Blog

At Exceed Sports Performance and Fitness in Westborough, MA, we train more than 150 athletes each month, and receive dozens more in monthly visits, including drop-ins by performance coaches from other facilities looking to gain insight on the ExceedSPF method. The most common questions we receive from performance coaches center around our training methodology and the types of equipment we employ to train our athletes. In answering these questions, we recommend only what we believe to be the best techniques and technologies available.

From our perspective, the kBox flywheel system by Exxentric is one of the most valuable pieces of equipment at our facility. Not only does the kBox distinguish itself through its incredible versatility, but more importantly, our athletes love using it!

Exceed’s kBox Story

In early 2017, we installed our first kBox and quickly began the task of incorporating it into our existing training programs. At first, I was skeptical about whether the kBox actually offered substantive value as a training tool, or was simply another flash-in-the-pan piece of equipment that looked great on social media but then quickly collected dust in the corner of the gym. My doubts were quickly laid to rest.

The kBox represents a quantum leap in flywheel training technology, combining sturdy construction and versatile operation to allow an athlete to train almost any movement imaginable with concentric and eccentric loads. Today, Exceed has incorporated the kBox into the training programs of athletes at all levels, from the elite NFL professional to the casual weekend warrior.

Here are my top 10 reasons why your gym should buy a kBox:

Results

Athletes have options with training, now more than ever. Results are one of the criteria that athletes use to determine where to go, so as a private sector coach with competition all around me, I pride myself on getting athletes better. Massachusetts is better known for producing hockey athletes than football players, but over the last few years Exceed has had a nice streak of producing NFL players. We know that when athletes head to play at the collegiate level, they talk to other athletes about training for the Combine after their NCAA career finishes.

We have a lot of college kids come back to us because they remember who helped them get there. The only difference is athletes need to trust that we can make them better at the pro level, not just during high school and the summers of their college career. Now, they remember the kBox and other investments we made to help them get every inch in jumping or every tenth in sprinting. If flywheel training didn’t work, we wouldn’t waste our time and money. Any piece of equipment can get athletes into the gym once or twice, but the right tool keeps them here.

Lately, we have seen local linemen from our area get signed by teams in the NFL. We know that part of that is us, since many of those Massachusetts athletes train at our facility. A growing interest of ours is adding muscle quickly because we plan to work with even more linemen, and based on our research, adding mass from flywheel training is a powerful approach that we need. The science supporting flywheel training appears to be locked in, so we are going to put more and more effort into this type of training. If flywheels help with strength, power, and speed, it is nearly a perfect tool because it helps with muscle hypertrophy as well.

Safety

Ironically, the use of flywheels is very safe, but eccentric training usually gets a bad rap because the overload is usually foolish. On average, an athlete who has a few months of solid training can jump into flywheels instantly and begin the process. The reason athletes are safe with flywheels is that the speed and rebound load are highly autoregulated by their concentric abilities. Some athletes have poor eccentric abilities, but the likelihood of an athlete having extremely poor eccentric abilities after months of conventional training is slim to none. Performing traditional exercises with the kBox or kPulley is very safe, and all you have to do is demonstrate a few reps and the athlete is ready to go.

The use of the hip belt is also great for those who are not tolerant of spinal loading. It’s not that hip squatting is a perfect solution, but it’s a much better solution compared to alternatives like partial reps. Most of the time, we like performing kBox squats with the belt versus a harness because we know that an athlete can only handle so much wear and tear.

Portability

Another value point I will mention right away is the size of the system. If you are a small gym, every inch matters. We are large compared to most private facilities, but when the space is large, so are the operational costs and the need to get athletes serviced effectively. If we have to move the kBox out of the way for another activity we can do it instantly, and if we had more systems we could stack them if needed. Some high schools don’t even have a weight room, and the ability to take the kBox system out on the field for soccer training or the court for volleyball or basketball is huge for some coaches.

We do appreciate the general population market, as it often consists of former athletes who need to be trained long after their career in sport finishes. Some great coaches do work with average joes from all walks of life and need to travel with their equipment. Instead of being limited to bands and dumbbells, the kBox is perhaps the best personal training tool in the business. It only needs a duffle bag for the flywheels and accessory handles and harnesses, which is a very attractive proposition for those on the move. Every generation of kBox gets lighter, and if you are hard-pressed for portability, the system’s lite version is the size of a large skateboard and weighs only about 50 pounds.

Versatility

Any piece of equipment that can do more than one exercise is important to us. We have plenty of single-exercise options in our gym, as they are specialized and important for specific needs, but equipment that can do more is helpful. However, we don’t want a piece of equipment that can do dozens of exercises poorly—we need each exercise to be as good or better than the barbell equivalent. Doing exercises on flywheel platforms must be effective, not just possible. We know that by using the kBox, we can get in a dozen exercises we feel help athletes make progress, and we are sure other coaches can do even more than our selected exercises.

In addition to the sheer number of exercises, the loading of flywheels at different speeds and the types of contractions is exciting for us. We don’t spend too much time with isometric combinations or other methods such as potentiation with the device, but it’s nice to know that if we do need those techniques, the system can provide them. Additionally, the system allows for different types of harnesses and grip handles, such as bars and single arm attachments. We like the quality of the equipment provided in the kits, as cheap accessories are never good in the long run.

Workflow

Flywheel training doesn’t compromise efficiency or effectiveness. We don’t rush kids in and out of workouts like we’re a fast food joint. We do know that study time and sleep matter, so we have to get a workout done in an efficient manner. Using the kBox is efficient with time constraints, and you can get a lot of work done quickly because of short rest periods. Flywheels are also efficient with swapping out athletes during sets, because using waist harnesses or sharing bars is quick.

Switching plates doesn’t matter in group environments with heavy training because you have to rest anyway, but not having to do so makes a kBox more efficient than a squat rack. The prime benefit with flywheels is they are about athletes producing the resistance, not placing more lead on the bar. Not being reliant on plates in the weight room is not only a value financially, but not having to clean up and put back weights is a nice bonus also.

Obviously, the more stations or kBoxes you have, the more you can do. Down the road, we plan to increase the number of flywheel machines we have, mainly because they’re fast and easy to set up and put away. Not only do we care about the athletes getting home to have dinner or go to bed, but we are human as well and can’t spend all evening rearranging things in the gym.

Science

One area I want to mention is the research behind flywheel training. The kBox is relatively new, but the technology has been around for decades, so plenty of scientific studies are available for coaches. We share a Dropbox of the latest studies internally so that we all have access to flywheel training developments when a new paper comes out.

Parents want to know more than ever why we do things at our facility, and having fresh research really does a nice job if a parent asks. It’s fine to share something that is years old as well, because nobody wants to feel like a guinea pig, but parents also want to know you are current in your training. The kBox isn’t the only system available, but the key is having a community of coaches on SimpliFaster sharing the scientific approaches to learn from.

Justifying training means more than uniforms or shirts on the wall and bragging about athletes you work with; it’s having the evidence to say with confidence it was more than just good genetics that got them there. We know the coaching is great at our facility, but having the science to back up our approaches is important to us and should be important to you.

Feedback

The kMeter lets us get feedback to the athlete every rep. We used another flywheel device in the past that was very nice, but without the quantification it was like blindly adding weights to the bar and prescribing sets and reps. It was fine for accessory work at the end of training, but it was not going to move us forward much when we wanted to take flywheels to the next level. The need to quantify loads is everything in the weight room, and the feedback drives competition within the group and with the athlete’s own performance if training on their own. Athletes who are not normally motivated are curious about what they can do, as traditional barbells seem to be great for rewarding maximal strength, but those with a good power and average strength level can also benefit greatly.

The kMeter is a great option for those looking for feedback, and it’s not just for displaying force or power. The kMeter is a live dashboard that provides audio feedback to coaches. If you have flat screens in your gym then you are in for a treat, because you can use an Apple TV to display the scores or outputs. After the session is completed, the data can be exported quickly and easily, and we now use the information for better programming.

Simple to Use

We don’t ever like to compare ourselves to other facilities, but we do have to put our foot down and point out that we do most, if not all, of the training ourselves. We do provide internships, but our business model never interferes with our training model. We realize that everyone has to make a living, but if we were planning to water down training for the sake of exploiting college kids, we wouldn’t have opened up our doors in the first place.

Instead of dumbing down training or making it cookie cutter, we individualize training as much as possible. Yet, we do know that foundational work matters and we have programs that teach the fundamentals before advanced methods. The flywheels are simple to use, so if an athlete is familiar with training, they can jump right into flywheel training if properly supervised.

We love teaching and instructing athletes to be more coordinated and skilled, but only so much verbal coaching is absorbed by student athletes who are always under fire. For us, we want the optimal amount of teaching time, and too much exchange and correction is overwhelming at any level.

Fun to Use

Flywheel training is tough work, and anyone that tries it will quickly learn that it’s harder than it looks. A good flywheel system properly loaded can go head to head with a complete set of barbells with loading, but the system is also a welcome part of our program as it is fun to use. Anything that is different than gravity is new and exciting to athletes, and this experience doesn’t wear off like other equipment. Even after months of using it, the athletes still enjoy the resistance it delivers, and we like using it ourselves.

If you train athletes in the private sector, you know that you have to juggle a lot to make it work. Being the best in the area with results isn’t good enough anymore, as plenty of talent trains everywhere these days. To be successful, results and caring coaches aren’t enough—you have to make sure the experience is a rewarding one.

Flywheels are part of a program that gives athletes the right training benefits, but sports are supposed to be fun, so training for them can’t be a pain. Our training is a lot of hard work, but it’s also fun. Adding in flywheels is a mature way to add a little sweetener without going too far. Any system that can make training that is effective and demanding fun is rare, and the kBox does add some enjoyment into training during the season.

Value

As a business owner, I have to always weigh the results of the training against the cost of getting training done in a gym. We think about heating during the winter and air conditioning during the summer, the cost of replacing equipment, and even our indoor turf wearing down. We never buy on price; we invest in the value because smart investing is felt later rather than immediately.

The kBox is affordable, but due to the machine also being versatile and effective, we know it’s a piece of equipment that others will find valuable as well. Also, the price of a kMeter is a huge value, since collecting power and eccentric readings with a force plate is much more expensive, even with PASCO or other entry-point products. As mentioned earlier, not having to spend more money on weight plates is important to us, because we need to keep our overhead reasonable, and with all of our racks in our gym, added equipment becomes a big expense.

I have seen a lot of homemade equipment on the internet, and I commend anyone trying to find a way to implement flywheels on a budget. But don’t think about the cost of making a device—think about the value of knowing that if anything goes wrong, a FedEx package can solve those problems. The cost of maintenance matters, and the forces through a flywheel platform will break down one that’s homemade. We were tempted to create our own system and were glad we didn’t because we would be negligent if anything were to happen to somebody using it.

Invest in kBox Training Education

Coaches can get a lot of value from just doing squats on a kBox, but actually reading coaching blogs and research from sport scientists can help you get more out the machine. We started slow and added more and more exercises, as well as the new Pulley device this year, and love our results with it. Most of our training is with barbells and dumbbells, but a growing number of our training programs incorporate the eccentric benefits of flywheels. We don’t provide many testimonials as we are boxed in by what we endorse, but the kBox is worth the investment if you want to leverage both the art and science of training.

If you are dedicated to making your athletes better, there is strong evidence that flywheel training works, so using the kBox machine will give your team or facility an advantage.

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 individual’s dietary and supplement strategies greatly influence sport performance. This holds true for all ages, ethnicities, and levels of skill, regardless of whether the goal is optimizing physical activity for health and fitness or training for high performance sport. An individually tailored sports nutrition and supplement plan is key, as highlighted in the most recent “Nutrition and Athletic Performance” joint position statement by the American College of Sports Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and Dietitians of Canada, which states that “Nutrition plans need to be personalized to the individual athlete… and take into account specificity and uniqueness of responses to various strategies.”¹

These strategies encompass overall dietary patterns, macronutrient ratios, micronutrient requirements, eating behaviors (e.g., nutrient timing), food sensitives and intolerances, and the potential benefits or harms of using supplements (e.g., vitamin, minerals, protein powders) and ergogenic aids (e.g., caffeine, creatine, buffers). A shift away from our standard, one-size-fits-all team approach toward tailored nutrition and a focus on individual needs is what nutrigenomics, from science to practice, aims to address.

It’s in Your Genes

Personalized nutrition, based on an individual’s genotype, is not new, and there are several examples of rare (e.g., phenylketonuria) and common (e.g., lactose intolerance, celiac disease) genetic disorders, where specific dietary recommendations are implemented to manage metabolic deficiencies². For commonly seen conditions such as lactose intolerance and celiac disease, the avoidance of dairy and gluten, respectively, is part of the personalized dietary plan. And if you either embrace your daily cup of java or completely avoid it because of the way it makes you feel (e.g., awake and energized or perhaps anxious and jittery), this is also due to genetic variation.

Many athletes aren’t sure if caffeine is helpful or harmful. Genetic testing for rate of caffeine metabolism (more on this later) may help to reinforce their suspicions or motivate them to experiment with and without caffeine during exercise rather than assuming it works, or never trying it and missing out on its benefit. Although genetic testing is well-established in the clinical setting to help manage diseases and conditions, the growth in nutrigenomics research has created opportunities to improve health, wellness, and sport performance in athletes through nutrition-focused genetic testing. As the sporting world battles with risky supplements and unprecedented occurrences of doping violations, the sport science community is embracing new ways to help athletes safely and legally reach their peak performance.

Following the right diet for you is the hallmark of what nutrigenomics is aimed at, but those working with athletes often seek information beyond the performance diet (i.e., advice on the use of supplements and ergogenic aids), and for which athletes and at what times. Even if we have evidence that a supplement is effective, it may not be so for all athletes. For example, there is evidence that nitrates (beetroot), creatine, and caffeine appear to have wide variability in their erogenicity, and in some cases, may be ergolytic. In the case of caffeine, there are dozens of studies reporting wide variability in the effects of caffeine on performance, and nutrigenomics, in part, may explain the source of these differences. A detailed discussion on caffeine and genetics is highlighted below.

While it has long been suspected that genetics play an important role in determining how we respond to foods and nutrients, the surge in nutrigenomics research over the past decade has demonstrated this scientifically. Our genetic makeup affects the way we absorb, metabolize, and utilize nutrients, and these gene-by-diet interactions translate into differences that are relevant to both health and sports performance. A practical application of nutrigenomics is the use of personal genetic testing, which can provide information that will guide recommendations for dietary and supplement (if needed) choices that are more effective at the individual level than current dietary advice. This advice has been set out by governments and other health and sport organizations, and is geared, for the most part, toward the general “active” population. You are not a population.

The Rise of Genetic Testing

The demand for genetic testing for personalized nutrition and fitness, by athletes and active individuals, is growing, and there is an increased need for dietitian-nutritionists, fitness professionals, coaches, and other sports medicine practitioners to understand the current evidence in this developing field. The sport environment is dynamic, progressive, innovative, and extremely competitive. Providing athletes with individually tailored dietary and other performance-related information based on their unique DNA is a novel competitive edge embraced by both practitioners and scientists working in the world of sport.

Those working with athletes seek a better understanding of the practical applications and actionable measures that they can take to improve athletic performance based on genetic information, which includes how genetic testing is performed, what it measures, and how to effectively interpret the results. The growing body of science in nutrigenomics in sport is the foundational building block by which we can help athletes reach their genetic potential through implementation of dietary and supplement strategies that are aligned to their genome.

A Deeper Dive into the Science: Caffeine

In the field of nutrigenomics, caffeine is the most well-studied compound with regard to trials that investigate direct impacts of gene-nutrient interactions on athletic performance. Caffeine has widespread use in athletics in the form of coffee, tablets, energy drinks, gels and chews, and “pre-workouts,” based on the belief that athletes can train harder or compete more successfully after ingesting caffeine³. However, it appears that caffeine does not benefit all athletes equally, and may in fact impair performance in some. Recently published results by the author highlight the importance of considering CYP1A2 genotype in the development of personalized sport nutrition and sport supplement protocols⁴.

Numerous studies have investigated the effect of supplemental caffeine on exercise performance, but there is considerable inter-individual variability as to the magnitude of these effects^5-7or lack of an effect^8,9when compared to placebo. The large variation in individual response to caffeine is often overlooked in caffeine performance studies, and due to infrequent reporting of individual data, it is difficult to determine the extent to which variation in responses may be occurring. The performance of some individuals is often in stark contrast to the average findings reported, which may conclude beneficial, detrimental, or no effect of caffeine on performance. Some of these inter-individual differences appear to be due to variations in genes such as CYP1A2, which is associated with caffeine metabolism and caffeine response¹⁰.

Over 95% of caffeine is metabolized by the CYP1A2 enzyme, which is encoded by a gene of the same name: the CYP1A2 gene¹¹. A genetic variation or single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in this gene has been shown to alter CYP1A2 enzyme activity^12,13, and has been used to categorize individuals as “fast” or “slow” metabolizers of caffeine. Individuals with the AC or CC genotype (slow metabolizers) have an elevated risk of myocardial infarction¹⁴, hypertension^15,16, and pre-diabetes¹⁷, with increasing caffeinated coffee consumption, whereas those with the AA genotype show no such risk. Additionally, regular physical activity appears to attenuate the increase in blood pressure induced by caffeine ingestion but only in individuals with the AA genotype, providing further evidence that genetics can act as a confounding variable when trying to establish the effects of caffeine across entire populations¹⁶.

In the largest caffeine-exercise study to date, Guest et al.examined the effects of caffeine and CYP1A2 genotype, on 10km cycling time trial (TT) performance in competitive male athletes after ingestion of caffeine at 0 mg, 2 mg (low), or 4 mg (moderate) per kg body mass⁴. There was a 3% improvement in TT time in the moderate dose in all 101 subjects, which is consistent with previous studies using similar doses^5,18. However, there was a significant caffeine-gene interaction where improvements in performance were seen at both caffeine doses, but only in those with the AA genotype who are “fast metabolizers” of caffeine. In that group, the 6.8% improvement in cycling time at 4 mg/kg was greater than the 2-4% mean improvement seen in several other cycling TTs studies, using similar doses^5,18-23. Among those with the CC genotype, the “slow metabolizers,” 4 mg/kg of caffeine impaired performance by 13.7%, and in those who have the AC genotype there was no effect of either dose⁴.

The findings are consistent with a previous study by Womack et al., who observed a caffeine-gene interaction and improved TT cycling performance with caffeine only in those with the AA genotype²⁴. In contrast, previous studies either did not observe any impact of the CYP1A2 gene on caffeine-exercise studies^25,26, or reported benefits only in slow metabolizers²⁷. There are several reasons that may explain discrepancies in study outcomes, including smaller samples sizes that cause very low numbers and/or no subjects in one genotype^26-28,and shorter distance or different type (power versus endurance) of performance test²⁷than those of Guest et al.⁴and Womack et al.²⁴.

The unmasking of the effects of genotype on performance may occur during exercise of longer duration or where an accumulation of fatigue is occurring (aerobic or muscular endurance), where caffeine often provides its greatest benefits, and where the adverse effects to slow metabolizers are more likely to manifest²⁹. Indeed, in a study of basketball performance in elite players, caffeine improved repeated jumps (muscular endurance) but only in those with the AA genotype; however, there was no genotype effect in in the other two performance components of the basketball simulation³⁰. Similarly, in a crossover design of 30 resistance-trained men, caffeine ingestion resulted in a higher number of repetitions in repeated sets of three different exercises, and for total reps in all resistance exercises combined, which resulted in a greater volume of work compared to placebo conditions, but only in those with the CYP1A2 AA genotype³¹.

Taken together, the weight of the evidence buttresses that variants in the CYP1A2 gene likely play an important role when trying to determine which athletes are most likely to benefit from caffeine ingestion during aerobic or muscular endurance-type exercise. Trials that include performance outcomes are very valuable to nutrigenomics research as it applies to athletic performance, and these results highlight the importance of considering genetics when deciding whether athletes should use caffeine or other ergogenic aids to improve performance.

The Practical Side

What Will a Genetic Test Tell You?

Different versions of a gene or genetic variations (called single-nucleotide polymorphisms or “SNPs”) can cause us to have different responses to certain components of food. For example, the symptoms felt by individuals who react to lactose and caffeine in their diet (i.e., lactose intolerance and caffeine sensitivity) are caused by certain genetic variations. While general dietary recommendations might be prudent to follow, the one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional advice could limit some individuals from reaching their full potential—their full “genetic potential.”

How Would My Diet Change?

Nutrigenomics testing includes several micronutrients that have modified requirements due to genetic variation, such as vitamins A, B12, C, D, and E, calcium, iron, choline, and bioactives such as caffeine. Here are some examples of what information is gained: A genetic test can tell you if you are inefficient at converting beta-carotene into the active form of vitamin A based on the BCMO1 gene³²or if your conversion is normal/efficient, based on a gene that modifies the activity (normal/slow) of the enzyme responsible for this conversion.

The good news is, you can take action and resolve it easily by consuming more beta-carotene foods or foods that already contain pre-formed vitamin A. In athletes, vitamin A is important for its antioxidant roles, the immune system, and eye heath, which is a critical asset in most sports (e.g., hand-eye coordination). A similar situation occurs for vitamin D, which is key for immunity, muscle recovery, and bone health. Do you convert vitamin D normally into its active form, and do you transport it efficiently throughout your body? Again, a gene that controls an enzyme is involved here, but we also have a transporter (of vitamin D) that is controlled by another gene. Therefore, two genes, the GC and CYP2R1 gene, are analyzed to determine your risk of vitamin D deficiency³³.

This situation is easily remedied through vitamin D supplements (good dietary sources are few). In addition, nutrigenomics testing addresses ideal macronutrient ratios, which can also tell you if your ideal body composition would be more easily achieved and maintained with a lower fat diet or a higher protein diet depending on your genotype^34,35. You will also find out if caffeine (CYP1A2 gene) is good for your heart¹⁴, if it’s likely to improve your endurance performance⁴, or if are you better off limiting this substance for better health and to optimize your endurance.

To date, the science supports the use of roughly 50 genetic markers to guide recommendations for personalized nutrition and supplementation. This is an important fact, as many genetic testing companies use (and sell) hundreds of genetic markers that are based on the weak evidence of associations studies, which do not provide enough evidence to create recommendations that are both accurate and actionable. This may do more harm than good, as more is not always better.

It’s important to research the companies that interest you and ensure their science team is made up of individuals with doctorate degrees in the areas of both genetics and nutrition, preferably who are actively researching in the field, and who can properly interpret study findings. With the surge in research groups worldwide conducting nutrigenomics studies, the science is progressing rapidly, and the number of valid genetic markers will likely double over the next few years.

Lastly, along with improvements in dietary precision, nutrigenomics testing has also been shown to enhance motivation and behavior change, where disclosure of genetic information has been associated with adherence to favorable dietary changes^36-40.  This aspect of personalized nutrition is certainly welcomed, because even in our highly motivated athletes⁴¹, nutrition professionals still encounter significant barriers to behavioral change when trying to convince athletes to adopt healthier nutrition practices.

Sport Nutrigenomics vs. Talent ID and Exercise Prescription

Although there is much overlap in how we design diets and create training programs for our athletes, to achieve specific sport goals it is important to underscore the distinction between the strength of evidence supporting DNA-based advice for personalized nutrition versus that for exercise and training protocols.

There is keen interest in using genetic testing to improve athletic performance^42,43; however, it is important to acknowledge the lack of evidence surrounding the ability to identify future (athlete) talent and predict the likelihood of creating the next Serena Williams or Usain Bolt⁴⁴. Using genetics to determine a training program based on your personal genotypes is in its early stages and is not currently supported as a scientifically sound approach, although it is likely to be a viably employed training tool in the next decade⁴⁵. Many of the outcomes in athletic talent or athlete phenotypes (e.g., VO₂max, power) are complex traits determined by potentially thousands of genes, and therefore not easily tested for in a way that would make the information useful or “actionable,” which is necessary when you get back to the gym.

In contrast, nutrigenomics works by identifying genetic variations that can help to determine individual nutritional requirements, the presence of food intolerances and sensitivities, and optimal dietary patterns that will help to improve health, body composition, and sports performance. These usually involve only a few specific genes as opposed to hundreds or thousands that are associated with a naturally high VO₂max (since this is primarily genetic and not as trainable as muscle mass increases, for example). Several micro- and macronutrients impacting athletic performance have been studied in nutrigenomics research and can be applied to nutritional counseling in athletes.

One or a few SNPs can identify an individual dietary-related modification that aims to improve precision for nutritional recommendations, requirements, or optimal intakes, and provide information that will help to tailor supplement protocols. Therefore, coaches and other sport professionals should be cautious and diligent when entering the marketplace in search of genetic tests to improve athletic performance, beyond nutrition and some basic performance measures, as they may also include invalid and unreliable training or exercise advice.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Genetic Testing

*Note this info pertains to the company the author uses in practice. Each company has different standards for their security/privacy and time to get results (wide range: 3-12 weeks), and not all lab testing is of the same quality, so do your research.

1. Ask your health care provider, nutritionist, or other sports professional to order the genetic testing kit for you.
2. The saliva collection kits include a tube in which you provide a saliva sample (approx. ¼ teaspoon), which is then mixed with a preservative, sealed, and sent back to the lab for analysis. This takes 30-60 seconds.
3. Your results are encrypted and sent to a secure server that is only accessible to the person who ordered the test (dietitian, coach, etc.) through their account on the company website.
4. Two to three weeks later, you will receive your personalized “Nutrigenomics and Sport Performance Profile” report. The report will identify what genotype you are for each SNP that has been tested (each company has a different number of SNPs that they test for).

Nutrigenomics: A Future Competitive Edge

It is becoming increasingly clear that, among other performance parameters, our genes determine our specific and unique nutritional needs when it comes to health and performance. Providing athletes with individually tailored dietary and other performance-related information based on their unique DNA is a novel competitive edge embraced by both practitioners and scientists working in the world of sport. The growing body of science in nutrigenomics in sport is the foundational building block by which we can help athletes reach their genetic potential through implementation of dietary and supplement strategies, such as caffeine use, that are aligned to their genome. When it comes to sports nutrition, this emerging science is the nutritional competitive edge of our future.

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. Thomas, D.T., K.A. Erdman, and L.M. Burke. “American College of Sports Medicine Joint Position Statement. Nutrition and Athletic Performance.” Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2016. 48(3): p. 543-68.
2. Gorman, U., et al. “Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition.” Genes Nutr, 2013. 8(4): p. 373-81.
3. Wickham, K.A. and L.L. Spriet. “Administration of Caffeine in Alternate Forms.” Sports Med, 2018. 48(Suppl 1): p. 79-91.
4. Guest, N., et al. “Caffeine, CYP1A2 Genotype, and Endurance Performance in Athletes.” Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2018. 50(8): p. 1570-1578.
5. Ganio, M.S., et al. “Effect of caffeine on sport-specific endurance performance: a systematic review.” J Strength Cond Res, 2009. 23(1): p. 315-24.
6. Higgins, S., C.R. Straight, and R.D. Lewis. “The Effects of Preexercise Caffeinated Coffee Ingestion on Endurance Performance: An Evidence-Based Review.” Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2016. 26(3): p. 221-39.
7. Graham, T.E. and L.L. Spriet. “Performance and metabolic responses to a high caffeine dose during prolonged exercise.” J Appl Physiol(1985), 1991. 71(6): p. 2292-8.
8. Hunter, A.M., et al. “Caffeine ingestion does not alter performance during a 100-km cycling time-trial performance.” Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2002. 12(4): p. 438-52.
9. Roelands, B., et al. “No effect of caffeine on exercise performance in high ambient temperature.” Eur J Appl Physiol, 2011. 111(12): p. 3089-95.
10. Yang, A., A.A. Palmer, and H. de Wit. Genetics of caffeine consumption and responses to caffeine.” Psychopharmacology(Berl), 2010. 211(3): p. 245-57.
11. Begas, E., et al. “In vivo evaluation of CYP1A2, CYP2A6, NAT-2 and xanthine oxidase activities in a Greek population sample by the RP-HPLC monitoring of caffeine metabolic ratios.” Biomed Chromatogr, 2007. 21(2): p. 190-200.
12. Ghotbi, R., et al. “Comparisons of CYP1A2 genetic polymorphisms, enzyme activity and the genotype-phenotype relationship in Swedes and Koreans.” Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 2007. 63(6): p. 537-46.
13. Djordjevic, N., et al. “Induction of CYP1A2 by heavy coffee consumption in Serbs and Swedes.” Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 2008. 64(4): p. 381-5.
14. Cornelis, M.C., et al. “Coffee, CYP1A2 genotype, and risk of myocardial infarction.” JAMA, 2006. 295(10): p. 1135-41.
15. Palatini, P., et al. “CYP1A2 genotype modifies the association between coffee intake and the risk of hypertension.” J Hypertens, 2009. 27(8): p. 1594-601.
16. Soares, R.N., et al. “The influence of CYP1A2 genotype in the blood pressure response to caffeine ingestion is affected by physical activity status and caffeine consumption level.” Vascul Pharmacol, 2018.
17. Palatini, P., et al. “Association of coffee consumption and CYP1A2 polymorphism with risk of impaired fasting glucose in hypertensive patients.” Eur J Epidemiol, 2015. 30(3): p. 209-17.
18. Desbrow, B., et al. “The effects of different doses of caffeine on endurance cycling time trial performance.” J Sports Sci, 2012. 30(2): p. 115-20.
19. Skinner, T.L., et al. “Coinciding exercise with peak serum caffeine does not improve cycling performance.” J Sci Med Sport, 2013. 16(1): p. 54-9.
20. Saunders, B., et al. “Placebo in sports nutrition: a proof-of-principle study involving caffeine supplementation.” Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2016.
21. Jenkins, N.T., et al. “Ergogenic effects of low doses of caffeine on cycling performance.” Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2008. 18(3): p. 328-42
22. Graham-Paulson, T., C. Perret, and V. Goosey-Tolfrey. “Improvements in Cycling but Not Handcycling 10 km Time Trial Performance in Habitual Caffeine Users.” Nutrients, 2016. 8(7)
23. Bortolotti, H., et al. “Performance during a 20-km cycling time-trial after caffeine ingestion.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2014. 11: p. 45.
24. Womack, C.J., et al. “The influence of a CYP1A2 polymorphism on the ergogenic effects of caffeine.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2012. 9(1): p. 7.
25. Algrain Haya A., T.R.M., Carrillo Andres E., Ryan Emily J., Kim Chul-Ho, Lettan Robert B. II, and Ryan Edward J. “The Effects of a Polymorphism in the Cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 Gene on Performance Enhancement with Caffeine in Recreational Cyclists.” Journal of Caffeine Research, 2016. 6(1): p. 34-39.
26. Salinero, J.J., et al. “CYP1A2 Genotype Variations Do Not Modify the Benefits and Drawbacks of Caffeine during Exercise: A Pilot Study.” Nutrients, 2017. 9(3)
27. Pataky, M.W., et al. “Caffeine and 3-km cycling performance: Effects of mouth rinsing, genotype, and time of day.” Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2016. 26(6): p. 613-9.
28. Joy, E., et al. “2014 female athlete triad coalition consensus statement on treatment and return to play of the female athlete triad.” Curr Sports Med Rep, 2014. 13(4): p. 219-32.
29. Doherty, M. and P.M. Smith. “Effects of caffeine ingestion on exercise testing: a meta-analysis.” Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2004. 14(6): p. 626-46.
30. Puente, C., et al. “The CYP1A2 -163C>A polymorphism does not alter the effects of caffeine on basketball performance.” PLoS One, 2018. 13(4): p. e0195943.
31. Rahimi, R. “The effect of CYP1A2 genotype on the ergogenic properties of caffeine during resistance exercise: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.” Ir J Med Sci,2018.
32. Ferrucci, L., et al. “Common variation in the beta-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenase 1 gene affects circulating levels of carotenoids: a genome-wide association study.” Am J Hum Genet, 2009. 84(2): p. 123-33.
33. Slater, N.A., et al. “Genetic Variation in CYP2R1 and GC Genes Associated With Vitamin D Deficiency Status.” J Pharm Pract, 2015.
34. Zhang, X., et al. “FTO genotype and 2-year change in body composition and fat distribution in response to weight-loss diets: the POUNDS LOST Trial.” Diabetes, 2012. 61(11): p. 3005-11.
35. Phillips, C.M., et al. “High dietary saturated fat intake accentuates obesity risk associated with the fat mass and obesity-associated gene in adults.” J Nutr, 2012. 142(5): p. 824-31.
36. Nielsen, D.E. and A. El-Sohemy. “Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial.” PLoS One, 2014. 9(11): p. e112665.
37. Hietaranta-Luoma, H.L., et al. “An intervention study of individual, apoE genotype-based dietary and physical-activity advice: impact on health behavior.” J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics, 2014. 7(3): p. 161-74.
38. Livingstone, K.M., et al. “Effect of an Internet-based, personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes associated with the Mediterranean diet: the Food4Me Study.” Am J Clin Nutr, 2016. 104(2): p. 288-97.
39. Celis-Morales, C., et al. “Can genetic-based advice help you lose weight? Findings from the Food4Me European randomized controlled trial.” Am J Clin Nutr, 2017. 105(5): p. 1204-1213
40. El-Sohemy, A. “Only DNA-based dietary advice improved adherence to the Mediterranean diet score.” Am J Clin Nutr, 2017. 105(3): p. 770.
41. Keegan, R.H., C; Spray, C, et al. “A qualitative investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2014. 15(1).
42. Guth, L.M. and S.M. Roth. “Genetic influence on athletic performance.” Curr Opin Pediatr, 2013. 25(6): p. 653-8.
43. Mattsson, C.M., et al. “Sports genetics moving forward: lessons learned from medical research.” Physiol Genomics, 2016. 48(3): p. 175-82.
44. Webborn, N., et al. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for predicting sports performance and talent identification: Consensus statement.” Br J Sports Med, 2015. 49(23): p. 1486-91.
45. Pitsiladis, Y.P., et al. “Athlome Project Consortium: a concerted effort to discover genomic and other “omic” markers of athletic performance.” Physiol Genomics, 2016. 48(3): p. 183-90.

The training of speed in a sports performance environment has been greatly overshadowed by strength training. Think of the common name attached to the profession: The majority of trainers in weight training facilities carry the title of Strength and Conditioning coach. Not Speed and Conditioning coach or Power and Conditioning coach. We are starting to see a movement toward using the title Performance Coach, which best encompasses the job description of these specialized trainers. Since their job is all about enhancing the performance of an athlete on the field, court, or course, this is one step among many that acknowledges there is a lot more to enhancing the performance of an athlete beyond just strength training.

I am NOT proposing that strength training is any less important an element of performance training now than it has been before. What I am proposing is that strength, combined with other performance elements, is a far more secure foundation to build a training regimen upon, than just it by itself. That’s because strength is an elementary quality. It can’t be broken down any further into a simpler form. Meaning, strength needs to be combined with other elements of training, or its use is extremely limited.

Being strong as a high-performance athlete isn’t enough. Contrast that to when you mix speed with strength: That combination of putting strength into motion makes it relevant for athletic performance. By itself, strength cannot be foundational, but is instead part of the elements whose sum makes up the foundation.

One way to better illustrate strength being more of an elementary quality than a foundational one is by looking at water. It is hard to argue that any substance is more foundational to life than water. Every place that there is life, there is water¹. Looking at the makeup of water, it requires the simultaneous mixture of two essential elements: hydrogen and oxygen. Both of these, by themselves, cannot sustain life².

The same analogy applies to the realm of sports performance training. If a coach fails to simultaneously mix all the elements of performance training—such as strength, speed, and efficient movement patterns, to name a few—then optimal performance isn’t attainable. For example, if an athlete moves inefficiently while lifting heavy, the likelihood of injury drastically increases. If an athlete is hurt, he/she can’t perform. Two elements that have been extremely challenging to mix simultaneously are speed and strength.

Targeting Peak Power

If you walk into the majority of performance training facilities, you’re going to find training tools comprised of barbells, weight plates, dumbbells, med balls, single station machines, functional trainers, and other similar contraptions. Barbells, dumbbells, machine weights etc. are excellent for training strength. Med ball throws and functional training machines are perfect for training speed³.

These tools do an excellent job of emphasizing strength or speed, but are unable to produce simultaneously high levels of speed and strength that translate into peak power output. Peak power is what all performance coaches ideally want their athletes to train and enhance. If an athlete can improve their peak power output, their performance on the field, court, or course will also most likely improve. Although these tools are extremely effective and will always have a place in performance training, they will never train peak power output.

In addition to the mainstream training tools, strength training has been the go-to metric for defining the effectiveness of a training program. It’s far simpler and more convincing to validate the effectiveness of a training routine using the 1 rep max and strength gains as metrics of success. It’s also a lot more fun, not only for the athletes, but for the coaches, to see big jumps in 1 rep maxes.

When I played, there was always something special in the air on “max days.” You felt fresh, and carried a lot of pent-up energy. The anticipation brought the uneasy butterfly feeling because you knew you would be getting under and attempting to lift loads that were the size of small cars. On every max attempt, everyone in the room would freeze and focus on the person going for their best lift. You wanted to pull through for your teammates. You fought for your max lift, throwing out all types of technique or proper form, because you would be damned to let your teammates and coaches down.

After racking the weight, you would be in a daze with lightheadedness from the lack of oxygen through your brain. As the haze cleared, you would hear the roar of your 100 or so teammates that sounded like the roar of a 70,000-seat stadium. Adrenaline flowed through the body. It was a high.

Those “max days” are some of the most fun and most unifying days for a team. The type of training tools, along with the concrete metrics that come from emphasizing strength, have led to a culture tilted heavily towards strength training. This creates an imbalance in optimal performance training.

Why Train High Levels of Speed and Strength in One Continuous Movement?

When executing simple, competitive movements, the ability to generate high levels of strength and speed instantaneously, in any given moment, relates to the athlete’s movement proficiency. This means the more speed and strength that is simultaneously generated in a given moment, the more it will lead to running and accelerating faster, increasing explosiveness, jumping higher, and changing direction quicker.

Performance trainers shouldn’t feel like they are failing their athletes because of their inability to train speed coupled with strength. This isn’t a function of a lack of knowledge or laziness, for the most part. This is a function of what has been known and what has worked up until this point. But things continue to evolve. The question then is, what kind of capabilities would a training tool have to have to optimally train speed and strength in one continuous movement that would produce top-notch power generation?

First, it would have to be a tool that allows the user to throw or let go of the bar at the top of the lift. No matter how fast a lifter moves the bar, if they hold onto it, they work more deceleration than acceleration. The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s Basic Guidelines for the Resistance Training of Athletes state that “performing speed repetitions as fast as possible with light weight (e.g., 30-45% of 1RM) in exercises in which the bar is held on to … must be decelerated at the end of the joint’s range of motion (e.g., bench press) to protect the joint.”⁴ That is because the bar is purposely being decelerated to finish the range of motion. Studies based on 1RM bench presses show that the bar decelerates for the final 24% of the range of motion. At 81% of 1RM, the bar decelerates for the final 52% of the range of motion⁵.

Second, after throwing or letting go of the bar, the training tool has to be able to catch the weight for the lifter⁶. In a study of 20 male athletes, 10 trained doing jump squats with a brake (no catch) and 10 did jump squats without a brake (catch). They were then tested following a strength cycle to assess which group improved the most in terms of peak power output. The group that did jump squats without catching the load improved their power output more than the group that had to catch the bar, proving that “no catch” equals more power gains.

Also, there is an injury prevention benefit in being able to avoid catching a falling, loaded barbell. Those athletes who didn’t have to catch the bar experienced far fewer ground impact forces that led to injury than the group that had to catch the weight. There is a dual benefit of not having to catch the falling weight⁷. Not only does it lead to higher power development, but it also helps reduce wear and tear on the body.

Lastly, this training tool needs to have the ability to load the right amount of weight. Even if you let the bar go at the top of the lift without having to catch the bar, if there is too much or not enough of a load, peak power output will be unattainable. The ideal load for power training was discovered in a study of bench throws where “55% of 1RM was most effective in generating maximum power output.”⁸

In review, a training tool that gives the lifter the ability to throw or let go of a loaded bar without having to catch it will most effectively combine speed and strength training in a weight training environment. Many performance coaches looking to incorporate speed into their training, but don’t have a training tool like this, use a method known as the “elastic equivalent.” Basically, after doing a bench or a squat, the athlete performs a plyometric-based movement that is equal to a bench (chest pass with a med ball) or a squat (jumping on a plyo box). The objective is to achieve, with two separate movements, the simultaneous training of speed and strength. The challenge is creating the bridge to where the muscles have to adapt to the stimuli of both speed and strength in one given moment. Since those are two separate movements, done at different times, the simultaneous mix of speed and strength just isn’t there.

Implementing Propulsive Training

When introduced to a new training method, the first challenge is implementing it as an enhancement to an already-effective training program, instead of it cannibalizing what has been proven to work over time. It’s all about making a tweak for improvement, not simply making a tweak without any gain. What is seamless about this type of training is that it uses already popular and simple movements like squats and bench presses, along with their variations. The only difference is letting go or throwing the barbell at the top of the lift.

The one training tool that possesses all the necessary components to pull off propulsive training is the XPT. I developed this training tool while trying to figure out how to best train power, and at the same time diminish wear and tear on the body. I was inspired to create the XPT’s design after doing snatch throws while I was with the Green Bay Packers under their excellent performance coach, Marc Lovat. Much of what I know about the performance space has come from his teachings, but also from his challenge to us, as players, to do the research ourselves on optimal performance training. Rather than having us do stuff just to do it, Marc encouraged us to study the whys. It’s far more impactful when you train to know exactly what you want to achieve, rather than just blindly doing what a trainer asks.

When we did the snatch throws, I could feel an engagement of the muscles—especially in the glutes—and a pop unlike any other form of lifting I had done. Unfortunately, we only did that one day. With it raining barbells and having them bounce in all directions, it was a good move by Marc to weigh the risk versus the reward, and end that practice. However, that movement of throwing a loaded bar stuck with me. From then on, it was always in the back of my mind: How to throw a loaded barbell, but not have to catch it… nor have it fall and randomly smash someone. I could sense there was a great benefit to it. Clearly, after much research, I understood why I felt the way I did while doing those snatch throws.

About five years ago, I put the design together for a barbell attached to a self-spotting or braking system that is controlled with brake handles. The self-spotting mechanism works like a clutch. You grip the brake handles and hold onto them to release the bar and perform the desired lift. As soon as you let go of those handles, the self-spotting mechanism engages and the bar comes to a complete and abrupt stop (see Figure 1), allowing the lifter to throw a loaded barbell without having to catch it. This opens up many new possibilities for performance training.

Integrating these propulsive lifts is simple. For example, you can sprinkle these lifts into a traditional bench or squat workout. Let’s say you were doing five sets of four to six repetitions at 75-80% of 1 rep max. Take two to three sets, drop the percentage 20-30% (from 75-80% down to 45-50% of 1 rep max) and instead of holding onto the bar, throw it, in the case of bench throws, or let it go while doing squat jumps. Choose between rotating every other set with propulsive and traditional movements, or start with one and finish with the other (or vice versa).

The main point is balancing the strength-centered movement with one that combines both strength and speed in one continuous movement. Not only will the muscle response be unpredictable, but the lifters will begin to feel a little more “pop” in all of their movements because of the triggering of the deep neurological muscular system that comes from throwing the bar.

Another way to integrate the propulsive movements into a training regimen is to have that be the theme of the day. For example, let’s say you worked a four-day split with an upper body day on Monday and Thursday and then a lower body day on Tuesday and Friday. You could take Monday and Friday and make them purely propulsive days. On all your major lifts, like squat and bench and their variations, the load would match up with the phase of the cycle.

For instance, on those days you work four sets of eight with a load of 65% to 75% with traditional lifts, all you would do is adjust the load down about 20% to 30% to where you could still explosively throw or let go of the barbell at the top of the lift. If the athlete isn’t able to explosively throw the bar, decrease the load 5-10 lbs. Then, as you increase the load and begin to decrease the repetitions, you move along that same kind of percentage scale that you would use for traditional lifts—but subtract 20 to 30 percentage points of the movements where the bar was held onto. The advantage here is mixing in two explosive peak power days: one that emphasizes upper body and the other lower body.

Either way it’s integrated, the propulsive movements will train speed in a weight training environment that will match strength development. Peak power output among the athletes will increase, as will performance potential. The best part is that all of this will happen while also reducing wear and tear on the lifter. Imagine lightening the load, but reaping more benefits.

In this scenario, strength training will mean more than ever to the athlete because of its constant mix with speed training. Just as mixing oxygen with hydrogen produces the foundation of life, mixing the proper amounts of speed training with strength training in one continuous movement will build a strong foundation for the performance of those very movements at a high level in competition.

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. “Why Is Water So Essential for Life? – Live Science.” 29 Sep. 2015. Accessed 26 Aug. 2018.

2. “Chemical compound – ScienceDaily.”  Accessed 26 Aug. 2018.

3. Beardsley, C. (23 July 2013). “How is ballistic training different from traditional resistance training?” Strength and Conditioning Research. Retrieved 24 March 2014.

4. Pearson, D, Faigenbaum A, Conley, M, and Kraemer, W. “The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s Basic Guidelines for the Resistance Training of Athletes.”Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2000; 22(4):14.

5. Elliot, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK. “A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989; 21(4):450-462.

6. Hori, N, Newton, RU, Kawamori, N, McGuigan, MR, Andrews, WA, Chapman, DW, and Nosaka, K. “Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking.”The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008;22(8):54-65.

7. Humphries BJ, Newton RU, and Wilson GJ. “The Effect of a Braking Device in Reducing the Ground Impact Forces Inherent in Plyometric Training.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995; 16(2):129-133.

8. Baker, D., Nance, S. and Moore, M. The load that maximizes the average power output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 15(1): 20-24. 2001.

My advocacy of triphasic training developed by Cal Dietz and expanded upon by Matt Van Dyke is well known. As a proponent of the method’s principles, I’m endlessly trying to find ways to amplify its positives while mitigating the negatives—as would any good coach when applying any system or principles.

Tackling the sport of MMA is challenging and not a task many people would think would marry well with intensive work like eccentrics. Time limitations, muddied stimuli, and the need for a wellspring of differing qualities can make the MMA athlete an athletic Gordian knot of sorts. MMA fighters are athletes at a crossroads of competing, middling demands. Just giving athletes lots of variable stimuli, often in the guise of well-intentioned sport-specific training and energy systems work, adds to the confusion. This is a rapid way to achieve very little but look good doing it.

I concluded a long time ago that, to move the needle, we need to punctuate regular training with intensive stimuli. Imposing intensive physiological demands, especially once momentum builds, can be sustained by athletes cyclically, even those with cloudy schedules such as MMA fighters. Common thinking believes this imposition will lead to ruin. Bob Alejo wrote about how intensive stimulus can build robustness and injury tolerance, even when athletes are under duress due to their competition schedule. Like Bob, I abhor the idea of maintenance.

I liken the MMA training cycle to being “in-season” almost constantly, especially at low to mid-tier levels of the sport where, let’s be honest, the bulk of athletes operate (not everyone is in the UFC). Taking examples from others sports, we know intensive in-season work, once habituated, builds robust athletes. After I started applying compressed blocks—punctuated 3 to 5 times throughout a year, usually between 12 to 8 or 6 weeks out for MMA fighters—we saw sustained strength and power levels throughout training camps during peaking thanks to the incredible residuals this approach yields.

While this article focuses on my idiosyncratic approach to applying the method to MMA fighters, hopefully there are lessons others can glean from marrying an intensive method to an athlete, which poses the most issues for strength and conditioning coaches.

The traditional MMA model is predicated on an 8- or sometimes 12-week fight camp. The camp is a period of intensification: high volume sport loads and voluminous conditioning approached with a focus on game- and round-based conditioning. This is often combined with low caloric intake to make weight and is preceded by a variable GPP program, which can be long or short (and the not-knowing can make life hard for strength coaches).

GPP usually consists of aerobic base building, maximal strength work, and very general technical training or brushing up on perceived technical shortcomings from the fighter’s last bout. Often, GPP is dropped immediately when a date is announced. This can make it hard for fighters to do intensive strength work consistently, especially when athletes strive to stay in fight shape for prolonged periods or take long breaks post-fight. By focusing on a cyclical back and forth between intensive and non-intensive sport-focused cycles, we can keep athletes primed without wearing them down.

Traditional 8-Week Out Model

When a fight is announced, we move to an acute SPP block to prepare. How quickly we break off the cyclical model is determined by the length of time the athlete has before their fight.

For instance, a 12- to 16-week time frame allows the athlete to stay on the cyclical model to finish out the accumulation of their current training stimulus. Eight weeks or less, however, requires the athlete to break off the cyclical approach far sooner.

There should be no problem jumping straight from compressed intensive training to high-velocity peaking—in fact we may see some serious potentiation from such an approach. One caveat that I’ll add is that an intensive GPP block for athletes with a low training age is conventional submaximal lifting, which I’m happy with up until the athlete develops a competency.

Application of Supramaximal Training and Training Compression

Compressed intensive training is a period in which we apply the greatest stimulus to accumulate the desired response in the shortest time possible—this is where we apply supramaximal training. Supramaximal training is one of the approaches that excites muscular physiologists, as it leads to rapid adaptations and a reduced need for the repeat exposures we get from the same contraction focus at submaximal loads. Time, as a commodity, is always in short supply.

The question I often get asked is why apply supramaximal training at all when submaximal loads do a perfectly good job. I hear the clichéd statement in strength and conditioning about “all roads leading to Rome”—to me, this is relativistic tosh. Isn’t the best road the one that gets us there the fastest without the wheels falling off?

Very high-intensity, low-frequency training seems counter-intuitive for the coach who has a maintenance mindset. I’m not in the business of babysitting athletes: opportunities are available to add powerful stimuli when timed right. Supramaximal training is nothing new; it’s been a staple of athletes with long off-seasons and massive strength requirements for some time. I recall seeing early YouTube videos of suffering bobsledders with three spotters performing supramaximal back squats with 120% of their max for 10-second durations, and thinking most athletes could tolerate such a load.

MMA athletes need to be very strong, according to UFC Performance Institute performance director Duncan French at the recent UKSCA conference (I’m paraphrasing): Striking occurs in 200ms or less. Ninety percent of the variability in RFD can be accounted for by maximal strength. Given this primacy of strength, we have a slew of training options available to us—but “all roads lead to Rome, right?” I argue, again, don’t we want the fastest route? I’ll take the one that gives us the greatest depth of strength qualities trained, not just concentric-focused number-chasing.

Supramaximal Eccentrics

Eccentric muscle and neural action are enormously load-tolerant and physiologically different from their isometric and concentric counterparts. This is due to differing motor unit recruitment during muscle lengthening compared to muscle shortening. During eccentric movements, the motor pool is less activated, leading to the activation of fewer muscle fibers.

To quote Matt Van Dyke, “The fact that fewer motor units are activated means there are fewer myosin head attachment sites during this eccentric movement phase. These fewer myosin-actin attachment sites lead to increased stress on those filament attachment sites that are being used.”

Eccentric movements cause both muscle fibers and tendons to absorb high amounts of force, as the muscle resists lengthening under load. Carl Valle explored the value of eccentric training in an earlier article, which offered exercises that are rather targeted but make for great introductory eccentric application. We can, however, amplify all the positives using supramaximal loads and systemic full body stress, which means the stress on each myosin-actin structure is increased to an even greater extent than with ordinary submaximal eccentrics—basically, all the benefits of eccentric training turned up to 11.

A 2010 study suggested: “The enhanced eccentric load apparently led to a subtly faster gene expression pattern and induced a shift towards a faster muscle phenotype plus associated adaptations that make a muscle better suited for fast, explosive movements.” The training led to significantly increased height in a squat jump test versus conventional training. This was accompanied by significant increases in IIX fiber CSA.

In Jonathan Mike’s great NSCA classic, he mentioned that “In addition, the energy cost of eccentric exercise is comparably low, despite the high muscle force being generated. This makes eccentrics an appealing strategy for those wishing to gain additional strength and hypertrophy because of the fact that more volume can be performed without excessive fatigue.” The lack of excessive fatigue is part of the reason I’ve forged ahead so keenly with applying this type of training, especially in a population that has to deal with as much fatigue as MMA athletes.

For those who try the method, yes acutely supramaximal eccentrics are fatiguing, but I’ve found the neural hangover to be less than anticipated. The primary drawback is managing DOMS. In the same NSCA article, Mike also mentioned: “Research focusing on the effects of overload training (100–120% 1RM) during the eccentric phase of a movement has routinely demonstrated a greater ability to develop maximal strength. Research by Doan et al. reported that applying a supramaximal load (105% of 1RM) on the eccentric phase of the lift elicited increases in 1RM concentric strength by 5–15 lbs.”

Supramaximal Isometrics

Supramaximal isometrics are the second act of the supramaximal method. Ostensibly, an athlete could derive an enormous amount from just eccentric focused supramaximal training, but muscle action is a three-part process.

To quote another Matt Van Dyke article, “By training isometrically in a supramaximal fashion, greater tissue adaptation is realized within the muscle. This adaptation occurs as muscle fibers are fired and re-fired throughout the duration of the repetition to the greatest extent with supramaximal loads, even though no movement is occurring. The adaptations occurring within the tissue through this training maximizes the free-energy that is transferred throughout every dynamic muscle contraction and the SSC.”

Supramaximal isometrics force an athlete into a hard-braced position, no less grueling than its eccentric counterpart, but the feel is different. We’ve noticed that some athletes prefer isometrics to eccentrics, especially those athletes with a grappling base, as sustained isometrics are a constituent element of their sports. According to Yessis,“The isometric contraction is less intense than the eccentric, but up to 20% greater than the concentric and plays an important role for developing greater stability for better execution of strength exercises.”

The notion that isometrics are only any good for the joint angle trained is an outmoded one. We’re realizing that isometrics have a systemic effect, including changes in neural drive and cardiopulmonary effects due to the immense pressure placed on the system.

Training compression is the yielding of favorable adaptations in a shorter time frame than would be considered “normal.” The outsized stressor supramaximal training brings causes an outsized rebound of favorable qualities. After single doses, I’ve seen improvements in jump values between sessions, possibly due to latent potentiation. Obviously, stretching any adaptive window beyond its limits will cause a breakdown an athlete can’t recover from—this is why subsequent supramaximal training exposures are short, intense, and limited.

As a population, MMA fighters generally handle high volumes of middling intensity, and the wear and tear of these athletes under these volumes mean that strength training often orients around exercises in under-loaded novelty. The idea is strength and conditioning, not stuff and conditioning. We achieve strength by making the strength training a short, but sharp, stimulus during which we induce residuals that carry the athlete through SPP phases and up until a fight. The change in thinking means having the bravery to get stuck into the application of what outwardly is the most intensive method available as coaches.

Application

Generally, load tolerances with supramaximal eccentrics are idiosyncratic to some extent, but they have the potential to be at maximum 140%-160% of an athlete’s given maximum. This 1RMECC is difficult to ascertain, but there have been theoretical maximums of 160%+. For the sake of safety, keep athletes below 120%. While higher tolerances are achievable, there does come a time when we have to draw a line under what we can achieve safely.

The Conventional Supramaximal Method

Conventional sequence systems for supramaximal training are intended to be sequenced over longer periods to allow for adequate adaptation and recovery.

When applying supramaximal blocks for 1-2 weeks, you perform eccentric lifts at 120%-110% of your max on Monday, normal 90-97% lifts on Wednesday, and 110%-105% eccentric lifts on Friday. De-load for one week and perform the same with isometric squats. Then perform another de-load. This is followed by two concentric weeks at 80/90/72 per normal triphasic training undulation. The de-loads are intended to give soft tissue a recovery opportunity, as supramaximal eccentrics and isometrics induce very high levels of DOMS.

The Compressed Supramaximal Method

Because of the unpredictable nature of the MMA fighters’ schedule, we use a compressed sequence. In effect, we remove the de-load weeks and jump straight to a high-force high-velocity training block. Because we only have two lifting days and we removed the heavier concentric work, we can afford to take out the de-load sessions.

I’ve used this compressed approach with UFC fighters and high-level amateurs alike, and have great returns in improved MTP and jump numbers, as well as numbers in their conventional lifts.

Exercise Choices

While I like keeping the stimulus consistent, you could alternate during the two days between a bilateral and a unilateral option. Systemic stress still being total, and movements being somewhat similar, we should yield similar results. Note that all the movements are squat-focused over any deadlift/hinge pattern: overloaded hinge is difficult in all but submaximal eccentrics and flywheel-type work. The sheer on the lumbar would make any purer supramaximal hinge movement potentially very, very risky.

I’m occasionally asked, “Why not use conventional back squat?” While this is a potential option, it comes with a number of risks: intense T-spine discomfort, the need for three spotters, and risk of T-spine collapse, which can cause the athlete to fall forward. We’re not building powerlifters here, so the actual exercise chosen is less important than the stimulus we try to apply.

Trap Bar Supramaximal Lowering

Trap bar lowering is probably the simplest method of delivering supramaximal efforts with minimal fuss in most gyms, considering that a squat safety bar is not often available. Most athletes are familiar with the trap bar deadlift, and getting them to buy into this variation is simple. The caveat, however, is that you need two spotters to help initiate the exercise, and then the athlete is responsible for lowering the bar to the floor.

The movement requires the athlete to stay tall and minimize any forward lean, keeping the pattern squat dominant rather than hinge dominant to avoid stressing low-tolerance structures. The athlete must make sure they center their grip, or use straps, as any tipping of the bar with supramaximal loads will be difficult to recover.

Trap Bar Supramaximal Pause

Much like the trap bar lowering, the supramaximal movement with a pause works well as a low-entry exercise.

Hand-Supported Squat

The hand-supported squat is also known as the Hatfield squat, a subject I wrote about previously. Adding hand support increases stabilization and eliminates some of the axial stress, allowing an athlete to provide a maximum effort through their legs.

This option eliminates many of the problems we find with conventional barbell supramaximal squats or with athletes who are not confident in a split stance. The handles allow the athlete to keep a good position and assist themselves on the concentric portion of the lift. It generally requires one less spotter than barbell squats. Across our athletes, we’ve found the maximum for hand-supported squats is about 25% greater than a conventional squat maximum.

Hand-Supported Split Squat

The hand-supported split squat is the supramaximal movement I apply most regularly because it covers many sport contexts, MMA included. It has many advantages over standard split squat variations, the main one being the load. Supramaximal loading takes this to its most intensive application. For details on the set-up, I suggest reading “Supercharge Single Leg Strength with This Key Split Squat Variation”—you will need two spotters to assist on the concentric portion.

Organizing the Session

Athlete status generally dictates the application of supramaximal work. I prefer a 2-day model, forgoing the 3-day model that Cal Dietz applied in his original methodology. That’s not to say I won’t employ a third day if circumstances allow. Often, I’ll apply an eccentric or isometric stimulus to only the heavy lower body exercise we’ve chosen, and keep the rest of the session at conventional loading and tempo and carefully pick and choose my other eccentric stimuli.

For example, choosing to perform eccentric neutral grip lowering and RDL work versus eccentric benching is a good use of an MMA fighter’s time, as the DOMS elicited by eccentric bench work can interfere with technical or tactical practice. Eccentric upper body work seems to lead to greater soreness than lower body soreness, which is an important consideration. But I let athlete feedback and individuation guide this process.

I generally place supramaximal work first in the session, and it’s often best paired with French contrast. The combination uses the enormous potentiation that supramaximal training brings and the benefits of training variable, rapid-lengthening velocities. It also counters one of the possible effects of intensive eccentrics, which is some concentric dampening. Alternatively, you could always pair it with necessary prehab exercises between sets.

Eccentric and isometric tempos aim to keep the exercise largely alactic <10s. The quality of repetitions dictates total time under tension, so we could do 1 rep for <10s or 2 reps for <5s each, for instance. The idea is to control hormonal response and avoid oxidative qualities that would come into play with longer durations of time under tension. Remember, the aim here is strength, not conditioning. Longer durations would spoil the intended effect of the supramaximal method. Additionally, clusters can be used to emphasize quality reps further.

The decision to employ each model is based largely on athlete readiness, but remember to expect some drop in readiness during such an intensive method. Generally, anything greater than 10% in our readiness metric (peak velocity week to week) means we’ll switch to a submaximal day. This need for plasticity has led to many templates that I apply when building an athlete’s program.

A modified 3-day program is determined by athlete availability, but generally I place the extra day at the start of a week block. I’ve been influenced by the likes of Cameron Josse and ALTIS in making that first day a potentiation day, setting the athlete up for the week ahead. I generally avoid adding the middle dynamic day at 90% as outlined by Cal, as it’s just too much with a busy combined practice schedule.

Conditioning

I find that MMA fighters generally have good levels of work capacity, which comes from frequent game exposures across a number of sport contexts. That said, we can certainly add conditioning to prime the athlete at the periphery of his or her capacities. I’ll have athletes perform highly alactic work after or around supramaximal sessions in the form of heavy bag work, short sprints, and sport-based isometric holds (which are undervalued for their conditioning effect). This is to keep the congruence between lifting stimulus and conditioning stimulus to minimize the interference effect.

Longer duration training or aerobic sessions can be added around this as needed, but often I find it not useful as most MMA, jiu-jitsu, and striking training is moderate-aerobic and continuous, making it difficult to justify this type of additional work.

Letting the Athlete Lead

By applying this method, we learned that the qualities that make fighters great are the qualities that make them a sponge for compressed training approaches. Tolerance for stress, robustness, and high levels of strength beget tolerance for stress, robustness, and high levels of strength—there is a reason this athletic population is tough.

Because of the intensiveness, I ensure an athlete-led approach that has communication as its underpinning. I always ask athletes how their training has been due to how variable it can be. I also chase them on recovery methods because of the pervasiveness of DOMS during the program. A gentle nudge to go sauna or perform a movement session can make the difference in readiness for the week ahead.

Closing Thoughts

This article explores the method as I apply it. Hopefully you can take something from it, even if it’s just a renewed consideration of how much stress we can apply beyond minimum effective doses to optimal effective doses. The supramaximal compressed method is not the only means available, as it lacks the skill acquisition component standard submaximal lifting has through more prolonged exposure. This is why I suggest having a few years of training accumulation, or at least moving loads more than twice bodyweight concentrically, on any of the supramaximal options presented.

Considering the short windows of opportunity MMA fighters have, it can be challenging to expose them to enough intensive strength methods throughout a training year. Compressed methods seemed like a gamble initially, due to the unknown of what an athlete can tolerate. But I learned to appreciate the method as a stressor we can apply like any other. Approached pragmatically—and with judicious application—it can be a powerful driver for change.

For further exploration of the underlying physiology of the supramaximal eccentric training and its positives and drawbacks, watch this video from the 2015 NSCA National Conference by Dietmar Schmidtbleicher.

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

Gavin L. Moir, et al. “The Development of a Repetition-Load Scheme for the Eccentric-Only Bench Press Exercise.” Journal of Human Kinetics, 2013; 38: 23-31.

Yessis. “Are Eccentrics (Negatives) For You?“SportLab: Building A Better Athlete.

Suchomel, T., et al. “The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations.” Sports Medicine, 2018.

Mike, J., et al. “How to Incorporate Eccentric Training Into a Resistance Training Program.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2015; 37(1): 5-17.

Jamurtas, A.Z., et al. “Comparison between legand arm eccentricexercises of the same relative intensity on indices of muscle damage.” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2005; 95(2-3): 179-185.

Hyldahl, R.D., et al. “Lengthening our perspective: morphological, cellular, and molecular responses to eccentric exercise.” Muscle & Nerve, 2014; 49(2): 155-170.

In my search for a better conditioning test, I found one that is too good to keep to myself. The athletes I work with begrudgingly know this test as 220s because that’s the distance I ask them to sprint each rep. Before I get into the nitty-gritty about this test, I’ll pass along why I decided to use it.

Despite what my athletes might tell you, I did not introduce the 220s as some form of sadistic enjoyment—rather, I’ve never found a conditioning test that gave me the information I was looking for. Yes, the foundation of every conditioning test comes down to a way to access a person’s fitness level. I don’t know about you, but no sport coach I work with understands what it means to make it to level 6.7 on the Pacer test. Is this a good score or bad score?  How does that 6.7 relate to the way we should use an athlete during games?

Let’s also not forget about the mental side of most conditioning tests. In the classic Beep or Pacer tests, the athlete can essentially quit the test whenever they choose by failing to cover the distance in the decreased time. I’m not a fan of telling people simply to go as long as they can. I looked at the 300-yard shuttle as a decent alternative, since there is a change of direction component, but again it fell short for me. After all, is taking two attempts five minutes apart really that good a measure of an athlete’s conditioning level?

A Testing Model

After trying all sorts of drills and not getting much helpful information from them, I put a list together of what a conditioning test must have:

1. The test has to have a definitive end. No more go until you can’t.
2. The test has to be appropriate for stop and go sports. No more aerobic-based tests.
3. The test has to be something groups of 60+ people can do at the same time.
4. The test has to be taxing enough to test fitness levels but realistic for people to complete fully.
5. The test has to provide multiple useful data sets.
6. The test has to provide data that sports coaches can look at and easily “get it” without a lengthy explanation.

It took some time researching journals, talking with other strength and conditioning coaches, and listening to sport coaches about what was important to them, and the following is what I came up with.

We had a football field available and lined, so that was the logical place to hold the test. I live in Northern Wisconsin, so I had to concede that I would not be able to test athletes from November to March due to winter weather. But the plus side of using a football field meant I had a giant stopwatch we could use.

If the athletes start on the north goal line, sprint to the south end line, move around a cone, and sprint back, they would cover 220 yards. At three feet per yard, 220 yards equals 660 feet, which happens to be ⅛ of a mile. If we did eight reps, that would be one mile, so it was an easy decision to end the test with eight attempts.

Since I was not interested in information about aerobic capacity—and testing the ATP-PC energy system is easier to do in the weight room and lab—all that remained was the glycolytic energy system and using a 1:3 work-to-rest ratio for the test. Lastly, the information collected would look at fatigue resistance, the maximum aerobic speed (ok, ok, I know it’s not quite the correct term, but it makes sense to sports coaches), and we would have a quantifiable data set showing which athletes push themselves and which ones don’t.

It seemed like we might have a winning idea. After a handful of experiments with some football players—to whom I’m very grateful for volunteering to try this out—we made some adjustments, and I finally had a tool that did everything that I wanted it to do.

Remember we’re talking about a conditioning test for stop and go sports which will stress the glycolytic energy system, which means that the athletes will be uncomfortable for the duration of the test and sometime afterward. I talked with the athletic trainers at my school, explained to them the point and purpose of the 220s, and asked for their help during testing. It’s been great having the staff on the field, providing coverage and supporting the athletes. Here is my last suggestion if this is something you want to try: remind the athletes to bring their inhalers if they have asthma, water bottles, and go to the bathroom beforehand.

How to Administer the 220s

After an active warm-up, the athletes get into a line of four (1:3 work-to-rest ratio) on a football field’s goal line. On the opposite side, place a cone on the end line (the line is at the back of the end zone, 110 yards away). The first group will start on the coach’s command following a countdown as someone starts the game clock counting up from zero. All other runs will use the game clock at the top of the new minute as the start signal.

The athletes have to run as fast as they can, get around the cone, and return to the start line. When an athlete breaks the plane of the goal line returning from their 220-yard run, a coach records their time to the nearest second. Continue for eight reps.

Interpreting the Data

In the first example, the athlete has a relatively fast Max Aerobic Speed (MAS). As the test continues, they are getting fatigued and their times are getting slower, which is exactly what I expect. I use this drop in speed to calculate their fatigue resistance: 100 X (1-(their best rep X 8)/sum of all reps). In the first example, this is 100 X (1-(30*8)/266) = 9.8%. The lower the percent drop, the more that athlete can handle doing repeated high-intensity bouts, which means they can stay in the game longer without needing a substitution for rest. On the other hand, the greater the fatigue score, the more an athlete will need substitutions to enhance their recovery.

This is how I interpret the second athlete’s results. If this were the first test of the season, I’d say the athlete didn’t do any running before the test. But since these results were from the end of an eight-week off-season training program, the situation is different. Now it’s a matter of having a conversation with the head coach about the substitution strategy with this athlete and adjusting their workout to keep their speed and try to improve their glycolytic capacity.

The third example is the type of player that makes me mad as a coach. Either they don’t understand the test, they don’t care about it, or they’re simply lazy. The third athlete just paced the test. While historically the last rep is faster than the 7^threp for most people, it should never be the fastest if the athlete gave great effort during the entire test.

If you believe that the culture of the team determines the success of the season and that culture starts in the weight room, then the third person is not someone I’d want around the rest of the team. Assuming the head coach still wants this person with the team, I would at least surround that person with strong-willed teammates to push, encourage, and demand great effort. The positive thing about finding this out before the first game is that you know the athlete’s mindset and can develop a plan to get past it.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, the 220s test is a powerful tool. For strength coaches, it gives us a way to look at the relative fitness or conditioning level of our athletes. And we can test large groups at once (my current record is 145 football players).

Since we know total time and distance, we can generate feet per second, which gives us a way to personalize a conditioning program. For example, the first person ran 5280 feet in 266 seconds, which is 19.8 feet per second. In 15 seconds, we can expect the first person to cover 297 feet, the second person to cover 220 feet, and the third to cover 295 feet. Set up some cones and have them run to the cone, let them rest for 45 seconds, and then start rep two to bring them back to the start line.

The last, and one of the most important, things the 220 gives is is evidence to predict how we can use each player in competitions. For all of these reasons and more, the 220s has become an important tool in my testing battery and can become one for you as well.

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

Training, development, and, ultimately, performance are balancing acts and processes that must be collaboratively managed when a group of practitioners is involved with the shared goal of helping the athlete be as successful as possible. Everyone involved—the sport coach, strength coach, athletic trainer, massage therapist, chiropractor, etc.—has the intention of bringing value to the athlete. All practitioners have a set of skills and treatments that they are looking to prescribe to influence this developmental process in a positive way. The implementation of treatment and training is a stimulus, and practitioners have developed their “systems” of care, operating through principles and progressions.

Drone View at 30,000 Feet

Most important to this process of adaptation are the shared principles and collaborative approach, or guiding and managing an athlete through the process of dose response and improvement. This collaboration takes time, interaction, and productive communication to be effective. It is selfish, and unfair to the athlete, for an individual practitioner to feel like they are the sole individual responsible for being the puppeteer in the progression of training and developing an athlete. The athletes themselves play a huge part in the adaptive process, and we must encourage and educate each one with lifestyle skills that provide the necessary tools and environment to thrive through the stresses of training.

Practitioners aim to recognize the countless factors that influence an athlete, and exert some control over the amazing psycho-neuro-endo-physiological chaos that ensues. At the end of the day, it comes down to the athlete—their self-determination is what ultimately allows everything to come to fruition. All the while, there is no doubt that each practitioner involved helps the framework and structure of a “care team” to form, separating the “program” into more manageable segments and placing experts in each area.

Boring Background – Science, Adaptation, Periodization, and Purpose

“Stress is a state created by the specific syndrome that consists of all non-specifically induced changes within a biological system.” – Hans Selye

Hans Selye looked at the non-specific endocrine responses of tissues exposed to a variety of physiological and psychological stresses, and developed a framework for the adaptation windows and recovery time based upon intensity, duration, frequency, mode, volume, and specificity¹. There is a time and place for all types of training and treatment (some of which are never and nowhere), but when interventions are applied appropriately—based upon timing (readiness vs. preparedness) and considering volume, intensity, mode, etc. (load)—individuals respond over time and some sort of adaptation or rejection/exhaustion occurs. This is where the theories of periodization come in as well; where each practitioner looks at the calendar (macrocycle) and breaks the year into segments based upon competition and blocks of training.

Periodization is a very real thing, and is in place to provide a framework and model aimed at maximizing and cultivating the development of the athlete through the coordination of stress and recovery. Practitioners look to maximize the effects of the stress/stimulus dosed to the body, and the resilient or sometimes fragile organisms that we work with challenge us each individually throughout the days, weeks, and months of training. Rather than living in the dark ages of “no pain, no gain,” we should aim to operate with the mindset of “minimize pain, and maximize gain.”

As strength and conditioning coaches, we look to develop physical qualities and resiliency to enable an athlete to perform their skill at the highest level, improving the capacity to work and allowing technical mastery to flourish within the given sport or discipline. This sounds all well and good, but truly we are fatigue managers, playing a small part in the adaptive process. We time the prescription of treatment and training in the hope of getting an optimal response, in terms of both creating fatigue and aiding in recovery.

Helping take athletes from “good” to “GREAT” centers on adaptation to the training and to the environment the athlete lives and operates within. This is where the psycho-neuro-endo-physiological chaos ensues, as all systems respond in a hopeful unison to allow learning, growth, and development within the athlete. Ultimately, the process should enable the athlete to compete at a higher level both psychologically and physiologically, having become a more robust and resilient organism attuned to a variety of tasks and stressors throughout their training history.

Back on the Ground – The Process and Participation

To truly “maximize” this “gain,” we must be collaborative with the other practitioners involved in the process¹ because the human body can battle through countless stressors, continuing an upward trend of development, fighting fatigue, and coming back bigger, faster, and stronger than before. Just as a child learns the skills of mathematics through problem-solving, practice, and trial and error, an athlete’s body learns through problem-solving as well—and both the child and the athlete come out the other side more resourceful and productive within their environment².

The process of adaptation is difficult, stressful, and damaging. As practitioners, we “play with fire” at times, in that we hold an athlete’s dreams, aspirations, and sometimes livelihood in our hands with our dosing of training or treatment. We cause trauma to connective tissues and joints, program the nervous system to function more optimally, and develop motor patterns and skills that allow for increased mastery and capacity. It can be a long and hard road, and many athletes are fortunate to have a care team of individuals at their disposal. But just as a grade school teacher should not give a student an answer, practitioners in the performance world cannot be too quick to aid in the recovery process, as the athlete’s body works to reverse fatigue and breakdown, returning stronger than before.

Time can heal most “wounds,” and if training load is appropriate, an athlete can recover between bouts and truly benefit from every hormetic dose of training/treatment that they are exposed to. But this time allotted must be adequate for the training to be truly preparatory and for the athlete’s body to learn to respond, grow, and flourish. The necessary time is based upon the variables of dosage (intensity, duration, frequency, mode, etc.), and the key to all of this lies in the ability for all practitioners to work in unison with one another, pushing or pulling the athlete in the same direction. Hence, the time and place of training, as well as the loading. When we try to pull an athlete in opposite directions or push too much, the load exceeds capacity too quickly and setbacks happen.

If You Read Nothing Else…

Collaboration and communication are of paramount importance to the effective management of this process. Practitioners need to have a collective philosophy so that when there is a call to action and an athlete is in the care of one of the care team members, they have confidence in how to act and what to do.

For example, if an athlete is in an off-season training block or “preparatory” period, is the goal to provide “artificial” or therapeutic support to the athlete’s recovery? Should you provide aid for the physiological response (or the answer to the math equation that the grade-schooler is trying to decipher)? I would argue that, during this period, practitioners should not intervene with the inflammatory response to training, but rather allow the lifestyle and environment of that athlete, as well as the biological process, to happen naturally.

Hormesis

In situations such as those mentioned above, recovery means and modalities should take a back seat, because just as an athlete adapts to training stimulus, there is an adaptation or “law of diminishing returns” associated with recovery modalities. The adage or excuse that the athlete needs to “recover more” may simply mean that they need more time to allow readiness to return to a point where the training can be received and an adaptive process can occur. Otherwise, the cost of adaptation becomes too high, and instead of a hormetic dose of training, the training becomes poisonous and the body becomes resistant to the process in one of two ways:

• Physically (illness or injury)
• Psychologically (unmotivated or monotonous)

This should be understood and communicated by all parties: the coach prescribing the stress or stimulus, as well as the health care professionals working to keep the athlete feeling and performing their best. This can be a tough role to assume for any practitioner, especially one looking to serve and care for the athlete while caught in the trap of a “more is better” mentality.

When to ‘Recover More’

There will come a time of condensed competition, or potentially an intensive training camp, where recovery modalities (massage, hydrotherapy, EMS, cryotherapy, compression, etc.) will be necessary to help improve the recovery time of an athlete, and basically press “fast forward” on the potential physical and psychological effects of the training. Based on research and experience, practitioners are having a psychological impact on athletes with treatments of massage, compression, hydrotherapy, etc., as opposed to true physiological improvements of readiness (i.e., changes in countermovement jump performance, HRV, DC potential, or TMG readings)³.

That said, some can and do argue that psychological impact is physiological, and the brain controls all. So, regardless of true physical readiness, if the athlete feels psychologically ready to train or compete, then there is potential benefit regardless of where the athlete is in relation to fitness and fatigue. This is where the art and science of coaching come into play, and a coach must not become overly dependent on these psychologically beneficial recovery modalities. Instead, allow adequate time for healing and learning the biological and neuroendocrine response (adaptation).

At the end of the day, time is our most precious commodity and overwhelming the athlete with more time demands can be stressful and counterproductive. Remember that athletes are human beings, and the balance that we, as practitioners, work with is psycho-physiological. Consider:

• Confidence
• Emotion
• Opinion

Each are at play throughout the process, and the art of selling the program as well as developing trust are all too important to the effectiveness of the adaptive process.

Time, Place, and Tough Love

We’ve all heard and hopefully live by the adage of “training smarter, not harder.” Recognizing the training block and period of time an athlete is currently in, be effective and efficient with training prescription, which potentially means doing less. Maybe not less overall, as volume is a very important driver to adaptation, but potentially less intensity, less frequency, etc. Training should not be a test of how much the body can handle, but rather a process of learning and teaching the body, molding it as a teacher would a student, developing necessary skills and abilities to perform well when “test day” (game day) comes around.

An effective teacher does not constantly test their students’ abilities, but rather approaches them with patience, understanding, and sometimes a little tough love. The same can be said for the practitioners who must work together to coordinate the training plan, but then respond to the programming as the athlete does, modifying and adjusting based upon the psycho-physiological readiness of the athlete. A teacher continuing to provide assistance or, in this case, a practitioner continuing to prescribe “recovery methods,” is in a way similar to continuing to ride a bike with training wheels on: constantly being assisted through the process.

Research vs. Reality

Is there a law of diminishing returns to these various recovery modalities? In many studies that show the efficacy of treatments such as hydrotherapy and massage, the treatments are only performed in a small window of time, and we do not get the complete context of the effects after a year’s worth of massage or hydrotherapy treatments. Rather, we often get just the average of a four- to eight-week study.

Do the effects of massage in aiding the recovery/adaptation process have a window of efficacy? I would argue that, just as it is with training, there are windows of adaptation as it relates to recovery modalities. Recovery modalities need to be:

• Planned
• Periodized
• Dosed appropriately

To maximize their effectiveness, these modalities need to be done at the optimal time and place. Sound familiar? Training is treatment; treatment is training.

Key Takeaways

This understanding gives the practitioners time to be most effective, and allows for their role and purpose to be defined and guided by principles and a shared philosophy. The athletic trainer knows when to intervene and dose treatment appropriately, and what message to relay to the sport or strength coach. There are times when the massage therapist is highly involved, and times when we will not even use this “tool in the toolbox.”

This makes the strength coach and sport coach accountable as well, to where they know when to back off and when to push through based on the primary goals of the training block. Are we focused on general preparation, where volume is our primary focus and we can sacrifice intensity? Or are we concerned with achieving a certain intensity and not worried about volume or frequency?

There is context to all specific training prescriptions, but the generality in this situation is that we must be patient and we must work together. Trust and confidence in the abilities and prescription come over time, and with productive communication. This is where we are able to go “next level” with effective monitoring strategies that enable us to make daily/weekly modifications, developing a sense about the adaptive process, as well as objectivity.

But as always, it’s time and place, and we can’t put “the cart before the horse.” Teamwork and trust are the foundations to build upon, and periodization comes in the form of sound training prescription and principles. This is when an athlete can flourish, and what seemed like a slow, arduous process of adaptation now becomes a steady upward trend where everything moves and progresses in the right direction. This is when it becomes fun and easy, and rolls on all cylinders through athlete education and buy-in.

Summary and Solutions

There are countless stressors throughout life, and the daily pursuit of development and adaptation is the goal within sport performance. The thing to remember is that adaptation takes time, and sometimes that means we cannot check all the boxes of training stimulus throughout the week (sprinting, jumping, squatting, etc.). If we take a step back and reflect on our objective, and we collaborate on our training to all push/pull in the same direction, we will likely make much better progress than if we push/pull against one another. Sometimes, we may need to do less:

• Less recovery
• Less intensity
• Less volume
• Lower frequency, etc.

With the shared understanding that less is truly more effective, we cultivate an environment and promote a process to thrive instead of survive. This allows the body to learn to recover on its own, to problem solve, and be resourceful, without leaning on the crutches of effective/ineffective recovery strategies.

As coaches, we can connect with one another, collaborate, and work together to educate athletes on an optimal lifestyle. Teaching athletes allows them to fail and learn through the process, because it is not what we do that matters, but more importantly, how the athletes grow and perform. We simply want our involvement to be effective, and the most effective involvement is collaborative.

I have personally seen these conversations unfold. The purpose and collaboration in planning, programming, and reacting to the athlete allows the lens to become clearer. These interactions with colleagues and athletes become enjoyable and flexible. We are allowed to truly listen and connect instead of dictating and directing. Just as with adaptation, it takes time, patience, and a little give and take from everyone and everything: Sometimes when you do less, you’re really doing more.

References

1. Hoover, DL, VanWye, WR, and Judge, LW. “Periodization and physical therapy: Bridging the gap between training and rehabilitation.” Physical Therapy in Sport, 2016;18:1-20. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2015.08.003
2. Brown, Peter C. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Belknap Harvard, 2018.
3. Barnett, Anthony. “Using Recovery Modalities between Training Sessions in Elite Athletes.” Sports Medicine, 2006;36(9):781-796. doi:10.2165/00007256-200636090-00005

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

All vaulters subscribe to one of a few technical models or methods that address pole vault differently. The goal to clear a bar is always the same, but each model emphasizes its own subtleties, and employs strikingly different coaching cues. If you want to compare these models, the best place to observe a difference is in the movement of the athlete’s hips as the hips represent the vaulter’s center of mass.

For example, the Champion Model allows hip deceleration to occur for the benefit of greater pole bend. Alternatively, the 640 Model emphasizes upward acceleration of the hips after takeoff, and views pole bend as a by-product of runway speed. Other technical models for pole vault exist, but they derive from the Champion Model or the 640 Model: These are the archetypes used by the pole vault community, and the two models I use to analyze hip movement.

Many athletic events have different technical models and coaching philosophies. Long jump has at least three models for leg movement during flight: hang, stride jump, or hitch kick.¹ When you compare these styles to the shot put spin versus shot put glide, the differences in the long jump seem extremely subtle. That’s because the spin and the glide are entirely different models for the shot put preparation phase, which is analogous to the approach in long jump.

In the shot put delivery phase, which is comparable to the long jump flight phase, both the spin and the glide are essentially the same. Thus, regardless of preparation phase, glide, or spin, a shot putter seeks an excellent power position for the delivery of their implement. This is different than the long jump because the flight style (delivery) differs and the approach (preparation) remains the same. Pole vault bears resemblance to long jump because there’s no difference in the run (approach) between the Champion Model and the 640 Model. Again, like long jump, pole vault technical models differ in how they address takeoff and air mechanics.

Hip Movement

For all vault models, hip movement is a critical indicator for takeoff and air mechanics because hip movement shows how proficiently the athlete creates pole speed. Ideally, an athlete’s hips never slow down after takeoff.

Elite vaulters, like Sergei Bubka or Yelena Isinbayeva, demonstrate that even the Champion Model can achieve upward hip motion with very minimal deceleration. Unfortunately, for a successful Champion Model jump with minimal hip deceleration, the necessary strength and speed requirements are exorbitant. For that reason alone, many Champion Model vaulters find themselves shut out from higher bars once they’ve maxed out their grip and pole, if they remain at the same level of strength and speed. Again, this argues in favor of teaching the 640 Model to new vaulters. Nevertheless, the widely used Champion Model deserves analysis. 

Coaching Hip Movement in the Champion Model

Consider Lilly, a Champion Model vaulter, who focuses on bending the pole by letting her hips decelerate after takeoff. When she is under the pole with arms pressing up high (aka blocking out), she initiates her swing with arm and core strength so that she can invert, meet the unbending pole, and slingshot herself over the bar. When you watch Lilly’s hips, they accelerate from her free takeoff, decelerate as she transfers mechanical energy into the pole, and then finally accelerate again as she brings her body to inversion.

When Lilly attempts a personal best, her coach might increase her grip or pole size. Here are the possible results of these adjustments:

1. Lilly increases the height of her grip on the pole. The pole bends more, but her hips decelerate so extremely that her runway speed becomes irrelevant. The remainder of her air mechanics rely on her arm and core strength. If Lilly is not strong enough to control the pole with her higher grip, then she will get stood up by the pole somewhere above the plant box, which is dangerous. Grip Lilly back down and tell her to keep her speed up.
2. Same adjustment as Scenario One. Lilly grips up. If Lilly is really strong, then she rows through easily and completes the jump successfully. Her hips decelerate minimally. Keep everything the same for the next jump.
3. Lilly switches out her pole for a longer or heavier pole. The new pole does not bend as much as before and her jump becomes more like a straight pole drill. If Lilly is not fast enough to jump on this pole, her hips will decelerate completely as she gets stood up by the pole, or worse, rejected from the pit back onto the runway. Either Lilly should not be on such a heavy pole, or she should grip down and treat the next attempt as a straight pole drill. Lilly should initiate her swing sooner.
4. Same adjustment as Scenario Three. Lilly goes up a pole. If Lilly has sufficient runway speed, then she moves the pole to vertical and relies on her strength to execute the jump. In this case, her hips move fluidly upward, above her grip, and she clears the bar. Keep everything the same for the next jump.
5. Lilly goes up a grip and switches out for a heavier pole. Lilly is faster and stronger because she’s committed herself to speed work and weight training. It’s been a while since her last competition and she’s a different athlete since last time. She nails the jump, her hips decelerating slightly and then moving upward again. She clears a higher bar for a new personal best. She should go up another grip and move back a half foot on the runway for her next jump. Go Lilly!

Although the scenarios above offer coaches simple cues and adequate feedback based on hip motion, the Champion Model has problematic limitations. Young athletes who are new to pole vault may not have the strength or speed to achieve sufficient pole bend—even on a small pole. On the other extreme, nobody can grip up indefinitely because the hips will decelerate, and the athlete will get stood up. At some point, the height of the grip becomes too high for even the strongest and fastest vaulters.

The widely accepted notion that you can load a pole with energy from the approach only works if you don’t lose that energy when you plant the pole. When the grip is too high or the pole is too heavy, the forward transfer of energy into the pole will go right back into the athlete in the opposite direction. Last I checked, the opposite of forward is backward, and definitely not upward. This is the reason the hips sink or decelerate in the Champion Model.

Coaching Hip Movement in the 640 Model

In the 640 Model, the hips should continuously move upward, without any deceleration. A 640 Model vaulter takes off farther out from the box, and they begin pulling on the pole immediately with the extended bottom arm. A big jump up, active pull, and good trail leg swing bring the hips upward to meet an unbending pole. As usual, speed and strength are crucial to the success of this model, like any model, but the emphasis is different. 640 Model vaulters focus on achieving maximum pole speed (how fast the pole moves from plant to vertical) and view pole bend as a by-product of a well-executed jump.

With hip movement tied to pole speed, it’s absolutely critical that 640 Model vaulters actively pull on the pole from takeoff so that the hips never decelerate. 640 Model vaulters get off their poles sooner than Champion Model vaulters because the emphasis is always on pole speed. Sam Kendricks is a good example of a vaulter who moves through the jump incredibly fast and has great pole speed. His hips never decelerate. Kendricks may not strictly subscribe to the 640 Model, but he’s a lot closer to the 640 than the Champion Model.

Another measure of pole speed is the end position of the pole. A 640 Model jump typically ends with the pole at 85-95 degrees, whereas a successful Champion Model jump ends with the pole past vertical at 95-120 degrees. This is why Champion Model vaulters tend to push their standards farther back than 640 Model vaulters.

The hips should not decelerate in the 640 Model because the energy from runway speed transfers less into the pole and more into the vertical motion of the vaulter. If the athlete does not continue to add energy into their ascent by pulling on the pole, then their hips would decelerate or sink after takeoff because they are not active with their arms. Forget what you’ve heard about the total energy after takeoff. You can add energy to the system once you’re in the air! An athlete may not be able to bend the pole more than their runway speed allows, but that grilled chicken and salad they ate for lunch provides enough energy to pull on the pole and elevate the hips!

When you observe a 640 Model vaulter decelerate their hips or lose pole speed, there are a variety of factors that may cause this result. Let’s consider Billy, a seasoned collegiate 640 vaulter who’s not having a great practice session. Billy’s approach on the runway is excellent. He hits the right mid-mark and he always sets up a good free takeoff. Unfortunately, Billy has been struggling with his takeoff and air mechanics today. His hip movement and pole speed are critical indicators for feedback after each jump. Here are some scenarios to address:

1. Billy’s hips rise slower than usual, his pole speed is slow, and his left arm collapses. He definitely does not have the hip height to wrap the bungee he usually wraps with ease from his three-step approach. Billy was flat. He needs to jump up more at takeoff, which should correct for the collapse of his left arm, too.
2. Billy’s hips rise initially, but they decelerate once he’s in the air. His pole speed was adequate, but not as good as his best jumps. Billy had a good jump up at takeoff. There are a few possibilities to explain this jump:
• If Billy did not pull on the pole immediately after a good takeoff, then he pushed too much on the pole and could not bring his hips upward easily. Pushing on the pole results in landing off to the side in the pit.
• If Billy’s step was tight because he overstrided on his last step, then his left arm collapses and he cannot pull on the pole proficiently. He almost gets hit by the pole after takeoff and he cannot follow through to begin the turn at inversion. Again, his hips decelerate in this situation. Billy can either go back a half foot on the runway or correct his last two steps before takeoff. His last four strides should be stride-stride-long-short.
• If Billy collapses the left arm in his pole plant, then he needs to extend more. This is not a significant adjustment, but it’s enough to keep his hips accelerating upward and achieve higher clearance.
3. Billy jumps up well at takeoff, pulls proficiently, and his hips rise continuously. He has great pole speed and lands deep in the pit. Awesome! Billy can either add resistance by increasing his grip by 3 inches or move back 6 inches on the runway. If Billy bends the pole too much, then he should switch poles for a stiffer one. The next jump should look good. If it doesn’t, then he did not execute the jump similarly to the previous one. Revisit scenarios One and Two above.

Regardless of the model that you follow, your observation of hip motion is critical for assessing the jump and providing feedback to your athletes. I only addressed the Champion and 640 models because other pole vault models are either derivatives or variants of these models. For example, the Traditional Model, utilized by Polish vaulter Władysław Kozakiewicz, spawned the widely used Champion Model, but is not a common technical model anymore. The Innovative Model, practiced by high school record holder Mondo Duplantis, derives from the Champion Model and involves a double leg tuck instead of a single leg drive and swing. Again, the masters of each model demonstrate very minimal hip deceleration.

Switching Technical Models

For one athlete, switching technical models is a challenging process. If you’re a coach, switching models can be excruciatingly painful because you have to transition all of your athletes together. Don’t be surprised if some athletes just quit. There are some events in which it’s easy to switch models, but not pole vault.

It’s always easier to switch models that differ in the preparation (approach) rather than in the delivery (takeoff). In shot put, the switch from glide to spin, or vice-versa, doesn’t have to be a painfully slow transition, because the preparation phases differ. In pole vault, the switch from Champion to 640 can be detrimental to the athlete because takeoff has entirely opposite blocking cues. Champion Model coaches say, “Push!” 640 Model coaches say, “Pull!”

It might take years before a Champion Model vaulter can shed their old habits and become successful with the 640 Model. An athlete may find greater success with a new technical model, but patience is absolutely necessary. You can’t rush skill development because, as the saying goes, old habits die hard.

Comparing Technical Models

The jury is still out on which technique is most effective for all these events, and that’s okay! Most of the pole vault community uses the Champion Model, or some variation thereof. Mike Powell broke the long jump world record with a hitch kick, but when I went to college, I saw mostly hang style and stride jump. Long jumpers rely on all three fairly equally.

The shot put spin became popular among American throwers back in the ’80s because many shorter, less explosive throwers discovered they could generate more impulse with less force than their larger, more explosive opponents. In international competition, the glide is more popular, but the men’s world record is a spin. The women’s world record is a glide. It’s hard to say what’s best. Sometimes, what fits your athlete’s abilities and needs is really the best model to use.²

Maybe, but not necessarily. Experimental support for one model over another would rely heavily on historical records and mostly subjective evidence. This doesn’t mean that one model isn’t absolutely better than another. It’s certainly possible. Rather, it’s just very difficult to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. At Apex Vaulting Club, we use the 640 Model. We have a good coaching system in place and I have confidence in our head coach.

The only argument for one model over another is based empirically on safety. In my observations and experience jumping with both models, the 640 Model offers athletes a safer recovery after takeoff. Even with good coaching, Champion Model vaulters seem to get stood up by the pole more often, which decreases the likelihood of landing safely in the pit. This can result in a dangerous recovery, like landing on your feet, landing in the box, rolling an ankle, or being rejected by the pole back onto the runway. Of course, this is also possible with the 640 Model, but in my observations, not to the same degree as with the Champion Model.

When I compare my vaulting experiences, I recall 40-50% of all Champion Model practice jumps resulted in being stood up, whereas that result was about 5-10% for all 640 Model jumps. Overall, I have greater confidence in the 640 Model because it’s safer and more accessible to younger, less-experienced athletes. Those are the individuals that matter most in our sport—not the elites. If we want pole vault to grow and become more popular as a sport, then we must make it more approachable to the average athlete. The 640 Model supports this idea.

Integrating Hip Movement into the Coaching Sequence

When you see deceleration in the hips, or slow pole speed, you must consider the factors that produced this result. If your athlete clears a bar with poor hip motion, then positive feedback is good, but it is not enough. Your athlete still needs to jump again. By observing hip motion and isolating these factors, you will reinforce better habits and improve performances more sustainably. Furthermore, you will promote your athlete’s confidence in practice sessions, which will carry over to their ability and demeanor at meets.

Hip movement is one of three critical indicators for coaching pole vault, but it only addresses two components of the jump—takeoff and air mechanics. In my last article about mid-marks, I emphasized the sequence in which coaches should analyze proficiency.

1. Pole carry
2. Run
3. Plant
4. Takeoff
5. Air mechanics

So far, in this article and the last, I have covered numbers 2-5. In my last article, I discussed how mid-marks provide more data for a coach to measure speed on the runway and predict the quality of takeoff. In my next article, I will address drill proficiency, the final critical indicator for successful pole vault coaching. The best vaulters are highly skilled individuals within their coaching systems, regardless of their technical model. I’ll discuss how component-specific drills reinforce skills and improve long-term performance.

References

1. Linthorne, N.P. (2008). “Biomechanics of the long jump.” In R. Bartlett & Y. Hong, Handbook of Biomechanics and Human Movement Science(pp. 340-353). Routledge.
2. Aikens, Jim. “Teaching the Glide Shot Put Drill Sequence.” SimpliFaster blog. Spring 2018. Accessed August 18, 2018.

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