Blog

Perhaps the “safest” answer to the question of what contributes most to getting a sprinter to the finish line faster would be to say acceleration, max velocity, and speed endurance are all interconnected. Each makes an essential contribution as a specific point. You can’t get to top speed without accelerating, and you can’t sustain max velocity over multiple 10-meter segments without experiencing a decline in top end speed.

But what if you had to choose just one for the sake of argument? What would that be? And what if the debate then involved the insights of a respected biomechanist vs. the convictions of a highly successful high school track coach? Would their choice be the same?

In his book, Sports Biomechanics: The Basics, professor Anthony Blazevich asks the following question in the opening paragraph of his first chapter: “In a 200 meter race, who would most likely win, the athlete with the fastest acceleration or the athlete with the highest top speed?”

Chemistry teacher and track coach Tony Holler, of Plainfield North, would not hesitate in giving his opinion. However, before we get to that, let’s look at an interesting parallel issue that my SupportForce, Inc. partner, Barry Ross, presented 10 years ago.

A Tale of Two Sisters: Two Approaches to Training for Speed

In the blog post, “A Tale of Two Sisters: Finding Common Ground,” Ross profiled two sisters. He was coaching one of them at the time, and both were successful in their respective track events. Sasha was a short sprinter whose longest competitive race was the 400. Her best effort was a 14.13 in the 100 meter hurdles. Her younger sister, Tara, was a middle-distance runner with a best in the 800 of 2:11. The two had a chance to race head-to-head in the “outlier” race for both of them: the 400.

What would happen? Sasha’s focus in training was on short, high-speed efforts. Younger sister Tara trained for the 800 in a more conventional manner.

Ross compiled ASR (anaerobic speed reserve) data on both girls. Sasha’s 10 meter T1 test was a 1.09, and her top 300 meter T2 time was 40.5. Sasha’s top aerobic speed was 4.44 m/s, her anaerobic speed was 4.26 m/s, and her anaerobic speed reserve was 9.24 m/s.

Tara’s T1 10-meter fly was 1.20 and her 300 meter T2 best was 41.5. Her aerobic speed was 5.43 m/s, her anaerobic speed was 2.75 /m/s, and her anaerobic speed reserve was 8.38 m/s.

Tara was much slower in terms of anaerobic speed and anaerobic speed reserve, but had nearly a full 1 m/s faster aerobic capacity—not surprising for an 800 runner. From this data alone, you would suspect Tara would have the decided edge in the 400.

However, Ross looked more closely at what he suspected might be a key factor: Sasha’s 1.09 meter fly vs. Tara’s 1.20. Ross felt that her .11 second difference over 10 meters was enormous. For the fly’s 10-meter distance, she ran 10.17 m/s compared to Tara’s 8.3 m/s. Sasha’s 300 speed was 7.41 m/s, while Tara’s was 7.23 m/s. Calculating out to 800 meters, Tara has the advantage: 6.67 m/s compared to Sasha’s 6.14 m/s. But the race was the 400m, which was not the “preferred” event for either girl.

So, how would that head-to-head 400-meter race turn out? The ASR projection had Tara at 57.7 and Sasha at 58.2, but with a 3% margin of error in the algorithm, the results could be closer or farther apart. Ross did have his suspicions. After all, he once ran Alyson Felix head-to-head against the best 800 runner in their conference, and she won by a considerable margin.

An Agreement, Not a Debate

At this point, let’s jump back to Blazevich’s question about acceleration vs. top speed, which is interesting because his charts suggested that top speed was the critical factor. That would not surprise Tony Holler, who has always been adamant about the significance of training his cats to be fast: “Never will a 1.08 sprinter outperform a .98 sprinter if both are healthy. Usain Bolt ran the fastest 10-meter segment in human history: 0.81. Enough said.” 

Holler further emphasized the importance of top end speed: “By the way, the 4 x 400 is a sprint relay. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a distance coach and doesn’t understand sprinting.” 

These comments are worth considering relative to both Blazevich’s opening question, and what might happen when the 800 runner comes down to the 400. Blazevich based his conclusion on collecting data similar to what Ross did with the ASR speed regression algorithm. Blazevich looked at times over 50 meters to chart acceleration. He also looked at times between 50 and 150 meters to assess top speed, and times from 150 to 200 meters to analyze deceleration from fatigue. I used his approach in assessing one of my own sprinters.

So, what were Blazevich’s conclusions, what did I see in my analysis, and what was the answer he asked his readers to determine?

“The greatest improvement in running times are achieved by improving average speed, which is most affected by improvements in maximum running speed.”

After comparing the average speed and total times for running 200 meters, Blazevich explained his position, noting that “improving the maximum speed phase of the race by 3% has a more profound effect on the average speed, and therefore on the total time, than improving any other individual phase.”

Why? Blazevich saw the maximum speed phase being twice as long (100 meters) as the acceleration or deceleration phases (both 50 meters).

Therefore, what we end up with is an agreement and not a debate. The runner who improves average speed the most will run the fastest 200, and they can accomplish this best by improving their maximum running speed. And it appears that this might have some implications even for the 400. Holler’s response: “We get fast all year and then we train to hold our speed for up to 400 meters.”

But what really happened in the “Tale of Two Sisters” running the 400?

Max Speed Is the Key to Track Speed

The race was a photo finish. Tara ran 58.44 and Sasha ran 58.46. Ross chose this particular race because the 400 seemed to be common ground between more aerobic dominant races and more anaerobic dominant races. Both sisters were very competitive athletes, especially against each other.

Tara followed traditional middle-distance training protocols, while Sasha ran significantly shorter distances in training. For example, Sasha’s longest workout training distance was 55 meters. Her average high speed distance was a fly-in 25 meters, and the average number of reps per workout was five.

It is interesting that the ASR algorithm pretty much predicted what happened. And note at what race distance things began to change. You can also look at the last column in the chart to see what it projected Tara’s best time in the 800 might be.

I also found it interesting that the “meeting point” of the two athletes with different ASR profiles was 20 meters short of the 400-meter distance. Note that Sasha had the advantage up to that point. That’s important for those who believe that the “drop dead” type sprinters (100-200) can’t be competitive in the longer sprint race without more classical 400-meter training. It appears that it is very possible to run this race and deliver competitive times without having to resort to longer, intermediate paced workout runs.

Considering the unique nature of this challenge, and just how close the competitors were at the finish, I don’t believe the results dispute Holler’s overarching philosophy:

Max speed is the key to track speed. No other predictor comes close.

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

References

• Banta, Ryan J. Sprinter’s Compendium Vervant Publishing, 2017
• Blazevich, Anthony J. Sports Biomechanics: the Basics: Optimising Human Performance. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013
• Ross, Barry. “A Tale of 2 Sisters: Finding Common Ground.” Bearpowered, 2008, www.bearpowered.com

What has happened to the posterior chain? Not too long ago, it was all the rage in the strength and conditioning industry, thanks in large part to Louie Simmons and his consistent feats of creating the strongest athletes on the planet. However, with long term athletic development now the new gold standard with today’s athlete, craftsmanship of the posterior chain seems to be a thing of the past—a fossil, forgotten.

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of athletes’ ‘show’ muscles over their ‘go’ muscles, says @huntercharneski. Share on X

I am not naïve enough to discount the importance of the anterior chain, as it is the “yin” to the posterior chain’s “yang,” but I do believe the pendulum has swung too far in favor of athletes’ “show” muscles. You win with what you cannot see, you win with what is behind you, and you most certainly win with a powerful set of “go” muscles. Having said that, let us set the mirror aside for now and walk through the progression model I use to aid the development of robust and resilient athletes on the quest for strength and speed.

Who Am I Serving?

Before I detail our plan, I have to preface it with the truth: I do not work with elite athletes. The athletes I am blessed to serve hope to bridge the gap between good and great. I share that for two reasons:

1. Athletes aged 8-18 years old can become drastically better with nearly any training method, system, or parameter.
2. Piggybacking off that, if you expect a never-before-seen, earth-shattering model for how I progress my athletes’ posterior chains, you will be radically disappointed. We perform the basics, with ruthless attention to detail.

I am lucky to serve a myriad of athletes: hockey, wrestling, tennis, you name it. The one commonality among all the athletes that darken our door is their burning desire for speed. However, they lack the driver (mechanics—specifically, upper body mobility), engine (posterior chain), tires (intermuscular coordination), and pit crew (competent coaches).

My Philosophy and the Plan

Our “philosophy” for the development and layering of the posterior chain may seem underwhelming to most readers, as we liken this model to a postage stamp—we stick to one thing until we get where we want to go. Depending on the quantitative or qualitative prescription, we either build muscle or movement. Particularly with qualitative prescription, it is not the “what” but the “how” that is of the utmost importance to us. The first progression model I detail is that of the dreaded hinge.

Hinge Progression

Building the Hinge is somewhat of a duality. We aim to cement a foundational movement pattern, as hinging can become bastardized quickly once we apply load. Having said that, we do need to overload the system in order to produce the horsepower needed (initially) for our athletes to go from 0-60 in no time. Fortunately for our athletes, they need not choose between “the ball and the sword,” as we provide both.

Hinge vs. Pipe

In my experience, athletes (especially youth) have tremendous difficulty differentiating between their hips and lower back. We have found success time and time again with the progression above, and the journey begins with an extremely sophisticated gadget—a PVC pipe.

The pipe provides phenomenal tactile feedback for the athlete, as it’s in constant contact with the head, spine, and coccyx. This allows the athlete to self-teach and correct before and during the movement’s execution, because if the pipe or body strays from the three points of contact, they are sure to fail.

Video 1. The pipe provides phenomenal tactile feedback for the athlete, as it’s in constant contact with the head, spine, and coccyx. This allows the athlete to self-teach and correct before and during the movement’s execution.

While the pipe takes care of everything above the waist, what strategy do we employ if the athlete, despite keeping spinal neutrality, wants to move vertically and not horizontally? We have found the following two options to be successful 100% percent of the time:

• Place a foam roller behind athlete and cue them to “knock” it over with their butt.
• Tell a story (with or without roller) of how they help their parents unload groceries from the car with their hands full of bags, and all they have left to do is shut the car door. Since both arms are full of groceries, how are they going to shut the car door? By pushing back with their butt.

Do not fall for the sucker’s choice and underestimate the value of this Level 1 movement. As coaches, we tend to progress too quickly based not on the athlete’s level of engagement, but our own. Coaches will typically get bored before an athlete ever comes close. Let us take our own advice and trust the process. Athletes typically perform this movement for a minimum of four weeks before we progress to Level 2. 

Don’t progress too quickly based on your own level of engagement instead of the athlete’s, says @huntercharneski. Share on X

Band Pull-Throughs

Our Level 2 movement in the hinge progression may seem extremely elementary at first glance, and believe me, I felt the same initially. Most other camps (if this movement is in their repertoire) utilize a weighted cable, but due to my facility’s operational and financial restrictions, we had to resort to an elastic band. Technology is never in short supply in our system (sarcasm).

Athlete after athlete, rep after rep, I began to feel affinity for this movement. Truth be told, even if I did have access to a weighted cable tower now, I would still use the elastic band. Why? The band serves as a form of accommodating resistance, where the “weight” increases (band stretches) as the athlete engages their glutes and extends her hips. Conversely, when the resistance is at its relative maximum, it is easier for the athlete to hinge backwards as the band literally “pulls” her hips. In short, the feedback the band provides makes this movement accessible because:

• The resistance is highest at the beginning or “top” of the movement, allowing the athlete to feel her hips move horizontally, resulting in performing a flawless hinge.
• The resistance is lowest while the athlete is in the hinge position, allowing her to forcefully push her hips forward without having to overcome substantial “load.” A cue that works for us time and time again is for the athlete to “race” the band to the top.

One common issue we see with this movement is that, as the athlete pushes her hips back and perfects the hinge, her toes leave the floor. I don’t know about you, but the ground is a piece of real estate we like our athletes to have a relationship with; it is their personal force-plate—use it!

Having said that, when this happens, we cue the athlete to “curl” their big toes into the ground. This accomplishes two things:

• She feels her whole foot on the ground—
• By curling her big toe into the ground, she also accesses substantially more glute activation while extending her hips. Try it, I dare you—

Video 2. The band serves as a form of accommodating resistance, where the “weight” increases (band stretches) as the athlete engages her glutes and extends her hips. Conversely, when the resistance is at its relative maximum, it is easier for the athlete to hinge backwards as the band literally “pulls” her hips.

Band pull-throughs are timeless, can serve a myriad of athletes regardless of sport or training age, and can be utilized at any point in a coach’s periodization plan. This movement can be prescribed with triphasic applications, dynamic effort, or just “greasing the groove” to cement this pattern. Of course, there is the concept of overload, which is where we progress into Levels 3 and 4. 

Kettlebell & Barbell RDL

Only after our athletes display extreme ownership and proficiency in Level 2 will we place an external load in their hands. Enter an “oldie but goodie” with the RDL. This is where the progression begins to shift from movement to muscle, and we begin crafting the engine with Levels 3 and 4. Again, our series is nowhere near revolutionary; we simply overload the athlete to maintain a highly adaptive state.

Our cue quiver varies only slightly with these two variations, but the setups are almost identical:

• Tall and tight (cue them to be somewhere between a “sad dog” and “macho man”).

• “Soften” the knees (unlock).
• Make a “double chin” to keep head in line with spine.
• Breathe and brace.

As the movement begins with horizontal displacement, that is when our cueing begins to differ:

Kettlebell

• Drop the bell between the shoelaces.
• (If they want to “pull” or bend their arms.) Our hands are just “hooks.”

Barbell

• Curl the wrists under (prevents “throttling” of the bar).
• (If the bar begins to stray from their body.) The bar is a paintbrush; “paint” your legs.

To ensure a forceful lockout, we have found success with “squeeze the penny,” an external cue meaning there is a penny between the athlete’s butt cheeks. Hey, we work with kids. External cues (no matter how strange) get the job done.

One common issue we see every now and then (especially with barbells) is the athlete’s spine beginning to resemble the “sad dog”—as the photo above depicts—as the barbell approaches the knee. To rectify this, we have almost exclusively employed a snatch-grip when programming the barbell RDL. The wider hand placement allows the athlete to push his hips back more efficiently, rather than feeling the weight “pull” him out of the groove.

As this process plan goes on, you will notice Levels 3 and/or 4 have the briefest descriptions or rationales. This is because, as I mentioned, it is simply overload at this point in the process, and the foundation (Levels 1 and 2) matters most. A pyramid is only as tall as its base, so let the drill do the talking and the athlete do the walking.

Deadlift Progression

The Hinge Progression’s focus was two-sided, as we aimed to develop proper movement, but also sprinkled in some overload to keep eliciting positive change and build some “go.” The Deadlift Progression’s focus is much narrower: muscle.

Deadlift Patterning with Band

We want to build an engine capable of spectacular force production, and Level 1 kicks off that process nicely by teaching the athlete to extend her hips violently, while also subconsciously developing the proper arm mechanics needed for sprinting by driving her hands down, not back. This will create vertical displacement when we get her to upright running. Win.

Video 3. This exercise is a favorite of mine to teach as it requires a high level of interaction between athlete and coach.

The order of cues that has worked when teaching this movement are:

1. Sit in a chair.
2. Arms like Superman.
3. Squeeze your armpits.
4. Squeeze the penny.

The band provides excellent tactility for staying “tall and tight” as discussed earlier. After at least a month with this exercise and an upgrade in bands resistance-wise, Level 2 won’t pose a problem. The athlete will be more than capable of moving the weight vertically without straying from the way.

Kettlebell Deadlift

Do not undervalue this exercise. I will say that again, do not undervalue this exercise. The Kettlebell Deadlift is not merely a placeholder between Levels 1 and 3, but a wonderful expression of force around the athlete’s center of mass.

This movement is excellent for developing an intimate relationship between athlete and floor, as it is rare that one of my athletes can execute this movement from the floor on Day 1. Our “to-the-floor” layer is as follows:

• KB Deadlift + two Mats – four weeks
• KB Deadlift + one Mat – four weeks
• KB Deadlift from floor

Now, you don’t need me to tell you that we do not train robots. The nice and neat four-week layers are not set in stone; we rely on the best coaching tool we have—our eyes—when determining whether (or not) to progress an athlete.

Do not undervalue the Kettlebell Deadlift, says @huntercharneski. Share on X

The mats serve not only as a mediator between athlete and floor, but also as a source of extrinsic motivation. In my environment, we may have 15 youth athletes at one time, and several have “earned the right” to pull the bell from the floor. A young person becomes extremely motivated by her peers: as the mat provides extrinsic motivation to work towards the floor, she becomes intrinsically motivated to “earn the right” as well. Did I mention not to undervalue this exercise?

The “problem” we encountered with this exercise was determining when to progress an athlete to Level 3—the Trap Bar Deadlift. How do we objectively determine this? I am not sure if we can, but we decided to employ Dr. Yessis’ 1×20 method in order for a young person to bridge the gap from bell to bar. If the athlete can pull our heaviest bell, weighing 88 pounds, for one set of 20 reps at a 212 tempo, he will have “earned the right” to step into the Trap Bar.

My rationale behind this is not sexy. I just fell back to the size principle, in which slower twitch fibers are recruited initially and, as the set progresses and fatigue onset begins, the faster Type IIB fibers are called upon to execute the remainder of the set. If the athlete can prove to me that he can handle a progression from lower to higher intensity, combat fatigue, and maintain focus all in one set, he has my endorsement for Level 3. If you have a better way, feel free to let me know, but this is what has worked for us. 

Trap Bar Deadlift

This movement has been catching a lot of flak lately in the S&C community. I am not one to say it is perfect by any means; all I know is what I know. What I know is the athletes in my environment benefit immensely from this final installment in our deadlift progression.

I believe one reason for the flak it has caught is because many coaches and athletes bastardize the Trap Bar Deadlift by making it no different than a squat, with the bar in their hands as the lone differentiator. If properly coached and executed, this movement is hip dominant, leaving the quads out of it. The only argument I can imagine for keeping it quad-dominant is that an athlete’s quads are working harder during acceleration than the posterior chain. This is true, I won’t argue that, but my priority is building more horsepower, not torque.

Video 4. If treated as a hinge and not a knee-flexion exercise, the Trap Bar Deadlift is a valuable tool in any coach’s exercise pool. Unfortunately, it is too often coached and executed no differently than a squat.

Aside from the athlete’s learning curve from bell-to-bar, fatigue is the only issue I have with Level 3. Conversing with and observing the athletes is critical, as any time we use our hands to “grip” something, neural fatigue becomes a very real thing. It can lead to overtraining and possibly injury, as form is often the first to decay. As JL Holdsworth has said, “That which has the potential to do great good, also has the potential to do great harm.”

Knee Flexion/Extension Progression

When I laid out the progression for knee flexion/extension, I had one thing in mind: sprinting (surprise, surprise). As the Hinge Progression focused mainly on building muscle, or the athletes’ engines, we focus our attention now on the tires (movement), or more specifically, the athletes’ intermuscular coordination. More digestibly, the vigorous relationship between the agonists and antagonists.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many coaches smarter than me, for hamstring development to best aid in speed, three non-negotiable qualities must be met:

1. High movement velocity/frequency
2. Violent alternating flexion and extension
3. Hamstring is stretched under load of eccentric phase, not concentric

Partner CHG

Many in the industry refer to this movement as Glute Ham Raise or GHR, but leave it to me to be the rebel, as there is an important piece that is missing in the common title—the calves! Calf Ham Glute is what we call this partnered exercise. Care to guess why? Didn’t think so.

Video 5. This is about as general as it gets in terms of hamstring development to aid in speed. There is low movement velocity and zero alternation of flexion and extension, but the athlete’s hamstrings are stretched under load during the eccentric. This exercise is valuable in the off-season and for injury prevention.

This exercise’s contraction is eccentric only, not because we are sick and sadistic with our athletes, but because:

• We are building general strength qualities, something they do not yet possess. I have yet to see a novice perform a perfect Nordic curl in our environment.
• The prolonged eccentric re-lengthens and remodels the tissue, having a positive influence on injury prevention.

In order for an exercise to be worthy of our exercise “pool,” it needs to meet the following criteria: safe, economical, efficient. The Partner CHG passes with flying colors on all three, especially in economy. It requires zero equipment, just another organism (I couldn’t help myself; had to throw that buzzword in there), which is never an issue at my facility as it is 100% group training sessions.

For us, as coaches, to consider an athlete’s execution of the Partner CHG a success, three things need to be displayed with optimal proficiency:

1. Straight line, head-to-knee (this is not a razor curl).
2. Glute performs an isometric contraction—squeeze the penny!
3. A 3-5 second eccentric contraction, as the athlete “lets the floor come to her.”

While this may be one of the most “foolproof” exercises known to humanity, even the Partner CHG is not immune to mistakes and errors. If the athlete performing the movement is unable to display any sort of eccentric control, we again utilize an incredibly advanced piece of equipment – the elastic band. The accommodating assistance of the band helps his descent to resemble “falling” into foam, rather than crashing to the earth like a sack of potatoes.

Val Slide Leg Curls

In Level 2, we reincorporate the concentric component, and the athletes are so “thankful” we do so. The Val Slide Leg Curl is our Level 1 turned upside down, as the athlete’s upper back and head are now cemented to the ground, while the legs have more degrees of freedom. The same muscles are recruited (calf, ham, glute), and by dorsiflexing the feet we incorporate the calves, especially during the concentric phase. We call upon the glutes once again via isometric contraction for the movement’s duration. (Level 1 and 2 are great forms of fascial raking, because we “wake up” down-regulated glutes, as our athletes are also students who literally sit all day). Lastly, the hamstrings now move “freely” through all three contraction types, eliciting encouraging adaptation for the trainee.

The only issue we run into with Val Slide Leg Curls is the athlete lacking the general strength to hold himself “up” in order to execute the movement properly. Now, I’m no master of movement, and in my environment one thing you learn to stomach quickly is the question, “What level of imperfection are you OK with?” With that, I have no problem allowing an athlete to drive his elbows into the ground so he can then access the full range of motion needed to execute the exercise.

“Load it…explode it!” is a cue you will hear time and time again as our athletes execute Level 2. We encourage a controlled (not slow) eccentric component, followed by a concentric contraction with some violence to back it up. In the Knee Flexion/Extension Progression, the main focus is to get the athletes moving from slow to fast, as the ultimate goal is the expression of high force at high velocity (i.e., sprinting). This is followed by Level 3. 

Seated Band Leg Curls

We now begin to assemble (somewhat) the qualities needed for the athletes to run fast by incorporating high-movement velocity and alternating flexion/extension. At first glance, this exercise may seem easier, or even elementary, compared to Levels 1 and 2. As coaches, we must remember we need to get these youngsters strong first, before they can display their strength quickly (which is essentially what is performed in Level 3).

With the athlete seated on a bench or box and facing the rack or wherever the band is fastened, cue her to forcefully flex and extend her legs by likening it to “flicking a light switch ON and OFF as quickly as possible.” It seems simple enough, right? Often, two key elements of this exercise get overlooked:

1. The athlete’s posture: If her back is as crooked as a question mark, you need to address it. Posture is first on my sprinting “checklist.”
2. The athlete’s toes: If her toes are lax, or even worse—plantar flexed—cue her to “bring her toes to her shins,” as this will engage the calf in this exercise. More importantly, her ankles will be stiff, not gooey, when she strikes the ground when sprinting.

Sprinting – The Timeless Modality

Newsflash: If you are an athlete at our facility, you will sprint—a lot. I will spare you the benefits of sprinting, as you can surely find that in any other piece I have written and it is beyond the scope of this article. In terms of posterior chain development, is there a better option than sprinting? High force, high velocity, fast alternation of flexion and extension, and it is not bilateral.

While the athletes at my facility will undoubtedly accelerate and sprint during their progression from Levels 1 to 3, it is only to make sprinting more tolerable and decrease their “effort,” as sprinting should be a relaxed endeavor. Al Vermeil once told me, “It is not how fast you can contract, it is how fast you can relax.”

At this stage of the game, we have built an engine, and we have provided an excellent set of tires to “move more freely” with a high RPM.

Upper Body Posterior Chain Progression

I must preface the upper body segment by bringing awareness to the fact that the majority of the athletes we work with are of the team sport variety. You may be wondering what that has to do with anything. This is prudent to note because we aim to provide the optimal, not maximal, amount of muscle.

Again, why does this matter? it matters because the goal is speed, and if we pack on too much muscle, sprinting mechanics will deteriorate because the increased muscularity will diminish the degrees of freedom needed to express high force at high velocity. If the lower body is the engine, the upper body is the driver, and the posterior shoulder’s swing action orchestrates the symphony of projection from the waist down.

Video 6. This is a phenomenal Level 1 movement for beginners. As is often the case with young athletes, the “reaching” portion of the movement gets them out of extension as the scapula glides forward.

Video 7. We employ this movement to not only achieve upward/downward rotation, but elevation/depression as well through reaching. This is a staple in our chin-up progression.

Of course, these are team sport athletes we are talking about, so we do overload and progress the levels in order to elicit an appropriate level of hypertrophy and strength necessary to protect them. To continually overload with reckless abandon becomes detrimental to the athlete for the reasons stated before. Remember, posterior chain is the “go” not the “show,” which is why all but one exercise across all three categories uses the athlete’s own body or an elastic band. The fastest athletes I work with all have great relative strength.

I could dissect each category and level for the upper body posterior chain progression, but that simply wouldn’t be realistic, as 95% of our athlete population never makes it past Level 1 or 2. However, regardless of category, the progression (or lack thereof) from level to level must be done with an extreme amount of discipline and fortitude. The majority of athletes I work with have never seen Level 2 in shoulder stability. Why not? That’s the wrong question—why do I need to progress them if they: a) are getting stronger; b) have hypertrophied; and c) have unrestricted range of motion? Movement > Muscle.

Final Thoughts on Applying Posterior Chain Training

I work primarily with young athletes. What is their greatest need, or want? Ask anyone between eight and 18 years old, and they will tell you they wish to become faster. Speed is king. What problems are they facing? Whether it is their coach, their teammates competing for playing time, or the opposition, the external enemy is easy to identify.

While these external enemies don’t stand a chance, I am more concerned with the internal enemy: the athlete’s confidence, or lack thereof. An athlete shouldn’t have to question herself or her abilities, which is exactly why I take great pride in the crafting of the posterior chain.

This #PosteriorChain progression plan gifts the athlete with a powerful set of ‘go’ muscles, says @huntercharneski. Share on X

Is the anterior chain important? No question. Are other training modalities important? No question. Do we take time to address other aspects of training, leaving no stone unturned? No question. But we have been where they are. By giving them this plan, we gift them a powerful set of “go” muscles, transforming them from Ford Bronco to Ferrari on their journey to success, and helping them avoid potholes on the way.

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

Most literature defines strength as the ability to produce force by muscular contraction. Newton’s first law of motion states that an object will remain at rest unless a force is placed upon it. For instance, my cup of tea will not move unless I push against it. This law refers to inertia, which is essentially an object’s reluctance to move.

Newton’s second law of motion, referring to the acceleration of an object, states that force is a product of mass (kg) and acceleration (meter/second). Finally, Newton’s third law states: “For every action, there is an equal reaction.” For this, imagine a baseball player or cricketer catching a ball. Unless they want their teeth caved in, they apply a force against the ball to prevent any further negative work.

Now, imagine this principle during the bench press. To overcome the gravity of a significant mass, we apply a greater quantity of force to the barbell. This is an example of positive work. Recently, a golf coach highlighted the importance of the third law in his sport during a conversation. In theory, if a golfer can apply more force against the floor, the clubhead velocity that they can generate should be greater. With more velocity, as well as other technicalities, the ball should travel further.

Verkhoshansky and Siff refer to strength as having two divisions: structural and functional.¹ Structural training is the process of affecting the musculature itself, such as an increase in actin and myosin filaments as a result of heavy strength training. Generally, structural training serves the purpose of inducing hypertrophy, whether it is myofibrillar, where an increase in the density of fibers is evident, or sarcoplasmic, where cellular cytoplasm increases. Functional adaptations are the products of training that are then expressed during sports performance: for instance, strength-speed. While it may seem obvious that understanding the purpose of training is imperative before programming, there is a distinct difference between the two in terms of the variables of load, sets, reps, rest, and variation.

Fortunately, and certainly more recently, coaches and parents alike have “succumbed” to the premise that physical ability is not the sole contributor to performance. It is the most likely to change the outcome on the field, court, or track, or in the pool but, without addressing the more holistic elements, there is a chance that athletes work at 70%. Coaches are mainly full-time strength and conditioning practitioners, but also part-time (bordering on full-time) life coaches.

Types of Strength

There is more to strength than what we see when a powerlifter grinds a 475-pound deadlift. That would be a case of absolute strength, which is the maximum amount of tension and force applied to an object, irrespective of mass. You just get that weight up and hope that you do not pass out.

Absolute Strength

Absolute strength refers to the level of effort (load lifted) with no relation to body mass. Where absolute strength is trained, the load is going to be at 1RM.

Relative Strength

Whereas absolute strength does not consider body mass, relative strength does. Generally, you can calculate relative strength by dividing your body mass by your 1RM.

Speed-Strength

With speed-strength, there is a tendency for players and coaches alike to believe that they are training power. While there is a fine line between the two qualities, speed-strength still requires a significant amount of force in order to overcome the load on the bar. But, having said that, the load on the bar is ultimately irrelevant if performance on the field of play does not improve. So, a better definition of speed-strength is the physical ability to generate high force and do so at high velocity, hence the confusion with power.³ Generally speaking, speed-strength can be trained within the 80-90% range of 1RM.

Specific Strength

As the principle of specificity suggests, specific strength refers to the motor skills required to perform a particular sporting movement. In essence, specific strength is the force that is capable of being exerted during sport skills, or imposed on somebody, as in the case of rugby. Many coaches will likely program specific strength phases as the general preparation period (GPP) approaches its conclusion.

The work of Frans Bosch focuses on the specific and often highly complex nature of sport skills. The motor pattern refers to the movement required, whereas the sensorimotor ability involves internal sensory input, such as muscle tension (slack). Therefore, it seems that specific strength training should not simply attempt to mimic the sporting movement but incorporate the sensorimotor demands.⁴

There are many resources regarding specific strength, none more useful than the original Special Strength Training (Verkhoshansky). However, a coach’s knowledge and, importantly, their understanding of their sport are both invaluable when considering specific strength training. A lot of research, while useful, is performed by scientists within a controlled environment.

A coach’s knowledge and understanding of their sport are invaluable for specific strength training, says @JamyClamp. Share on X

This is where a deep understanding of the sport that the coach works in is paramount. I will use the “jackal” position as an example from rugby. Done with precision and aggression, it is one of the most valuable assets to possess on the rugby field. Besides practicing the position during rugby training, players can supplement it with exercises performed in the weight room. However, that requires an understanding of the demands and experience with “jackaling.”

Why Strength Training?

It is correctly stated that strength alone does not mean that the player is more competent on the field. Having a standard of strength means that they are in a position to lift more with, hopefully, a greater velocity. The ultimate goal is for that player to make use of their weight room ability to affect the execution of their sports skills. 

Does training lead to a better performance during the game or event? 

If the answer is no, it is essential to address why.

Power

Power requires strength. After all, power is the product of force and velocity. Now, just because an athlete is strong, it does not mean they will naturally be able to realize that strength in the form of power. Genetic makeup can dictate an awful lot in terms of muscle fiber types, tendon lengths, and body types, to name a few. Anaerobic power ability is more difficult to train than aerobic endurance ability. Mitochondrial density is relatively quick to increase. However, it is more taxing to alter the characteristics of a muscle and motor unit.

Strength Endurance

Strength endurance is the ability to produce and exert force over a prolonged period of time. There is an element of damage limitation with this strength quality because it is accepted that force will not be as significant as it is during low repetition training, but the goal is to maintain force output.

Production of Force

Rate of force development (RFD) is essentially what coaches improve and maintain. To increase RFD, the amount of force (ma) needs to increase, while reducing the time taken to displace an object. Broadly put, to improve RFD, it is only beneficial to train with greater loads (kg) and higher velocities; hence the popularity of velocity-based training (VBT).

As we sprint, the generated force is exerted into the ground. These forces are also known as ground reaction forces. In the case of sprinting, force is applied both vertically, resulting in flight time, and horizontally, resulting in meters gained. To run at speed, we have to minimize time spent in the air, as it is essentially time misspent, and maximize horizontal force. In short, there are a number of potential factors that contribute towards force production, none more prominent than neural drive and muscle architecture.

Reduction of Force

With force reduction, it is essentially a matter of being able to tolerate work around the musculoskeletal system. The premise of robustness largely centers on this quality because, simply put, if a player struggles to maintain a degree of postural integrity upon impact, they will likely find themselves with a problem. However, it is obviously unrealistic to expect a player to maintain “perfect” posture. I find the concept of robustness problematic because, ultimately (and funnily enough), the body is quite a rigid structure.

Landing mechanics also involve force reduction. A go-to example is the young player that has a relatively powerful vertical jump. However, that same player struggles to control their landing, as their ankles roll and their knees come together. To complement the more concentric, explosive action, it is important to be able to control the eccentric movement. An athlete’s training maturity, strength training, and time spent practicing landings will likely improve their ability to land efficiently. Interestingly, the collision that occurs during plyometric exercise, such as depth jumps, can contribute towards ossification.⁵ A mechanical load that is compressive in nature essentially generates the neurological impulses that stimulate the elicited adaptation.

Stabilization of Force

To explain stabilization, I have not encountered a better analogy than: “Can you shoot a cannon from a canoe?” You might be able to, but you would likely end up in the drink and your intended target would likely breeze on by. Therefore, being stable and in control of our movement lends itself to a more efficient utilization of force. For example, during the stance phase as the foot progresses from touch-down to mid-stance to take-off, the ankle absorbs a large amount of force. If the ankle becomes unstable, generally through pronation or supination, force is being lost. Generating force is an extremely valuable athletic quality; however, if stability is not present, that same quality is undervalued.

The Three General Determinants of Strength

Determinants of strength are essentially factors that contribute towards this physical quality. Broadly, they include central (nervous system) and peripheral (muscular system) contributors. However, strength involves a little more than simply increasing the cross-sectional area (CSA) of a muscle. Generally, there are three categories that will contribute towards, and determine, strength: biomechanical, physiological, and psychological.

The 3 general determinants of strength are #biomechanical, #physiological, and #psychological factors, says @JamyClamp. Share on X

Biomechanical Determinants of Strength

Forces are quantified within two categories: vector and scalar. Definitions of each can be found below.

• Vector: Magnitude (force production) with a specific direction (horizontal or vertical).
• Scalar: Magnitude (force production) without a specific direction.

As we apply force to an external object, such as the garden plot or a player on the rugby field, it is a vector because it has a direction. A mass is scalar, because it’s lazy and, without anyone pushing it, it stays still. As the Joker says; “All it needs is a little push.” By understanding that strength and force is essential if we wish to move objects with speed and efficiency, the importance of the component is further highlighted.

Force Velocity

The force-velocity curve (FVC) falls within biomechanical determinants. Where force (N) is high, velocity (m/s) is low. Conversely, where force is low, velocity is likely greater. The types of force production, such as power and maximal strength, are placed throughout the curve. Power is often viewed as the “holy grail” of performance. It is shown to be sandwiched between strength-speed, where the magnitude of the lift is still quite slow but the force is relatively high, and speed-strength, whereby the velocity is noticeably greater. For the sake of generality, the main purpose of understanding the force-velocity relationship is to try to shift the curve towards the right.

Leverage

Biomechanics is “the area of science concerned with the analysis of mechanics of human movement.”⁶ Ultimately, the length of our limbs can control a fraction of the lifts performed in the weight room. A taller individual, with a long femur, then has the task of pulling a load further to lockout, but the length of our limbs cannot be changed unless we take to them with a piece of sandpaper. Mechanically, it is a matter of adjusting according to the individual because they must make the most of their mechanics.

Physiological Determinants of Strength 

Broadly, physiological determinants include central (nervous system) and peripheral (muscular system) factors. Central determinants are largely centered on the adaptation or, in some cases, the temporary maladaptation of the nervous system. Conversely, peripheral determinants tend to involve changes in the architecture of the muscle.

Muscle Architecture

As the saying goes, “a larger muscle is more likely to exert greater force.” In practical terms, more forceful muscles tend to be larger muscles, but this is dependent on the type of training performed. A bodybuilder might have larger musculature than a powerlifter, but which individual generally lifts greater weight?

Aagard et al.⁷ monitored the response of human pennate muscle, which run parallel to their associative tendon, to a 14-week heavy strength training regime. Training load varied from three to ten repetition maximums (RM), until the latter weeks (10-14 weeks), where ranges varied between four and six RM. To summarize their study, the CSA of type 1 muscle fibers was not statistically significant, but that does not mean it was time wasted.

I look at #fatigue as a crossover between physiological and psychological determinants for strength, says @JamyClamp. Share on X

Linking back to structural training, it is the rep and set ranges that largely determine the effect that lifting has on muscle architecture. Training at 85-100% of a rep max is within the myofibrillar hypertrophy range; however, there will likely be the potential benefit of increased density. Conversely, as intensity increases and volume decreases (high rep/low set), loads used are usually much less in relation to %1RM.

Further to muscle architecture, it is well-known that endurance-based athletes are likely to be dominant in type 1 fibers, with slow twitch characteristics. Type 1 fibers produce less force, but they are capable of producing force over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, they lend themselves to strength-endurance training. Opposite to these, fast twitch fibers generate much larger levels of force. The dominance of particular fiber types progresses nicely into the way that genetics maintain a pivotal role in strength.

Genetics

Much the same as our leverage potential, genetics are an element of performance that cannot be altered, or at least not cheaply or quickly. We can only make use of the ingredients that we have in season, so we must strive to optimize the product. Numerous products exist that allow for genotyping and, fortunately, I have completed a DNA test. As my knowledge does not yet extend far enough into the depths of genotypes, there a number of standout genes that could have an influence on strength.

Alpha-actinin-3 (ACTN3) is associated with filament sliding velocity⁸; therefore, a deficiency in this particular gene could reduce power-generating potential. To elaborate, Yang et al. studied the difference in allele frequency (ACNT3) between power (n=46) and endurance (n=194) athletes. They found variations amongst the two categories of athletes, although not significant, that promoted the athletic quality in which they competed. Essentially, if there is the luxury of genotyping, it is useful, but ultimately, we can generally tell if someone is likely to be power or endurance dominant—the “eyeballing” analysis. 

Endocrinology

Hormones are the mediators of the large majority of human processes. A significant fluctuation in hormonal balance can have detrimental effects either way. Hormones can be broadly categorized as being either anabolic, constructing, or catabolic, destructing. In the anabolic group, there are the infamous pair of testosterone and growth hormone, and their derivatives. Most noticeably, cortisol—also known as the “stress hormone”—is labelled catabolic. Epinephrine and norepinephrine, adrenaline and noradrenaline (for the British among us), respond almost immediately to strength training, as we strive to produce greater force.⁹

It is important to understand that endocrinology is not all lab coats and suspicious scientists. The hormonal response to training is critically important and the benefits can be obvious.

Fatigue

I look at fatigue as a crossover between physiological and psychological, and my opinion is substantiated by physiologist Tim Noakes. The typical indicators of fatigue are undeniable: hydrogen accumulation, due to lactate not being utilized as a fuel, causing the “burn”; a loss of homeostatic control; an increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide within arterial blood; and glycogen depletion, which reduces ATP turnover.¹⁰ They are some, but not all, of the potential physiological culprits behind fatigue. Psychologically, the Central Governor Mode suggests that fatigue is subconsciously controlled in order to prevent a “catastrophic” decline in performance. Essentially, we are naturally offering our best attempt at controlling homeostasis.

Psychological Determinants of Strength

While strength is primarily a physical component of performance, psychology will often play a pivotal role in the expression of the quality. To gain the full benefits of strength training, every element of a session needs to be executed with intensity, commitment, and effort.

Motivation

Exerting force against a heavy object to prevent it from crushing us irrefutably involves a reasonable amount of effort. So naturally, at a particular moment in time, motivation has a significant role in the expression of strength in the weight room. I am sure we have all experienced training days where we know, after our first set, that we will likely be “embracing the grind,” as opposed to pressing and pushing like a knife through butter. This is where a coach earns a percentage of their bacon because, at times, it is just not sensible to adapt the session based on the player’s current condition, and this is hugely important because being stubborn and ignoring potential signs of fatigue is negligible.

Motivation has a significant role in the expression of strength in the weight room, says @JamyClamp. Share on X

A point where technology and motivation join forces is through the use of velocity-based training. Essentially, VBT provides knowledge of performance feedback on a rep-by-rep basis. Granted, an athlete who is relatively experienced in the weight room is likely to acknowledge when they are fatiguing but, with VBT, there is an objective measure that clarifies the issue. Linking back to motivation, sportspeople are largely innately competitive breeds, so a challenge to maintain or increase their velocity is valuable, as long as it is kept under control.

Intent to Lift

The hard-nosed coaches will likely bang the drum to this and I’m not saying it is wrong to attempt to ignite or, in some cases, reignite the fire. The intent that an athlete has to lift plays a pivotal role in the training outcome. But if there is a lack of intent during training, does it not seem logical to ask why? The boot camp “shouty shouty” approach might work for some, but I’ve found it often makes matters worse. As the cycle of performance contributors shows, strength is not just lifting big. As soon as we treat the athletes we work with like weightlifting robots, we lose ground. Take the time to understand why they are not lifting with intent because, if you understand their “why,” you can coach far more effectively.

‘Here, There and Everywhere’ Athletes

They are fired up and willing to crack their head against another player’s hip at speed, but they then simply exist, and cruise in neutral, during strength training. While it may be frustrating for the coach, it is not uncommon, so again, provide a “why” and highlight how the training will benefit them on the field both in the short term and, perhaps more importantly in the coach’s eye, in the long term.

Personality

“High-wired characters tend to suit high-wired sports.” (Nick Newman) I accept that this statement is a slight generalization. However, I think it runs true most of the time. Picture the start line before the 100-meter dash. Now, picture the start line before the 1500-meter run. I have noticed significant differences, and a coach can learn a lot from the personality of an athlete, and manage their approach. However, you should never cage athletes because of their personality characteristics. It is a balancing act.

Strength: An Important Ingredient, but Not the Only Ingredient

Overall, strength is a critical part of performing and doing so with efficiency, as well as doing it on a regular basis. Hopefully, there is an understanding that it is not a “deal breaker” in the sense that, without great maximal strength, a career will be washed away. Strength is a part of the recipe, but there are other ingredients required to bake a nice cake.

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

References

1. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Siff, M. 2009. “Supertraining.” 6th ed. Verkhoshansky SSTM; Rome.
2. Stone, M., O’Bryant, H., Garhammer, J., McMillan, J., and Rozenek, R. 1982. “A Theoretical Model of Strength Training.” NSCA Journal. 36-39.
3. Bompa, T. and Haff, G. 2009. “Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training.” Human Kinetics: Champaign.
4. Bosch, F. 2015. “Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach.” 2010 Publishers: Rotterdam.
5. Ohashi, N., Robling, A., Burr, D., and Turner, C. 2002. “The Effects of Dynamic Axial Loading on the Rat Growth Plate.” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 17 (2), 284-292.
6. The British Association of Sport and Exercise Science. (Online). BASES. Available at: http://www.bases.org.uk/Biomechanics
7. Aagard, P., Andersen, J., Poulsen-Dyhre, P., Leffers-Mette, A., Wagner, A., Magnusson, P., Kristensen-Halkjaer, J., and Simonsen, E. 2001. “A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture.” Journal of Physiology. 534 (2) 613-623.
8. Yang, N., MacArthur, D., Gulbin, J., Hahn, A., Beggs, A., Easteal, S., and North, K. 2003. ACTN3 “Genotype is Associated with Human Elite Athletic Performance.” American Journal of Human Genetics. 73 (3) 627-631.
9. Kraemer, W. and Ratamess, N. 2005. “Hormonal responses and adaptations to resistance exercise and training.” Sports Medicine. 35 (4) 339-361.
10. Noakes, T. 2007. “The Central Governor Model of Exercise Regulation Applied to the Marathon.” Sports Medicine. 37 (4) 374-377.

There is no doubt that 2017 was a big year for the discussion and adoption of sport performance feedback technology. For some, the talk may seem like old hat, but I think last year saw a critical mass of various levels of team sport making purchases. From high school through elite levels, teams are buying force plates, velocity-based training (VBT) barbell trackers, smart medicine balls, timing gates, and the list goes on.

Tech purchases have gotten ahead of the understanding of what to do with their valuable feedback, says @Scott_Damman. Share on X

However, I think there is a caveat to this phase of adoption. The purchases of feedback tech have gotten ahead of the understanding of what to do with the valuable information. Many have purchased the Ferrari, but do not know how to drive it. Or, as we say out where I live in rural Colorado, the cart has been placed before the horse.

Don’t Get Caught in the Past: Update Your Metrics

I get most of my support calls from high school coaches who made a VBT tech purchase and now need to know what to do with the information. If you spend the money on a Ferrari, you damn well need to know how to drive it, right? The point is, the recent investments on the table will demand that we step up our collective game to figure out how to create best practices around the array of tech options.

The part that alarms me a bit is that much of this sport tech has been around for decades, but we are still living in the 1990s with its applied use. The big-budget teams have had access to these tools (for example, VBT tech) for more than 20 years and still often get stuck on one metric: full range-of-motion concentric AVG speed. In other words, the VBT mullet of metrics. 

Let me share the athlete experience I had nine years ago—the experience where the light bulb came on regarding the measurements that may really matter. In 2008-09, I was working with a National Alpine team, applying the Myotest device for jump performance baselining and fatigue monitoring. For those who may not be aware of the Myotest, which is no longer available, it was a Swiss company that created the first field-use and wireless accelerometer sport feedback tool. The product was pioneering, and much of what you see today related to team VBT applications (estimates of 1RM, force/velocity profiles, power profiles, etc.) originated with the Myotest.

Video 1. The Canadian Cowboys in 2009, testing muscle stiffness properties—kilonewton meter (kN-m)—using the Myotest plyometric jump protocol. Here is a two-time World Champion hitting 67.3 kN-m. Matt Price (second from the right), who is currently the L.A. Kings (NHL) Head of Strength & Conditioning, was the Director of Sports Performance for Alpine Canada at the time. I’m on the far right.

One of the monitoring protocols set up by Matt Price, the Alpine Director of Sport Performance (now with the NHL’s L.A. Kings), was a body weight squat jump. This called for strict adherence to the protocol for testing: static position with NO countermovement. They used this protocol, along with a few other jump protocols (like you see in Video 1) to monitor fatigue during the grueling World Cup season. I met up with the team when they came through Colorado (Beaver Creek) for a World Cup stop, and assisted with some data collection and analysis. In 2009, this stuff was very new, so Matt and I spent a good deal of time “talking shop,” and Matt was forward-thinking in how he could best apply this feedback.

Understand which metrics or analysis from an athlete’s #data represent the difference-making stuff, says @Scott_Damman. Share on X

I was always curious to understand how the Myotest data helped define the athlete. In other words, which metrics or analysis I could pull from the instant feedback that represented the difference-making stuff. Instead of looking athlete to athlete, I started with a wide comparison of a world-class ski racer vs. a regular Joe: comparing the two-time World Champion skier in the above video to me.

The Surprise Results and the Light Bulb

You can see the comparison report below: Test 1 is me, Test 2 is the athlete. If you look between the two yellow arrows, you will see our comparison results for power, concentric force, speed, and jump height. Today’s mainstream performance feedback conversation, especially VBT with the barbell, definitely tilts on the side of speed (meters per second), along with power (watts).

If we only look at the two popular performance indicators, speed (m/s) and power (watts), for this comparison report, we see that the power output was virtually identical and the difference in speed was 8%. The concentric force output was identical, with 0% difference. On paper, these two guys look very close. Comparing speed and power is a fairly typical performance evaluation these days. However, these comparison results sure did not make much sense to me, and they certainly did not help answer my question of finding the measures that matter; measures that define the true athlete. But, upon digging a bit deeper and analyzing the force curve, the picture starts to get clearer.

The black arrows in the report point to two very different-looking forces curves. Using the Myotest software, I set triggers to look at force production from 0-200 milliseconds (ms). Instead of looking at the full range-of-motion jump outputs, the 0-200 ms time “window” represents rate of force development (RFD). The elite athlete created 1153 newton during that time window, while the regular guy created 319 newton. The athlete generated 360% more force within the initial 200 ms of the squat jump. Light bulb. The takeaway is that this RFD measure may be a measurement that really matters.

It’s Time to Update and Evolve

With the recent and rapid adoption of sport tech feedback tools, let’s make sure the conversation and modern application make the purchases worthwhile. It is the responsibility of the thought leaders and innovators to help the entire market evolve.

Last year I wrote, “Is It Time for Coaches to Rethink Velocity-Based Training?,” with the intent to spur conversation about the measurements that matter and redefine how we apply sport tech feedback. Specific to this case, velocity-based training. Since this article was published, the public discussion has been alarmingly low. The VBT mullet still reigns, and that, quite frankly, is a bit of a sad state of affairs.

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

 

Countless people have written about the bench press, largely as a function of the fact it is a contested lift in powerlifting. Powerlifting’s approach to bench has had an enormous influence on weight room approaches the world over. Many athletes—especially those responsible for their own strength training—often grab their first program in the form of a powerlifting template. This generally results in young athletes exhibiting the shoulder pathologies of those who are much older. Trying to divorce horizontal pressing from its powerlifting sensibilities goes down as well as suggesting we drop the catch from cleans.

There has been heavy reporting of tight anterior shoulders and poor scapular mobility due to an overuse of the bench, and with good reason. Poor pressing technique, over-eager number chasers, questionable ROM, and training imbalances can wreak havoc on an athlete population. The bench press, much like the vertical press, isn’t going anywhere and should form part of a well-balanced and nuanced training approach. Contact athletes—especially those engaged in push and framing type contacts—benefit from powerful pressing, from top to bottom.

If you’ve read any of my articles, you’ll sense an overarching theme of finding intensification and load where we can, so standing one-arm cable pressing and one-armed and landmine presses that look like they came fresh off a physiotherapist’s photocopier are not going to cut it!

Horizontal Pressing and Athletic Performance

The flat bench has taken a battering in the modern age of clickbait-oriented content and trainers looking to gain traction with antithetical commentary. The anti-bench approach is lionized widely, but the bench didn’t get us here—weight room culture is probably more to blame. The kids just won’t stop benching!

You’d think tight anterior shoulders and poor scapular mobility due to an overuse of the bench are an international health crisis the way some coaches go on. In my last pressing article I discussed similar concerns found with appropriate and excessively cautious implementation of the overhead press. It seems anterior pressing is pathologized in general.

Video 1. A good starting point is doing flat bench presses with a grip that is more narrow than traditional benching. Shoulders that can’t tolerate conventional-style bench pressing respond favorably to this alternative.

There are two trends I notice as soon as an athlete suffers a shoulder injury or develops a pathology. One is to give them a work-around to address the deficiency, allowing them to press, but not fixing the problem. Movement pragmatism is fine provided you get under the hood and fix the issue instead of putting a neutral grip Band-Aid on it. The other is to pathologize them to within an inch of their lives and do anemic press variations ad infinitum, largely perpetuated by a fear-of-injury culture. Fix the problem and get the bar loaded.

Any strength coach worth their salt will generally include some sort of pressing. Upper- and lower-body power and maximal dynamic strength variables were positively correlated to punch acceleration, and pressing strength, in particular, has a strong relationship with upper limb speed.

Any strength coach worth their salt will generally include some sort of pressing, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Some of the most impressive benching I’ve seen has come from throwers. It makes sense that heavy horizontal pressing and vertical pressing would be a key component for athletes in contact sports and sports requiring high-force, high-velocity movements like throwing, pushing, and opponent head and neck control and stiff arm limb contact. It’s why, to some extent, as context influences programming, bench-pressing is non-existent in programs for athletes that operate at very high velocities. However, this is probably built on a base of pressing in their junior years. So, when coaches suggest they don’t bench-press X athlete, there is probably some disingenuity there. Given the propensity to press, I’ve outlined a few variations below that allow for an athlete-centric horizontal pressing approach.

Old School Inclines—They Work

One of the big questions that hangs over horizontal pressing is its functionality, especially the flat bench, which is ostensibly laying on a bench and pressing upward. But let’s not be the harbinger of reductive absurdism; otherwise, we could pull apart snatches, squats, and planks as not being “specific.”

Likewise, the incline bench seems to benefit from the notion that the torso angle in relation to the arms is more sports-specific, while in combat sports I’ve seen bench derided as a bodybuilding exercise that should be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, I’ve seen suggestions that driving through the feet and angle of execution more closely resembles a punch. We could possibly justify it as compromise between horizontal and vertical pressing. Coaches working with throwing athletes seem to have strong opinions on the matter. They are thoroughly keen on the movement and talk of numbers being moved on an incline bench that would make any powerlifter worth his salt blush.

Video 2. Adding chains to incline pressing is a great way to challenge the end range of the movement. Learn to set up chains properly and you will see the benefits down the road.

Bill Starr has written some classic articles discussing how incline pressing seems to be a lost art. “They don’t know that in the late 1950’s and early 60’s the top strength athletes used the incline as their primary upper-body exercise. Greats such as Parry O’Brien, Dallas Long, Randy Matson, Al Oerter and Harold Connolly handled well over 400 pounds on the incline. Ken Patera used it to enhance his overhead press and ended up with an amazing 507, which will forever stand as the American record in the Olympic press.” Much of the research seems to flit between incline bench recruiting more pec major and delt, while having similar tricep recruitment as its flat bench relative.

I am a proponent, often making use of thick grips to make the positioning more comfortable. Done properly, it is difficult to cheat on the movement, but a prudent strength coach may have to police arching in the uninitiated. “You can squirm, you can jerk about and you can rebound the bar until you cough up blood, but you’re never going to find an effective method of cheating on the incline. That’s what I like about it.” –Bill Starr

The incline bench, plus dips and push-downs, is about as close as we get to a Bill Starr press trivium. It’s not a horrible way to approach arm extension if needed. Yes, total numbers will take a hit initially when switching from flat to incline pressing, but this is worth sacrificing for greater ROM. Talking about angles on the bench, I’m a fan of higher inclines, ranging anywhere from 45 to 70 degrees.

Try Close Grip Incline Bench Press

Close grip incline pressing benefits from the potential crossover of torso to limb angle, as well as the degree of the joint angle from the closer hand position on the bar movement and ROM being much greater than with the flat and regular incline benches. Flat bench can become an exercise in ROM manipulation due to the influence of powerlifting practices in strength and conditioning, which favor total weight moved over work done. Close grip incline pressing gives the athlete few places to hide, due to the extremes of elbow extension and flexion involved.

Close grip incline pressing gives the athlete few places to hide, says @WSWayland. Share on X

This is very evident with the population of combat athletes I work with. They often have long arms and shorter clavicular anatomy so close grip incline bench puts them in a position they despise; no ego lifting here. We know, thanks to the classic Green & Comfort (2007) study, that “Reducing grip width to <=1.5 biacromial width appears to reduce this risk and does not affect muscle recruitment patterns, only resulting in a +/-5% difference in one repetition maximum.”

To quote Mike Robertson: “The close-grip bench is an excellent exercise because it’s very ‘real world.’ When you bench press, for example, usually your arms are deviated away from the midline of your body. On the other hand, when you push things in real life, usually your arms are in tight to your body. A great example is a stiff-arm in football. The arm is in close to the body to create the greatest mechanical advantage. Even though you don’t lie down in football, a close-grip incline is a great exercise to improve your stiff-arm strength.”

This close grip position is something I employ with the MMA fighters and grappling athletes, as a hands-tight-to-body position is crucial in pressing, pulling, and framing in these sports. The scapular positioning is better than what we often see in flat benching; incline pressing without depressing the shoulder blades is difficult. You can argue that this scapular positioning could be detrimental but the transfer correlates, as well as 75% of the stuff we do that doesn’t look anything like the sporting action. There is no reason you can’t iron this out with ballistics later on.

Video 3. Incline pressing with higher-than-typical angles is a great option for athletes. Adding thick grips and chains makes a difference that athletes notice, and is a great compromise for those that don’t do vertical presses enough.

The deeper ROM on incline can aggravate some athletes with cranky shoulders. In this case, to reduce AC joint stress, I employ the close grip bench press with a lot of accommodating resistance, such as chains. This enhances tricep drive in the movement, as the movement has a serious sticking point about halfway through. The use of accommodating resistance can also be a novel way to reduce joint pain and makes incline pressing more tolerable for the uninitiated. In turn, you can combine this with thick and false grip pressing, which leads in to the next section.

Add Fat Grip and False Grip Pressing

Thick grip training is nothing new and has been posited as a novel avenue for improving all-over strength for some time. We know grip strength has a strong relationship to general athleticism and robustness. Rather than slap thick grips on to finish up a set of curls, there’s no reason we can’t employ this across a variety of exercise options.

I noticed that thumbs-free thick grip pressing is a boon to athletes with elbow and shoulder issues, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Working largely with a population of fighters, we use a lot of thick grip modalities because it has numerous carryovers to their sport. I also noticed that thumbs-free thick grip pressing was a boon to athletes with elbow and shoulder issues.

Christian Thibaudeau, who has promoted the use of false grip (and thick bars), has remarked on this online: “When you take a regular grip [bench press], your hands turn in slightly. This automatically forces you into an internal shoulder rotation position…This puts stress on the shoulder joint, and if you try to tuck the elbows in—despite the natural inclination for the elbows to be out—you create a lot of torque at the elbow joint. So you either increase the stress on the shoulders or the elbows, neither of which is good. By using a thumbless grip you can easily keep a more neutral hand position, which makes it much more natural to lower the bar while staying tucked. This reduces shoulder stress without increasing torque at the elbows, resulting in a less stressful bench press.”

False thick grip pressing, for instance, seems to be inherently more comfortable and it’s easier on wrists. I’ve been using it extensively with some of my athletes. Despite my initial hesitation, we’ve not had an athlete lose a bar yet. The false grip and the need for intensive stabilization and focus on bar contact make for better pressing. Let’s be clear: The bar is not sitting on the palms as if they were pressing a pair of Faberge eggs. The athlete must wrap their hands around the bar as tight as they can. Pull thumbs under and squeeze actively with fingers down on the bar as much as they can the whole time.

Increasingly thick grip pressing and other work has been shown to be highly impactful in athletes we wouldn’t expect, such as golfers, as recently highlighted by Cummings et al.’s recent Fat Grip Training study. This, however, was a full-body approach to thick grip work. There is a small amount of research looking at thick grip, and very little on thumbs-free pressing.

Video 4. In this video, I share my wisdom on pressing, as I work with an array of athletes in different sports.

I’m being pragmatic here, but something special comes from a stabilization standpoint when we apply eccentrics or pauses with the use of thick grip work in the press, largely as a great need for focus, stability, and lat recruitment. Most of my athletes report that it is a far more full-body affair.

What About Loaded Push-Ups?

Loaded push-ups and suspended push-ups, in particular, became a darling for many “functional” training experts. I’m all for bodyweight intensification, to a point.

Loaded push-ups offer scapular freedom, simplicity, and very low technical coaching investment. This should be the base upon which you build most horizontal pressing variations.

Video 5. Even advanced athletes should still integrate push-ups into their training. You can insert loaded push-ups into nearly any program, and they are timeless options. 

Mladen Jovanic suggests that suspended push-ups are a worthwhile replacement, or at least the next best supplementary exercise to bench. He suggests that “Using rings forces you to use shoulder stabilizers more and allows for ‘natural’ movement of the scapula, and also allows shoulder rotation which can allow lower joint stress (penalty) compared to barbell bench press. Since the stability is compromised, the load used will probably be less than in bench press, hence bench press should still be performed to provide an overload (depend on the athlete need to upper body push strength).” I do, however, disagree with Mladen on his opinion of the incline press, which he seems to think is worthless.

While push-ups possibly offer similar levels of muscular activity compared to bench and freedom of the scapular, loading push-ups, especially with intensive means, becomes difficult. Draping chains over the athlete while palming bands over their back and wearing a loaded vest becomes impractical.

Push-ups make for great volume-based options, but we need to be clear that, aside from abstractions into callisthenic trickery such as feet elevated, one-handed push-ups in a weighted vest and the like, push-ups are hard to really load heavy. 

Floor Pressing – Try It and See

Floor presses really allow you overload the triceps without placing undue stress on the elbows or shoulder. This is a common complaint among heavy pressers and it makes sense that floor pressing can give your shoulders a well-deserved rest with shorter ROM. This shortened row means that stress across the anterior shoulder is kept to a minimum, which is the reason I use it for athletes with shoulder issues. Much like other presses, thick grips seem to make this better.

Video 6. Anyone with a grappling or MMA background can see why floor pressing makes sense. It’s a pressing position off the back that requires powerful chest and tricep recruitment, often from a dead start. This has applicability for making a frame when in the bottom position, stiff arming, bench press mount escaping, and so on.

The floor press teaches tightness and tension on the floor, and the lack of leg drive and any real arch means that movement cannot be assisted: It’s just you, your triceps, your chest, and your shoulders. You can further increase tricep recruitment by bringing your grip closer. You can perform it with a hip bridge, turning it into a bridged floor press—a movement that requires neither a rack nor a spotter and but does require a lot more lat stabilization.

I usually use the floor press as an accessory exercise for the bench press or sometimes cycle it into a program as the main pressing movement. I use it often with grapplers, peaking them with reverse band floor presses done explosively. Give it a try and experiment with it, as it is one exercise that is purely pragmatic in application because research on the movement is scant at best. Most of the information we have on it comes largely from powerlifting sources, aside from dumbbell floor pressing popping up in a few NSCA and physiotherapy manuals.

Important Caveats to Pressing

Pressing comes with a big question mark, as Bob Alejo highlighted in his recent post, “Myths and Misconceptions of Training the Overhead Athlete.” “Based on the evidence and common sense, it’s likely that pull volume should be significantly higher than pressing volume (I recommend a 2:1 ratio) to reduce the risk of poor shoulder function, pain, and injury.”

As I stated in the press article, pressing needs to be earned with progressions coming from the floor up to unilateral to bilateral underload, offset by a diet of heavy pulling both vertically and horizontally. Bad posture, weak scapular stabilization, and poor rotator cuff function are your responsibility to fix or move towards fixing; pressing should be earned. And, as Bob mentions in his article, pressing is built on a foundation of not only rowing, but also the action of the upper body doing heavy hinging. In short, a strong upper back and posterior chain is the price we pay for a quality press.

In short, a strong upper back and #PosteriorChain is the price we pay for a quality press, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Taking this into account, much of the pressing I prescribe comes with a heavy dose of eccentric upper back work, hinge, and overhead pressing. Extensive usage of heavy neutral grip lowering, which Carl Valle touches upon in this eccentric exercise article, is noteworthy. I find a mix of NG lowering and close grip incline pressing makes a pretty effective combination for many athletes. Heavy RDLs and snatch grip RDLs, which require extensive shoulder and scapular bracing, are another addition to this.

Suggested Reading

“The Affect of Grip Width on Bench Press Performance and Risk of Injury” 

“Comparison of chain- and plate-loaded bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball players”

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

 

Overload/Adaptation. We all know what it means, but not enough attention gets paid to either. This article will talk about the overload part of the relationship and how to manage progressions to optimize time and performance improvements.

Are you familiar with the story of Milo? The myth is that, as a small child, Milo would go out every day and lift a calf. As the calf grew, Milo was lifting a larger and larger animal until, as a grown man, he was lifting a bull. This demonstrates the lesson of small incremental overloads over a long period of time leading to great strength gains.

Properly timed progressions are the quickest way for athletes to make gains, says @jdevore1. Share on X

My experience has shown me that properly timed progressions are the quickest way for my athletes to make gains. I believe that all the fancy exercises and technology in the world cannot compete with a great understanding of how to progress an athlete.

Look to Make Incremental Gains

I also believe that a great coach’s real value is in the gift of time to their athletes. While most people think the value is in injury prevention, athletic performance, sport-specific performance, etc., all of these things provide the athlete with more TIME. It is a gift of more productive years at the highest level of performance. If an athlete is injured they cannot train, so poor program design wastes an athlete’s productive years (even if they make some gains). Could the gains have been greater? I see my role as a coach to realize the greatest amount of sustainable genetic potential of the athletes I am charged with training without injury.

My understanding of the science and the athlete’s body allows me to give the athlete much greater performance in their most productive years of play. Athletes are dynamic, which is the reason monitoring how they progress is so important. I have a hard time understanding a coach that does not write things down. I always write notes to myself and, even though there are plenty of spreadsheets available to use, I still rely on my notes to help me understand the dynamic nature of training. These notes allow me to learn better ways to make progressions.

I look for incremental changes in my design to produce greater and faster marginal gains that, when added together, create what I call “tipping point” fitness.

Years ago, when the Raiders were in the Super Bowl, I was lucky and got to train Regan Upshaw in that off-season. He was one of my first high-profile elite football players. When I trained him, he had been in the NFL for 11 years. I had never worked with a defensive end at the time, so in my evaluation of him the first thing I did was look at what my primary objective would be if I improved him as a player in the gym. If I could create an athlete who, when the ball was snapped, was immediately in the quarterback’s face, I would be a tremendous coach.

While that is an impossible task, I looked at what percentage of that objective I could achieve and worked backwards. With that mandate in mind, I began to tear apart everything he did once the ball was snapped. What did he require physically to perform at his best based on the needs of the position? I would use the tools of exercise science and training to reduce the time it took him to get to the ball.

I started by looking at his stance to determine how I could reduce the time of his first movements in any direction. We found that he had a very long rear foot stance. This was comfortable, but slow. His time off the ball was about 30% faster if we brought his rear foot up closer. I then looked at what I needed to do from an exercise physiology standpoint to better accommodate this new foot position, as it was initially awkward. Adding more hip flexor mobility made this new stance more comfortable for him.

This was my first incremental gain and it was a tipping point for him. The time immediately after the snap has much greater value to a lineman. During the Super Bowl, I saw him line up on the ball and then move his back leg forward and it put me on the field. I was elated. Of course, we then moved forward to evaluate all the other physical needs of his position. With great athletes, marginal gains add up to big performance gains.

Without incremental #overloads on a regular basis, an athlete will make little progress, says @jdevore1. Share on X

Keeping that in mind, what have I seen as one of the greatest influencers on really fast results without injury? Is it a better understanding of technology, pre-hab, program design, exercise science, mobility, stability, exercise selection, Olympic lifting skill, coaching capabilities, etc.? The list goes on and on. I do not discount the importance of having a basic understanding of all these tools.

However, after a decent understanding of these tools, you make the greatest impact by determining when and where to progress athletes. The great thing about this skill is it relies more on your ability to pay attention, listen, and observe than all the science in the world. Without regular incremental overloads, you will dramatically slow progress! I will say that again: Without incremental overloads on a regular basis, you will see little change! Milo would have been puny if the calf did not grow.

When, Where, and How to Progress Athletes

After high school, athletes today have short off-seasons but you may find blocks of training time that are long enough for you to make an impact. Let’s say an athlete is 19 when he starts college. According to the NFL Players Association, the average career length is about 3.3 years. The NFL claims that the average career is about six years (for players who make a club’s opening day roster in their rookie season). If this is the case, and each player has about eight weeks when they can train consistently in the off-season (I am being generous), the time disappears fast.

That is a total of four years in college and about six years in the pros. So there are about 80 weeks of total off-season training time when players can really make gains. Therefore, if you believe that adding 2.5 pounds to a lift is insignificant, you are really missing the boat. I tell my athletes that proper progressions are like compounding interest for retirement. At first, it does not seem like it is doing much. Then, you suddenly look at the account and there is significant money in it. Building an athlete is similar. Sensible, regular progressions compound and increase in value over time.

Proper #progressions are like compounding interest for retirement, increasing in value over time, says @jdevore1. Share on X

Any unproductive time is costly. One week a year of lost gains in fitness is 12.5% of the total time the average player has in an NFL career after high school to make gains. Two weeks lost is 25% of potential lost for the athlete. This is devastating when you know that the difference between being a franchise player and getting cut can be very small percentages in performance at that level.

The problems that arise in progressions are due to the human body being a dynamic mechanism. This attention on progressions needs to be on strength, but even more so on power and any metabolic conditioning you may perform with your athletes because there is a bigger risk of overtraining these metabolically taxing exercises. Progressions are even more important as the athlete becomes better and better. This is because overloads need to be bigger or more intense to get a change in performance as the athlete gets fitter and fitter. 

When progressing an athlete, you need to consider these factors:

• Time: How much time do you have to train the athlete?
• Maturity: How long has the athlete been training at this level?
• Chronological age: This will have an impact on recovery time. It does not mean an older athlete cannot recover quickly, but you need to keep age in mind.
• Recovery and adaptation time: This is more of an individualized evaluation.
• Fatigue: CNS (central nervous system)/Peripheral (muscle-specific)
• Current level of relative fitness: What level of fitness are you starting with? The fitter the athlete, the more important the progression. An unfit athlete will make gains quickly with most types of stimulus. However, the fitter athlete must have a more focused design.
• Biomechanical issues and impediments: Until remedied, this may limit your ability to make big progressions. However, injuries have helped me become a much better coach, by figuring out ways to improve the athlete in areas that have been neglected for long periods of time.
• Past or recent injuries: Athletes have injuries. How far away from the injury is your training? Always remember it can impact your progressions—it is equivalent to driving a high-performance car fast on bald tires.
• Baselines to establish overloads: Poor baseline analysis wastes a great amount of time as you do not get to an overload level fast enough.
• Mental toughness: Most athletes hate to train things they are not good at. It is like getting a kid to eat their veggies. Sometimes you have to figure out how to make them think it is dessert.
• Winning a workout: Athletes want to win. If you do not create little victories in each workout, morale decreases and progressions are more difficult as you will see breaks in training.

Periodization: When and How Much?

What is the most effective method of progressing an athlete? When, how much, and how often is the science of periodization. In the 1960s, the Eastern Bloc employed 10-year periodization. They would identify a candidate in their early youth and then start the process, which meant they looked at progressions over a very long period of time. Tudor Bompa is considered a pioneer in the study of periodization and he brought much of the Eastern Bloc training methods to the West. 

Overload/Progression: A simple definition of a progressive overload is anything over the norm that creates a stress large enough for the body to make an adaptation. 

Some examples of overloads:

• Load/Intensity: More weight and power output. Higher velocity, and higher percentages of maximum output.
• Volume: Time of output, more reps, more total sets.
• Rest/Density: Rest between the sets; rest between the reps. Most do not think about rest between reps. I utilize this method very effectively in training for efficiency of power production.
• Tempo: Speed of a movement
• Metabolic load: Anaerobic, glycolytic, and aerobic. What are the fuels needed and rest to recovery ratios?

Periodization is just the design of the overloads and rest to elicit a desired outcome. This design will impact progressions in your training. Typically, periodization is organized in blocks. The blocks cover different energy system needs or physiological objectives: strength, hypertrophy, strength endurance, power, power endurance, etc. You typically have a microcycle, mesocycle, and macrocycle. The microcycle is the individual objective of a workout, the mesocycle may be three weeks, and the macrocycle is the overarching longer term strategy.

I have studied the work of Verkhoshansky, Siff, and Bompa on the subject. The problem with most of the original periodization models is they were developed for weightlifters or competitive Olympic lifters whose sport is their training. As a strength coach, and a competitive cyclist, I have learned much about how periodization impacts aerobic performance on the bike. How do you take the lessons of these progressive overloads and apply them to a particular sport for power and strength? You are not trying to build weightlifters most of the time, but you are trying to improve movement and power by way of the weight room.

Endurance athletes are much better at periodization than most team sport athletes. The endurance athlete’s seasons are long and there is often a need to peak for particular events, which lends itself to an effective periodization. With a field or team sport athlete, there is more of an overall need for fitness and then some peaks throughout the season that are dictated more by the coaches of the sport itself, not the strength coach. Once the season starts, it is more play and rest with lots of maintenance to minimize de-training. However, the principle behind periodization is really just a physiological management tool for overloads and adaptation so that the athlete is at their peak when it is most valuable.

I think the takeaway from all of these periodization programs is that you need to build a solid foundation of fitness that addresses the need for the sport. This allows the athlete to progress from this foundation with higher and higher intensities and overloads that have a low risk for injury or overtraining, and then build on this fitness throughout the season through maintenance workouts and competition.

There are many different types of periodization and I will not go into detail on all of them here. The two most common are linear periodization and undulating periodization. Linear breaks out blocks of time, with objectives in each block: hypertrophy, strength, strength endurance, etc. Each block has a focus and you progress through the blocks. Undulating periodization has multiple objectives, and peaks and troughs more often within each of the objectives.

I like Louie Simmons’ conjugated periodization system for my strength and power training the best (it’s much more undulating in nature), as you can apply the principles much easier to different sports and levels of athletes, and it fits well into a commercial center. Collegiate athletes have mandatory practice, which makes some aspects easier. The undulating periodization system allows me to better and more easily address the unpredictability of an athlete’s time, and more rapidly progress athletes that may have faster recovery times.

Viewing Physiological Requirements as Windows

I label my personal system, “Training with Windows.” I am a visual guy, so I like to visualize my overall training design for an athlete as if I was looking at a wall of windows. Each window represents a particular physiological requirement for that particular sport. Remember, most athletes we train are not competitive weightlifters, so the ability to have multiple physical qualities is very important. The windows reflect the needs of the sport at the highest level of performance. During the year, some of the windows are wide open and some just slightly open. The only time they are all wide open is during competition. I spend a lot of time identifying the needs of the sport and what skills the athlete comes to me with, and then determine the gaps for gains.

My system is ‘Training with Windows’—where windows are the needs of a particular sport and position, says @jdevore1. Share on X

For example, let’s say I have a competitive high jumper. Some of the primary physiological windows for their sport would be: lower body strength, lower body power, mobility in hips, mobility in back and shoulders, dynamic core, stability and power, t spine mobility, drive leg power and strength, high rate of force development, hamstring strength and eccentric loading capabilities, strength endurance, speed strength, and knee stability. These are some of the primary windows I would evaluate.

Most of these are obvious, but I need to determine the current physiological infrastructure of the athlete that I need to improve in order to address these needs and progress them. The athlete needs to be able to perform a large number of strength exercises with large amounts of weight. In addition, they need to have enough mobility to handle the upcoming training for power. I look for correlation coefficients to the act of jumping. A correlation coefficient is the amount of influence one variable has on another variable. Your best squatters are typically not your best vertical jumpers, but squats will help improve a vertical jump. Therefore, squats are part of the program that will help support the power training to improve vertical jumps.

An extreme example of this concept would be forearm strength and high jumping. I would say there is a very low or nonexistent relationship (correlation coefficient) to high jumping. In fact, if an athlete’s forearms got too big, they would add unnecessary body weight, which would negatively impact the athlete’s jumping height. However, without good wrist mobility and forearm strength, power cleans are difficult to execute. So, there has to be a window opened to this skill of wrist mobility and shoulder integrity even though it is not a primary window.

I determine the size of the window I utilize by the relationship it has directly or indirectly in supporting the final requirements of the athlete for the sport.

Using the idea of these windows, how do we design and monitor progressions?

As I said when it comes to strength and power, I like the conjugated training system because it regularly addresses all the needs of the particular lifts, but with emphasis on particular areas at different points in time. This also supports my idea of little victories and keeping the athlete engaged. Remember: Athletes do not like doing things poorly, so you need to balance these skills. My high school athletes want their biceps to look good when on the field. The need for biceps may be very low in their respective positions, but I have no problem killing their arms and sending them out of the gym with a big pump from time to time to give them a win.

Following through with my windows metaphor, I never completely close the window on any required skill. I may, however, just crack the window open a little and have another window wide open, while changing the focus so that I can marry the individual’s progressions to the needs and weaknesses in their performance skill set that may already exist. If an athlete is monster strong on deadlifts and squats, what is the added value of more squats if the position or sport they play does not require greater lower body strength than they already possess?

Therefore, I may crack the window to maintain their lower body strength, but shift my focus and time elsewhere. I may skip ahead and go to maintenance on these exercises and jump right to improving the athlete’s power. This saves me valuable training time that I can gift to the athlete. This is also the reason I am not as fond of systems of training with elite athletes.

I believe in sport that all roads lead to power. In some cases, it is a high output of power for a few efforts (high jump, shot put, etc.) However, most sports require multiple efforts of power in different planes of movement. It is not the highest output of power that wins, but the ability to hold the highest percentage of that power the longest in a competition.

Designing the Workout

Once you establish the windows (needs of a particular sport and position) and establish what baseline skill set your athlete possesses (how big are their current windows relative to the needs of the sport?), the next step is designing the program that will best address these needs and gaps that the athlete may have and that are most important to change. This is your overarching program design to make the improvements necessary to bring your athlete to their highest level of output in the time you have. I call this inter-workout design.

Within the workouts, we also have intra-workout design. This is where I most often see time wasted on poor progressions.

My goal is to progress the athlete to the greatest overload as fast as possible without any risk of injury. I do not want to waste sets, reps, or a workout because I did not get the overload I wanted. Time is where the value exists. Every coach will say if they had more time with the athlete, they could make bigger gains. This type of analysis can give you more time.

Time is where the value exists, and this type of analysis can give you more time, says @jdevore1. Share on X

The first thing I do is set a primary objective for my workout; e.g.., I am going to get a max in the deadlift or bench, or bump absolute power. The primary objective may also be to rein in the athlete so that I get the big lift later in the week. This primary objective is the win of the workout. Then, if you have a hiccup (which you always get), you can still see if you can accomplish your primary objective. Sometimes you just can’t get an overload, but by going in with the objective, you know what direction you want to head in. You also know that today may be best suited for active recovery, because if you try to force the overload at a subpar output you just dig the athlete into a hole and risk overtraining.

You can set up intra-workout progressions in a number of different ways. They can be arbitrary from week to week, with you just setting an increase in weight that is fixed from week to week or a percentage increase week to week. This may work better for individuals that are new to lifting or have not been in the weight room for many months. The progressions will usually be bigger jumps as the athlete gets back into the lifts and the body makes a more rapid adaptation back to the previous normal. The athlete has been here before, and you just work on technique and see if there are any biomechanical issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, this transition time is not a real improvement over where the athlete was at the start of last season.

You can also progress week to week and make changes based on the performance the week before. I like this with more mature athletes and it may work well in a bigger group, too. This can be on a fixed percentage or perceived exertion by the athlete. If you use perceived exertion, you have to educate your athletes on what this means or you will not get the output you desire. My goal is to reduce what I call “wasted” reps and sets and workouts. I want training, not exercise. Exercise is a component of training but may not contribute to moving the needle forward.

I use a rep scheme that allows for the dynamic nature of how an athlete feels. It is based on past lifts, but not wedded completely to them. The past lifts act as a guide. I overlay this with trying to have max lifts in one or two exercises in each workout. I monitor the type of lifts so that the athlete doesn’t do a squat 3 rep max and deadlift 3 rep max in the same workout or on back-to-back days. I am careful about designing the workouts so that recovery time is adequate. These could be an upper body and lower body, pulling or pushing maxes on the same days of the week.

It is also dictated by how many days in the week I get to train the athlete. If you get the athlete more often, you can be more creative with the maxes. This would be similar to the conjugated system.  I, or one of my coaches, will observe the lift and try to progress the athlete based on a previous week’s lift, but at the same time take into account the possibility of a fitness bump during that workout. We know that, as athletes get fitter, jumps in fitness come slower and less often. I want to take advantage of a bump as soon as it takes place, not a week later!! This is really important and the reason I like notes. With notes, you can immediately go back and see what the last max lift was and the date it was executed. You will also start to see patterns in the time between max lifts for different athletes. 

The Workout:

I start with a check-in set, which is typically 10-12 reps. I want to see how the athlete feels, and it is also a way to reduce injuries. The more days of the week the athlete trains, the lower the rep count can be on this set as the athlete is more in tune with how they feel. If you have bigger gaps between workouts, you may do two of these sets. You could look at this as a warm-up to the bigger lift to follow.

If I see any issues with form or if the athlete just feels weak, we progress accordingly. If my objective is to get an overload with a heavy lift, then I want to get there as soon as possible so I do not hinder my ability to overload with too many preceding sets and too much volume. Some athletes are more comfortable with bigger jumps in weight. The next set will typically be six to eight reps. I like the range of two reps as it gives me, my coaches, and the athlete some flexibility and still feel success. I always tell my athletes that I want to target the lower rep range if possible. This means that the sixth rep should be about all that they can accomplish. If you see that it is too light, do not do more reps. Just make a bigger jump on the next set, so as not to add unnecessary fatigue that may compromise you getting an overload.

My next set is typically three to five reps and the last set is two to three reps. Each set will have a bump in weight with the target in mind. The range of the reps gives us some flexibility in targeting. If I can get a 2.5-pound increase in weight, I am going to get it. Do not discount the smaller increases as having little value. On endurance days, the smaller increases are also of great importance and are sometimes overlooked. You want the increase in total volume on these days, and you must allow the body to get the weight on the bar. This method requires the coach to be more observant of the athlete in the lift, or to educate the athlete on the goal of the rep scheme and progression if the coach is not there to add value and monitor them.

I also am very cognizant of the athlete’s level of athletic maturity and I will typically look at “max” lifts for a novice differently than for a seasoned lifter. A less-mature lifter may have six to eight reps “max” as the top end while an elite lifter may have one to three reps.

Greater Improvements, Faster

I have seen great technical coaches get poor performance results from their athletes because of poor progressions. You need less Instagram moments and more focus on what really adds value and cannot be seen in a photo. My belief is that, with a few solid exercises and great progressions, you will make much greater improvements faster than with any other form of training. It is a dynamic process that requires a coach to pay attention and figure out ways to lead the athlete to obtain the greatest overloads without injury or overtraining.

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

Last year, a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of flywheel training vs. traditional weight training made quite an impact on the sport science community. I read and digested the 29-page article so that I could explain the study outcomes a little further beyond the abstract, offer some input, and also give a peek into ongoing research by institutions like CESSCE.

After reading the article, the key points I want to get across are:

• Flywheel training with eccentric overload is consistently shown to be superior to traditional weights for increasing muscle power, strength, hypertrophy, and athletic performance.
• Eccentric overloading in these studies is predominantly done through one method, but there are many other more-effective methods.
• There needs to be more research in the future, as we still don’t know what is optimal.
• Researchers in seven different countries are currently looking at the kBox for physiotherapy, fitness, and performance training.

What Is All the Fuss About?

If you follow and read about flywheel science, this meta-analysis won’t surprise you. If you have hands-on experience with the kBox, even less so. Almost all studies comparing flywheel and gravitational loading (weight stack devices primarily) so far have favored the flywheel, so there’s no news here. Two of the studies did not favor the flywheel; however, those are about the conic pulley version, which is completely different from the type with a symmetrical shaft like the kBox. In one of those studies they compare different drills, too, so you can’t really say anything about flywheel vs. weights there, either.

f you have followed us for a while, you might have come across the meta-analysis on flywheels and their effect on power, strength, mass, and horizontal and vertical force production by Henrik Petré; an unpublished MSc project. It contains 15 studies but it isn’t a comparison against weights, so this new study adds something new.

To begin, I want to clarify what eccentric overload means in articles, what people think it is, and what it really is. In all flywheel training articles, the overload has been of the delayed eccentric action type. This means you accelerate all the way through the concentric phase, but don’t resist until after you passed the first third of the eccentric motion. By doing this, you overload the latter two-thirds of the range of motion since you have to absorb the same amount of energy as you produced over the whole concentric phase, but in a shorter period of time.

If you look when people tweet or post about eccentric overload, you can see all kinds of things. For instance, super-slow eccentrics spending 10-12 seconds in ECC phase, which is basically more isometric than eccentric action, at least if we compare them to the eccentric actions done during athletic performance. So, eccentric overload to me is ECC load >1RM concentric. If you are doing 2-1 (i.e., “2 legs up and 1 leg down”) with a submax weight, I’d say you shifted ratios with more eccentric focus, but if that load isn’t >1RM concentric, it is not eccentric overload training.

If you talk about eccentric training (but don’t say eccentric overload), I think it is a broader term that could permit super-slow chins and push-ups with bodyweight. However, I also think they are a waste of time; instead, increase the load and do (fast) overloaded eccentrics because that is the trigger you are looking for. Chris Beardsley wrote a nice piece on fast vs. slow eccentrics.

However, when you use the kBox, there are more ways you can actually overload than seen in these studies. You can use a stronger movement pattern in CON, like doing a “squat-hinge” as our U.S. friends call it, or the terms I prefer: “overloaded RDLs” or “deadlift into RDL” (as performed by Mike Young). RDL is weaker, so it will be overloaded if preceded by a powerful deadlift. You can use accessory muscles like pushing off with arms in the squat in CON and absorb it with the legs or have a coach pull you up, which adds extra energy for you to absorb.

This study looks at flywheel training with a partial overload in eccentric ROM vs. training with traditional weights, nothing else. The adaptations coming from the more powerful overload methods with higher contraction velocities haven’t been studied head-to-head yet, but if we compare more overload, over the whole range of motion with regular CON:ECC 1:1 using weights, I know where my money is. (Read up on the kBox overload methods here.)

What Did the Study Show?

Now, back to the important new meta-study, “Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by the mainly Spain-based team of Sergio Maroto-Izquierdo, David García-López, Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalo, Osvaldo C. Moreira, Javier González-Gallego, and José A. de Paz. If you just want the results, you can check the abstract. However, if you are still reading, you probably want a little more information, so here goes.

The authors searched the databases and found 97 studies. Although the flywheel might still have a lot of question marks around it, saying there is no research is wrong. Anyway, based on their inclusion criteria, the analysis included nine studies with a total of 267 subjects. All these studies are flywheel vs. weights, ranging from four to 10 weeks, with healthy young people or athletes between a six and an eight on the PEDro scale, which means all are classified as high quality. The average age for flywheel groups was 25.8 years, with a very asymmetric gender distribution since only one study involved women.

The exercises included in these studies were leg presses, leg extensions, leg curls, and squats from lower limb, with two studies including exercises targeting shoulder abduction, arm extensors, and flexors. In the flywheel devices, the overload was provided with delayed eccentric action as described above.

A Clear Win for Flywheel Overload Training

The results in this systematic review are a clear win for flywheel overload training on all training outcomes. Since an image says more than a thousand words, I’d recommend you take a quick look at the summary in the forest plot to see it yourself.

Here is the forest plot. If you want to interpret it yourself, you can find a guide here.

Basically, all studies are placed under the respective outcomes they wanted to look at: strength, power, hypertrophy, jump, speed. The standard mean difference on the far right shows the difference between flywheel and weight training groups, with an average to the right of the vertical bar meaning difference between groups favoring flywheel (i.e., more effect). Studies are weighted, so a larger study has more impact than a smaller one. All studies are weighted and put together in the row with the big black diamond. As you can see, all studies favor flywheel on all outcomes, with power and strength being the most obvious.

Naturally, the results from any systemic review and meta-analysis depend on which studies you choose to include and what outcomes you look at, creating room for debate. Covering a relevant subject, the publication of this study inspired an interesting discussion and additional work by another research group. This other group published both a letter and a study (Vicens-Bordas et al., 2017) showing no significant benefit in strength with flywheel training.

This difference depends mainly on a different selection of studies, where they included only 76 and 71 subjects in their primary and secondary analysis, versus 267 subjects in the first one I review here. They also set the cut in November 2016, which excluded an interesting paper from Maroto-Izquierdo (2017) on professional handball players that got really good results on performance outcomes in the flywheel group and is very relevant for sports performance.

Further on, the second meta-analysis included a paper from 2005 (Caruso) where they mainly studied bone osteogenesis in obese women (and a few men) on hormone replacement therapy. In this study, both groups showed very poor strength gains of 7% vs. 12% (no significant difference) over 10 weeks of training on a seated leg press. With such small gains in strength in both groups for very untrained subjects, I think you can argue for the whole intervention to be suboptimal for strength gains and, as a result of that, it’s also not ideal for comparisons between modalities, especially if you train a younger and more athletic population. If you want to form you own opinion and dig into this flywheel vs. weights “beef,” you can read the letter and the reply from Maroto-Izquierdo et al., and the second meta-analysis.

The current article by Maroto-Izquierdo et al. that this review is about provides a good discussion around the results and mentions a few other interesting studies (not included in the meta-analysis), so I recommend you read the full text if you want to get more details.

We have no reason to believe #flywheel training wouldn’t benefit women, but there’s no evidence yet, says @FredrikCorrea. Share on X

Did the meta-study prove that flywheels are better than weights? Looking at the results, the flywheel is definitely more effective than weights—at least if you train young, healthy male athletes. However, as already discussed, this result will depend on the included studies. When it comes to women, we have no reason to believe they wouldn’t benefit from flywheel training, but all the evidence isn’t there yet. We need future studies to include women. This meta-analysis only included three women out of 276 subjects in total. Sport science must do better than that.

How can you apply this knowledge? These studies are basically single-exercise drills and not a part of a training program. Therefore, we actually don’t know (in a scientific sense) how flywheel overload training works in an environment with a much higher total training volume and with parts of concurrent training. Still, it’s hard to see how there would be a negative effect if you add flywheels to a well-designed program. Coaches afraid to train their athletes too hard by adding flywheel training can use this as evidence that they should replace some of the training with barbells with more effective flywheel training.

We are also missing more closed chain exercises involving multiple joints like squats, deadlifts, and split squats. What we see from our users are also different types of overload with a higher degree of overload than in the studies and over the whole range of motion. This is probably an effective stimulus for adaptions in these outcomes but future studies must quantify it. Adding flywheel will cause some muscle damage and fatigue early on, but adaptation is fast and muscle markers for damage don’t seem to have a detrimental effect on adaptation. You can read more on this subject here.

It’s hard to see how there’d be a negative effect if you add #flywheels to a well-designed program, says @FredrikCorrea. Share on X

Last, but not least, the flywheel device is only a tool. You need to use it properly for strong positive effects. I usually say that training on the kBox doesn’t get you strong if you don’t train with that intent. Lousy training is still lousy on a flywheel device. The benefit of the kBox is that it makes it easy to train really, really hard and that is what triggers the adaptation—the overload.

What More Do We Need to Know?

I’d like to see more studies looking at specific populations so we can prescribe training more effectively, depending on training age, strength, sport, etc. As mentioned above, we need studies on more closed chain drills and realistic and complete training programs to help us with periodization. Flywheels might be better, but we don’t yet know what is optimal.

Besides this, I think physiotherapy can benefit a lot from using flywheel training. Patients need to get stronger and more powerful with good timing, since time saved is important for good flow in the health care system and getting people back to work. However, before we see a massive surge of flywheels in physiotherapy clinics, we need more clinical studies on specific diagnoses and conditions.

There Is Work to Be Done

There are studies using the kBox being done right now in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, Holland, Italy, and Australia. The topics involve all three main groups: athletes, patients, and the general population. I know at least one publication on physiotherapy that is supposed to come out this spring. Without revealing too much, I can say the kBox was in favor over the gold standard treatment for a common problem among athletes in sports involving a lot of jumping.

In addition to these research projects, we are in discussions with other researchers, so the list will be longer later this year. We try to understand the problems or questions our users have, and I’m tasked with trying to get the researchers to look for answers. I hope that we see more studies we can apply in the field that will help us with protocols, periodization, loading, and in-season training.

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