. Murray, E., et al. “The relationship between hip rotation range of movement and low back pain prevalence in amateur golfers: An observational study.” Physical Therapy in Sport. 2009;10(4);131-135.

8. Prengle, B. Cassella, A. Finn, C. Graham, T. “The Effects of Reduced Overspeed Protocol Volume on Club Head Speed in Golfers – A 6-Week Study.” 10/18.