Blog

High Performance Strength and Speed Training with Dr. Michael Yessis

Michael Yessis is a teacher, sports performance trainer, biomechanist, and author. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. He has done work translating, adapting, and implementing sports training methodology from the former Soviet Union, including work by Yuri Verkhoshansky, Anatoliy Bondarchuk, and Vladimir Issurin, for more than 50 years. Dr. Yessis has worked extensively with professional and amateur athletes, including Marv Marinovich, Evander Holyfield, Dianne DeNecochea, Jose Luiz Barbosa, and others. He worked with the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Raiders professional football teams, as well as Team USA Volleyball. Muscle & Fitness magazine referred to Dr. Yessis as a “legendary biomechanist.”

Freelap USA: What are your thoughts on the heaviest weight, relative to a 1-rep max, that most athletes need to work with over the course of their careers?

Dr. Michael Yessis: The 1-rep max is most important for athletes in the power sports (weightlifting, powerlifting, and in many cases, bodybuilding). These athletes need to develop maximum strength. They must be cognizant of the amount of weight that they are using in the various exercises.

I do not use the 1-rep maximum, or percentages of it, to improve the performance of the athlete. Athletes need more attention on skill execution (the key to improving athletic performance) and strength that is specific to the skill execution. This requires the use of specialized strength exercises that entail 60-85+% of max. This is moderate intensity in comparison to percentages over 85%.

Specialized strength exercises duplicate the neuromuscular pathway and range of motion over which strength is developed during skill execution. This is one of the main reasons why the lower percentages of max (50-85%) are typically used. It allows for better adaptation by the body so that greater strength, etc. is developed.

Athletes need more attention on #SkillExecution, and strength that is specific to skill execution, says @doctoryessis. Share on X

Because specialized strength exercises have an immediate effect on skill execution and improvement in overall performance, they play an important role in the training of all athletes, especially at the higher levels.

Percentages of the 1-rep max are geared more to development of general strength, which does not have an effect on skill execution. I develop general strength in foundational training with use of the 1 x 20 strength training program. Understand that general strength does not have an effect on skill execution.

Also, when skill execution comes foremost in the program, the amount of resistance is determined by how well the exercise is executed. Once the athlete deviates from correct form in execution of the exercise or skill, he stops doing the exercise. The key is to complete a specific number of repetitions rather than overcoming a specific amount of weight with effective skill execution.

Freelap USA: What is your take on potentiation methods, and using complex methods where one movement enhances another, such as barbell training or plyometrics enhancing sprinting? In which situations would you utilize this?

Dr. Michael Yessis: I don’t distinguish training methods in this manner. Any potentiation is usually taken care of in the foundational training, utilizing the 1 x 20 RM strength training program.

Each type of training has its place in the overall development of an athlete. For example, barbell exercises or strength exercises must precede any plyometric exercise. More specifically, x amount of strength development must precede plyometrics, at least explosive plyometrics and not the common jump exercises that are often considered plyometric.

In essence, the sprinter must first start with technical training to establish his or her running form and then, or simultaneously, use specialized strength exercises to enhance specific joint actions. For example, practice the thigh (knee) drive for quicker leg transition, which equals greater speed. Most often, the special strength exercises are used to correct sprint technique; for example, the pawback exercise to learn and enhance the feel of driving the leg down and back.

The key is to use every training method to develop the skills needed for the next type of training, says @doctoryessis. Share on X

The key is to use every exercise, or method of training, to develop the abilities needed to do the next type of training. It is very individualized. Each exercise or method is selected depending upon its value in developing the objective at hand. The work is very specific. As a result, the sprinter sees overall improvement in his or her speed very quickly.

Freelap USA: Where did you derive the “1 x 20” training system? What components went into the construction of this training scheme?

Dr. Michael Yessis: Elements of the 1 x 20 training system were formulated when I first started my professional career. There were only one or two basic programs available at that time, and I did not completely agree with them. Thus, I looked at what we know from motor learning, muscle physiology, and some of the basic principles of training, and began formulating what was to become the 1 x 20.

For example, some of the basic principles included accustomization, gradualness, progressiveness, and consistency. All of these went into working out the 1 x 20 strength training program. I began using this program (which was not called the 1 x 20 at that time), giving details on how the workouts should be conducted. A few years ago, one of my colleagues suggested using the term “1 x 20” to identify this program. It sounded good and it soon stuck.

This program is used mainly for the young and beginning athlete to establish a good foundation for future training. For example, the athletes develop greater strength, muscular endurance, coordination, stronger ligaments and tendons, improved circulation, skill execution, etc. with the 1 x 20 program. Perhaps even more importantly, athletes are training and playing injury-free or close to injury-free.

Science shows that moderate intensity—not high intensity or low intensity—is best for adaptation, says @doctoryessis. Share on X

The main reason for this is that the program involves less intensity, which is more conducive to adaptation by the body. This is a scientific fact that has been ignored in the common literature. Science has shown that moderate intensity is best for adaptation. High intensity and low intensity also produce adaptation, but not as much and not as effectively.

Many coaches began using the 1 x 20 strength training program with higher-level athletes and found great success. This indicated that athletes were not developing a good base when beginning their training. Thus, the program, or at least one or two cycles of the program, was found to be very effective with higher-level athletes, especially collegiate. With elite athletes, the 1 x 20 is used mainly as an unloading period.

See The Revolutionary 1 x 20 RM Strength Training Program for more information.

Freelap USA: What’s your take on agility work for sport? Is there use in training agility without a game-like visual stimulus to react to?

Dr. Michael Yessis: I have found that most commonly used agility drills are not effective and may even make a slower athlete. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that the drills do not mimic what the athlete does in a game situation to exhibit true agility. (The ability to change direction while in motion.)

Because of this, I concentrate on and create drills based on execution of the cutting action. This is the key to agility. Athletes must be able to execute the basic cutting action in order to change direction quickly while in motion.

Drills are constructed on the different elements that go into the execution of a good cutting action. In all cases, however, the athlete first must learn how to execute the cutting action and then create a drill to reinforce the cutting action to make it permanent and automatic.

Very few coaches understand or teach the basic cutting action needed to change direction quickly, says @doctoryessis. Share on X

What it is surprising is that very few coaches understand or even teach the basic cutting action. Coaches tell me that it is never covered in any of the clinics or in the curriculum of the certifying body. But once the cutting action is mastered, the athlete finds that he or she is much quicker in all movements that require changes in direction. It is at this time that game-like visual stimuli can be effectively used.

Information on the cutting action can be found In Build a Better Athlete.

Freelap USA: What are the biggest sprinting faults that you tend to see with developing athletes, and how do you seek to correct them?

Dr. Michael Yessis: I see many flaws in the running techniques of sprinters. Most notable are making ground contact on the heel first, not executing a pawback, insufficient drive of the thigh forward during the drive phase, excessive forward lean when in full stride, and inadequate separation between the thighs at, and immediately after, takeoff. All of these are not found in any one runner, but one or two is typical.

The heel hit appears to be most common in team sports, especially baseball and football. Probably the most glaring flaw is lack of pawback. It appears most in novices, but is also quite common in higher-level athletes. Inadequate separation between the thighs at takeoff is very common even among “top” sprinters. This appears to be indicative of a lack of flexibility not only in the hips, but also in the waist. Insufficient drive of the thigh during the push-off is an indicator of poor hip joint flexor strength and/or reliance on the butt kick in the run.

Two notable strength prep flaws are lack of hip muscle strength and too much reliance on the squat, says @doctoryessis. Share on X

I correct these errors with specialized strength exercises. For example, the knee drive exercise for insufficient drive of the thigh during the push-off, the pawback exercise to learn and enhance pawback, back raises and some running technique changes to get a more erect running posture, and the classic lunge going as low as possible for greater mobility in the hip joint to improve separation between the thighs. As the athlete masters these exercises, minor changes are made to more closely duplicate what occurs in effective sprinting.

For greater detail on these and other flaws, see Explosive Running.

I also find many flaws in their strength preparation. Most notable is a lack of hip muscle strength and too much reliance on the squat. Very often there is overemphasis on strengthening the upper body at the expense of the lower body. Also quite common is a lack of core (abdominal and lower back) strength, especially of the obliques. I typically correct these flaws with strength exercises specific to the muscles involved. With long distance runners, I find general overall lack of strength, even of the respiratory muscles.

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

Linear Speed Development for Court and Field Sport Athletes

Blog| ByBobby Smith

“How did you feel physically during games and practices?” I asked. “Fast?”

I was catching up with one of the athletes I trained after returning home from a stretch at the US Olympic Training Center (OTC) in Chula Vista, CA, where I had the privilege to learn from some of the greatest coaches in modern track and field: Dan Pfaff and Ty Sevin. These coaches invested all their time, knowledge, and expertise to develop their athletes’ abilities to express physical qualities and skills at the highest level. After their tutelage, during my first summer home in New Jersey, I took all of our athletes through training drills and progressions very similar to those I’d done at the OTC. These athletes got fast.

“Oh yeah!” she said. “I’m by far the fastest girl on the team.”

At this point I was, as the kids say, “feeling myself.”

This athlete was playing on the juggernaut Maryland University Women’s Lacrosse team, and clearly the summer training we’d done had paid off.

Through the training process, I was enamored with the impact that linear running mechanics had on performance. Throughout my personal athletic development, there was never much emphasis placed on how I was running. At the OTC I learned a variety of complex drills, ranging from the ever-popular B-skips to more complex concepts like “pawing the ground.” Thanks in part to practicing these drills, I’d seen my own abilities soar to new heights and ran faster than ever.

“Except,” she continued, “I can’t stop.”

“Can’t stop?” I said to myself.

My mind immediately rushed with flashes of how a lacrosse match looks: sharp cuts, changes of direction, sudden accelerations, and controlled decelerations.

I realized I’d missed the boat on a tremendously important concept: court and field sport athletes should not train as track athletes. In fact, training them this way may not only hinder their athletic development, but also raise their risk of injury.

Lesson learned.

Movement Training for the Court and Field Sport Athlete

Since Coach Bobby learned that hard lesson, we’ve invested countless hours researching and implementing the best practices in speed and agility development for court and field sport athletes. Our objective in this article is to share our system for developing linear speed with these athletes.

This article displays our systematic approach and explains the major factors we consider when designing and administering this approach. We outline the overarching concepts that apply to our entire movement training system, and we lay out our method to systematically address deceleration, max velocity, and acceleration, leading up to our final “test week.” We hope to provide actionable strategies that you can immediately take and implement with your own athletes.

Scientific Foundations

Establishing the scientific principles that underlie our coaching is an essential first step in sharing how we apply these concepts—these concepts set the foundation for how we improve linear speed.

So, what are the key trainable variables that apply to improving deceleration, max velocity, and acceleration?

1. Force Production

Admittedly we’re not big math guys, but this model of understanding force is relatively easy to understand and has been very valuable: F=M*A

That’s right. The classic formula of Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Fortunately, we could assume that throughout a movement, the mass will remain constant. This leaves two factors to account for—acceleration and force. Let’s start with acceleration.

Acceleration is the change in velocity or direction per unit of time (m/s). In physics, acceleration includes both increasing and decreasing velocities. For the sake of this article, we’ll consider acceleration as any increase in velocity and deceleration as any decrease in velocity.

Force is any interaction between objects that, if unopposed, will change the motion of an object. A key point to keep in mind is that force is a vector quantity, meaning it accounts for magnitude and direction.

If you want to move forward, push the ground backward. If you want to go to your left, push the ground to your right. In the above picture, Coach Bobby sets an athlete into position with her torso and shin in the angles necessary to propel herself forward. The goal is to channel her ability to produce force and use it to propel her in her desired direction.

Bad Acceleration — Image 2. In this image, we see an example of a sub-optimal acceleration position. Notice the vertical angle of her tibia.

We want to teach our athletes how to increase the amount of force they put into the ground and improve the direction in which they apply this force.

Impulse Production

Impulse = Force x Time

This equation primarily represents the number of seconds spent applying force into the ground. It doesn’t only matter how much force an athlete puts into the ground, but also how quickly that force is transmitted.

To teach this concept, we instruct our athletes to punch the ground upon contact. A common fault we see with running fast is that athletes spend too much time on the ground, or as we like to say, they “get stuck in the mud.” More time on the ground drains the amount of force that could be used to propel them in their desired direction.

The biggest takeaway from this variable is this: the quicker you can apply your force, the better.

Video 1. Good ground punching increases the amount of force an athlete has to propel themselves into the direction they want to go. Poor punching decreases the amount of force.

This information about force and impulse applies to each of the subcategories of the next section.

Practical Applications

Practical applications have three subcategories—deceleration, max velocity, and acceleration. While performing each of these, we want our athletes to have the ability to:

Produce high levels of force
Produce force in the right direction
Produce force quickly

1. Deceleration

“It doesn’t matter how fast a sports car can go if it has no brakes” is an analogy quoted countless times. However, we question coaches’ efficacy in developing the ability to decelerate efficiently. So, before you take the sexy information from this article that explains how to get your athletes faster, make sure that you are first teaching them how to slow down. Before we can produce force, we must make sure we can properly reduce force.

Decelerating is a skill. The body positions, neuromuscular timing, and soft tissue qualities necessary to absorb and redirect forces that come with decelerating from high velocities take time to develop. Taking the time to teach the skill of deceleration reduces the risk of injury and increases athletic performance.

Teaching deceleration skills reduce injuries and increase athletic performance. Share on X

Athletes are more at risk for injuries during the eccentric phase of muscle action—landing from a jump, changing directions, or coming to a complete stop. And it’s our responsibility as physical preparation coaches to teach our athletes better movement strategies for absorbing and transferring forces.

In addition to reducing the risk of injury, improved deceleration skills help maximize sports performance. If two athletes have equal ability to accelerate and run at max velocity, and one athlete can decelerate and change directions more efficiently, that athlete has a distinct advantage. We see this in the “shifty” running back who does not having blazing speed but manages to make defenders miss him consistently with the ability to redirect his path.

We build deceleration into all of our movement training sessions by dedicating a deceleration zone. Athletes must break down—or come to a complete stop—in an athletic position (pictured below). The distance from the end of the drill to the deceleration zone depends on the velocity of the drill, athlete training age, and phase of training. At Reach Your Potential Training (RYPT), we use different cone colors to represent where deceleration zones begin and end.

Athletic Position — Image 3. In the deceleration zone, athletes must come to a complete stop in an athletic position.

2. Max Velocity

Max velocity running is one of the most demanding tasks a human can perform per unit of time. From time-motion analysis studies, we’ve seen that the overwhelming majority of sport actions occur at sub-maximal speeds. If this is the case, why should we train max velocity?

We help our athletes develop the ability to run at max velocity to:

Reduce fatigue and quicken recovery from sub-max efforts
Prepare soft tissues and joint structures for forces they may encounter during practice and competition
Prepare the nervous system for the demands of max velocity
Take advantage of the vertical body position associated with max velocity that transfers to the more horizontal body position associated with acceleration—this is the reason we teach max velocity before we teach acceleration.

We start our movement training sessions by exposing athletes to environments and tasks that are relatively ordered and less complex. Then we progress to more chaotic and complex environments and tasks. We categorize our movement training sessions into three sections—mechanics, integration, and application.

Mechanics. During mechanics, we teach the positions we want our athletes to be in. The velocities of movement are slow relative to the integration and application phases. We emphasize what the athletes should be feeling.

Integration. During integration, we build on the skills we just covered in mechanics. The movements here are relatively faster. The challenge for our athletes is to maintain the body positions addressed during mechanics in a more dynamic environment.

Application. Application is where we tie it all together. This is full-speed. Go time. Time to compete. Application presents the most complex, high-speed tasks to our athletes. This is the most challenging, most competitive, and most fun section of movement training. If we only did mechanics and integration, they would revert to their old inefficient strategies of moving once they hit high velocities. Application is essential because it creates an environment where coaches can provide immediate feedback on how athletes are applying strategies from mechanics and integration.

Velocity Progressions Chart — Image 4. This chart details our progressions for max velocity, moving from mechanics to integration and, finally, application.

3. Acceleration

Court and field sports, unlike track and field, are characterized by many accelerations over the course of a competition. These accelerations are initiated from a broad variety of positions, velocities, and directions. Regardless of where or how accelerations are initiated, the desired outcome is the same: get from point A to point B in the appropriate amount of time.

The ability to repeat max-effort accelerations determines game outcomes. Share on X

While many sub-maximal accelerations occur throughout a practice or competition, it’s often the ability to repeat max-effort accelerations that determines game outcomes. These max-effort accelerations include a wide receiver blowing past a cornerback on a deep fade, two soccer players rushing toward the sideline to battle for a loose ball, and a basketball player exploding into a passing lane for a steal and breakaway lay-up.

When teaching acceleration, we use the analogy that it’s best to take off like an airplane, not like a helicopter. When a plane takes off, it stays patient and gradually gains elevation as it increases its speed. Helicopters, however, pop right up off the ground and go vertically into the sky.

An athlete who pops up into a vertical position too soon limits their potential to reach high velocities. Many times failure to hold an acceleration position is due to an athlete’s general weakness. Increasing their relative and absolute strength aids their ability to hold these acceleration positions longer.

Anti-extension core work improves a player's ability to keep a stable, rigid core during gait. Share on X

We aim to help the athletes get stronger through their upper body, lower body, and core. Specifically, we want them to become more competent at anti-extension core exercises. This improves their ability to keep a stable and rigid core during gait.

Maintaining a consistent body angle through acceleration limits the degree of energy leaks. Increasing general strength and training acceleration technique improve an athlete’s ability to maintain body positions. And maintaining these body positions allows them to stay in the acceleration phase longer.

Acceleration Progressions — Image 5. This chart shows acceleration progressions. Players will hold acceleration positions longer when they have relative and absolute strength as well as training in acceleration technique.

Final Thoughts

Three major commonalities link all sports. Athletes will produce force rapidly, reach high velocities, and decelerate from these velocities.

Each of these embodies a separate skill and requires time and effort to develop. Ignoring any one of these leaves your athletes at a higher risk of injury and reduces the likelihood they will reach peak performance. To maximize the development of these skills:

Teach your athletes how to decelerate
Reinforce proper body positions
Emphasize producing high levels of force quickly

References

Boden, B. P., Torg, J. S., Knowles, S. B., & Hewett, T. E. (2009). Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury: abnormalities in hip and ankle kinematics. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(2), 252–259.

Duthie, G., Pyne, D., & Hooper, S. (2003). Applied physiology and game analysis of rugby union. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 33(13), 973–991.

McInnes, S. E., Carlson, J. S., Jones, C. J., & McKenna, M. J. (1995). The physiological load imposed on basketball players during competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13(5), 387–397.

Jamie Pasquin is an Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at Dartmouth College, where he works primarily with Men’s Basketball, Women’s Soccer, Women’s Lacrosse, Skiing, and Sailing, and assists with Football. Prior to Dartmouth College, Jamie was an Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at Quinnipiac University and a Graduate Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at Sacred Heart University. Currently pursuing his Master’s degree in Exercise Science and Nutrition from Sacred Heart University, he received his Bachelor’s degree in Applied Exercise Science from Springfield College. While at Springfield, Jamie was a member of the Pride’s football team.

6 Traits to Look for in a Sports Nutritionist

Blog| ByKatie Mark

Sports nutrition is an art and a science. Investing in a high-quality nutritionist gets you more individualization, which accomplishes more for an athlete’s short- and long-term health and performance. As a sports nutritionist, athlete, and soon-to-be registered dietitian (RD), I’m sick of hearing “food is fuel” and other weak, outdated, and general sports nutrition advice.

If you are a pro athlete or team looking for a high-value nutritionist or a coach looking to outsource nutritional programming, then this article is for you.

First and foremost, I’m brutally honest in this article because I genuinely want to enhance the sports nutrition field. Therefore, it was very difficult to remain brief. I’m not trying to bash the field of RDs (licensed nutrition professionals). They are considered the “experts in food and nutrition,” but they’re not necessarily the experts in sports nutrition (as I explain below).

RDs may be experts in ‘food and nutrition,’ but they’re not necessarily experts in #SportsNutrition, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

I developed these points from my practice as a dietitian, dietetics education, experience as a competitive athlete, relationship with athletes, collaboration with other sport science professionals/coaches who are highly knowledgeable in nutrition, and understanding of the sports nutrition practices of other RDs.

Credentials

Obviously, credentials are important, but they’re not a deal-breaker. Depending upon your sports nutrition needs, the RD credential is very important in certain states, contingent on the laws and regulations (check your state’s licensure laws). However, I argue that the RD credential is different when it comes to sports nutrition.

As someone who completed the dietetics curriculum, I can tell you it’s NOT intended for those who are solely interested in sports nutrition. It focuses heavily on clinical nutrition (medical nutrition therapy) and food service/management. This knowledge is important (you will have athletes with medical conditions), but is not enough for sports nutrition. Typically, the sports RD learns about sports nutrition on their own.

Regardless, a nutritionist should have some type of credential (undergraduate and/or graduate level) that certifies them as a nutritionist. For example, I know PhDs in exercise science and/or nutrition who are not RDs, but are better than RDs when it comes to sports nutrition. Conversely, if someone has a PhD in nutrition, it doesn’t mean they know how to work one-on-one with an athlete or understand the real-world challenges that athletes face.

PhDs typically conduct research. Research is obviously very important (it’s a huge foundation of my practice), but there are many factors in research that do not translate to real-world problems. Knowledge is power, but being able to apply knowledge is even more powerful.

Here’s a confession: As a nutritionist, I have my own personal nutritionists. Of the five, only one is an RD: Bob Seebohar, MS, RD, CSSD, CSCS, METS II. More importantly, Bob’s an exercise physiologist and ultra-endurance athlete. He’s one of my mentors, and broke me out of the groupthink found in 90% of the sports nutritionists out there. His work is a huge foundation of my practice.

Knowledge is power, but being able to apply knowledge is even more powerful, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

My other nutritionists include: Carl Valle (top sport scientist), Alan Bishop (Director of Sports Performance for University of Houston Men’s Basketball), Jorge Carvajal (renowned S&C coach who works with the NFL, surfers, and special operations), and Dr. Jose Antonio (CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition and an exercise science researcher). Each of these men has shaped me as a nutrition professional and a person.

Here’s another confession: As an applied sport science nutritionist, other RDs are not my resources because I neither work in clinical nutrition, nor am I a foodie. My other resources hold PhDs in exercise science and nutrition.

Experience: Professional and Athletic

Just because a sports nutritionist works privately with many pro athletes or as the nutritionist to a pro or collegiate team, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re good, and vice versa. (The same can be said for any industry.) I’m not trying to bash anyone here—I have two points with this based on my personal experience: 1) quality vs. quantity and 2) ulterior motives.

One RD for hundreds of university athletes or a team of 100 football players signals poor quality. How much of a positive impact can anyone have given that ratio of attention? Some pro teams hire nutritionists as “consultants,” and they may just do so because it sounds good. Some of them barely use the nutritionist.

Here’s something to consider: What is the nutritionist doing that’s causing a major difference in health/performance outcomes? Meal plans that everyone could benefit from, but no one adheres to?

In sports, the RD doesn’t really have any accountability when it comes to winning and losing compared to the other coaching staff. This is exactly why you’ll see certain coaches take their players’ nutrition into their own hands when they don’t like what the RD is doing. That’s because they know how much nutrition contributes to performance.

For ulterior motives, how many nutritionists took the job with a pro team just to use it as a marketing tool or to get them to a different dream job? Typically, these nutritionists do minimal work for the pro team. This is very, very sad, as it hurts the reputation of the sports nutrition industry. The sports world is small, so word spreads easily.

Fortunately, great teams can easily tell, BUT this usually happens after they hire the nutritionist. This suggests that many teams do NOT know how to hire a high-quality nutritionist… I hope this article helps them.

With respect to sport, this is where just being an RD and not an athlete does not work. Being into fitness and doing yoga, Pilates, and spinning is one thing—that’s exercise nutrition. Competing in a sport is another thing—that’s performance nutrition. How many of those RDs were competitive athletes and/or are currently still training like a competitive athlete? This is important because they need to be able to understand WHY athletes do certain things when it comes to nutrition. This is called empathy.

Understanding and applying nutrition for exercise is very different than for sport performance, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

For example, an RD once called me out for an Instagram photo of me drinking a Coke while on a 100-mile training ride. (I’m a competitive cyclist.) For brevity purposes, I won’t get into details as to why I was drinking the Coke (actually, I only drank half). This is the most important point I made:

Imagine you’re a high-level cyclist who burns 2,500+ calories on a 100-mile ride that is completed in sub-five hours in Miami’s heat and humidity. You stop, dehydrated and depleted, in the middle of nowhere at mile 80. There are limited “refueling” options. You need to choose the lesser of two evils: Gatorade or Coke. I chose the Coke. Why? It’s psychological. When I’m riding under those conditions, I hallucinate Coke ahead of me on the hot ride—not Gatorade. I want a refreshing option. In certain contexts, that option is Coke. It’s psychological. That choice is based upon a current state of mind. The Coke served as a multifactorial ergogenic aid.

Understanding and applying nutrition for exercise is very different than understanding and applying nutrition for sport performance.

The Nutritional Advice and Approach

This is highly important. Many RDs conform to the typical sports nutrition “dogma.” For example, the beliefs that 60% of calories should come from carbs, following a “high” protein diet (cue Dr. Jose Antonio as to what is considered “high”) is bad for the kidneys, and you should avoid supplements because you can get all of your nutrients from food.

All of that tells me (and any coach who knows a lot about nutrition) everything I need to know. There are only a handful of nutritionists who transcend this “one-size-fits-all” model. I’ve actually given interview questions to a performance coach who was hiring an RD. The answers would show whether or not the RD surpassed the shotgun approach.

There are some phenomenal sports nutritionists who work with Olympic, pro, and collegiate athletes privately rather than as the team nutritionist, for many valid reasons. I understand the influences of the food industry, politics, and restrictive budgets, which all change the approach of an exceptional sports nutritionist (hence, the reason I’ve never actively pursued those positions). Unfortunately, many administrations do not provide enough resources to meet expectations. Yet, resorting to Fruit Loops, Goldfish crackers, and Rice Krispies treats in the fueling station or mac ‘n’ cheese and hot dogs at the training table is the easy way out. And it sounds like a breeding ground for bad gut microbiota.

Some nutritionists say they don’t have enough money and man power. This goes back to my point above regarding accountability. According to some performance directors and S&C coaches, they know that excuses don’t save their job if they don’t win games, so they take the reins and oversee nutrition. Some of them do a phenomenal job.

Excuses won’t save their job if they don’t win, so some coaches take the reins to oversee nutrition, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

Within two weeks of covering for the University of Miami Athletics’ RD, I changed one team’s nutritional approach. Without giving any of my solutions away, the difference-making play was founded on a go-getter mindset driven by innovation, achieving buy-in, and focusing on doing not what’s easy, but what’s best. Subsequently, I was asked to be a consultant.

To my knowledge (and my colleagues’ knowledge), very few RDs implement carbohydrate periodization (“fuel for the work required”). Is it because they do not know how training periodization works? Nutrition Periodization™ was coined by Bob Seebohar many years ago. Unfortunately, we’re still seeing traditional “fueling” tactics.

A nutritionist can tell you their philosophy (e.g., emphasis on plant-based eating, food is “fuel,” ketogenic diet, anti-supplements, etc.), but you can tease it out further through personal discussion and their social media, written works, and presentations. What do they emphasize? Does this align with what you’re looking for?

Many nutritionists are anti-supplements and tout a “food-first approach.” However, this is a poor approach. Don’t get me wrong—I am a fan of food first; however, this is NOT realistic or practical for an athlete’s health and performance. This is the reason I advocate for a “nutrition-first approach.”

“Athletes: Fit, but Unhealthy?” is the foundation of my practice. Just because an athlete has six-pack abs, does not mean they’re healthy.

The goal is to optimize nutritional status. Lack of blood testing means nutrient deficiencies are not caught and corrected. Prevalent patterns of “fueling” with Goldfish, sugary sports drinks, and other processed, empty calories contribute to chronic inflammation. So, the high training load and poor diet (e.g., high in refined carbs/high glycemic, lack of micronutrients) contributes to even more inflammation and oxidative stress.

An athlete may have six-pack abs, but that does not mean they’re healthy, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

This brings me back to the “you can get all the nutrients you need from food” argument. When you need a therapeutic dosage, that’s incorrect. I have data showing food is not enough for the optimal status of many nutrients.

For performance, a major trait in athletes is their desire for the 1% performance benefit (marginal gains). This is where certain supplements that are ergogenic aids and have stood the test of time in research come into play. If a nutritionist is not a competitive athlete, then that may be a red flag. They do not understand ergogenic aids that are only ergogenic in supplement form (e.g., creatine, beta-alanine, etc.).

“Should I take creatine?”

“You can get it from food.”

Wrong. A pound of uncooked beef and salmon contains 1-2 grams of creatine. Let that sink in. How much would you have to eat to get a performance benefit? How much would an athlete who experiences repetitive head trauma/concussions have to eat to get a potential brain health benefit?

If a nutritionist doesn’t advise a vitamin D supplement for certain athletes, did they blood test to confirm? What if there’s research using the RD’s population of athletes showing that they are typically deficient/insufficient in vitamin D? For some populations, there are some supplements that are simply a first-line supplement.

How does the nutritionist approach their programming? The typical services provided by an RD include one-on-one counseling. However, what are they specifically providing in their services? A meal plan? That’s great. Too bad meal plans don’t work. For example, many athletes cannot procure the foods in a meal plan.

Is the nutritionist only educating? Doing things like posting nutrition tips around a locker room? Education is important, but it’s only part of the solution.

Here comes a major difference and selling point: testing. If you’re not testing, then you’re guessing. (Sometimes it’s not feasible to test certain things, which I understand.)

How many calories do you need per hour? How many of those calories should come from carbohydrates? This is why I invested in a top-of-the-line metabolic cart. As an athlete, I was tired of cookie-cutter recommendations from sports nutrition “guidelines.” I removed the guesswork. I’m looking forward to seeing how my muscle glycogen testing (using ultrasound) further helps me pinpoint and resolve athletes’ efficiencies and inefficiencies.

Optimizing performance starts with optimizing the blood. An important aspect that few RDs and doctors consider is when an athlete is at the low or high end of a “normal” range for a lab value. Blood test normal ranges can be arbitrary.

Optimizing performance begins with optimizing the blood, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

With some of my NFL players, I caught many biomarkers that I knew were major red flags (based on the population-specific research) despite being in a “normal” or near “normal” range. I’ve provided athlete-specific research to doctors showing lab value ranges that must be considered because they differ from the normal lab values. For example, an athlete may be on the very low end of “normal” for testosterone or vitamin D, but why not try to be “optimal”? This is when I learned to be even more selective when finding doctors for my athletes.

Here’s an analogy I give my athletes. The “normal” range for the 40-yard dash is 4.3-4.8 seconds. Imagine a player finishing in 4.8 seconds and their coach telling them that their time is “normal.” Subsequently, they do nothing to improve it. Why should the coach just settle on letting the athlete be “normal” instead of pushing him to be “optimal”?

Ultimately, the athlete should be treated, not the blood test. Not doing so can have major career-based implications. My goal is to build age-defying athletes to increase their sport life span.

Advice should not be general; it must be athlete-specific. Applied sports nutrition science that offers a toolbox of tests provides nutritional programming that is more personalized and solid.

Buy-In Strategy

The value of the smartest nutritionist in the world diminishes if they can’t get their athletes to follow-through, or cause a behavior change. This is buy-in, which I learned from Brett Bartholomew’s Conscious Coaching.

Why do some athletes not listen to an RD’s advice? Why does the athlete listen to nutritional advice from the coach or S&C coach? The answer is buy-in. This starts with being present as much as possible (this hurts consultants and part-timers), building rapport (e.g., having conversations that are NOT about nutrition), and, ultimately, gaining trust.

If a high level of presence is not feasible, how does the nutritionist work with it? Build a relationship with the coach—they are the middleman. If you want to make a difference, communication with them is HIGHLY important because they have a major influence on the outcome. For a nutritionist, this may take some serious selling of themselves and their nutritional philosophy (especially if the coach is well-versed in nutrition).

This buy-in with coaches is also important because the nutritionist must be able to communicate with the rest of the athlete’s performance team. This multi-disciplinary approach is pivotal to enhancing athlete care.

It doesn’t matter what you know; it matters what you can get the athlete to do. This is exactly why posting “nutrition tips” and other educational materials in the athlete’s environment is not effective. Do you think a pro athlete cares about reading this around his or her locker?

It doesn’t matter what you know; it matters what you can get the athlete to do, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

This is also why most of my colleagues are coaches. Because of them, my impact is even greater.

Nutrition Science Specialist

“You’re not hired expecting to already know everything. You’re hired expecting to figure it out when you don’t.” – Adam Ringler

That’s a fact. In nutrition, it’s obviously impossible to know everything. When you don’t know something, that’s fine. Be humble and own it, but be pro-active and figure it out.

This is why the most valuable skill is being able to read peer-reviewed research, understand it, and apply it to the real world. I’m not saying you have to be a wizard and be able to critique the statistics. But even at the graduate level, others would simply regurgitate study abstracts.

There are two types of sport scientists: the applied and the researcher. The applied implements the program based on sound principles and identifies crucial gaps in current knowledge. The researcher conducts and communicates the latest research findings to the performance enhancement team and serves as a point of reference.

A nutritionist who is an applied sport scientist is part of the multidisciplinary sports performance enhancement team. This is a practice that’s more prevalent in Australia and Europe.

Unfortunately, many nutritionists simply read research briefs and textbooks and do not apply the results within the appropriate context. A great example is beetroot juice. I’ve had an RD consulting for a pro team tell me they were going to have the players drink beetroot juice because they read about it in their textbook. I told the RD that when it comes to sports nutrition, don’t read textbooks, read the studies.

When it comes to sports nutrition, don’t read textbooks—read the studies, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

I hear many RDs tell athletes to drink beetroot juice if they want to perform better. I’m not saying you have to explain to athletes the mechanisms of how nitrates impact performance. I’m saying how the nutritionist applies the research sometimes warrants skepticism.

Which types of athletes could benefit? What is the dosage of nitrates for efficacy? Did you test if the athlete is a “responder?”

I will spare you the nuances of beetroot’s effective application. However, the details matter, especially the more elite the athlete. It’s easy to forget that athletes take many supplements. There is a “pill fatigue” problem. Applying the science of beetroot juice led to my fingerprints on 12 medals from Rio 2016. This is because the efficacy was found in the details.

Another thing I’ve seen from RDs regarding certain nutritional strategies is, “we need more research.” This is obviously context-specific. However, there are numerous innovative sports nutrition practices that have enough research for a nutrition science specialist to know how to investigate and apply it to a particular athlete. Concluding that something “needs more research” (let’s say “train low”) to cover themselves tells me that they’re doing what’s easy instead of what’s best. Acknowledge some aspect of a strategy needs more research, but then discuss how it could be applied.

This is the reason I don’t read textbooks—I read the studies. This is also the reason athletes are always ahead of the research. Because that’s the mindset of the athlete—to implement strategies before others do. And that’s the mindset of my approach to nutrition science: If there’s a neutral or potentially positive effect and it’s applicable, then go with it, especially if it works.

A nutrition science specialist is also in the athletes’ best interests, especially when it comes to health. In contemporary medicine, doctors wait to treat a problem instead of actively monitoring to prevent problems (see blood test example above). Preventative nutrition is innovative. (And it doesn’t include Goldfish.)

If a strategy has a neutral or potentially positive effect and it’s applicable, then go with it, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

I asked one of my NFL players (who is dark-skinned and lives at a particular latitude) if the team RD ever recommended a vitamin D supplement. The answer was surprising, considering the research at the NFL Combine and with the Pittsburgh Steelers and NY Giants. Not soon after, I confirmed what I suspected via a blood test.

One of my specialties is brain resilience, especially for those who experience concussions/repetitive head trauma. With my NFL players and boxers, they know the value I give them is neuroprotective nutrition. What they don’t know is the thousands of hours I invested in building my protocol via investigative research and sound judgment.

It is estimated that it may take as long as one to two decades for original medical research to be translated into routine medical practice. My practice’s philosophy doesn’t have time for that. I’m thinking about the athlete’s brain health in five to 10+ years.

Even though I have a background in neuroscience research, I need to give credit to Jorge Carvajal, who continually enhances my investigation. Jorge is 15 years ahead of the research regarding nutrition and concussions. Because of him, I’ve been able to make more of a profound difference by looking for things I never would’ve suspected.

This is where I found the biggest “why” to my career, which leads to the next trait.

Care

I saved “care” for last because it’s the most valuable and underappreciated/overlooked aspect. I’m not talking about a superficial level of care. I’m talking about a willingness to go above and beyond for the athlete, to the point of “non-billable hours.” This can reveal so much, including how much you love your job. If you make the athlete’s best interest your best interest, you are truly committed.

An athlete may not know what a carbohydrate is, but they know when someone truly cares. World-renowned sport psychologist Allistair McCaw describes it perfectly: “To make an impact and difference in someone’s life, you don’t need to be famous, brilliant, rich or perfect. You just have to care.”

Practical Advice

An exceptional nutritionist is not a price you pay, but rather a value you receive. Nutrition builds age-defying athletes, so they can push their career and success in their sport, health, and longevity.

An exceptional nutritionist is not a price you pay, but rather a value you receive, says @OnYourMark_NUTR. Share on X

If you choose the right nutritionist early on, the benefits include: a better plan for health and performance, increased longevity in their sport, and/or, if a pro athlete, possibly saving/extending the life span of their career.

As we all know, in sport, it’s not about doing what is easy. It’s about doing what is best.

Warm-Up: Comprehensive Preparation for High Performance

ALTIS, Blog| ByChris Miller

While the term “warm-up” may suggest activity that is one-dimensional in nature and singular in purpose, this could not be further from the truth. In order to sufficiently prepare athletes for the rigor of training, warm-ups must be multi-faceted and designed to address both the general and specific physical demands that will be encountered in that training. Therefore, it is critical that warm-ups are as well-reasoned and purposefully constructed as the training programs they precede.

Warm-ups must be as well-reasoned and purposefully constructed as the training program they precede. Share on X

General Objectives of the Warm-Up

All warm-ups need to have general objectives, and these objectives are fourfold: increasing core temperature, preparing the cardiovascular system, stimulating the nervous system, and screening athlete movement. All of these ultimately serve to enhance performance and reduce injury risk.

Increase of Core Temperature

As the primary general objective of the warm-up, increasing core temperature stimulates a cascade of physiological and biochemical responses that contribute to increased performance. When looking at determinants of performance, the two elements we typically think of are metabolic systems and neural systems. The metabolic systems are energy-producing pathways for both explosive and enduring activity, whereas neural and neuromuscular systems affect the qualitative and quantitative measures of movement skill acquisition and execution.

The Bohr effect is one such metabolic mechanism associated with increased body temperature. This effect describes the temperature-facilitated decrease in the oxygen affinity of hemoglobin and myoglobin, the molecules in blood that bind respiratory gases. As a result, oxygen more readily dissociates from hemoglobin and is more efficiently delivered to working muscles, while more carbon dioxide is cleared from them, ultimately allowing increased work capacity and fatigue resistance. Further, by facilitating enzyme activity, increased body temperature increases the rate of nearly all metabolic reactions in the body, including those that catabolize macromolecules used as substrates in bioenergetic pathways.

Temperature is also known to influence the mechanical properties of muscle, with warmer muscles displaying less stiffness and more elasticity, a beneficial effect for speed and power athletes for whom large, quickly generated forces are key. Heat also acts to increase the conduction rate of nervous impulses, which, in turn, allows a higher frequency of impulses to be sent to a muscle, resulting in greater force production in a given unit of time. Finally, increased body temperature up-regulates the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms. While slightly increased body temperature is beneficial for performance, large increases are detrimental to both performance and health.

Preparation of the Cardiovascular System

We have all felt our hearts pounding after a strenuous bout of exercise. This occurs because working muscles produce carbon dioxide, the increased partial pressure of which triggers the up-regulation of cardiorespiratory activity, in order to meet an increasing muscular demand for oxygen. In addition to the aforementioned Bohr effect, the body fulfills this demand by increasing heart rate and contractility. By beating harder and faster, the heart circulates more oxygen-rich blood to the muscles, allowing for the efficient continuation of ATP synthesis and metabolite buffering.

Stimulation of the Nervous System

Paramount for speed and power athletes, adequately preparing the nervous system to fire on all cylinders, when desired, is a critical role of the warm-up. Increasing body temperature, a previously mentioned objective, acts to increase the conduction rate of nervous impulses, which, in turn, allows a higher frequency of impulses to be sent to a muscle, resulting in greater force production in a given unit of time. Further, stimulation and activation of specific motor patterns and firing sequences at lower intensities prepares an athlete to utilize these pathways in higher intensity activities.

Adequately preparing the nervous system to fire on all cylinders is a critical role of the #warmup, says @CMiller_7. Share on X

The nervous system’s role is also psychological. The warm-up is an opportunity to “set the tone” of a training session, with regard to desired arousal levels for a given session.

Movement Screening

Whether an athlete is moving exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly, an individual too far outside of their own norms may be more prone to injury. Utilization of the same warm-up elements daily allows the establishment of individual performance bandwidths, or baselines, by which readiness can be judged. We refer to this as the Living Movement Screen, a concept expanded upon in the ALTIS Essentials Course.

Specific Objectives of a Warm-Up

In our world, specific preparation, whether in reference to a warm-up or a periodized block of training, means one thing: preparing an athlete to sprint. The following modules were composed with exactly that in mind and consider observed trends in energy leaks and injury types, rates, and causes in elite sprint athletes. The four modules of the ALTIS sprints warm-up are Torso Activation, Dynamic Mobility, Dynamic Flexibility, and Sprint Drills.

Torso Activation

What we do: A series of ground-based drills such as cat-camel, side-lying thoracic rotations, and plank variations.

Why we do it: It is important to move through all ranges of motion in warm-up to mitigate injury risk during high-intensity activity.

Whether intentional or not, aberrant mechanics and compensations happen when sprinting and can include any of these movements. If the body is unfamiliar with these ranges and has never been in them, injury is far more likely. Further, the shoulders (thoracic spine rotation dependent) must be able to undulate and oscillate in harmony with the hips (lumbar spine rotation dependent) to produce smooth and efficient movement. This cannot be achieved if thoracic or lumbar spine are not moving freely.

Inguinal shutter mechanism: The inguinal canals are musculoaponeurotic arches attached to the transverse abdominis (both), transversalis fascia (deep), and internal oblique (superficial). These openings in the anterior abdominal wall are particularly prone to intestinal displacement with increased intra-abdominal pressure. Contraction of the transverse abdominis and internal oblique causes these inguinal rings to contract, protecting the integrity of the inguinal canals and preventing hernias.

Importance of core musculature in spinal and pelvic stability and postural integrity: Deep core muscles (transverse abdominis, psoas, multifidus, pelvic floor) play an important role in stabilizing the pelvis and spine. Proper pelvic position, segmental stability, and posture are critical to enable attainment of proper sprint positions. Superficial core muscles, such as the rectus abdominis and external obliques, help to stabilize the spine when high forces are encountered and also help to create torque that contributes to overall force production.

Dynamic Mobility

What we do: A series of locomotive drills cued to be performed rhythmically with large ranges of motion such as skips and side shuffles.

Why do it: To improve and work through full, active range of motion.

We lose capacity for free and coordinated movement in ranges of motion that we do not use often and intentionally. Such restrictions would make injury far more likely, given that many common aberrations, by definition, occur outside of what we might consider ideal mechanics. From a motor learning standpoint, this limits the degrees of freedom that elite performers are cognitively equipped to explore.

Move through varied planes of motion: Gross displacement in sprinting is largely sagittal in nature, but this does not mean that sprinting is a sagittal movement. When observed in relation to the body axis of the individual, it becomes clear that lateral and rotational movements occur as well. Upon further inspection, it becomes apparent that rotation, undulation, and oscillation, in appropriate amounts, are all absolutely necessary for generating torque that contributes to speed. Additionally, the lateral chain plays a large role in stabilizing linear/sagittal movement. Generally, robust movement capability enhances performance and decreases the likelihood of injuries, so even with athletes for whom running in a straight line is the goal, it is important to regularly perform work through all planes of motion.

Regularly perform work through all planes of motion even if the goal is running in a straight line, says @CMiller_7. Share on X

Alternating ground-based and locomotive modules: Sprint athletes tend to have short attention spans. With two modules, or 24 exercises, consisting mainly of ground-based activities, it is unlikely the athletes would stay engaged and moving purposefully if we were simply to progress from ground to standing/moving, rather than alternating them. As Coach Dan Pfaff says, we protect mechanical integrity like it’s gold, and we find this is an important organizational consideration in our effort to help athletes maintain attention and intention in all that we do.

Dynamic Flexibility

What we do: A series of stationary, multi-planar leg swings and active-isolated stretches.

Why we do it: To improve and work through the full range of motion.

The use of momentum in these drills allows movement through a greater range of motion than in the Dynamic Mobility section. The Dynamic Flexibility series also engages the stretch reflex as the body attempts to prevent movement beyond safe/familiar ranges.

Prevent loss of tone: Quick movements and short holds allow muscles to achieve lengthened positions while avoiding autogenic inhibition via the Golgi tendon organs, which decrease the excitability of a muscle when excessive stretch is sensed. Static stretches held for longer than six seconds activate this reflex to allow a muscle to elongate and prevent injury; however, this will negatively impact explosive performance.

Sprint Drills

What we do: A series of drills designed to reinforce landmark sprint positions.

Why we do it: Motor learning.

We are anchored by the philosophy that sprinting is a complex holistic skill, the teaching and learning of which involves many moving parts. Underlying all movement skill is an athlete’s awareness of their body in space, and the ability to achieve desired positions in properly timed sequences. The most important element of elite sprinting is not hammering the ground or exerting maximum effort, but the ability of an athlete to reposition their limbs to apply force in the proper direction while moving at 11 meters per second.

Underlying all movement skill is an athlete’s awareness of their body in space, says @CMiller_7. Share on X

Drilling key sprint positions allows for the development of proprioception and kinesthetic awareness in the context of these landmark positions. Sprint drills also provide additional, opportunities for the athlete to practice repositioning their limbs in space, and interacting with the ground.

Exploration of degrees of freedom with elite performers: Drills allow an athlete to safely explore the inherent variation found in the most seemingly repetitive movements to find optimal solutions to movement problems. Exploratory practice encourages an athlete to find their own motor solutions, rather than being cued into a movement that may or may not be optimal for them individually. This particular objective, however, is not applicable to all populations.

Exploratory practice has been shown to be more beneficial to novices, who are still searching for a motor solution. It is also beneficial to elites, who have actualized a motor solution such that experimenting, within an appropriate bandwidth, will not be greatly detrimental to their performance of said skill. Athletes in the middle, who are in the process of stabilizing a skill, may not be as well-served by exploratory practice, as exploring new solutions too early may interfere with the stabilization of the basic solution.

Introduction and integration of cyclical movement: Dribbling is a significant component of our Sprint Drill module. Dribbles are a truncated sprint cycle, and are the most specific drill to upright sprinting. Gradually increasing the amplitude of motion increases time in the air and demand for temporal-spatial awareness. Further, dribbles can be organized to imitate certain actions. Ascending dribbles mimic growing amplitude, increasing forces and flight times in an open sprint or acceleration. In contrast, descending dribbles mimic stride restriction and control of momentum for hurdlers.

The specific drills and exercises we use in our warm-ups can be found for free on the ALTIS 360 app.

Organizational Considerations

At ALTIS, training is organized thematically, a philosophical construct that extends to the structure and implementation of our warm-ups as well. While nearly identical warm-up elements will be utilized for all track workouts, there are some key organizational differences between our two main warm-ups, which we simply term “warm-up A” and “warm-up B.”

Warm-Up A

Warm-up A is our acceleration-themed warm-up, and is performed before training sessions in which acceleration is the central theme. Sessions prior to which we may assign warm-up A include block work, short hills, and acceleration complexes.

This warm-up consists of the first six exercises in the Torso Activation, Dynamic Mobility, and Dynamic Flexibility modules, followed by all 12 Sprint Drills coupled with three to five step bursts. Adding these short bursts coupled with sprint drills allows for a higher volume and density of acceleration practice, in which emphasis is placed on rehearsing the key positions and exploring the degrees of freedom in early acceleration. Because the addition of three to five step bursts requires more energy on the back end of the warm-up, and because we want warm-ups to stimulate but not fatigue the athletes prior to their main workout, the first three modules are abbreviated to protect the quality of skill practice.

Warm-Up B

Warm-up B is our upright, or maximum-velocity-themed warm-up, and is performed prior to sessions in which speed development and upright sprinting are the central theme. Sessions prior to which warm-up B would be assigned include bounding, wickets, segment runs, end-bend runs, and flat reps at or over 60 meters.

This warm-up consists of all 12 exercises in each module, as well as six elastic strength (ES) exercises, consisting of a series of hops and bounds.

The six ES exercises place more specific emphasis on purposeful interaction with the ground and loading the hamstring in a lengthened position, both occurring through vertical and horizontal force vectors. With the gradual intensification of specific stresses the body will encounter during upright sprinting, this module serves to bridge the gap between the previous warm-up elements and the main session.

An Important First Step

Every coach wants their athletes to perform at their best, and avoid the injury list. Thoughtfully and purposefully constructed warm-up protocols administered by an attentive coach are a practical first step toward this goal. While warm-ups may not be the flashiest or most exciting element of a training program, they are invaluable opportunities to physically and mentally assess and prepare athletes for practice or competition—opportunities that we must take advantage of.

For more coach and athlete resources from ALTIS, see ALTIS 360.

References

Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lytle WJ. (1945) “The Internal Inguinal Ring.” Br J Surg, 128:441–446.

Ball, D., Ferguson, R. A., & Sargeant, A. J. (2002). “Effect of muscle temperature on rate of oxygen uptake during exercise in humans at different contraction frequencies.” Journal of Experimental Physiology, 201:981-987.

Jeffreys, I. (2006). “Motor Learning—Applications for Agility, Part 1.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, 28(5), 72.

Eccentric Training for the Speed-Power Athlete with Angus Ross

Freelap Friday Five| ByAngus Ross

Angus Ross is currently employed by High Performance Sport New Zealand in a power physiology and strength and conditioning role, primarily working with track and field. He has worked with a number of sports at an elite level within the NZ system, including sprint cycling and skeleton in recent years.

Freelap USA: What are some ways to approach training for an athlete who lacks ground reaction force stiffness, or is too “compliant” in their movements? Is the issue more of the muscle, tendon, or a combination?

Angus Ross: The issue could be muscle, tendon, or motor program, so potentially all these areas could be addressed. With regard to muscle and tendon adaptation, both have been shown to do particularly well with both eccentric and isometric training modalities. I quite enjoyed some of the comments from Alex Natera in a recent podcast where he alluded to complexing or at least complementing isometric work with ballistic and plyometric training.

Eccentric training is certainly also a useful tool for addressing stiffness issues. Share on X

Such a combination (plyos + isometrics), to my mind, will address both the physical and motor program aspects of any stiffness deficiencies. With regard to the use of eccentric training, much of the global details of its use are further addressed below, but certainly it is also a useful tool for addressing stiffness issues.

Freelap USA: What are your favorite means of administering eccentric strength training, and why? How long should these generally be utilized?

Angus Ross: Tough question to answer succinctly! There are a multitude of both exercises and approaches to this, and exercise choice will depend on the performance outcomes you are looking for, how far out you are from competition, etc. In general terms (and with mature athletes), I use overloaded (manually and/or mechanically) eccentric (ECC) phases. With regard to exercise selection, I go from relatively general to somewhat specific (where possible), and in terms of eccentric speed I tend to go from slow (2+ sec) eccentric phases to fast—inside 0.8 of a second or faster (aiming to get beyond joint velocities of 180 degrees per second).

The rationale behind starting with the slow eccentric training (and isometric work being done concurrently) is that you get high tensions and structural muscle and collagen adaptations as a result of this work, arguably preparing the system for the greater rate of force development in subsequent blocks. Moving to the higher-speed ECC work then potentially facilitates a fiber-type shift towards fast, and allows much higher eccentric powers to be developed with the obvious potential for transfer to “on field” performance.

I don’t generally favor long unbroken blocks of ECC work, as in my experience it’s too tough physically and mentally with regard to DOMS and wear and tear on the system. Similarly, the ECC loading can compromise other training units and technique, resulting in potential maladaptations if this is not managed appropriately.

Potentially, I have been inadvertently administering excessive session volumes or intensities of eccentric loading, but certainly that has been my experience of it. (Though I’m happy to admit there may well be other ways of addressing the issue!) With that in mind, I have often used two weeks of eccentric loading followed by a week or two weeks off, and have even had success with as little as one week on and three weeks off. Obviously, the approach taken will be dictated by individual athlete needs, response to ECC loading, type of loading, time available, etc.

Finally, there are clearly strong individual differences in response to eccentric training and since ECC training will potentially affect passive (and active) musculo-tendinous stiffness qualities, muscle strength, cross-sectional area (CSA), fiber type, and neuromuscular control strategies, and often instigate significant muscle damage, the time course of adaptation (positive or negative) will differ dramatically between individuals. In my opinion, many published training studies often fail to show performance gains with eccentric interventions simply because insufficient recovery time is allowed between completion of the training and final testing.

Notably, in practice it is not uncommon for some athletes to take eight weeks post an eccentric block to come into personal best type form, while others, as detailed below, may reach it immediately. My guess is that such different responses are a result of different rate-limiting steps in their performance and the different time courses for changes in different parameters to manifest (e.g., CSA vs. fiber type vs. stiffness vs. neural, etc.).

Freelap USA: When would an athlete generally be ready for eccentric strength work? Are there some who would be better geared for this work than others?

Angus Ross: I don’t tend to use overloaded higher intensity work with development athletes; it’s not to say that you couldn’t, it’s just that I see it as an extremely potent stimulus that you probably don’t need to use first up when you can get the easy gains from more traditional modalities. Then, add the ECC work later to ensure training continues to progress in subsequent years or seasons.

There may be exceptions to this rule, and arguably you could come up with strength scores or technical abilities that may better discriminate between those that are ready and those that aren’t. To date though, I have used both training and biological age plus my own intuition and experience as to when I think the athlete warrants significant use of eccentric loading. With regard to some athletes being better geared to eccentric loading—yes, definitely, on a couple of fronts.

First, there is definitely some sort of eccentric need hierarchy in terms of event or sport that will dictate terms here, as obviously, some sports or events have massive eccentric demands (e.g., javelin, triple jump, etc.), whereas others have minimal eccentric load (e.g., cycling). Thus, athletes in the high eccentric load events with a strong SSC component need significant eccentric strength to even perform the events at moderate levels and often limitations in this quality will be weak links that may limit development of the technical model. Arguably, in such events, technique improvements may not occur with all the great coaching cues in the world if simultaneous gains in eccentric strength are not being made.

If the system strength capacity limitations are not addressed, you may be resigning an athlete to engraining a compromised technical model driven by a physical capacity weakness. It should be noted, however, that I do believe that even sports without a significant eccentric load (e.g., cycling, kayaking) can benefit from appropriate eccentric training due to the structural and consequently contractile adaptations that can occur if the loading is managed/periodized appropriately.

I’ve seen remarkable changes in very elastic & compliant athletes doing an #EccentricTraining block, says @AngusRossNZ. Share on X

Second, I have also seen pretty remarkable changes with very elastic and compliant athletes undertaking an eccentric training block. In a sprinting example, such athletes may be stride length dominant but with excessive ground contact times. One of the documented effects of eccentric training has been an increase in leg spring stiffness and, in line with this, athletes displaying below-par stiffness may well benefit significantly from such an intervention.

Indeed, anecdotally at least, I have seen relatively dramatic gains in speed with an extremely compliant hurdles athlete (of international caliber) on the back of an eccentric training block. (Notably, the same almost immediate gains in speed were not seen for his training partner, who already had impressive GCT and stiffness qualities.)

Freelap USA: What’s your take on designing strength training to selectively train or grow fast twitch fibers (either through direct or overshoot means)?

Angus Ross: Many may debate this, but I would suggest that designing training to preserve or enhance fiber type should be one of the primary considerations for how training should be targeted for power/speed athletes (assuming the anthropometric needs are covered—i.e., athletes are of appropriate size for the sport demands). Certainly, there is sufficient biopsy evidence to show that for most people, general hypertrophy-type resistance training compromises fiber type, either via general down regulation of contractile speed characteristics (fiber type or MHC shift of IßIIaßIIb/x) or a bidirectional shift in fiber type (IàIIaßIIb/x).

All other things being equal, this sort of adaptation will compromise the unloaded shortening speed of the muscle and, in practical terms, high speed power. So, assessing how different training interventions affect training (noting that there are individual differences and responders or non-responders to everything) is important. With that in mind, below are a few potential options to consider in terms of maintaining or improving IIb/x fiber type percentage:

Velocity-based training guidelines. In general terms, there is experimental evidence to show that fiber type can be maintained (i.e., not compromised as per above) by autoregulating the number of reps in a set by limiting decrement in contractile speed to less than 20% of peak velocity (for a given load) (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016).

Eccentric training. As already discussed, some studies suggest fast (joint velocities of 180^o.s^-1) eccentric loading can improve fiber type and moderate velocity eccentric work may maintain it (Paddon-Jones et al., 2000).

Periodization options. Time off from high volumes of heavy resistance training can serve to increase the percentage of fast twitch muscle. The work of Andersen et al. (2000), and prior to that, Staron and associates (1991), has given a strong indication that while hypertrophy-based strength training rep schemes appear to downregulate the coding for fast twitch muscle, significant time off from strength training post such a training block will instigate a rebound in fast twitch muscle above and beyond the original levels.

Such an approach can be successfully applied in sport to maximize fiber type during a competition peak. Note, however, that months off from strength training may have other negative effects (potentially decreased low-velocity power and force, neural downregulation, decreased CSA, etc.), and programming needs to balance the positive and the negative relative to an individual’s needs.

Cluster training. In line with the above, cluster-type training (significant time between some reps within a set) works to maintain the quality of repetition, minimizing the number of low-quality low-speed reps. As a consequence, it appears likely that such an approach may be advantageous with regard to maintaining or improving muscle contractile qualities in response to prolonged blocks of strength training.

In summary, by the appropriate and planned use of some or all of the above options, I believe that, in addition to low-end force (an obvious consequence of strength training), high-velocity power can be maintained or even improved. Given the greater need for the latter in most sports, strong consideration to the above options should be given!

Freelap USA: What are your thoughts on training muscle relaxation rate in athletes, or the ability to turn muscles on and off rapidly for dynamic sport movement?

Angus Ross: This is an interesting question, and begs the question as to whether this relaxation or turnover quality is performance-limiting in a specific sport. (And whether it can be with one strategy and not with another—e.g., a stride rate or stride length dominant approach to sprinting.)

As something of a hybrid between researcher and practitioner (with greater emphasis these days on the practitioner side of things), I still feel some compulsion to find established peer-reviewed literature showing the ability of a training intervention targeting RFD/RR (relaxation rate) and/or the speed of excitation contraction coupling to actually improve applied performance. And in that respect, it’s difficult to find papers that demonstrate that “high turnover” training has a performance effect—either I am using the wrong search terms or the papers just aren’t there in Western literature.

I’ve had difficulty finding research that shows ‘high turnover’ training has a performance effect, says @AngusRossNZ. Share on X

Anecdotally, I know a couple of leading sprint cycling nations have used short cranks in training to train cadences in excess of 300 rpm, and am aware of an elite sprinter that has trained high turnover specifically since about 6 years of age and now runs a very low 10-second 100m at 20 years old. So, yes, perhaps there is some transfer. That said, perhaps those interventions did nothing and the current performances were going to happen anyway?! Who knows, that’s why research is required!

There is, however, some limited experimental evidence showing greater sarcoplasmic reticulum development in response to some exercise interventions in untrained subjects. Likely the ability to pump Ca²⁺ in and out of the cell to trigger muscle contraction/relaxation in response to these training interventions is also improved, though the trickle-down to performance enhancement does not seem to have been clearly established.

Intuitively, however, it makes some sense to train both RFD and RR, given the limited time frames available for force application in sport and the need for antagonists to shut off rapidly and not impede contractile performance of agonists. Similarly, I am sure many coaches and physical prep specialists will have seen the graphs from the Russian system espousing RR as a more dramatic differentiator between athletes of different abilities than RFD. Hence, I have tried a variety of options for stressing alactic turnover (ceasing as soon as cadence declines), including:

Loaded fast feet: Sprinting on the spot, trying to maximize turnover and continuing to add load until the athlete can no longer exceed 10 contacts per session—on the rationale that even with zero flight time, 10Hz ensures ground contact time of 100ms or less, which is roughly in line with sprinting.
Prone banded leg flutters: Lying prone feet over the end of a bench with heavy strength bands around the ankle.
Speedball/speedbag: As per Alan Wells and colleagues from the 1970s and ’80s, but with single rather than triple bounce.
Bike sprints: Zero or minimal resistance, noting that 200 rpm = equivalent of ~6.6 steps per sec in terms of contractions per second.

Does it work? I really don’t know, but if nothing else, it provides an interesting change of training stimulus and good training options for injured athletes to at least feel like they are staying in touch with speed. I certainly have had athletes come out of a block using such methods and perform at or beyond personal best levels, though it is again hard to be 100% sure that stimulus was the performance catalyst.

Taking an Acceleration-Based Approach to Performance and Return to Play

Blog| ByDerek Hansen

I had the exceptional opportunity to provide a return-to-play presentation to NFL athletic trainers as part of the PFATS (Professional Football Athletic Trainers Society) in late February 2018 at the NFL Combine in Indianapolis. The focus of my lecture was on an acceleration-based approach to hamstring return-to-play. While there are all sorts of techniques and technology directed at strengthening the hamstrings, I have always had superior results using short sprints as a means of addressing the specific strength needs of the hamstrings. The goal of my presentation was to impart basic coaching techniques for sprint and acceleration training that the athletic trainers could use as part of their in-season return-to-play protocols.

For the most part, rehabilitation professionals must return athletes to the activities required for their sport, particularly at the intensities required to be competitive. Thus, it follows that running and sprinting should be fundamental components of that return-to-play process. Because of the numerous qualities displayed in running and sprinting—high-velocity recruitment, significant force production, eccentric control, timing, coordination, active range of motion, and specific endurance requirements—it not only serves as a highly effective means of preparing athletes for the demands of their sport, but also a very useful screening tool to assess their competence across a broad spectrum of physical and neurological qualities.

Yet many people believe that basic acceleration is an inherent quality that can be worked by simply playing a sport or by developing strength in the weight room. Certainly, there are natural talents that can accelerate and sprint rapidly with very little training. However, in this day and age of watered-down natural selection, we don’t commonly witness as much high-quality sprinting and effortless-looking acceleration as we would hope to. These are skills that athletes need to develop and hone through consistent quality repetition under the watchful eye of a trained professional.

Athletes should develop sprinting & acceleration skills with the guidance of a trained professional. Share on X

Once you have built a foundation of high-quality acceleration mechanics, athletes can much more easily attain higher running speeds. They can also easily reproduce the consistent repetition of high-quality acceleration efforts—such as those required for sporting success and longevity—from game to game, match to match, and race to race. The athletes that can find the formula to this equation will be much more effective and resilient over their careers.

The Skill Set Required to ‘Coach’ Sprinting

I have had the benefit of coaching sprinting with athletes of all ages and abilities for just over 30 years. In college, my summer job was teaching 8- to 15-year-old kids how to sprint and jump in track & field events. I gradually progressed to coaching college athletes, Olympic athletes, and professional athletes on how to improve their sprinting ability over that 30-year period. I have witnessed a lot of different approaches over three decades and I would be one of the first people to say that learning how to coach sprinting technique should be very simple and easy.

The caveat to that statement is that you need to learn how to coach sprinting from a highly competent teacher or mentor. When I say good “teacher,” I do not mean someone that was successful as a sprinter. Competence in performance has no connection to competence in coaching or teaching. A good teacher often has experience with the practical skill in question, but also understands the physics and mechanics involved in carrying out the task. More importantly, the good teacher is an exceptional communicator and a keen observer, knowing when to speak and when to take in information without unnecessarily interrupting or delaying the learning process.

In my experience, good coaches must have exceptional awareness of what is present and what is missing when it comes to an athlete under their supervision and the training program that he or she follows, particularly as they relate to performance and injury. Understanding the qualities that an athlete has in his or her possession—including levels of strength, general fitness, movement skill, and even fatigue—can influence how you guide training, determining progressions and total volumes of work. Similarly, knowing what is missing from an athlete can be critical in determining your decision-making process during the planning stages and even implementation of individual workouts.

You must monitor each step in a sprint performance, from first stride to maximum velocity, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

Good sprinting performances and overall athlete health demand that all of the correct boxes are checked off in terms of identifying whether the key preconditions and elements are present throughout the training process. Similarly, each step in a sprint performance must be monitored, from the first stride to maximum velocity, in order to assemble an inventory of qualities that can either demonstrate competence or reveal significant deficiencies. The guidelines below will identify the key qualities of optimal acceleration that must be present to ensure maximal athletic performance with minimal potential for injury.

Acceleration Posture as a Strengthening Tool

The most common scenario for running-based hamstring strains is when an athlete is either transitioning to upright high-speed running or trying to maintain upright sprinting posture while running at or near top speed. The position of the upright sprinting stride creates a greater opportunity for rapid lengthening of the hamstrings under tension, eccentrically loading the hamstrings to a point of potential injury. The late-swing phase of upright sprinting—as depicted in photos 1 and 5 in Figure 1—creates a significant eccentric load on the hamstrings prior to ground contact. The combination of rapid lengthening and force production on ground contact can cause the hamstrings to strain.

A technically well-prepared athlete is less apt to err in executing the #UprightSprinting skill, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

This being said, an athlete that is well-prepared technically will be less apt to err in the execution of the skill, and less likely to place excess stress on the hamstrings during the cyclical action of sprinting. Additionally, an athlete that has been progressively loaded appropriately in his or her sprinting workouts and through ancillary strength work will have the capacity to handle the stresses of repeated high-speed sprinting efforts. However, while upright high-speed running is a highly specific means of preparing the hamstrings for the stresses of sprinting, there are less risky means of strengthening the hamstrings for these situations.

Upright Sprinting Mechanics — Figure 1. Photo sequence of upright sprinting mechanics. The position of the upright sprinting stride creates a greater opportunity for rapid lengthening of the hamstrings under tension, eccentrically loading the hamstrings to a point of potential injury.

The simple act of acceleration provides an inherent means of strengthening the lower body dynamically and specifically for sprinting at higher speeds, while at the same time having a lower risk of injury than actual upright sprinting. An examination of the performance data on elite-level sprinters demonstrates that 70% of maximum velocity is often attained by the sixth stride (or approximately 10 meters) as indicated in Figure 2. While the velocity of running is still submaximal at this point, effort is still maximal and the output being produced by the body is intense.

Horizontal Velocity — Figure 2. Running velocities of elite sprinters from first step to maximum velocity (Ralph Mann).

Ground contact times are rapidly being reduced within the 10-meter sprinting segment, as shown in Figure 3, and stride length is increasing (Figure 4)—pointing to the fact that the rate of force development is amplifying on every step pairing.

It becomes abundantly clear that sprint acceleration training places an increasingly progressive load on the body with each stride taken throughout the acceleration repetition. The data is remarkably illustrative in this regard, and a closer examination at the mechanics of acceleration provides even more evidence of the merits of the practice.

As mentioned previously, upright sprinting—even at submaximal velocities—places a significantly greater eccentric stress on the hamstrings. Acceleration, on the other hand, involves greater knee flexion on ground contact, limiting the eccentric stress on the hamstring. The hamstring is still involved in the production of force and the stabilization of the knee joint, but it is not exposed to the same high-risk lengthening experienced in upright sprinting. Thus, an athlete can still benefit from the strengthening forces produced during acceleration through an activity that approaches, but doesn’t duplicate, the mechanics of maximum-velocity sprinting.

Acceleration has more knee flexion on ground contact, limiting #EccentricStress on the hamstring, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

A closer examination of an athlete in mid-acceleration in Figure 5 demonstrates the magnitude of knee flexion over a longer ground contact period. The postural angle of the athlete during acceleration imparts the necessary vertical and horizontal force requirements for efficient and expedient acceleration on ground contact. Note that postural angle during acceleration is highly dependent on the force production abilities of the athlete, with more powerful athletes able to establish and maintain a lower angle of propulsion than less powerful individuals. This acceleration angle can also be established through various start positions and formally trained through deliberate repetition.

Acceleration posture — Figure 5. This photo sequence of acceleration mechanics demonstrates the magnitude of knee flexion over a longer ground contact period.

Figure 6 distinctly illustrates the influence of postural acceleration angle on foot placement relative to the athlete’s center of mass. If an athlete is powerful enough to establish and maintain a lower drive angle during acceleration, foot placement will be directly under or behind the center of mass during acceleration, limiting braking forces on ground contact, but also limiting eccentric forces on the hamstring complex. This becomes especially important during the hamstring rehabilitation process, when acceleration repetitions are used to strengthen the hamstring without placing undue stresses on it. The concept of strengthening, specifically without putting the athlete at risk for re-injury, allows for a more expedient return-to-play process with more durability over the long run.

Acceleration Postures — Figure 6. The influence of posture angle on foot touchdown relative to center of mass.

Soft-Tissue Injuries and ‘Brain’ Injuries

While it is common to attribute muscle strains to a strength deficiency, it is often a much more complicated scenario. While it is a good thing to make an athlete strong, it is also very important to combine strength with skill when it comes to muscle recruitment, particularly at high velocities. High-speed sprinting involves a complex arrangement of muscle-firing patterns with a high level of dissociation between the three muscles that make up the hamstring group.

In their 2014 study, “Biceps Femoris and Semitendinosus – Teammates or Competitors? New Insights into Hamstring Injury Mechanisms in Male Football Players: A Muscle Functional MRI Study,” Schuermans et al. examined this concept in greater depth. They found that injured hamstrings demonstrated more symmetrical muscle activation patterns, causing the hamstring muscle bellies to contract less efficiently. They determined that the biceps femoris muscle compensated for the functions of the semitendinosus. Knowing that 83% of running-related hamstring injuries occur in the biceps femoris, we can infer that specific muscle groups are not firing at the correct time during the running gait cycle, creating greater risk to other structures within the hamstring complex.

Acceleration is the perfect means of progressing an athlete through the return-to-play process, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

Acute trauma to the hamstring muscles is of significant concern immediately following an injury, but we must also be aware of the need to re-educate the neuromuscular properties of the hamstrings. We know that upright running can place undue eccentric stress on the hamstrings, and even low-speed running in the upright position can aggravate a pre-existing hamstring injury. Acceleration mechanics, however, can provide a valuable means of stressing and strengthening the hamstrings appropriately without placing an excessive stretch on these structures. And, as demonstrated by the biomechanical data, progressively longer acceleration efforts can gradually place a greater load on the hamstrings as velocities increase and an athlete approaches the upright sprint position. Acceleration is the perfect means of progressing an athlete physically and neurologically through the return-to-play process.

Rapid, Sustained Acceleration—The Key to Top Speed

If you are an enthusiast of fast cars and motorsports, you know that the cars with the highest top speeds also have exceptional acceleration capabilities. The Hennessy Venom F5 is capable of hitting a top speed of 301 mph and can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 2.0 seconds with its engine delivering 1,600 horsepower. Similarly, a typical Formula 1 race car has the ability to hit a top speed of 250 mph and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds with engines approaching the 1,000-horsepower range.

Animals and humans are no different, with horsepower and acceleration abilities closely linked to top speed. In fact, humans typically occupy the slower end of the acceleration and velocity spectrum when compared to other mammals such as horses, grizzly bears, canines, and larger varieties of felines. But biology is biology, and physics is physics. If you do not have the hardware and software to accelerate rapidly, you will not achieve relatively high speeds at the top end of your performance abilities.

Training for acceleration can often be elusive for some coaches and athletes. While we can all agree that getting stronger must be part of the acceleration solution, the specifics of how to strengthen an athlete for acceleration and sprinting are absolutely critical if you want exceptional and sustainable results. A good weightlifting program can contribute greatly to the acceleration performance of an athlete if programmed properly and provided in a manner that is supportive of an effective sprint program.

More recently, we have seen the use of heavy sleds to load athletes for horizontal force production. However, there are many downsides to relying on heavy sleds to supplement acceleration work. Figure 7 illustrates the perils of heavy sled pushing for acceleration performance, citing the excessive ground contact times—negating the desired elastic responses—and the obvious postural issues. The most significant concern relates to the misdirected use of the arms during this exercise.

Sled Push — Figure 7. The perils of heavy sled pushing in relation to acceleration performance. The most significant concern is the misdirected use of the arms during this exercise.

Good acceleration and sprinting performances involve the proper execution of arm swing mechanics. A poor arm swing can quickly weaken posture and negatively impact the delivery of both horizontal and vertical force into the ground. Having the arms free to swing powerfully is critically important for proper sustained acceleration on the way to top speed.

Good acceleration and sprinting performances involve the proper execution of arm swing mechanics, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

Figure 8 illustrates an example of a weak arm drive during acceleration, with a resulting posture that impairs optimal hip extension and force delivery. Conversely, Figure 9 depicts a more powerful arm drive, resulting in the dynamic delivery of force through the hip and extension leg. If the athlete is free to develop a powerful arm drive during acceleration training, this summation of multi-joint force production can lead to significant sprint performances for athletes in sports requiring rapid acceleration and high-speed running.

Weak Acceleration Posture — Figure 8. Poor arm drive mechanics during the acceleration phase of sprinting. The resulting posture impairs optimal hip extension and force delivery.

Strong Acceleration Posture — Figure 9. Optimal arm drive mechanics during the acceleration phase of sprinting. This leads to the dynamic delivery of force through the hip and extension leg.

There are many means of loading an athlete during acceleration while keeping the arms free to powerfully assist the action of sprinting. Uphill sprints have been the traditional method of adding resistance to acceleration repetitions, while the use of dragging sleds has been more common in recent decades. New emerging technologies also provide a means of not only adding resistance to athletes, but also monitoring force production and stride symmetry during acceleration efforts. The more information we can glean from acceleration performances to help us improve efficiency and power, the more we will be able to fine-tune the training and return-to-play processes.

Acceleration Capacity, Return to Play, and Detraining Reduction

The final need with acceleration training is quantifying and monitoring changes throughout development and the competitive season. An increase in volume with a drop in intensity or speed is not building maximal capacity; it’s compromising the higher intensities necessary to prepare the athlete for competition-specific needs. Without an accurate and precise sprinting session, the threshold required for athletes may not be met, decreasing capacity and perhaps increasing risk of injury and poor performance.

HiTrainer Chart — Figure 10. Repeated sprinting is about the preservation of velocity and rate of acceleration. Deep acceleration postures using the HiTrainer are a combination of training and testing, and are an option in return to play with both orthopedic and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.

As a consultant to teams regarding hamstring injuries and training, the topic of return to play comes up all the time. For those not familiar with the HiTrainer, it’s a running system that allows for deep acceleration postures and high-effort sprinting. What is provocative is that acceleration posture is not only preserved, but the cambered padding allows for a natural shoulder roll that is not available with handheld models of sled pushing.

I became aware of the system because clients want to know about all the options available for specific needs, and those that have it want to see relationships between contact times and asymmetries. Even if you don’t have baseline data, watching an athlete sprint and seeing the reporting can start the interpretation process immediately with real-time feedback. Simple measurements automated for the coach is the direction we need; instead of being servants to technology, it now finally works for us.

One area that commonly confuses coaches is the difference between fatigue and detraining, as the symptoms are similar but the causes are not always the same. Detraining occurs when training is too conservative or when injuries mount up, forcing athletes to compete on talent and not on training.

Precise & sequenced loading transforms small doses of sprints into a powerful stimulus for athletes, says @DerekMHansen. Share on X

Precise and sequenced loading, also known as micro priming, transforms small doses of sprints into a very powerful stimulus for athletes if applied correctly. One example that is easy to administer in team environments during the regular season is short bursts of maximal effort sprints done periodically during the competitive season. Maximal intensity work with very low risk is a perfect fit for the NFL and other sports.

Moving Forward with Acceleration

Placing athletes in a position to accelerate powerfully and efficiently has a profound impact on their athletic abilities and their long-term durability. While simple and ubiquitous in the sporting world, there must be deliberate preparation, rehearsal, and loading to ensure athletes achieve the full potential of this type of training. Good coaching and the proper measurements must be part of the process of guiding athletes to their natural form, but there is no doubt in my mind that the road to top speed is paved with acceleration mastery.

Strength & Conditioning at the College and Pro Levels

Uncategorized| ByBob Alejo

People often ask me, “What do you like better: college or the pros?” My answer is that I like coaching, and I don’t prefer one of these levels over the other. Whether pros or college, the fundamental goals are essentially the same: win games, reduce the incidence/risk/severity of injury, and keep players on the field competing at the highest level. The strategies for these goals are quite different, but training athletes and watching them compete and win is the best! Really, I think a better question is: “What’s the difference between the pros and college?”

As far as which one I preferred, my answer might have wavered back and forth a bit depending on when you asked me that question, but I don’t think it would be different than any other coach. In the middle of my stint at UCLA, rings, watches, and national championships were flowing and I was younger. I’d have thought you were crazy suggesting that the professional ranks would be better.

What?! And, miss sunny southern California, the beaches, the malls, the atmosphere (Pauley Pavilion, the sidelines at the Rose Bowl for home games, Laker games, Hollywood), and winning all the time?! It wasn’t until 1993 (I arrived at UCLA in 1984 just after the Olympic Games in L.A.) that I entertained the idea of looking into professional sports and found myself with the Oakland A’s. The conditions had changed in my mind. I thought I had done what I came to do given my age and status, and it was time to move on.

In 1999, after six years with the Oakland Athletics, being under .500 each of those seasons, and still having what I considered the best job in baseball, if someone would have asked what I’d prefer, I would have said, “I prefer to be left alone!” It was the beginning of the Moneyball era and no one would doubt me if I said it was the most fantastic time!

The next three years consisted of a second-place finish, Western Division Championship, and Wild Card berth. After losing nearly 100 games twice in previous years, it was pretty novel to win. No different than someone stringing together Super Bowls, NBA playoffs, or DI, II, and III conference championships—you want to stay with that feeling, the comfort of winning, and the environment that goes with it. And it was still early in my career (the 17th year or so).

This is a particularly important point for all of you looking to change jobs and wanting a promotion either in title or salary—it will all probably mean having to pack up and move. This statement will put it all into perspective: “The criteria for professional movement and change is always part of a personal evolution, so what looked great a year ago might not be so attractive today, or vice versa.”

Like the mechanisms for injury, job movement has many variables over the course of a career, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

What I’m saying is that the criteria for looking to move on changes as the years go by. Single, married, babies, middle school/high school/college-aged kids, life-changing incidents (divorce, ailing or deceased family members, etc.) or frankly, the job you thought was awesome now sucks. All of these will change the way you look at job openings and it is absolutely natural. Don’t wonder why someone left a job when you are not proverbially walking in their shoes. Like the mechanisms for injury, job movement has too many variables over the course of a career to pin it down to one thing over time.

What Was the Difference Between College and the Pros?

Now this is the big question! What was the difference between college and the pros? There’s a big difference. The two biggest and most important differences for me as a strength and conditioning coach were:

Dealing with adults vs. kids.
In the pros, unlike the collegiate setting, the primary concern is injury management (keeping players on the field) versus physical development.

I’ll speak first to my professional experience, which had different criteria than most teams at the time. There was an evolution involved for me for a few reasons and, given the team I was with, time of my career, and where our profession was, I need to tell a story to give readers a perspective.

At the time, the challenge of being a strength and conditioning coach in MLB was exactly that—being a strength and conditioning coach in MLB! First of all, I was the first strength coach in the Oakland A’s history. To add to that challenge, not all the teams in MLB had strength and conditioning coaches and some of them were not full-time positions. Immediately, credibility was an issue, not only for me. I’m thankful that I came from UCLA, a university with tons of athletic exposure, but also for the strength and conditioning world in baseball.

This is where I have to pause for a moment and let everyone who reads this or is curious at all about my career know that, although I was 36 years old in my first year in the big leagues, I was “raised” by a village with the A’s, beginning with Barry Weinberg, the head athletic trainer. Let’s put it this way—after my interview the second day, I was sitting in the Oakland Airport, waiting to fly back to L.A. While pondering how it all went and what would happen if they offered me or didn’t offer me the job, a voice behind me asked: “Aren’t you the strength and conditioning coach of the Oakland A’s?”

From that moment on, Barry was in front of me with a machete, clearing the way through all the crap that came with the environment, dictated by what I mentioned earlier. I am gratefully and forever indebted to him.

It sure didn’t hurt that Dave McKay, who was the unofficial strength coach at the time (his real job was first base coach, and it still is, but with the Diamondbacks now), also graciously paved the way for me with the coaching staff and, most importantly, with the players. How cool was he? He would completely deny what I just said, even 25 years later.

Lastly, Tony LaRussa (A’s manager—no introduction needed) and Dave Duncan (arguably the best pitching coach in baseball during his time) were priceless for me. Two stories, then I’ll move on. I was on the back field (behind the main field in spring training) hitting fungoes to a short stop for extra work at the end of one of those long spring training days. I saw Tony about 30-40 feet away, watching the kid getting his work in, so I just kept hitting ground balls. He stepped up just out of bat-swing range to deliver a message. “Don’t turn around and don’t stop hitting ground balls. I’m going to tell you something. And, don’t say anything when I finish.”

In short, he proceeded to tell me what a good job I had done, including my involvement in the baseball activities and how helpful that was. (I threw batting practice and caught in the bullpen; I had played up through college as a catcher.) At the end of this one-sided conversation, he said, “You’re a pro. You wouldn’t be here if you weren’t.” He thanked me and walked away.

On the other hand, Dave Duncan had even fewer words. Not once did he ever question what I was doing with his pitchers. And keep in mind they included Dennis Eckersley, Goose Gossage, Rick Honeycutt, Storm Davis, Ron Darling, Bob Welch…you get the picture.

Back to the original thought: Could you imagine if I came to the ball club trying to implement the plyos, Olympic lifting regimens, and agility drills I had been using at UCLA without first listening and observing? It would have been a disaster, not received well, and I subsequently would have lost the players. Instead, the ball club made it so I would not fail.

Difference Lesson #1: Go to the pros, or any job for that matter, where you know the staff and administration are 100% behind you and want to make you successful. Where they don’t just let you do your job, but help you do your job because it makes everyone better! I’m grateful to the Oakland A’s for providing that very environment. Believe me—and we see it today within performance teams, organizations, and institutions— a shared goal and a common goal can be two distinctly different things.

Shared goals born out of results-based trust are essential to fully functioning units, says @Coach_Alejo . Share on X

Shared goals (you help me do my job and I’ll help you do yours; only subject matter experts make decisions in their areas) born out of results-based trust are essential to fully functioning units. This is far from typical or ordinary; less than it should be and less than we think it is.

Knowing how much they wanted the strength and conditioning program to succeed motivated me that much more to make it flourish, but more importantly, not to let them down.

The first thing I did, and have done on my first day wherever I’ve landed, was watch. As pros, (the highest compliment a player could receive, at least in baseball) their first question for me was “What do you want me to do?” That’s pretty rare these days. To which I replied, “Just do what you’ve been doing and let me see it.” It would have been a mistake to come in and wipe everything out in the pro setting. I came to find out there were a lot of similarities between what they were doing and what I wanted them to do. It cuts down on teaching (re-education) time when there’s stuff you don’t have to teach.

Secondly, in most cases, these guys make their living on their health, strength, speed, and power. And that living supports a family and perhaps other relatives, endorsements, and charities. If they are comfortable with their existing program, that counts for something, especially if they are comfortable and performing. The last thing you want to do is swing your ego all around the room and make wholesale changes. As Bob Ward, the legendary Dallas Cowboys strength and conditioning coach and a mentor of mine, told me once, “If you had a program that guaranteed a 600lb bench press and the athlete did not believe in it, then it is worthless.”

Difference Lesson #2: The pros are not a set, rep, logo-on-the-wall, my-way-or-the-highway proposition. A strength and conditioning program at the pro level is not all about physiology or psychology. It includes earning power, legacies, and family security. If athletes embark on or are forced into something they don’t believe in, there will be more problems than you can imagine, especially if you have not been exposed to this level.

Training emphasis is the biggest philosophical difference between the pros and college. From where I sit, I say there is very little focus on physical development at the professional level. After all, if a player needed more physical development they wouldn’t be in the big leagues! In other words, a player would not get called up to increase size and strength to become a home run hitter if he averaged seven home runs per year over four years. Nor would a slow player be expected to be a base-stealer by going to the big leagues and embarking on a speed improvement program.

Training emphasis is the biggest philosophical difference between the pro and college levels, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

Get my point? The focus is on injury management; keeping players on the field. Strictly speaking, you can’t get your “numbers” if you’re not on the field. Up to this point, I had only been in the business of development (acquiring strength, speed, speed-endurance, agility, and hypertrophy, where applicable) but quickly—in a day’s time—my philosophy changed because of the environment. Now I had to create and add an additional philosophy to my repertoire.

Difference Lesson #3: Increasing vertical jumps, speed, and deadlift maxes is not the focus, although they could be a by-product of the training. Professional sports—baseball, in my experience—is about emphasizing a career of resiliency and defense against injury and eliminating any clear risks associated with physical development, and not long-term development plans. Keep in mind that in-season is where you have the most contact with an MLB team. Collegiately, it’s nearly year-round.

From there, I relied on strength physiology, fatigue affects, and mechanism of injury as it related to baseball. It’s in baseball where I created my in-season training philosophy and methodology. From mid-February to (hopefully) well into October, players are stretching, throwing, hitting, running, and fielding. Immediately, I knew repetition (volume) was the last thing I needed to implement in any part of training—the professional baseball season was all volume. So, fatigue from training and the game was an issue. Any volume at all could affect skill levels because games were played every day; meaning, we would be playing and training on the same day, which was something I had not done yet.

Strength, fatigue, and injury were really rolled into one big ball when I thought of these three questions:

What’s the best way to stay as strong as possible in-season for 162 games?
What training regimen would result in the least amount of fatigue?
What is the best way to resist injury in baseball?

The answers:

Years and years of overwhelming evidence show that very low volume (one to five repetitions) is the most effective way to gain strength. Then, very low volume would be the most effective way to stay as strong as possible. Athletes can’t retain strength with a program that does not create strength!
Fatigue is volume-based. A program of low to very low volume will result in the least amount of fatigue. Also, duration would need to be shorter. Less frequency would necessitate longer training, and that was out of the question—we would be training after games to get the highest intensity and games would finish at 10:00 p.m., which would be too late for sessions to last longer than 30 minutes.
Injury rarely, if at all, occurs at low-moderate contraction or effort levels. Teaching the muscle to contract at 100% should be the best way to resist an injury mechanism. Higher intensity lifting will teach the muscle to contract immediately versus lower intensity weight training where 100% effort isn’t reached until later in a set. Fatigue has also been thought to cause injury and this will be taken care of with low-very low volume training (conditioning and lifting).

Difference Lesson #4: Even though this type of in-season training should be implemented for all sports, I’m not sure I would have adapted and determined hard guidelines had I not been in pro baseball. Playing a repetitive activity sport every day (different than college), training on the day of games (also different than college), travel, and a better understanding of pattern overload and the effect of fatigue all led to my philosophy in this area, which I still vehemently hold today.

You want your athletes to follow your training and be consistent with effort and compliance, all of which should lead to good results. Results from consistency and training with intent can make for valid and reliable analysis. In contrast to the professional setting, there are few reasons for missing a workout in the college arena…period!

Results from consistency and training with intent can make for valid and reliable analysis, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

As I alluded to earlier, the professional strength and conditioning program I administered with the A’s was affected by more than reps and sets (but certainly not by exams) and I have no problem with that. Professional adult athletes have a lot more “life instances” than college athletes, in my opinion. They have spouses (disagreements, anniversaries, familial commitments), children (school issues and commitments, sicknesses), mortgages, current and future earning responsibilities, endorsements, and, of course, their own struggles with their performance. Not being able to lift after the game is sometimes the result of: “My son has the flu and I need to relieve my wife,” “It’s our anniversary today and we have a dinner planned,” or “I don’t want to lift today,” which can be a result of all the aforementioned nuances, including an 0-3 day with two strikeouts and a loss!

Readiness is a big deal these days—it was then and always has been. It was my job to facilitate those lifting changes of plan because my guys weren’t ready mentally, physically, or both.

Difference Lesson #5: Things come up in an adult’s life that are unforeseen or unchangeable.

An athlete may be ready to compete after staying up with a sick child all night or a big argument with a spouse, but that might be all they can do. Instead of a day-of-the-week format (Monday, Wednesday, Friday), I scheduled Day 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. The inflexibility of a MWF sort of schedule doesn’t provide the best-case scenario for all that is important in and from physical preparation. Plus, with a six-month, every day, travel day, night game to day game season, a few unscheduled missed days weren’t going to cost us the World Series.

For example: Day 1 – lift; Day 2 – lift, Day 3 – off; Day 4 – lift; Day 5 – lift; Day 6 and 7 – off; Repeat cycle. If Day 1 is Monday, and lifting on Tuesday and Wednesday are not options, then Thursday becomes Day 2 and Friday becomes a day off (Day 3). This makes the next available workout day Day 4, and so on….

Being a Baseball Guy, How Was It Going Back to the College Ranks?

I wasn’t, and never really have been, a “baseball guy.” I just happened to be a strength and conditioning coach who was in baseball. I spent less than half of my career in professional baseball. Again, a better phrased question is: “How was it going from the pros to college coaching?”

That answer is easy—I didn’t even blink. I had already done that once and could do it again at some point. It’s just one job to a different job in our profession. I will say this, though—both times that I went from professional baseball to the college setting, coaches for several sports ran their “organizations” differently than what I’m used to and in a manner with which our profession can’t have the best impact. In other words, the strength and conditioning influence was not a priority, or efforts were to have strength and conditioning driven by someone without a qualified background in that area.

We don’t often get the treatment that LaRussa, Beane, and Sandy Alderson gave me. So, the paragraph here is short—it was no big deal; no real transition. All I had to do was adapt to the different environment, which was not new for me.

As far as differences, in this article I gave my biggest personal takes on the pro game and those differences arose out of “opposites” in a few instances. It’s true that adults whose careers, legacies, and livelihoods are on the line, while supporting families and all the nuances that come with that dynamic, are definitely not like 18-22-year-old college kids. But that doesn’t mean that college kids don’t have a unique profile of their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had conversations and differences of opinions with adults that were less than grown up. On the other hand, I’ve learned a lot from freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors about the hurdles they must overcome these days sociologically, psychologically, and academically. And also about the tremendous opportunities that are available to them now like never before. At the same time, part of their commitment to athletics is a commitment to abide by athletic department and team rules, one of which is usually compliance to physical training.

So, there are very few misses in that category. But working with college kids gives you something that you will not find in the adult world: a marvelous opportunity to be on the ground floor of their lives and influence the way they go about their business, physically and mentally. You get to meet the moms and dads, brothers and sisters, boyfriends and girlfriends of student-athletes, and play some small role in their development as human beings, responsible adults, and—even better—doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, moms, and dads!

It’s not because I’m older and can reflect but because it’s true: My physiology, my day, and my outlook immediately change when I receive a text, phone call, or email from a student-athlete showing gratitude for our interaction 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago. While I’m a proud coach who hears from his former athletes, it’s a different feeling hearing from someone you knew when they were 18 years old.

Difference Lesson #6: When working with college student-athletes, you become a chapter of their lives that has some impact—great or small—on who they become, because their lives are still being created when they arrive in your program.

Having said I don’t prefer one job to another, I’m writing this paragraph in response to the one before this because it triggered something I have mentioned many times but forgot. I’m not recanting, but merely speaking to what I think my skill sets are. What I did miss in the pros was the opportunity to develop athletes.

In the pros, I missed the opportunity to develop athletes from the ground up, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

I think anyone who knows me would not be surprised to hear me say I think I’m a pretty good coach in nearly every area of performance. But if I was to say what I think I do best, it’s developing athletes. From day one assessments, to the first training cycle of bench press/Olympic-style deadlifts/squats, to snatches/bench press lockouts/clean high pulls/bounding, and all the measurements and analysis in between, making young athletes run faster and jump higher is what I do best. This sort of four-year developmental sequence and the glory of big gains is not a part of professional sports, for some of the reasons I have already mentioned.

Difference Lesson #7: While I acquired a skill I did not previously have (a yearly focus on training for resiliency though training on the days of competition) during my time in the big leagues, it became clearer that ground-up development was probably my best suit. I added more to my coaching repertoire, yet I always wished I could reach deeper into my skill set. It’s no one’s fault—just due to the performance criteria for MLB.

Looking Back

It’s not that someone couldn’t say that they like college coaching better than the professional ranks, and many coaches switch for that very reason. I just don’t happen to be one of them. Granted, although I worked in the U.S. Olympic Team setting and a little bit in the Major League Soccer environment, I only worked professionally with one team. Lucky for me, it was damn good!

It’s not about preferring college or the pros: It’s about doing a great job right where you sit, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

However, it wasn’t the team, but rather the sport that dictated my philosophy. Consequently, for me, the story is not about a preference. It’s about doing a great job right where you sit. And, if you need to change seats to get to a great job, by all means, DO IT!

Autoregulation: The Pros and Cons When Training Athletes

Blog| ByZach Dechant

The use of autoregulation in training is a hot topic these days. Anything that accounts for the individual athlete against the masses can often be a step in the right direction. Adaptations are completely individual, and a case can always be made for planning and programming geared to the individual. Creating programs based on readiness allows each athlete to progress at their own rate. But like anything, autoregulating an athlete’s training may not always be an optimal solution.

Not every situation is ideal for autoregulation, nor is every athlete. There are advantages and disadvantages to every programming factor under the sun. What works for one may not work for another. Many roads lead to Rome when it comes to the training process and autoregulation is one of those roads.

Consider the Athlete and Their Stressors

The body doesn’t differentiate stressors. The stress response is the same regardless of the stimulus. Training on a pre-programmed plan that allows for little deviation does not take the human factor into account. At the University of Missouri, Dr. Bryan Mann showed that athletes are just as prone to injury and sickness during periods of high academic stress as they are during periods of intense training.¹ What separates us from the animals, as Robert Sapolsky writes, is the stressors we put on ourselves and their manifestations.²

Autoregulating training programs lets us consider stressors and adjust to individual adaptation. Share on X

Each athlete responds to stressors differently, including training, travel, competition, family, and life in general. Autoregulating training programs for an individual allows us to consider those stressors and adjust to the way an athlete is prepared to adapt at the current moment. Listening to and accommodating the body may be just as important as training itself.

Training when the body isn’t currently capable of adaptation can guide athletes down a road of incomplete recovery and eventual breakdown. Buddy Morris has said on more than one occasion that “the athlete’s body is always right.” Listening to the athlete and what their body is saying is an important answer when it comes to the question of programming.

Professional Athletes

Professional athletes may have the best case for a fully autoregulated program. Long, grueling in-seasons with few days off are a recipe to listen to the readiness of each athlete. If you’ve ever worked with pro athletes, they are very much the CEO of their brand. Allowing them the freedom to adjust training based on their individual readiness during an in-season period can be an important aspect to longevity. Many pro athletes are incredibly familiar with their body’s response to training programs. They know what they need to be ready to play in their given sport.

Late night competitions and red-eye travel can wreak havoc on an athlete’s body. At the core of this is the fact that a professional athlete’s only career is just that…being an athlete. Their sport is why they train. Everything outside of that is truly general in nature and stress management becomes key. Their skill doesn’t depend on or require that they bench press, deadlift, or squat more. Durability is the best ability and an athlete that is fatigued is exponentially more prone to breakdowns.

Travel can be incredibly stressful on the human body. During a typical MLB season, teams frequently play anywhere from 15 to 20+ games in a row without a day off. Travelling to another city can often be an overnight red-eye flight or even worse. Double-digit hour bus trips are weekly occurrences for minor league baseball and basketball athletes.

Durability is the best ability; listening to what an athlete’s body is saying is the best answer, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

Imagine a 10-year veteran in the MLB or NBA on a five- or 10-game road swing being asked to do trap bar deadlifts based on training that was programmed three weeks before. Hitting 85% on the trap bar deadlift most likely isn’t the answer. Recovery, or even just simply rest, may be the most pressing need at any given time. Listening to what their body is saying is the real answer.

Not every pro athlete collects a million-dollar paycheck. Track athletes often face the challenge of trying to make a living off their winnings week to week. Many train, hold full-time jobs off the track, and may also have a family to support. The stressors only increase when the training and competitions all revolve around work and family schedules. Training that doesn’t account for these external demands sells the athlete short.

Amateur Athletes

Amateur athletes, depending on their training level, can face just as many, if not more, stressors. Due to the increased demands these athletes undergo, the benefits autoregulation can provide are easy to recognize. Stressors are different at every level of competition. While a paid athlete’s focus may be family, sport, and their brand, amateur athletes have classes, exams, and grades to worry about, on top of playing their sport. And let’s not forget about weekends for college athletes.

The stress many of their bodies undergo from an altered sleep routine and not living right can be every bit as significant as their weekly routine. Every athlete that steps onto a college campus for the first time is absolutely swamped stress-wise. Where they were once a big fish in a small pond, many are thrust into a seemingly endless ocean. The sport they used to dominate often becomes extremely difficult again. Accommodating training for amateur athletes can play an important role in keeping them injury-free and on the right path athletically. Injuries will derail progress, and training too much or too hard when the athlete is unprepared to adapt can spell disaster.

Older Athletes

All of us as coaches will or have already hit the day when we don’t recover as fast as we once did There is a point where every athlete struggles to handle the volume or intensity they were used to. The use of a form of fluid periodization that adapts to current readiness can be key in keeping older athletes healthy, and delaying retirement as age progresses. Each day we get a different athlete. Listening to what their body is saying is vital in the training process.

In-Season Athletes

During periods of competition, autoregulation may very well be the best means of accounting for periods of necessary recovery. The demands of fully competitive sport add another dimension to the roles of the weight room and all supplemental training. For in-season athletes spread across a large team, demands can be quite varied. One athlete may have played a full game, another athlete for only fractions of time, and yet another didn’t even touch the field.

During competition, #autoregulation may be the best way to account for periods of necessary recovery, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

It becomes difficult to judge fatigue over the entirety of the team and employ non-individualized training when demands are so varied. In-season isn’t just about the actual training, either. Recovery from competition can play just as important, if not more significant, of a role. Building a program based on readiness in-season allows for individualized development centered on each player’s role.

In all these instances, it becomes easy to overload the body with too much and leave little room for adaptation to training. When the body is under large amounts of stress, training at full intent can be counterproductive. Training through depleted reserves leaves the body unable to make adaptations that coaches may believe are taking place. Conversely, when the mood hits and all factors line up, athletes can blow a training session out of the water. Waiting for these opportunities and taking advantage of them when they occur can be huge for overall development.

If the body isn’t ready for what it is about to do, then why do it? When the organism won’t respond to the current training, why train? We want the body to adapt and compensate to higher levels. If adaptation isn’t going to take place, then we merely drive the body into a further stressed mode with less chance to catch up. Many of the stresses athletes and coaches face are uncontrollable.

The reality is an inherent amount of flexibility should exist in the programming to account for the uncontrollable factors of stress. No two athletes respond to stress the same way, so to be optimal, individualization of the training process based on readiness should exist within each athlete’s training. As coaches, we cannot control all the factors outside of their sport, therefore we must control what we can, which is the training process.

Any programming should have some flexibility, to account for the uncontrollable factors of #stress, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

I’ve seen firsthand that autoregulation can make athletes much more aware of their bodies and habits. Improved results in the weight room attest to the fact that when an athlete takes care of their body, results tend to increase. When an athlete feels well, they train well.

Monitoring readiness with technology can influence athletes to live a better lifestyle as well. When athletes see the results of improved sleep, many make a conscious effort to administer better bedtime habits. The same goes for an athlete who notices that drinking alcohol greatly disrupts their recovery scores.

Dr. Mann was one of the most recent coaches to popularize the use of a form of autoregulated training known as the APRE. While at Missouri, he showed that using the APRE performed well when compared with pre-programmed loads with Division I football athletes on the clean, squat, and bench press.

In a more extensive study, Eric Korem and Christopher Morris showed the effects of autoregulated training on collegiate football athletes at the University of Kentucky.³ Over the course of an eight-week summer training block, a controlled group of players followed a pre-programmed plan, while another group autoregulated the entire training plan based on the daily readiness of the athlete. The results spoke for themselves in that the autoregulated plan produced greater improvements in all performance measurements, all while using a decreased training load.

These were not the first times that autoregulation has shown to be an effective method of development. Back in 1999, Dr. Starodubtsev studied the effects of autoregulated training versus a control group over a year period in middle distance runners.⁴ Significant performance increases resulted for the experimental autoregulated training group in both the 800m and 3000m runs. These studies all magnify the possible importance of adjusting training programs based upon the daily readiness of athletes.

The Grass Isn’t Always Greener

While autoregulation can be a very effective method for adjusting training plans, there are just as many instances where using an autoregulated program or exercise may not be optimal. Trust, training age, and even the goals of the session, and/or training block all play a role. Many coaches would agree that autoregulating training loads is generally for more advanced athletes only. Not every situation is appropriate for the use of autoregulated means.

Lazy Athletes Will Use It Against You

It is best to use autoregulating training sessions with athletes that have achieved a certain level of trust. Athletes that aren’t training warriors will use your own advancements against you. Knowing they only have to do what their body feels like doing, they can treat their body however they want. This might include staying out late, partying, and drinking, knowing full well they won’t necessarily be asked to perform. Many athletes with this knowledge may push boundaries.

Coaches at the NCAA level are often required to train athletes in the early hours of the morning due to facility availability, practice, and class schedules. While this may not always be optimal, it can help curb late night activities that may otherwise go somewhat unnoticed with afternoon training sessions. In an autoregulated non-linear program, it may be possible to throw the system in lieu of keeping up with late night activities. While sleep bands and newer technology may help in this endeavor, the vast majority of programs don’t have this level of technology and may rely on simple questionnaires to adjust training.

We can’t always trust young athletes to make the right choices. If we could, we would have no need for the assistance of sports dieticians. Don’t kid yourself into thinking an athlete won’t use your autoregulated program against you at some point.

As coaches, we got into physical performance enhancement because we believed and understood the importance of training outside of a chosen sport. However, a large percentage of athletes don’t care about the necessary physical development outside of their given sport. Many are in athletics to play their sport and often care little about anything else to assist it. Yes, it’s our job to educate them so they understand how we can help, but the fact remains that many athletes don’t like the training that becoming a high-level athlete requires.

The APRE is a common, easily implemented form of autoregulation within a training session itself. Most coaches would agree that the APRE is a great tool at various times throughout yearly training. However, the APRE can fail with an unmotivated athlete. I wouldn’t generally believe it myself, but I’ve heard firsthand stories from former athletes who would do the minimum amount of reps so they didn’t have to increase weight in a given cycle. This can happen with athletes across the entire spectrum.

Several female coaches I’ve visited have seen these exact problems as coaches and as athletes. They reported that many female athletes equated going up on reps and weight on the APRE with getting bulkier, and these athletes didn’t want to gain muscle. We need education in these instances, but the fact remains that programming autoregulated workloads can fail at times.

The Shine Wears Off

Talking with other coaches, it’s not day 1 of an athlete having the ability to adjust their own training where problems being to occur—it’s day 20, day 30, etc. An athlete that wants to be lazy has an excuse, and one excuse can turn into many down the road. Letting an athlete have a hand in what they will and won’t do can turn into a nightmare with those who aren’t mature enough to handle the responsibility of dictating their own training.

If an athlete isn’t mature enough to direct their own training, #autoregulation can be a nightmare, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

Collegiate and professional alike will gravitate towards their own inclination. What started out as accommodating to their bodies can become giving into them and a mentality of laziness. Allowing athletes to determine their own workout deep into the doldrums of a season is when you get kids laying on foam rollers like it’s their pillow. Excitement abounds the first two weeks into a new program, but give them an inch and some will eventually take a mile.

Gains Require Stress

Often, you need to push athletes out of their comfort zone. You need to push them into and beyond their boundaries so they are aware what their body is capable of. If they aren’t pushed, are they truly able to fully develop? If we assessed readiness for every collegiate athlete that walked in the door in the first month on campus, we wouldn’t train once. They’re out of their comfort zone and stressed from a new school, new friends, newly regimented schedules, early mornings, heavy class loads, etc.

Autoregulation that focuses only on minimum effective dose can often create a weak, lazy mentality. If we allowed mood to dictate training, some athletes would never take the bar out of the rack. Intensity can be both the benefactor and pariah of autoregulation. Allowing athletes to direct some or all of their training can destroy training intensity.

The status quo is where a large majority of the population wants to stay. An athlete in an autoregulated program may choose to stay in a comfort zone more than not, and it’s hard for a coach to argue when you leave it in the athlete’s hands to control their program for the day. When it’s based on the athlete, it can become difficult for the coach to say, “This is how you feel today.”

Let’s not forget that adaptation requires stress. Stressing the body isn’t always easy but neither is being great. Gains take overload, especially in intermediate and advanced athletes. If we are going to dictate change then we have to stimulate it. Some guys will not openly push themselves. We often need a high stimulus to create new levels of adaptation.

Novice and Untrained Athletes Might Not Need It

With novice or untrained athletes, autoregulation can be unnecessary. Novice athletes respond to virtually any training in a positive manner. Novices will get stronger every session for months on end. Many believe that the novice doesn’t recover as quickly as more advanced athletes, but I would make the case that the opposite is true. Novices are unable to generate high intensity like their advanced counterparts, and so recover much quicker.

Don’t waste a new trainee’s first several years listening to how their body feels. The gains they make during those first few years will be unmatched compared to the rest of their career. Force-feed them until they stall and the need for higher training means becomes necessary.

It’s Not Always Gospel

I utilized HRV as a tool on myself while training exclusively in the Olympic lifts for a long period of time. During that time, I utilized several philosophies from Eastern Bloc countries. At various points, I trained using the Bulgarian system of solely competition lifts with many max efforts per week. I also tried the Soviet system based around submaximal percentages with the use of many assistance exercises.

Early in my HRV days, I let my score determine how I felt without truthfully assessing my own readiness. A red day told me I was sluggish and wouldn’t benefit from training. It meant that day I would be taking it easy with some sort of cardiac restorative session. After many months of observation with HRV, I experimented with staying with what I had programmed for the day instead of basing my training around my HRV. I found that on red days, I could often easily train with intensity.

Throughout those training years, there were multiple times my best performances came on days when my HRV was depressed. In fact, on multiple occasions, PRs came on days my HRV score was in the red. I hit all-time PRs on competitive lifts when I previously wouldn’t have even trained that day. I realized I had to take some of these methods of dictating readiness with a grain of salt. Driveline Baseball, in Seattle, has found similar correlations with pitchers’ readiness scores and throwing programs. HRV scores and new personal bests didn’t always have a high correlation in their findings.

Performances Don’t Wait Until You Feel Good

Athletes are required to perform. They don’t get to pick and choose when they play. When competition day arrives, be ready or be left behind. Starting pitchers are a great example. They don’t have the option to not throw on a given day because their readiness score reads low or because they don’t feel their best. Regardless of how they feel, athletes must still compete on game day. If we overeducate an athlete so that when they aren’t at 100% or aren’t feeling great they must adjust their training session or not train altogether, what happens when competition day rolls around with that same perception?

One of the issues that we strength professionals have to be aware of is how athletes react to monitoring. Using technology to track readiness could weigh heavily on their mind in the days leading up to competition. How does it play in an athlete’s mind when they report a low score or receives feedback of a low score leading up to game day? Does this automatically give them pause on how they will perform later that day? I’ve known athletes on every team I’ve coached that would be mentally wrecked by seeing this. Athletes may trick themselves into thinking they feel much worse than they really do when they see a low score.

When they see a low #readiness score, athletes may begin to believe they feel worse than they do, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

They may already have a negative attitude before they step foot into the arena. Doubt and worry over the expectation of a bad day may creep into their mind. Anybody who has played sports at a high level knows you don’t always feel your best on game day. Does this now give athletes an excuse as to why they might not play well? Regardless of how they feel, they still have to compete.

If the only thing we can control is our attitude, what happens to our attitude when low monitoring scores are present? How much do readiness and mood correlate? Does a low HRV score or sleep score automatically put us in a worse mood and have a placebo effect on the rest of our activities? Do we actually “believe ourselves” into feeling worse than we really do because we saw a low number? How many times have we, as athletes or coaches, not felt our best at the start of a warmup but ended up having a phenomenal training session?

We don’t always have to drop a session because we don’t feel at our best. This happens to all athletes at one time or another. Our mood may be poor at the start of a training session, but once moving, our body starts to respond very positively. Training your body to respond when it doesn’t necessarily feel like it can be an important factor as well. There will be times when a body must perform, whether an athlete feels like it or not.

In baseball, pitchers are well known for throwing phenomenal games on days they felt terrible in the bullpen before taking the mound. Low expectations often produce all-time bests. Talk with anybody in the sport and you’ll find this is a regularity. The opposite often holds true too: When pitchers report feeling their best, they often get shellacked.

Overreaching Can Be Useful

There are certainly times for overreaching within athletic development. There are times when an athlete needs to build resistance to fatigue. During off-season periods prior to competitions, it can be beneficial to implement intense training sessions with minimal use of recovery means. Implementing training loads with incomplete recovery demands greater mobilization of the adaptive resources and enables the expansion of the range of functional capacities.

Spring break is one of those times in the collegiate setting that can allow for overtraining. Cal Dietz has regularly talked about overreaching his off-season athletes, knowing the extended time off will allow for a form of super-compensation when they step back on campus.

The Eastern Bloc coaches believed highly in concentrated loading periods of overreaching. These highly stressful training periods were followed by lower volume and/or intensity blocks for realization. Yuri Verkhoshansky was one of the of forefathers of extended, overreaching periods that led to incredible new highs in speed-strength many weeks later. Raising advanced athletes’ levels of development requires massive amounts of adaptation energy. While autoregulation can aid in this process, the opposite is also true, and necessary at times.

Grinder Athletes: The Flip Side of Lazy

All coaches have the grinder athlete who will absolutely never take the easy road. Autoregulating their training sessions can become next to impossible. They often take pride in pushing themselves in the weight room regardless of how they feel. Our goal for them must be educating them on why autoregulation is not the easy road, but the smart road. Chances are most of us in the strength and conditioning profession were the same way as athletes, and that’s possibly how we came to be coaches. We trained harder than those around us.

We must teach the “grinder” athlete that #autoregulation is the smart road, not an easy or lazy road, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

These athletes will never listen to their body for fear of taking the easy road. They come in with a “more is better” mentality and push themselves to the max at every opportunity. These kids need education to associate autoregulating their training program with training smart and not with being lazy. The recovery process and lighter training sessions are just as important a means as the more intense, nervous system dominant days. At the same time, we must not cripple their ability to train intensely by swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

Decide for Yourself Based on the Needs of the Program

The question on whether to use autoregulation often comes down to several factors. You need to consider trust, as well as the training age of your athletes. Another consideration is the use and availability of technology, as it can help take some of the guesswork out of autoregulating training. There are a multitude of inexpensive methods to help coaches in this endeavor.

The use of #autoregulation comes down to many factors, including trust, training age, and technology, says @ZachDechant. Share on X

Whether autoregulation is part of a training session or is the program itself, adjusting workloads to the individual athlete can be an important element in overall athletic development. Coaches must weigh the advantages and disadvantages that come with autoregulation and make an educated decision on its use.

References

Mann, Bryan. “A Programming Comparison: the APRE vs. Linear Periodization in Short Term Periods.” Dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia, 2011.
Sapolsky, Robert M. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers:St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004.
Morris, Christopher W. “The Effect of Fluid Periodization on Athletic Performance Outcomes in American Football Players” (2015). Theses and Dissertations–Kinesiology and Health Promotion. 24.
V. Starodubtsev. “Individualization of athletic training for middle-and long-distance runners based on criteria of special preparation.” Dissertation. Pediatric Science. Omsk, 1999.

Applied Sport Science in Professional Ice Hockey with Eric Renaghan

Freelap Friday Five| ByEric Renaghan

Eric Renaghan was named the head of Strength and Conditioning for the St. Louis Blues (NHL) in 2016. Prior to his position with the Blues, he held the title of assistant S&C coach for the Vancouver Canucks. Eric is currently completing his graduate studies in biomechanics at Lindenwood University. His main interest is in neuromechanics and movement expression as it relates to sport performance.

Freelap USA: Force analysis with jump training has a lot of coaches wondering how valuable the information is for prescribing training. Could you take a few metrics you collect from your system and share how they help tailor your strength training? Also, could you get into workflows of how you are able to run so many tests without interfering with the training when faced with little time?

Eric Renaghan: The real value in measuring force output through jump performance, as I see it, is being able to bridge the gap between the objective quantification of force production and affecting the quality of an athlete’s force application.

I can’t lose sight of the fact that my job is to complement the sport skill of our guys, while simultaneously effecting more robust and sustainable performances over time. This prompted us to ask ourselves how we can develop a model where we could assess and improve our athletes’ quality of movement expressions regularly and in an efficient manner. The quick and reliable insight that force plates provide into the strategy athletes choose for movement led to the counter movement jump (CMJ) with free arms becoming our weekly go-to assessment. Interestingly, vertical jump performance was found to be the strongest predictor of football playing ability. (Sawyer et al., 2002)

The next question we had was, “how do we seamlessly integrate this ‘testing’ into the regular training routine?” We answered this question by standardizing our assessment procedures, “jump” days, and the variables we collected. Of the 42 CMJ variables provided by our software, there are eight distinct metrics selected from the entire force/time signal that directly drive our training prescriptions. Some of those underpinning values of our programming include braking net impulse, avg. relative propulsive force, braking RFD, propulsive impulse, and stiffness.

These selected variables are aligned with relevant performance metrics to establish a hierarchy of needs for each athlete. For example, what on-ice KPI are we hoping to improve and where do we need to direct our training to get there?

We score the raw data we collect against each athlete’s prior round of jumps, their positional group peers, and finally, the entire team. Our training prescriptions prioritize their weakest variable with a directed emphasis on improved efficiency of movement expression. From a programming perspective, I have to be honest and admit that we don’t have much variety as it relates to our actual exercise selection, but we do vary sets, reps, and intensities to change the overall stimulus.

Every movement in our library has a specific expected outcome and if it doesn’t lead towards improvement of the training goal, there’s no room for it in our program. Love it or hate it, we often get judged by game performances of the athletes that we work with so we are constantly validating and improving our assessments and prescriptions.

NHL Performance Metrics — Image 1. Of the 42 counter movement jump variables provided by our software, there are eight distinct metrics selected from the entire force/time signal that directly drive our training prescriptions. Some of those underpinning values of our programming include braking net impulse, avg. relative propulsive force, braking RFD, propulsive impulse, and stiffness.

Freelap USA: Speaking of training, in-season training requires a balance of compromise and a firm grasp of the goal of challenging the body. Can you explain how you overcome logistical challenges and fatigue during the season and push the athletes without exhausting them? It seems a lot of coaches have either given up and focus on recovery or blindly just load and hope. Anything middle ground?

Eric Renaghan: Without a doubt, the sheer density of our game, travel, and practice schedule makes training time a rare commodity. Maintaining motivation in the middle of January after a 10-day road trip can be a huge challenge. As we look to address the changing needs of each player, we are very cognizant of how the work we ask them to engage in not only affects them physically, but mentally and emotionally as well.

With that said, I believe the transparency of the data from our force plates gives our athletes a strong sense of ownership and clarity over their in-season programs and goals. That equals more time to invest in solutions that hopefully slow down the rate of fatigue and levels of training soreness that can become problematic as the season goes on.

The transparency of the data from our #forceplates gives our athletes a strong sense of ownership, says @EricRenaghan. Share on X

Tim Pelot summed it up well when he recently tweeted, “In many situations, the influence of intensity overrides the influence of volume.”

Finding a middle ground in-season is difficult but possible, and there are absolutely occasions when we need to be flexible with our asks in order to get there. Allowing the athlete to have choices is often frowned upon within our culture, but it can be surprisingly effective.

For example, a trap bar dead lift is a solid choice of movements for driving force production but, when the situation calls for it, we can offer the barbell push press as an alternative. Both options target their weakest variable and while one may have more effect than the other, they will both always support the goal. Once the movement is prescribed, the intensity the athlete works up to is the same as they would work to in their off-season program; however, they only have one set at their highest intensity. By keeping the intensity up and volume down, we achieve an overriding stimulus and remain focused on maintaining healthy force-producing athletes.

Freelap USA: Player speed is a major factor in sport, and ice hockey is no different. Could you talk about how you manage this variable and how you either develop it or sustain an athlete’s talent? With athletes coming in nearly finished, is there room to grow?

Eric Renaghan: Speed is highly valued and anyone who has seen Connor McDavid skate will tell you that it really is a differentiator, but what does skating fast actually look like? It is very rare that what we do in the gym will have lasting impact on attributes like stick handling, passing, or “hockey IQ,” but with the understanding that genetics play a role in how much improvement may be possible, I do think we can contribute to improving the application of speed.

This description on athletic movement from the IAAF’s Introduction to Coaching Theory translates well to hockey, in my opinion. “In athletics, movement is usually a combination of linear and rotational motion and is called general motion. A sprinter’s body, for example, has linear motion but the movement is caused by the rotational motion of the legs. Both forms of motion take place to produce the general motion of running.”

Through collaboration with our power skating coach and observation of our guys playing hockey, we have gained valuable insight into skills like skating motion required for change of direction, accelerating out of the zone on a breakout, or how an athlete drives through the neutral zone on an odd-man rush.

Force plates and our skating coach’s technical expertise help us decide what part of speed to train, says @EricRenaghan. Share on X

Our force plates and the technical expertise of our skating coach help us decipher what part of speed we actually need to prioritize in training (i.e., force, impulse, stability, etc.) We then anchor that neuromuscular solution to the technical skill that gets trained on the ice, in turn equaling better skating performance.

Freelap USA: Conditioning during the season seems to be about games and sometimes a few easy practices as the pendulum has swung towards recovery over preparing. Could you share how you evaluate player fitness during the season and during camp when you get athletes in from different off-season programs?

Eric Renaghan: One of the toughest things to do in our sporting culture is to challenge the way things have always been done. I think there are too many shades of grey on what the perceived conditioning needs are for hockey. To have my voice heard on a topic that is traditionally owned by the coaching staff required me to simplify the language we use to describe our findings so the coaches and GM could quickly make decisions on what they wanted to do. Do we rest or do we practice harder? Our information has to help drive those decisions.

Pyramid Approach — Image 2. Our approach to training takes the shape of a pyramid, where philosophy creates a solid foundation upon which to build our model and program.

We have had some success using the Firstbeat system in creating a metabolic signature for each of our players though monitoring real-time training effects and aerobic/anaerobic differentials during our conditioning tests in camp. Our “conditioning” testing battery consists of one anaerobic and one aerobic assessment:

Test 1 is the 45-second Wingate on the Watt Bike. We do this for two reasons. :30 max effort doesn’t really represent a shift in hockey, so we wanted to get it closer to the work/rest ratio of a game. There is :10 max, :05 recovery, :05 max, :10 recovery, :05 max, :05 recovery, :05 max—and we look at peak effort 4x. Fatigue index is the 4 peak efforts… Can they generate power at the end of the shift?
We still want the max power a Wingate gives, so we start it with a :10 max effort. Test 2 is a modified on-ice “beep test.” Each level must be completed in eight seconds, for a total of 64 seconds of skating per stage. A 56-second rest is provided between each stage. The first stage of our protocol involves skating from the goal line to a cone 29m away and back, for a total of four roundtrips, with the cone for each subsequent stage being 3m further away. This protocol provides us with a really accurate representation of skating skill and aerobic fitness. Parts of this test also guides our conditioning return-to-sport requirements.

No matter what choice the coach makes as it relates to practice, we have to make sure the athlete is ready to meet the goal set each day. These two assessments have helped us identify what we need to focus on to ensure their readiness.

Freelap USA: Injuries around the groin area are complicated—can you talk about what unconventional ways you approach the problem? Hockey isn’t plagued by hamstrings but do seems to have unique injury patterns that you see more of. Can you get into some fresh perspectives instead of doing strengthening and mobility exercises?

Eric Renaghan: This is a great question! As the season goes on, we often observe a common defensive mechanism begin to show itself. Maybe the guy that averages 30 minutes per night got crunched into the boards a week ago or maybe he just didn’t train very well in the off-season. Whatever the cause is, we often see restricted ranges of motion appear and that is a major red flag for us.

The athlete feedback in this scenario is often that they feel “tight.” Understanding the context of this feedback gives us a better roadmap to understanding where we truly need to spend more time directing intervention. In my opinion, tightness usually has less to do with muscles, tendons, or joint structure, and more to do with neuromuscular safety mechanisms restricting normal ranges of motion. Counter movement jumps have been extensively studied as a means for determining lower limb neuromuscular function. (Mundy, Lake, Smith & Lauder, 2017)

I believe tightness has more to do with neuromuscular safety mechanisms restricting normal #ROM, says @EricRenaghan. Share on X

As I mentioned earlier, we go back to our force plates to understand how an athlete sequences their movement expression. The lack of extension of a movement is usually reflected by an overall lower duration of force production—specifically, propulsive impulse. When propulsive impulse is diminished, the athlete is forced to limit their stride extension. This can certainly be one of the reasons for groin injury occurrence with the lateral pushing requirement of skating.

As an athlete continues to become more explosive, the requirement to dissipate forces becomes greater.

One of the more common groin situations occurs in defensemen and goalies. They are both obviously quick and explosive, but D-men are further challenged by the need to skate backwards, forcing a shorter working range of motion. The training prescriptions we employ not only look at improving the quality of force production of each athlete, but also identifying who needs more mobility and flexibility and who needs more stability.

Networking or NetWORKED? 11 Tips for Building Bridges the Right Way

Blog| ByBrett Bartholomew

A version of this cycle occurs every day: Coaches are fired, coaches switch jobs, coaches look for jobs, coaches must take massive pay cuts, and some coaches decide either to strike out on their own or quit being a strength coach altogether, due to the vocational drought that has plagued our field for far too long. What’s perhaps even more alarming is the cycle is progressing far faster than we as a community are with actionable solutions. This is a problem, since coaches have bills to pay and families to feed just like any other professional.

Sure, it may rain dopamine every game day for all of us when we can be there to support our athletes during competition. However, once we go home, it can feel as if the well has run dry once we realize we’ve been “stuck” in the same role with the same level of pay for years, despite having more and more responsibilities placed upon us. Then again, we go around so much saying that “we don’t do it for the money” and that we are the hardest-working people in the room. So, can we really blame those who end up taking us at our word?

But I digress.

What is clear is that both the climate and the landscape of strength and conditioning are changing, and will continue to do so rapidly over the next 20+ years.

Arid clouds desert — Image 1. A vocational drought has plagued the strength and conditioning field for far too long. Fewer jobs and fewer opportunities require stronger networks to plant more seeds for growth.

Never before has it been this hard for a strength and conditioning coach to find a sustainable job. This holds true regardless of your age, degrees/certifications held, and even the amount of “years in the trenches” you have to your name. When you stop to think about it, isn’t it a bit ironic that, while we often seem to create divides among the various sectors in the profession, it is unemployment of all things that unifies us, due to the widespread nature of the scarce resources and opportunities that exist in the field?

Perhaps it’s time we do something about this. Even if it involves starting at ground zero and taking baby steps by applying concepts of progressive overload to the management of our careers in the same way that we apply it within our training programs.

As much as many of us would like for it to be the case, no governing body or entity will save us. The solution will have to come from within and it will require a combination of ethics, strategy, and unity, especially if we hope to dig ourselves out of this hole anytime in the near future. Collectively, we are a community that, while strong-willed, is still far more adversarial with one another than we are advocates for one another. For us to advance, this will have to change as well.

As it stands, we tend to only like to see success for those who are like us, who don’t threaten us, or who agree with us. And heaven forbid if there is someone who has crossed over, created a unique avenue for themselves, or been awarded a higher-level management position within a team—we often react to those who exist in these categories by eventually rooting against them because they are now a guru or “big time.”

It’s time to wake up! Good, bad, or indifferent, those outside of our circle (media, administration, other professions, etc.) lump together all of us strength coaches in the same category, and it is their perception of us that partly dictates our reality.

In short, it is time to upgrade both our profession’s ethics and its image. Over the next year, my aim is to provide talking points and possible strategies as to how we can do this, one topic at a time. And since I’m writing this article as I sit on a plane after attending/speaking at a conference this weekend, the first topic of relevance we will look at is networking.

Networking Done Right

I’ll be honest: I dislike the term “networking” just as much as any of you, due to the stereotypical connotations associated with it. But as I stated in my book, we cannot get hung up on terminology and let our emotions dictate our thoughts and actions. Call it what you want, but the point is that people have approached this side of things the wrong way for far too long. It is especially relevant because all of us—regardless of age, status, job title, or experience level—will call upon members of our network for help at some point in time.

That is the purpose of a network: to help one another and bolster the collective’s chances of success for a common good. When done correctly, a network becomes a community: A two-way street, NOT a transaction. So how can we rip up the “old road” and pave a new path? Let’s start with the 11 tips mentioned below.

Be a Connector

Proper networking is about finding ways in which you can add value to the lives and careers of others. Ask yourself what problems you can help someone solve. Who can you introduce them to that may enjoy/benefit from their perspective? How can you make some part of their path easier?

#Networking done well is not about you, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

These are the questions you should lead with both internally and externally, as opposed to “How can I get noticed?” Networking done well is not about you.

Be Inclusive

Go to a clinic and you will often see young coaches swarming around those who work only in pro sports or at large institutions, while a number of lesser-known coaches, or those speaking on topics without sexy titles, get passed by or ignored altogether. This is a terrible mistake, not only on the part of the young professionals, but any coach in general.

Often, people only try to build relationships with those whom they admire, look up to, have heard about, or believe can help them. Again, networking is not about you and your desire for recognition or validation; it is about you being able to establish authentic connections that allow you or others to help more people down the road. It is about bridging a gap and finding ways to create positive change for as many coaches as possible, regardless of the setting or sector they work in.

In short, do not just try to connect with those you perceive to be “above” you, or those who have received numerous accolades. I’ve said it before: Some of the best strength coaches out there are those you have never heard of and who often coach in the most meager of settings. Title and status do not always equate to wisdom or value.

You should never be above learning from everyone and anyone, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

You should never be above learning from everyone, regardless of how long they have been in the field or who they work for. Be sure to make it a point to connect with those just starting out and those going through similar struggles to what you may have had at some point. Not only do you never know who these people may become or their future impact on the field, but you may even be able to help them get there while learning a few things yourself!

Be Selective

This piece of advice may seem to be at odds with the previous tip, but the anthem of this axiom is actually one of realizing that when trying to provide true value to others, it is best to focus on helping five people at once instead of 50. Networking is NOT about how many people you know, but rather, how many people you can actually help. It is often the most well-meaning of us who try to bite off more than they can chew, but you would be well-served to remember that the thinner you spread yourself, the less meaningful assistance you will be able to provide to others.

#Networking is NOT about how many people you know, but rather, how many people you can help, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

Be Inquisitive

This is a simple one. When seeking wisdom and trying to make a difference, it pays to be curious. The best way to get to know someone is to ask them thoughtful, open-ended questions and then shut up and actually listen to their responses. No matter what great thing you feel like you have to say, there are moments in time where a rejoinder is not just unwelcome but also unnecessary.

If you want to provide people with value, then you need to both understand and care about what they are saying more than you care about your own response. This harkens back to an old Dale Carnegie principle which states, “to be interesting, you must first be interested.” This is not only one of the most important points made in this article, but one that is worth putting into practice in every part of your life.

Be Supportive

When building relationships, it is not only critical that you do your research on the individual beforehand, but also that you follow up and continue to check in on the work and progress of those you connect with. Take an interest in their growth, and pay attention to the problems they seem dedicated to solving.

When giving thanks, don’t be ingratiating. Be sincere, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

After speaking with them or meeting with them for the first time, be sure to let them know that you appreciated their time and specific talents. Conveying interest and appreciation goes hand in hand with being inquisitive and paying attention. Most of all, when giving thanks, don’t be ingratiating. Be sincere.

Change the Venue

While conferences and clinics are great for touching base with a wide variety of coaches from all over the world, the best conversations and real learning often happen in informal settings such as over dinner or drinks, or even during a training session. Due to issues with my liver that occurred during birth and while I was hospitalized, I rarely drink. But whenever I travel out of town to speak at/attend a clinic, I do try and make it a point to always join others who are going to “have a beer” or grab a bite once the day has finished. Like it or not, this is when many people let their guard down.

Additionally, since most coaches are often skeptical or curious about other coaches they have heard about but haven’t met, it’s also good for others to see you conversing and interacting with peers so they can get an honest feel for how you carry yourself and treat others in the field. So, regardless of what your “morning routine” entails, give it up every now and then to spend a late night with some good people, and be sure to keep your ears open and maybe even smile once in a while. The recrudescence of your “strength coach scowl” can come on Monday morning before your next group.

Be Mindful of the Company You Keep

You can do all the other things in this article correctly and still find yourself having trouble connecting with others based on one specific thing most people overlook—the other people you surround yourself with, or choose to align with. Your reputation is not just a manifestation of your actions and the perceptions of others, but also of the reputations and behaviors of those in your “inner circle.”

Don’t overlook the people you surround yourself with—their behaviors also influence your reputation, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

Negative associations can happen in two predominant ways here. The first way centers around you hanging out with those who seem to fly ethical red flags wherever they go, whether to seek attention, stir up controversy, or because they have poor self-awareness in general. The second comes from being involved with those who can never seem to get out of their own way and are so miserable that they tend to drag everyone else down with them. These are the types who are never happy with their job, where they live, etc.

While it may seem like a great idea to help these people by any means necessary, you must learn to discern between someone going through a rough time and a perpetually parasitic partnership where the individual only plays the innocent victim card. As author Robert Greene states, “emotional states are as infectious as diseases.” And they won’t just spread to you, but to your budding network as well.

Be Who You Say You Are

Many times, I have come across coaches who are respectful and well-spoken in one setting, yet abrasive and supremely unprofessional in another setting once they are no longer around people they want to connect with, or impress. I’m not talking about the difference between your demeanor at work and when you are off-the-clock celebrating with close friends—I’m referring to “flip-floppers.”

A flip-flopper is essentially the same as someone who is two-faced in some regard and often takes pleasure in trying to play both sides and multiple angles at once. This may be someone openly respectful and supportive of you, or someone else’s work in one setting (in-person), who then badmouths these same individuals in another setting (over the internet or while with another group of people). Flip-floppers often think they are being slick by trying to leverage multiple avenues of influence to gain the favor of multiple groups through multiple channels. However, they eventually become easy to spot, either due to the inconsistency of their behavior or their inability to mask it for long.

I’ll never forget the awkward feeling I had while sitting at a restaurant with a group of fellow strength coaches after a conference. We were listening to a coach who had told a presenter that they had done a great job after their talk, just moments before. Yet now this coach proceeded to tell everyone at the table how much of a “pretender” he thought the last speaker was. Mind you, this individual had just wandered into the restaurant and asked to join our table, which we happily welcomed him to—he barely knew anyone in the group except for two people who he later admitted were his “idols.”

They crux of the situation was that he knew that these two individuals were not fans of the training methods discussed by the previous speaker. So, despite communicating his appreciation to the speaker just minutes before, he now flipped in order to gain acceptance and the favor of those at the table. This is NOT networking—this is being insecure. And while it may have flown in the cliquish “old days of S&C,” it is a practice that no longer has a place if we hope to defend and bolster the integrity of the field.

Respect Everyone’s Time

Nobody’s time is free, and it is the only resource that none of us get back. Even when someone does agree to meet you for coffee, allow you to come shadow them, or chat with you on the phone, be sure to lead by letting them know that their time is valuable and that you appreciate them taking a moment out of their day. Then, get right to the point.

Respect everybody’s time—it is the only resource that none of us get back, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

Exchanging a bit of initial small talk and pleasantries is fine, and is even the norm in many parts of the world. However, you also need to remain cognizant that the other person likely has a family, a job to do, an inbox filled with “urgent” messages, and countless other individuals competing for their attention. Even if they assure you they have plenty of time and are in no rush, you should not take that as an invitation to put your feet up and start a 10-minute monologue. Remember, your first goal should be to ask how you can help them in any way, not to see how much information you can divulge about yourself or extract from them.

Remove Distractions

The most memorable conversationalists I have been blessed to speak with displayed an uncanny ability to keep their attention on me, or on the topic at hand, at all costs. I will never forget one, in particular. I was no more than 27 years old and nowhere near “their level,” and yet any time I walked by their door they would welcome me in, turn off their computer, leave their cellphone at their desk, and lock into the conversation. The conversations were always 15 minutes or less, but they were also some of the most indelible conversations I’ve ever had.

Master Timeless Touches

Famed Russian military leader Alexander Suvorov once stated, “Fight the enemy with the weapon he lacks.” While it’s easy to initially glance over this quote as a cliché military mantra, the fact is that it speaks to the importance of being observant, mindful, and resourceful by doing the things that most others forget to do, or have little to no awareness of. The fact is that most people hope to stand out, yet routinely take other people’s time and generosity for granted.

Separate yourself from others by doing simple things to show your thanks and appreciation, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

You can, and should, separate yourself by doing simple things like writing anyone who helps you a handwritten note, sending a small “thank you” gift, or even by supporting a future endeavor, project, or product of theirs. I once heard a coach say he wanted to send a strength coach who had written him a kind letter of recommendation something, but didn’t have enough money or know what to give him. When building relationships, it is critical that you reframe certain expenses as investments. Even picking up the tab for a $5 cup of coffee says a lot more than you would think.

Image 3. New obstacles require new solutions. Build a network of advocacy. Build a Bridge.

Bridging the Gap – Together

All of these points are just one small piece of the puzzle of how we can revamp the way we both view and do some common things from a career management standpoint in S&C. Addressing the concept of networking, of all things, may not seem like a critical step, but the reality is that we need to start managing our professional decorum with the same attention to detail with which we manage our athlete’s programming if we hope to be taken more seriously as professionals and as a profession as a whole.

We need to manage our professional decorum with the same attention we give to athlete programming, says @Coach_BrettB. Share on X

It is important that future generations of coaches learn that proper networking is NOT about finding ways to get an “in” with someone, but rather how they can help other people. Knowing how to do it well is a matter of realizing that many of us want the same things, even if we take different paths to get there. Those “things” include helping our athletes succeed, providing for our families, and finding new ways to improve as professionals.

Accomplishing all of this will requires people who are less concerned with recognition and more concerned with building a renewed and visible sense of shared purpose throughout the strength and conditioning community.

We all need to understand that nobody in our field rises or falls alone.

Stride Length vs. Stride Frequency in Reaching Max Speed

Blog| ByDr. Hristo Stoyanov

The change of speed in the sprint disciplines has the same repeating dynamics: acceleration, reaching maximum speed, maintenance, and deceleration. Depending on the race distance, however, these areas are different and are affected by the qualifications of the athlete. The priority of a highly skilled sprinter is maintaining maximum speed for as long a time as possible.

While researching the dynamics of running speed in elite male and female sprinters in the 100m, we found that sprinters achieve maximum speed around the 60th meter.^1,2 Many of the best sprinters in the 200m reach maximum speed in the second 50 meters of the distance, but there are quite a few cases where they reach maximum speed around 120-130 meters.

So which plays a bigger role in reaching maximum speed—stride length or stride frequency?

Biomechanical Parameters and Speed Development

Speed is a function of the frequency and the length of the stride.^3-7 These parameters are interdependent and their optimal ratio allows for a maximum running speed.⁸ The increase in speed can be achieved by increasing the length or frequency of the stride. There are different viewpoints regarding the importance of stride length and stride frequency when acquiring maximum speed, as well as maintaining it.

Some authors determined that stride length was the most important factor⁷, while some had the opposite opinion, stating that stride frequency is the more important determinant.^4,9 Later, Bezodis et al. tested the speed of elite sprinters and concluded that speed can be individually dependent on either stride length or stride frequency, and the athlete’s training program also plays an important role in determining stride length and stride frequency.¹⁰ On the one hand, this is connected to the implementation of various tactical tasks, and on the other, it is connected to the presence of certain neuromuscular disposition and power potential giving the athlete the opportunity to use their speed capabilities.

There is an independent and fairly complex relationship between the indicators of frequency and length of the stride when the purpose is to maximize speed in both sprint events.

The purpose of this research is to reveal the relationship between biomechanical parameters that create conditions for the acquisition of maximum running speed, as well as its reduction in peak performance in men and women in the 100m and 200m races.

Tasks

To examine the interdependence between biomechanical parameters in men and women in the acquisition and loss of maximum running speed in the 100m;
To examine the relationship between stride length and stride frequency according to the speed development when running the 200m;
To determine whether there are any common patterns in the ratio of biomechanical parameters that create conditions for the acquisition of maximum running speed, as well as its reduction in the best performances of the 100-meter and 200-meter races, for both men and women.

Researchers studied the biomechanical parameters of the men’s world records in the 100m and 200m, set by Usain Bolt. They also assessed the women’s 200m world record, set by Florence Griffith, as well as her second-best achievement in the 100m.

Analysis of the Results

In the first phase of acceleration of the 100-meter dash, up to the 20th meter, Bolt realized 78.88% of his maximum speed at the expense of the stride length (l) – 62.45% – and the stride frequency (f) – 85.68%. Meanwhile, Griffith realized 69.48% of her maximum speed with length (l) – 71.48% – and frequency (f) – 89.80%. A study found that excessive high-frequency stride in the first 10 meters of acceleration (over 90% of the maximum) has a negative impact on the optimum connection to the stride length, and this influences the overall development of speed.¹¹

It is interesting that, despite his height, world record holder Bolt reached 100% of his maximum frequency, 88.42% of his stride length, and 90.70% of his maximum speed in the next 20 meters (20-40m). In contrast, Griffith achieved 100% maximum speed from the 40th to the 60th meter, with 95.34% stride length.

Both athletes reached their maximum speed from the 60th to the 80th meter, as Bolt attained 97.19% of (l) and 98.89% of (f), and Griffith attained 99.16 % of (l) and 96.23% of (f).

It is confirmed that the maximum speed is not a combination of the best indicators of the two components of speed, (l) and (f). It is noteworthy that Bolt managed to maintain the frequency of running in two consecutive intermediate sections of 20 meters (40-60m) and (60-80m), while increasing his stride length by 10 cm.

Macala¹²investigated this ability of his, and found that one of the reasons for Bolt’s dominance over other sprinters is the presence of a specific power in his lower limbs, as well as his ability to organize the ratio of (f) and (l) so that he gets the best interaction with the ground support. His anatomo-morphological indicator came to his help here.

The last 20 meters (80m-100m) of the race distance are run with the greatest stride length from both the athletes, as Bolt worsened his running frequency with 5.72% and Griffith with only 2.54%.

Table 1. Stride length and stride frequency during the world-record 100m for men and second-best 100m for women.
Athlete	Indicators	Distance					Result 100m
Men		20m	40m	60m	80m	100m	100m
U. Bolt	Time (sec)	2.88	1.76	1.67	1.61	1.66	9.58 sec
(Jam)	Realization %	78.88	90.70	96.28	100.0	96.90
	Stride length (м)	1.78	2.52	2.67	2.77	2.85
	Realization %	62.45	88.42	93.68	97.19	100.0
	Stride frequency num/sec	3.89	4.54	4.49	4.49	4.23
	Realization %	85.68	100.0	98.89	98.89	93.17
Women		20m	40m	60m	80m	100m	10.54 sec
F. Griffith	Time (sec)	3.09	1.95	1.85	1.82	1.83
(USA)	Realization %	69.78	92.86	98.36	100.0	99.45
	Stride length (м)	1.69	2.27	2.29	2.38	2.40
	Realization %	70.41	94.58	95.41	99.16	100.0
	Stride frequency num/sec	4.04	4.30	4.51	4.34	4.48
	Realization %	89.80	95.34	100.0	96.23	93.79

Table 1. Realization of both indicators (stride length and stride frequency) during the world-record 100m for men and second-best 100m for women. Note: 100% is considered the best result of the respective parameters (time for a 20m sprint, stride length, and frequency).

It is noteworthy that Bolt reaches maximum speed at the expense of maintaining 98.89% of the frequency of the stride. Griffith’s frequency fell by 3.77%, while the length increased by 3.75%.

The study of 200m world records indicates that the first 50 meters of the race are run at the expense of 79.55% and 79.48% of the stride length, respectively in men and women, and 94.13% and 94.04% of the stride frequency and maximum running speed are achieved between the 50th and 100th meters. Length indicator (l) is 97.02% in men and 96.15% in women. In both sexes, the frequency indicator is (f) 100%.

Table 2. Stride length and stride frequency in setting the 200m world records for men and women.
Athlete	Indicators	Distance				Result 200m
Men		50m	100m	150m	200m	19.19 sec
U. Bolt	Time (sec)	5.60	4.32	4.52	4.75
(Jam)	Realization %	77.14	100	95.57	90.94
	Stride length (cm)	214	261	266	269
	Realization %	79.55	97.02	98.88	100
	Stride frequency num/sec	4.17	4.43	4.16	3.91
	Realization %	94.13	100.0	93.90	88.26
Women		50m	100m	150m	200m	21.34 sec
F. Griffith	Time (sec)	6.29	4.89	4.92	5.24
(USA)	Realization %	77.74	100.0	99.39	93.32
	Stride length (cm)	186	225	232	234
	Realization %	79.48	96.15	99.14	100.0
	Stride frequency num/sec	4.26	4.53	4.36	4.06
	Realization %	94.04	100.0	96.24	89.62

Table 2. Realization of both stride indicators (l) and (f) in setting the 200m world records for men and women. Note: 100% is considered the best result of the respective parameters (time to run 50m, stride length, and frequency).

The deterioration of the running speed from the 100th to the 150th meter is due to an increase in (l) of 3 cm (1.86%) and reduction in (f) by 6.10% in men, and an increase in (l) by 7 cm (2.99%) and a reduction in (f) by 3.76% in women. As you can see, the same configuration is present: increased stride length at the expense of lower frequency. The tendency remains in the next 50 meters (150-200m). Again, stride length increases for men by 1.22% and for women by 0.86%, and frequency drops by 5.64% for men and 6.62% for women.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The analysis of the results in the 100m showed that the first phase of acceleration, as well as the transition to maximum running speed, comes at the expense of stride frequency.
The realized values for stride length (97.17% for Bolt and 96.16% for Griffith) and stride frequency (98.89% for Bolt and 96.23% for Griffith) that lead to maximum speed show that these indicators are optimal and highly individual. Both depend on the anatomo-morphological and power indicators of the lower limbs.
The studied biomechanical parameters in the 200m give reason to conclude that the first 50 meters of the race are run at the expense of 79.55% and 79.48% of stride length, respectively in men and women, and 94.13% and 94.04% of stride frequency. Both sexes achieved the highest running speed in the second 50 meters at 100% frequency.
Both 200m world records have the same running speed configuration. The first 100 meters are overcome at the expense of frequency. From the 100th to 150th meter, the stride length (l) increases at the expense of its frequency (f)—the increase is 3 cm for Bolt and 7 cm for Griffith. The reduction in percentage points for frequency is 6.10% for men and 3.76% for women.
The analysis of biomechanical indicators showed that in both sprint distances, 100 meters and 200 meters, the last 20 meters in the 100m (80m-100m) and the last 50 meters in the 200m (150-200m) are run with 100% of stride length.

References

Stoyanov, Hristo. (2014). “Competition Model Characteristics of Elite Male Sprinters.” New Studies in Athletics, IAAF, NSA. 29(4): 53-60.
Stoyanov, Hristo. “The Dynamics of Velocity Development in Elite Women Sprinters.” New Studies in Athletics, IAAF, NSA. 2015: 30(3), 61-67.
Mann, R. & Herman, J. (1985). “Kinematics analysis of Olympic Sprint Performance: Men’s 200 Meters.” International Journal of Sport Biomechanics. (1): 151-162.
Ae, M., Ito, A. & Suzuki, M. (1992). “The men’s 100 metres.” New Studies in Athletics, IAAF, NSA. 7(1): 47-52.
Delecluse, C., Ponnet, H., & Diels, R. (1998). “Stride characteristics related to running velocity in maximal sprint running.” [w:] Riehle HJ, Vieten MM. (red) Proceedings II of XVI International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, ISBS, 146-148
Brüggemann, G.-P., Koszewski, D. & Müller, H. (1999). Biomechanical Research Project. Athens 1997, Final report. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport, 12-41.
Gajer, B., Thepaut-Mathieu, C. & Lehenaff, D. (1999). “Evolution of stride and amplitude during course of the 100m event in athletics.” New Studies in Athletics, 3, 43-50
Hunter, J.P., Marshall, R.N. & McNair, P.J. (2004). “Interaction of step length and step rate during sprint running.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (36): 261-271. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000113664.15777.53.
Bezodis, I.N., Salo, A.I.T. & Kerwin, D.G. (2008). “A Longitudinal Case Study of Step Characteristics in a World Class Sprint Athlete.” Presented at 26th ISBS Conference, Seoul, Korea. 537-540.
Bezodis, I.N., Irwin G., Kuntze, G. & Kerwin, D.G. (2011). “Changes in Step Characteristics between the Maximum Velocity and Deceleration Phases of the 100m Sprint Run.” Portuguese Journal of Sports Sciences. 11(2): 455-458. Presented at 29th ISBS Conference, Porto, Portugal.
Mackala, K. (2007). “Optimisation of performance through kinematic analysis of the different phases of the 100m.” New Studies in Athletics. 22(2): 7-16.
Mackala, K. & Mero, A. (2013). “A kinematics analysis of three best 100m performances event.” Journal of Human Kinetics. 36: 149-160. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2013-0015
Müller, H. (1991). “Trends in the men^’s and women^’s sprints in the period from 1985 to 1990.” New Studies in Athletics. 6(1): 7-14.

Are Closed Change of Direction Drills Useful for Developing Agility?

Blog| ByCameron Josse

When it comes to utilizing the optimal approach to developing agility, it seems the jury is still out. Most coaches would agree that their training protocols for strength, power, speed, and endurance are pretty similar. But agility is different. Agility is fuzzy, confusing, and muddled with ideas that many tend not to consider.

The goal of this article is to review what has commonly been practiced to develop agility and also shed light on some aspects that are less commonly considered. The specific context for this article refers to field- or court-based team sport athletes.

Agility – What Is It?

The first mistake most people make when thinking about agility is that they believe it simply describes how well an athlete changes direction. Thus, the creation of many “agility” drills to “test” agility: i.e., the 20-yard shuttle, the 3-cone drill, the 5-0-5 test, and many more. These tests and drills measure change of direction ability, which is a component of agility performance. However, these tests have a closed environment, meaning the drill is predetermined and the athletes must simply learn the pattern and then perform it as fast as possible to achieve a high grade.

The ability to change direction is just a component of agility performance, not the whole thing. Share on X

One of the most important concepts to understand about agility is that, in the game, an athlete will not change direction unless something tells the athlete to do so. An athlete must perceive a particular stimulus and then formulate a response to it. As Ian Jeffreys points out in the beginning of his book Gamespeed:

“There will always be a context-specificity to the task, with the athlete moving with control and precision with the ultimate aim of successfully carrying out the task at hand. Importantly, this is not purely reactive, as the athlete will be constantly adjusting and manipulating his movements in relation to the way the environment is evolving around him.”¹

Consider an American football wide receiver who catches a football, turns around, and finds no defenders in front of him. He realizes that the end zone is a straight shot and there is an open lane to get there. Will he change direction? No, he will simply sprint linearly at an appropriate speed to reach the end zone and score. Now let’s say that he turns around and there are two defensive backs waiting to tackle him. Will he change direction? Most certainly, as he now sees a set of obstacles that he must maneuver around to reach the end zone. Different contexts, different movement solutions.

One of my favorite definitions of agility comes from Sophia Nimphius of Edith Cowan University:²

“Agility is the perception-cognitive ability to react to a stimulus (i.e., defender or bounce of a ball) in addition to the physical ability to change direction in response to this stimulus.”

We see by this definition that agility becomes about far more than JUST change of direction ability—we have to consider the perceptual (what the athlete reads) and cognitive (what the athlete knows) elements of sensing stimuli in the playing environment and formulating an appropriate movement solution to solve the specific motor problem. A motor problem can be understood as a situation the athlete faces while trying to carry out a sport task. Also, from Nimphius’ definition, we see that it’s not enough to properly perceive the stimuli—athletes must also possess the physical ability to actually carry out their chosen movement solution.

To visualize how broad agility performance is, here is a rendition of a chart from Nimphius:

Agility Diagram — Figure 1. This diagram helps to show how broad agility performance is. Too many coaches ignore the perceptual-cognitive speed component of agility and focus solely on change of direction speed.

We can immediately see that perceptual-cognitive speed is one of the two primary pillars of agility performance. Yet, far too often, coaches will ignore this pillar and focus primarily on everything that falls under change of direction speed: namely strength, power, reactive strength, and linear sprint speed. These qualities are absolutely necessary, but we will soon explore the potential implications of ignoring the perceptual-cognitive qualities in the training process.

The Skilled Athlete

One of the most eye-opening books I have read over the past year is Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition: An Introduction by Jia Yi Chow, Keith Davids, Chris Button, and Ian Renshaw. In this text, the authors provide some key points that they feel describe skilled athletes in sport.³

Skilled athletes are able to:

Produce functional, efficient, and effective movement patterns that appear smooth and effortless.
Coordinate their actions successfully, with respect to important environmental surfaces, objects, and other individuals, demonstrating precise timing between movements.
Consistently reproduce stable and functional coordination solutions under the stress of competition.
Organize movement patterns that are not automated in the sense of being identical from one performance trial to the next, but that are subtly varied and precisely adapted to immediate changes in the environment.

The first point seems obvious. We intuitively understand that the best athletes in the world make their job look easy. But the other three points warrant some consideration. Athletes must understand WHEN to utilize particular movement patterns. This is based upon the environment: where are your teammates, where are your opponents, where is the ball, etc.

The third point stresses the importance of a reproducible coordination solution, not a coordination pattern. This is an important distinction, as it implies that a successful solution (i.e., scoring a goal in soccer) can be accomplished with varying coordination patterns (i.e., bicycle kick, place kick, header). The best athletes appear to find consistent solutions for varying sport problems and do so in flexible, adaptable ways.

The last point explains that movements are never truly identical. We cannot even pick up a glass of water in the exact same way twice. Even when the bulk of the movement pattern seems identical, subtle differences will always exist. These differences are necessary, because they allow athletes to remain responsive to their environment and flexibly shape their movement solutions to fit the specific situation in front of them.

Closed vs. Open/Chaotic Drills

Many progressions seen in agility training programs talk about moving from closed to open drills. We will get into the debate surrounding that progression soon, but first let’s consider what we mean by closed versus open drills. Here are some characteristics and brief examples of each:

Naturally, there will be a continuum between closed and open/chaotic activities based on specificity. Some closed drills have very specific movement outputs that are found in the sport itself, like shooting a basketball without an opponent present. Likewise, some open/chaotic drills can be largely unspecific to the sport, like waiting, reacting, and touching a light on a light board mounted on a wall if you are an NFL linebacker. For this reason, it’s also important for us to understand context.

Context Is Always King

As we can probably guess, it’s not enough just to consider activities in terms of closed versus open/chaotic drills. If we think about combining the two main pillars of Nimphius’ agility chart—perceptual-cognitive speed and change of direction speed—we can start to consider activities in sensorimotor terms. Sensorimotor might seem like a big scary word at first, but it’s really pretty simple to comprehend: If we break it down, we understand it as the combination of sensory, that is, what the athlete senses (sees, hears, feels) and motor, how the sensory system will impact movement and vice versa.

We now know the sensory components of movement are a vital part of agility performance and skill. Share on X

The problem with only using a movement output based approach is that it ignores any emphasis on the role of perceptual-cognitive abilities. We now understand that the sensory components of movement are a vital part of agility performance and skill. Sole emphasis on kinematic and kinetic factors (the shape of the movement and the forces involved in the movement, respectively) is incomplete, namely because they disregard the input of movement. What happened just prior to the start of that movement formation and behavior? Why did the athlete perform that movement in that moment?

Let’s step back and think about sensorimotor experience. A weight-training session will undoubtedly be a very different sensorimotor experience than playing the sport. This also holds true for linear sprint training, jump training, and other forms of power training. These are training environments that are closed and controlled, exhibiting far fewer cognitive elements than what the sport presents.

But what about closed change of direction drills like foot ladders or cone drills? These are also massively different from the sensorimotor experience of the sport. Not only might the movements be dissimilar (like common movement combinations on a foot ladder), but there are no tactical elements involved at all—the athletes do not have to focus on anything outside of their own moving body.

In the world of team sports, where one must account for teammates, opponents, playing equipment, playing surface, playing strategy, and a seemingly endless list of stimuli, any closed drill will completely ignore the pillar of perceptual-cognitive enhancement. Just because an athlete can perform efficient change of direction in an isolated drill, there is no guarantee that the same athlete will be able to avoid opponents successfully or decide the most appropriate movement solution at the appropriate time in the game.

But before we completely throw closed drills under the bus, we must remember that some drills devoted to improving perceptual-cognitive speed (like reaction light training or moving in conjunction with a coach pointing) can also be massively different than the sport from a sensorimotor aspect. It’s not enough to just get the athletes reacting to something; it’s important to understand the context of the stimuli.

It’s not enough to have athletes react to something; you must understand the context of the stimuli. Share on X

So, when it comes to enhancing skill acquisition and agility performance, it is always important to understand the sensorimotor context. Certainly, there will be times when we try to improve general physical qualities like tissue strength/integrity, power, or speed. But if our goal is to enhance agility performance directly, we need to be a lot more considerate about how we construct training methods if we expect transfer to occur.

Debating Agility Training Progressions

With all of the factors surrounding agility training, it’s no wonder that there are multiple viewpoints on how best to train for agility. We typically find two opposite sides in this debate:

Closed-to-Open Progression: Those who feel that movements should be “mastered” first and then put into open/chaotic environments.
Constraints-Led Approach: Those who feel that movements emerge as a result of self-organization when athletes are exposed to different levels of environmental complexity.

The Closed-to-Open Viewpoint

For those who are truly interested, this viewpoint is heavily rooted in a theory of motor control known as Schema Theory (also known as Generalized Motor Program Theory). The specifics of this theory are far beyond the scope of this article, but I encourage readers to look into it for themselves.

To simplify significantly, the supporters of this viewpoint believe that movements must be practiced in isolation and achieve a high level of efficiency before being put into more chaotic environments. They believe that no movement should ever be performed “incorrectly” or with bad technique. In this theory, the goal is for movement to be ingrained into the brain as an “efficient” motor program that will then be more automatic going forward with continued practice. If the athlete were to perform a skill “improperly” in training, this might run the risk of the “incorrect” movement technique being stored. Perfect practice makes perfect.

As a result, in this theory, the goal of mastering movements in isolation typically occurs through the use of closed activities. This is where the closed-to-open progression comes about. Have athletes master the movements in closed activities first, then gradually expose them to more complex situations over time.

I personally feel that in Gamespeed, Ian Jeffreys does the best job of showing a smooth transition from closed to open drills in a sound, logical progression. Jeffreys classifies three broad categories of team sport movement: initiation movements, transition movements, and actualization movements. Each of these categories contains specific movement patterns, coming together to form what Jeffreys refers to as the target movement syllabus. Figure 3 presents the entire syllabus:¹

Jeffreys' Table — Figure 3. Ian Jeffreys’ Target Movement Syllabus. Jeffreys classifies three broad categories of team sport movement: initiation, transition, and actualization. Athletes and coaches should develop these movements individually and with sound technique before moving on to more developmental stages.

Jeffreys believes that coaches and athletes should develop these movements individually and with sound technique before moving on to more developmental stages. “Sound technique” here indicates that the athletes understand effective lines of force application, positioning of the center of mass in relation to the base of support, and effective ranges of motion at the body segments and links.

Jeffreys cautions against coaches moving past this stage too early, indicating that if there are any inefficiencies in any of the movements, then developmental stages will suffer and the training effect will not be as large. He believes that we should take ample time to “establish” these basic movement patterns before moving on to more complex situations.

Complexity rises in the Jeffreys progression by moving into a developmental stage that then combines basic movements together. For example, rather than just working a backpedal and a hip turn in isolation, we can now perform a drill where the athlete performs a backpedal into a hip turn. Eventually, in accordance with his model, we can progress to adding perceptual triggers that “add context” to the movements. The progression is outlined below:

So, in Jeffreys’ program, the perceptual-cognitive training elements are added at a later date, in a more-advanced stage of development. Technically efficient movement comes first; exploring the environment comes later. This is a typical progression in a closed-to-open agility training program.

The Constraints-Led Viewpoint

The closed-to-open camp has received some criticism in recent history, primarily from proponents of dynamical systems theory and those that focus on ecological dynamics. Whoa…big scary words again. Let’s break them down to make them simple to understand.

Dynamical systems theory really just refers to the idea that systems are constantly in motion and behave in ways that are hard to predict. It is a field of science that focuses heavily on holistic viewpoints, adaptive self-organization, relationships, patterns, and cycles. Where the proponents of a closed-to-open progression view the training structure as a seemingly linear process (going from controlled, closed drills to open/chaotic drills), the proponents of dynamical systems see skill acquisition as more of a non-linear process. In other words, skill acquisition is very complex, with multiple layers of possibility, where skills might appear and disappear depending on context and circumstance.

Ecological dynamics, specifically the field of ecological psychology, basically stresses that information is a potent stimulus for action. Ecology is the field of biology that focuses on how organisms relate to those around them and their physical environment. Information processing determines outcomes. So, if we consider how this relates to team sports, we can understand that information from the environment, as well as information from within the athlete’s body, will come together to foster the decision-making process of the athlete—not the least of which includes the selection of a movement solution.

A key point within this theory is that information will regulate actions, not enhance automatic responses. Put another way, athletes will learn to interpret patterns of play, make their own decisions, and create movement solutions based upon their perceptions in conjunction with their task responsibilities. Here, we revisit the perception-action cycle: Athletes perceive information, act accordingly, and then their actions bring about new information, so the cycle repeats itself over and over.

In this way, information presented to the athlete becomes a major key in determining the enhancement of agility performance. This is the reason an isolated movement could look exactly the same as a movement in the game and yet be a completely different experience from the vantage point of the athlete. The information presented in a closed drill is simply nothing like the information presented in the game. To push us closer to expecting positive transfer, the movements and the information must both be based upon what is found in the sport.

In this dynamical systems-based approach, one of the leading researchers, Karl Newell, has helped devise a model that explains how information available to the athlete will be based upon a series of constraints—that is, a series of factors that can limit the ability of the athlete to perform. Newell classifies three different forms of constraints: performer constraints, environmental constraints, and task constraints. These are fairly simple to understand and we can summarize them in the following table:^1,3,4

Constraints Table — Figure 5. Karl Newell helped devise a dynamical systems-based approach model using “constraints”—a series of factors that can limit an athlete’s ability to perform. These constraints determine an athlete’s “affordances,” or opportunities for action.

These constraints will dictate affordances, a fancy word to describe the athlete’s opportunities for action—what is the environment affording for the athlete to do? These affordances are information sources and are based upon internal and external constraints.

At any given moment, constraints from multiple categories occur simultaneously, which means that the athlete has access to an incredible amount of information from outside and inside the body. It is therefore important to minimize the amount of information to account for the most important pieces for action. This is a developmental process, whereby novices struggle to interpret the right perceptual cues and experts can completely ignore irrelevant information and only focus on what experience has taught them to pay attention to.

Since constraints will dictate the information available to the players, they can also dictate information present during training drills. The constraints-led approach to training basically describes the process of coaches purposely manipulating particular constraints to challenge the perception and coordinative abilities of their athletes.

What might this look like? Well, the easiest constraints to manipulate are task constraints—coaches can change the size of the playing area (i.e., wider and shorter fields or narrower and longer fields), the number of players involved (i.e., 1v1, 2v2, 7v7), or even the decision whether to provide any coaching cues. You can also manipulate physical environmental constraints by having athletes perform drills in the rain or the cold, of course ensuring that nothing ever gets out of hand and/or potentially dangerous. Physical performer constraints can come about organically as developing athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, and more powerful, and must learn to coordinate their new output abilities within the confines of skilled performance.

Therefore, a progression of agility training from the constraints-led viewpoint is one in which you use open/chaotic drills throughout the entire training process, not defined by a particular stage of training. You would base the progression on moving from less complex environments to more complex environments with the task as the primary focus of attention, rather than the movements themselves. The idea is that movements will occur organically, developing alongside the perceptual-cognitive aspects, thus keeping the perception-action cycle intact throughout the process.

Where Is the Athlete’s Focus?

If we accept that focus and attention are performer constraints, then we must consider what the athletes focus on when performing drills in training. As stated previously, closed drills will inevitably force athletes to really think about their body movements, making them self-conscious of their foot placement, hip height, etc. This is exactly why we will see athletes typically looking at the ground during closed change of direction drills—a gaze that would get them badly beaten on the field of play.

In contrast, task-oriented drills where the focus of attention is outside the athlete’s body can allow for the movement selection to occur out of necessity, rather than because they are instructed to do so. For example, if a drill consists of a player trying to avoid an opponent, then he will focus on the opponent and how to get by him, not on where he places his feet. He might use a cut step, a back juke, a spin move, or whatever else, depending on what he perceives. If he gets by the defender, the movement was effective in that moment…if not, then he must learn to explore different affordances on the subsequent repetitions. Some moves might work on some reps and completely fail on others, so the athlete must learn to let his perception guide his movement choice.

Task-oriented drills teach athletes to let their perceptions guide their movement choices. Share on X

Some closed activities can allow for external focus of attention as well, like shooting a basketball. The task is to put the ball into the basket. This task can remain the same while the complexity rises. Take a novice and allow him to explore how to put the ball in the basket by himself from various shooting distances. Now add a defender. Whoa, scoring just became that much harder. What about two defenders? What if we give him a teammate to pass to who can also try to score? These are ways to progress in complexity over time where you encourage the athletes to explore their affordances for action and let the task of scoring on offense remain constant with added constraints.

Coaching and Providing Feedback

As we saw from the work of Karl Newell, coaching cues are a form of constraint. If we accept this, then it is a dire point to consider. The feedback that a coach gives an athlete can quite literally make or break performance. How many times have we all seen athletes get overcoached, becoming so self-conscious that they forget how to even play the sport? Overcoaching risks overloading and stressing out the athletes’ brains, leading to rigid, frozen, confused states that demolish any chance of smooth athletic skill.

Coaching cues are a form of constraint: Feedback you give an athlete can make or break performance. Share on X

There are different types of feedback that athletes receive while performing skills in training, practice, or games. These feedback categories are provided in Figure 6:⁴

Feedback Diagram — Figure 6. Athletes receive different types of feedback while performing skills in training, practice, and games. Coaches must be careful not to overcoach, which can stress out athletes and make them so self-conscious they forget how to play the sport.

Intrinsic feedback is when athletes explain that a movement just “felt right.” They understand, through proprioceptive feedback and kinesthetic awareness, that the movement was both efficient and effective. However, this experience can be faulty if you encourage athletes to perform in a way that is actually not effective or efficient. This is where the laws of physics come into play, where attractors, or “biomechanical truths,” are hard to argue.

Attractors are essentially principles of movement (not exact movements) that must occur for motion to be successful. As an example, athletes will quickly discover that if they want to become more stable when changing direction, they must lower their center of mass by sinking into their hips to allow for the proper force application. However, how much they lower their hips will be context dependent—this is what is known as a fluctuation, or how the actual movement execution will be based upon the specific situation.

It’s important for us as coaches to really analyze and determine the difference between a biomechanical issue and a natural fluctuation that might be unique to that athlete. Consider sprinter Michael Johnson, who had very unique running form but still won gold medals, or how basketball star Steph Curry has a unique shot that still proves to be effective. This then begs the question: If the athlete is consistently able to accomplish a sport task in a biomechanically safe way, but looks a little “different” while doing it, can we ever really say it’s “wrong”?

So, we have to be careful when providing knowledge of performance. If we focus on an element that really is not a performance detriment, then we simply waste time. You can use coaching cues, video analysis, or photo analysis to help athletes further understand what you expect of them, but they must never forget the task itself. The more that we can utilize knowledge of result—that is, providing the athletes with objective feedback about the task—the more we can keep the focus of attention away from their bodies and more on the task or environment. In my personal experience, I have seen many athletes find efficient and effective solutions to activities like sprinting or jumping just by simply telling them their time or their jump height.

In the case of open/chaotic agility drills, as long as the task is clearly defined, then the knowledge of result becomes a pass/fail experience. The task was either accomplished or it wasn’t. Did the quarterback complete the pass? Did the point guard get around the defenders for the layup? In this way, coaches can attempt to identify why tasks are not being completed successfully or continue to let the successful athletes explore their opportunities with carefully applied augmented feedback.

In the grand scheme of things, most coaches would agree that we need a combination of knowledge of performance and knowledge of result for the most appropriate player-to-coach experience. The ratios between them are based upon the coach’s judgment and the player’s individual performer constraints.

Examples of Open/Chaotic Drills for American Football

Below are some brief examples of some open/chaotic drills that coaches can use for American football. Most of the clips feature activities that I have used with my athletes. My good friend Scott Salwasser, Director of Speed and Power at Texas Tech University Football, also shared some clips of drills they have used with flag belts and reaction belts. They used the drills in large group settings (100+ players working out together), and he has found that the belts help keep players engaged in the task and make it easy to determine pass/fail. Scott is the only Division I football performance coach that I personally know utilizing a systematic approach to the open/chaotic activities.

These are just SOME examples to help illustrate how creative these activities can become. If the coach uses the sport as a guide, focusing on movements AND perceptual-cognitive factors, then the limit of drill design is at the mercy of the coach’s creativity. Easy factors that you can manipulate include: size of the field space (i.e., wider vs. longer fields), number of players involved in the activities, and rest time in between repetitions of effort.

Also take notice of the movements that naturally occur in these drills, all of which make up Ian Jeffreys’ movement syllabus: acceleration, curved running, hip turn, drop step, cut step, plant step, shuffle, backpedal, back track, crossover run, jockeying, and deceleration.

Lower Complexity Drills

Open Field Tag 1v1

In this specific variation, I use a boundary of 20 yards’ depth and a width between the hash marks on a high school field. The players can line up anywhere they want to in this boundary and I encourage them to change their alignment depth or width on every repetition. The pursuing player must be in a position where he can face the “it” player. The player that is “it” will start the drill on his first movement, at which point the pursuing player must track him and attempt to tag him with both hands before he reaches the end zone. I give a point to the player who “wins” the repetition.

Video 1. Open Field Tag 1v1 Drill

1v1 Tag Variations with Flag Belt – Scott Salwasser, Texas Tech Football

Just like the previous drill, the field space can be variable and the angles of pursuit can change. Here the goal becomes about keying the eyes on the hip of the “it” player, pursuing at an appropriate angle, and trying to remove his flag. The challenge for the “it” player is to prevent his flag from being pulled. You can scale complexity in favor of the “it” player by using flags that have been cut shorter, making it more difficult for the pursuing player to grab the belt.

Video 2. 1v1 Tag Variations with Flag Belt Drill

1v1 Coverage Variations with Evasion Belt – Scott Salwasser, Texas Tech Football

Where the tag variations require the pursuer to meet the “it” player at the point of attack, these coverage variations now require the pursuer to maintain leverage with the “it” player. The evasion belt is attached via Velcro straps and serves as a feedback response to the players to understand separation between them. The goal for the “it” player is to make maneuvers and try to sever the belt, while the pursuing player must do all that he can to keep the belt intact. If the belt breaks, the “it” player achieved sufficient separation. If not, the pursuing player did a good job of staying with him.

Video 3. 1v1 Coverage Variations with Evasion Belt Drill

Higher Complexity Drills

Pass Coverage 1v1

For football players that must engage in one-on-one man coverage situations, this drill is as foundational as it gets to learning how to manipulate the man across from you. The receiving player knows where he should go, but must find a way to get there by maneuvering around the covering player. The covering player does not preemptively know where the receiving player is heading, but must stay disciplined to reading his hips and finding proper leverage to stay with him and prevent him from catching the football. This drill proves more physically challenging for the receiving player and more perceptual-cognitively challenging for the covering player, but both players must deal with aspects from both sides.

Video 4. Pass Coverage 1v1 Drill

Pass Coverage 2v2

This drill is essentially the same concept as the pass coverage 1v1 drill, but now there are the additional teammate and opponent to consider in the environment. Spacing becomes important and the players do not know who will get the ball, so task completion is necessary on every repetition.

Video 5. Pass Coverage 2v2 Drill

Running Back vs. Linebacker Run Play with Blocker and Audible Cue

This was a more-contextual drill design that I put together to simulate aspects of the run game between running back and linebacker. The blocker and the running back decide on a run play together before lining up. The blocker can line up as either an offensive lineman or a fullback. The running back provided the cadence (i.e., “Set…GO!”), after which the play is initiated. After the start of the play, the blocker calls out a particular direction (left, middle, right), which indicates the cone that the running back must try to reach behind the linebacker. So, the running back must initially follow the play, locate the linebacker, and then attempt to avoid him while also trying to reach the designated cone behind him. For the linebacker, he must make a run read, avoid the interference of the blocker, and attempt to tag the running back.

Video 6. Running Back vs. Linebacker Run Play with Blocker and Audible Cue

My Current Template

Here is a basic overview of my high school and college football template, including where I place my focus on agility drills/games:

Mon

Tues

Thurs

Fri

Short Acceleration

1. Sprint Variation

2. Agility Drills/Games

3. Vertical Jumps

4. Explosive Lifting

5. Upper Body Max Strength

Long Acceleration

1. Sprint Drill

2. Sprint Variation

3. Explosive Power Drill

4. Vertical Jumps

5. Lower Body Max Strength

Short Acceleration

1. Sprint Variation

2. Agility Drills/Games

3. Vertical Jumps

4. Explosive Lifting

5. Upper Body Power and/or Hypertrophy

Speed

1. Sprint Drill

2. Sprint Variation

3. Elastic Power Drill

4. Vertical Jumps

5. Lower Body Max Strength

Figure 7. My current high school and college football weekly template. Note: The agility drills/games have a large aerobic component that simulates what is found in the game. There are times when I will add additional general aerobic work if time permits.

So, What’s the Answer?

After all of this, are closed change of direction drills useful for developing agility? The answer always rings the same: It depends.

This is the part of the article where I supply my personal opinion, but still encourage you to determine your own. I believe that closed change of direction drills DO have a place in the training process, but I believe we should use them as minimally as possible. In fact, the greatest place I see for them is in the rehabilitation process or when very specific tissue loading is the primary objective. However, closed drills in the form of resistance training, linear sprinting, plyometrics, and other forms of power training can easily coexist among agility-based drills and games.

I believe closed change of direction drills have a place in the training process, but a minimal one. Share on X

It was once a suggestion that athletes should not participate in plyometrics or sprint training until they have a solid “foundation” of strength. Way back when it was also said that athletes need to build an aerobic base before moving into strength training. Most strength and conditioning coaches would now scoff at these ideas, knowing that they are completely outdated and serve little merit. And yet, the mindset of agility training is currently in a similar vein as these older ideas.

The argument against the strength base for plyometrics and sprinting was thwarted by the simple idea that very young kids show the ability to perform sprinting and plyometrics without ever participating in organized strength training. The same holds true of agility: kids are constantly running around and playing, perceiving their environment, falling and getting back up, and developing their body awareness and awareness of everything around them. Even just chasing the family dog around helps to develop agility-based qualities from a perception-action standpoint.

I believe that when it comes to training aimed at developing agility, we can achieve a lot by starting on the open/chaotic side of things and peel back from there when necessary. We can change constraints based upon where a particular athlete is in their development.

To develop agility, we can start with open/chaotic drills and peel back from there as necessary. Share on X

As an example, let’s say we have a basic tag-based game. The athletes that are more skilled in their ability to pursue the “it” player can be aligned further away from them, the greater distance being more of a challenge to close down space and successfully tag the player who is “it.” In contrast, a less-skilled tagger could be aligned closer to the “it” player, making the task a little easier in terms of closing space. From there, we can slowly start moving the less-skilled player around to different positions, making them more comfortable being uncomfortable.

But to be fair, sometimes the athletes will simply not understand a movement principle (attractor); whereby, if they did, their performance would improve. This is where augmented feedback in the form of knowledge of performance is valuable. As a coach, I could step in and pull that athlete aside and run them through a quick closed change of direction activity to allow them to feel the attractor. While the majority of the time we might want to give athletes an external focus of attention, we cannot ignore that sometimes an internal focus of attention is necessary to allow an individual’s brain to comprehend a biomechanical principle. Everyone is different in the path they take to learn skills.

Ultimately, if we throw an athlete into an open/chaotic drill and they show the ability to adapt, adjust, and self-organize, repeatedly finding task solutions without us having to say a word to them, that’s an immediate victory. By doing this, we as coaches can find the less-skilled athletes who struggle in agility-based tasks and then determine what the limiting factor of their performance might be.

Some athletes simply struggle with perception, unsure of what they are looking for. We can help them here. Other athletes know exactly what to look for but are seemingly unable to get into an appropriate position to act accordingly. We can also help them here. It’s on us as coaches to determine where the true performance inhibitors are and get creative in determining how to remove them.

My wife (who does not study anything agility-related) was able to explain it to me concisely. When teaching someone how to drive a vehicle, at some point we just need to let them take the wheel and drive. During the learning process, we might be able to provide some hints (i.e., here comes a stop sign, help signal to the others that you’re going to turn, check your blind spot before merging), but we can’t hold the wheel for them or always be in the vehicle with them.

The same goes for team sport athletes. We have to find ways to let them drive their own vehicles, exploring their own bodies and their surroundings. We can be guides and teachers, but should avoid being dictators and micromanagers. When the game kicks off, we can’t be in the vehicle with them anymore. It’s on us to come together and determine the most efficient path to helping athletes take the wheel and drive.

References

Jeffreys, I. Gamespeed. 2nd ed. Monterey (CA): Coaches Choice; 2017.
Nimphius, S. Increasing Agility. In: Joyce D, Lewindon D, editors. High-Performance Training for Sports. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2014. p. 185-187.
Chow, J., Davids, K., Button, C. & Renshaw I. Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition: An Introduction. New York (NY): Routledge; 2016.
Bosch, F. Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach. Rotterdam (NL): 2010Publishers; 2015.

Blog

Movement Training for the Court and Field Sport Athlete

Scientific Foundations

Practical Applications

Final Thoughts

References

Credentials

Experience: Professional and Athletic

The Nutritional Advice and Approach

Buy-In Strategy

Nutrition Science Specialist

Care

Practical Advice

General Objectives of the Warm-Up

Specific Objectives of a Warm-Up

Organizational Considerations

An Important First Step

References

The Skill Set Required to ‘Coach’ Sprinting

Acceleration Posture as a Strengthening Tool

Soft-Tissue Injuries and ‘Brain’ Injuries

Rapid, Sustained Acceleration—The Key to Top Speed

Acceleration Capacity, Return to Play, and Detraining Reduction

Moving Forward with Acceleration

What Was the Difference Between College and the Pros?

Being a Baseball Guy, How Was It Going Back to the College Ranks?

Looking Back

Consider the Athlete and Their Stressors

The Grass Isn’t Always Greener

Overreaching Can Be Useful

Grinder Athletes: The Flip Side of Lazy

Decide for Yourself Based on the Needs of the Program

References

Networking Done Right

Be a Connector

Be Inclusive

Be Selective

Be Inquisitive

Be Supportive

Change the Venue

Be Mindful of the Company You Keep

Be Who You Say You Are

Respect Everyone’s Time

Remove Distractions

Master Timeless Touches

Bridging the Gap – Together

Biomechanical Parameters and Speed Development

Tasks

Analysis of the Results

Conclusions and Recommendations

References

Agility – What Is It?

The Skilled Athlete

Closed vs. Open/Chaotic Drills

Context Is Always King

Debating Agility Training Progressions

Where Is the Athlete’s Focus?

Coaching and Providing Feedback

Examples of Open/Chaotic Drills for American Football

My Current Template

So, What’s the Answer?

References

COMPANY

Coaches Resources

CONTACT INFORMATION

SIGNUP FOR NEWSLETTER