Blog

“The curse of modernity is that we are increasingly populated by a class of people who are better at explaining than understanding, or better at explaining than doing.” – Nassim Taleb

We are blessed to live in the information age, with virtually any bit of information at our fingertips. From countless CEU courses to hard drives filled with e-books, no coach is lacking in information. You can find numerous articles across the internet with Top 10 book lists, and these are all great resources—I have used many of them to fill my own bookshelf and CEU requirements. But I fear they may be incomplete.

I have noticed a trend in young coaches having tremendous book knowledge of training but little understanding of how that training plays out. It’s one thing to know Prilepen’s chart, but a whole other thing to understand the training effects of 15 optimal reps between 80% and 90%. It’s one thing to understand the theory behind accommodating resistance, it’s a whole other thing to understand just how quickly accommodating resistance can wreck a training session. Just like a martial arts master, we must not only know the concepts in theory, but in practice too.

I have noticed a trend in young coaches having tremendous book knowledge of training but little understanding of how that training plays out, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

The following is a list of five programs I believe every young strength coach should run for a training cycle to experience the principles and concepts of these influential programs firsthand—each has a key takeaway that can be learned from running it. Some of these programs I found myself through reading, while others were introduced to me by mentors and others introduced to me through colleagues. So, without further ado, let’s jump in.

Program #1: Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1

5/3/1 is a staple programming approach used by many strength coaches due to its simple yet effective approach to loading the primary lifts. Created by Coach Jim Wendler, 5/3/1 programs calculate percentages based off 90% of the athlete’s one-rep max (1RM). The program then cycles through plus sets each week of 5+, 3+, and 1+, with a de-load in week four.

When I was a young strength coach, I was proud of my squat number and did not follow the prescription of programming off 90% of my 1RM. Experienced coaches know where this is going…and oh, my gosh, I wrecked myself. I was still able to hit good numbers but beat myself up so much with grinding sets that I did not make good progress. I then humbled myself, ran another cycle of 5/3/1 using 90% of my 1RM for calculations, and—what do you know—I started hitting PRs and feeling a ton better.

This helped me understand that submaximal reps can go a long way in an athlete’s training and how 5/3/1 could be easily applied to non-strength sport athletes who shouldn’t get beat up by the barbell, but can still benefit from raising max strength.

Key Takeaway—Athletes can gain substantial strength through submaximal loading parameters.

Program #2: Westside Barbell

Westside training is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused programs out there. From speed sets being too heavy to max effort days taking hours on end, the training looks nothing like the original intent.

Like it or not, Westside Barbell has an enormous impact on strength and conditioning. So do yourself a favor, purchase the Westside Barbell Book of Methods, and run the program to a T. Until you build up to a max-out single in 20 minutes, perform 10 sets of speed squats with max intent on the minute, or do sled pulls for a half mile, you don’t know what Westside training is. Learn what a proper box squat is supposed to not only look like but feel like.

Furthermore, every young coach should experience firsthand the catch-22 that is accommodating resistance. It’s great in theory and when you set it up right, but if you mess up your resistance band setup, you will pay with an uneven barbell or overloaded resistance that crushes the athlete. It was only by running Westside cycles that I truly came to understand what the max effort, dynamic effort, and repetition method were about, along with the purpose of conjugate exercise selection.

Every young coach should experience firsthand the catch-22 that is accommodating resistance, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

Coaches seem to either love or hate Westside, and I’m not here to determine a verdict on it, but before you pass judgment, give it a shot.

Key Takeaway—Running a Westside program creates a better understanding of the max, dynamic, and repetition effort methods.

Program #3: Old School Husker Power

Full disclosure, I was born and raised in Nebraska and had the privilege of interning at the University of Nebraska, learning from Boyd Epley and Mike Arthur. I did not choose this program out of nostalgia or so that young coaches know their history. All of those are good aftereffects, though. I chose this program because, as Mike Arthur told me one day on the floor, “I know my old program might be outdated, but it’s better than half the programs I see nowadays.”

For those who don’t know, the Old School Husker Power program consisted of four training days a week, with two strength days and two power days. Strength days were full body lifts utilizing compound barbell and dumbbell movements, while power days consisted of various Olympic lifts and plyometrics. Each strength day and power day was completed twice in the week, with one being a heavy day and the other being a light day. The heavy–light system provided the athlete exposure to various muscular contraction rates throughout the week, building more than just showy muscle.

There have been many adaptations and tweaks to this original approach, but I believe that young coaches should experience how effective a simple program like this can be. Doing heavy squats on Monday (3 sets of 5 at 60%, 70%, and 80%) and light squats on Thursday (3 sets of 5 at 40%, 50%, and 60%) goes a lot further than you may expect. You can find the original program in Complete Conditioning for Football, written by Mike Arthur and Bryan Bailey.

Doing heavy squats on Monday and light squats on Thursday goes a lot further than you may expect, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

Key Takeaway—The basic concept of heavy and light days can go a long way in physical preparedness.

Program #4: Triphasic

I don’t know about you, but Triphasic to me feels like that program which everyone knows about, but no one has ever done. Cal Dietz is a mad scientist and the theory behind the program is solid—but, until you do it yourself, you won’t understand the group training limitations and coaching constraints you will need to account for. Oh, and let’s not forget how difficult the training can actually be. Overload eccentrics killed me not only in the lifting but in getting the bar back up on the rack. Furthermore, I discovered a newfound respect for isometrics after seeing stars from a pin pull.

Each section of the training plan—eccentrics, concentrics, and isometrics—are fantastic, but require firsthand experience and verbatim adherence the first time around to properly understand the system before one starts to tweak it. Triphasic is a fantastic training reset for coaches coming from Olympic and powerlifting backgrounds, allowing them a chance to better understand muscular contraction rates and how they affect training performance.

Key Takeaway—There are more training parameters than just sets, reps, and weight.

Program #5: 1×20

We all know the joke “anything above five reps is cardio”—which is all for good laughs until our training devolves into nothing but five reps or less. This is one of the reasons I believe every coach should run a 1×20 training cycle. Created by Michael Yessis, 1×20 bucks conventional strength training understanding by exposing the athlete to a wide variety of movement variations at higher rep ranges.

This program is not designed for body building, nor is it designed for strength gain. The byproducts will produce benefits for both, but the goal of the program is to develop increased proprioception and work capacity throughout the system using high-rep sets covering numerous joint actions. One set of 20 reps may not seem like much, but when compounded through multiple exercise selections with minimal rest, these workouts quickly demonstrate their worth.

We all know the joke “anything above five reps is cardio”—which is all for good laughs until our training devolves into nothing but five reps or less, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

This style of training is great for athletes with low training ages and athletes who need the benefits of the weight room. Furthermore, going down a Michael Yessis rabbit hole is great for any coach’s understanding of physical preparedness.

Key Takeaway—Athletes can benefit from rep ranges north of five.

5 Honorable Mentions

1. Dan John: One Lift a Day

K.I.S.S.: keep it simple, stupid. In a world of over-programming, focusing on one lift for 30 minutes with intensity is a breath of fresh air, demonstrating how intent can play a big role in physical preparedness.

2. New Functional Training for Sports

Love him or hate him, Mike Boyle is a leader in strength and conditioning and his methods are far too often straw-manned. Take some time and experience his methods firsthand and see what you like and dislike about them.

3. Juggernaut Training System

This is one of the best adaptations of powerlifting methodologies to physical preparedness I have used. Furthermore, the hypertrophy systems used in Juggernaut help build “functional” muscle mass.

4. Tier System

While not used by many today, the Tier System still stands out as a solid program and one which coaches can easily adapt for general-population clients on the side. Full body workouts with a template that’s easy to remember and won’t harm the client while mixing it up go along way with general population.

5. VBT

Like it or not, technology has made its way into the weight room. Before programming VBT for any group of athletes, a coach should have firsthand experience with how the system works along with the feedback loops it provides.

Writing Your Own Programs

There are countless ways to write a program. Many work. Some are downright awful. But no matter what you do, make sure you know how to do the program firsthand before you consider it, condemn it, or attempt to coach it.

Spend the time reading and learning, but don’t forget about getting under the bar. Weight room calluses, bloody shins, and welts from a poorly set up resistance band can be the best teachers. Get in the weight room, expose yourself to a wide variety of training methodologies, and learn from them. The moment we become closed off and have “our system” is when we start to backslide.

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

Being a coach, athlete, and human being means being creative. Creativity is a given in the arts: music, film, dance, painting. Coaching has several “artistic” aspects, but the creative application of training means is rarely emphasized.

Perhaps part of this is because so much of what we would call athletic performance is typically “prescriptive” in nature. Strength coaches often tell you about what protocol they run, whether Triphasic, Tier, 1×20, or 5/3/1. Even in speed training, there is often a popular sequence, perhaps with a mechanical sprint device that is prescribed to athletes, and in jump training, a particular depth-jumping protocol.

In some ways, we could say this is the nature of sports performance relative to sport and skill coaching: treating physical qualities—and rudimentary skills—as basic and trainable through a prescription of exercise. No creativity is required, just the general stamp of approval of the coaching community or whatever relevant research or data collection might be available.

To coach is also to create. Complex coaching is to take various colors and brushes and create something new, something that serves the needs of the athletes in front of you, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

Although these prescriptions clearly deliver results, to coach is also to create. Complex coaching is to take a variety of colors and brushes and create something new, something that serves the needs of the athletes in front of you with the equipment you have available (or lack thereof). One of the apexes of creativity in athletic performance, especially when there are a multitude of training means available, is found in complex training. Complex training is the mixture and combination of training means, relying on the synergy of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

Video 1. Sample French Contrast sequence for jump power development.

Originally, complex training was defined as alternating heavy strength training with plyometrics. The research threads tend to focus on the specifics of potentiation, how much to lift, and how long to rest. It runs far deeper than “lift heavy weights, rest 10 minutes, and do some plyos.” In reality, complex training is a wide net that can encapsulate anything from wave loading and energy system alternations to purposeful circuits of exercises designed for either a potentiation or coordination challenge (or both). 

The 1980s and the Wellspring of Complex Training Genius

Ironically (or perhaps not so much), the greatest displays of creativity in the realm of complex training came from an era out of the past rather than the present. Music critics claim the 1960s to the 1980s were the richest decades musically, and the 2010s were the most monotonous. If you want to be a good musician, it’s a given to find inspiration from the greats of the past—and a tremendous influence on modern music has been from previous decades.

The material of the past is fundamentally invaluable for a complete understanding of physical training. There is so much training from the 1980s that coaches regularly refer to, such as the work of Charlie Francis. Track and field jumps training, as well as plyometric training, was taking off in this period (literally), and some of the best strength research came from the 1980s as well. This is not to mention the highly funded Soviet research done with actual athletic populations conducted more than 50 years ago.

Regarding complex training, there are two coaches of the past whose work demands our study. Jean Pierre Egger coached from the 1980s (Werner Gunthor) into the 2010s (Valerie Adams). Giles Cometti was not only a track coach but also a professor and performance center director whose work spanned from track coaching in the 1970s and research beginning in the 1980s into books published through to 2010. The more you study them, the more you realize that both were not only ahead of their time, but much of modern training still hasn’t caught up. Between the two, there is also a substantial amount of common material and concepts and a synergy of the developing ideas of the time.

Jean Pierre Egger was a world-class thrower himself and the brains behind the Werner Gunthor training material. The Gunthor training series is one of the most popular by far, and 40 years after its inception, coaches still love watching a 300-pound man perform various feats of complex and explosive training. Egger used a variety of methods, from pre-fatigue to agonist-antagonist pairing to pressurized eccentric overload machines and, of course, creative complex training methods. 

As things progressed through the 1990s into the 2000s, the focus of complex training grew simpler rather than more complex, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

In the time since the 1980s, complex training didn’t seem to accelerate as much as take time to see more rudimentary versions validated by the research. As things progressed through the 1990s into the 2000s, the focus of complex training grew simpler rather than more complex. My graduate school’s focus on complex training in 2007 mentioned nothing of Cometti or Egger. Rather, the focus was simply on the premise of basic potentiation, if a heavy lift could make your vertical jump higher 5–10 minutes afterward.

Much of the training throughout that time (2000–2010) resonated with the powerlifts and perhaps a related regression into more simplistic models. Egger, on the other hand, utilized specific complexes based on the phase of preparation and the plane of muscular motion. In more strength-oriented phases, pre-fatigue, agonist-antagonist work (shown here: 6:28–6:35), and specific eccentric overloading were staples (shown here: 1:58–2:15).

In power phases, strength work was paired with plyometrics in the same plane of motion and joint action. Advanced variations combined plyometric variations in essentially an “obstacle course” format, keeping things highly task-oriented (activating the salience network of the brain) while infusing natural variety. These movements were also high intensity in nature (see more Gunthor here), which differs from much of the watered-down, multi-planar plyometric work seen today, which seems more about the sequence than the stimulus and intensity.

Where contrast training was a centerpiece of the Gunthor training series, a French coach and researcher was simultaneously laying the foundations for modern complex training adaptation. Giles Cometti was the inspiration behind “French Contrast Training” (as per Cal Dietz), the training complexes of Christian Thibaudeau, and methods used by many other coaches.

In studying and translating the works of Cometti, as well as speaking with other influential coaches, I’ve found that his work is inspirational to modern coaches and is foundational and robust in its own right. It may be the language barrier that kept the work of Cometti from really striking the coaching means of the West, but it stands up as both years ahead of its time and highly creative and integrative of multiple athletic performance qualities.

Cometti was listing the pros and cons of the major muscle contractions (concentric, eccentric, isometric, plyometric, electrostimulation) 40 years ago, discussing how to combine these training methods in a way that maximized the positive while diminishing the drawbacks. These pros and cons are rarely discussed today. He also heavily used electromyography and had a deep understanding of the underlying neurological wiring and activation systems of motor units. He understood the nature of muscle twitch, partial and full “tetanic” contraction, and the unique impacts of long-duration isometrics from a motor unit synchronizing perspective. You would see all this at play in his complex training design.

Beyond the basic physiology, a major highlight in Cometti’s work was his emphasis on integrating a relevant sport movement into a complex circuit and being mindful of how various plyometric or special strength pairings could ultimately fit with specific sport skills, such as a volleyball block, soccer kick, or flying header. Few in the training world have so eloquently and creatively combined these specific means as Cometti did back in the 1980s and 1990s or had the extensive library of methods, along with the physiological backing of understanding.

Have We Built on Training of the 1980s?

Watching the Gunthor training series in the 1980s, you would think that modern training would be regularly infused with purposeful and specific creativity, as well as with the potential for task-specific sport efforts. More often than not, however, we see diluted versions rather than work that has truly built on it or integrated it. Part of this may be cultural, in lockstep with what is seen in music and film, but I believe there are also other reasons.

Today, there is an increased separation unfolding in the sports training process. There is the sport coach, the player development coach, the strength coach, the speed coach, the nutrition coach, the mental coach, and the high-performance coordinator. Egger was the coach for Gunthor. Cometti had a prominent sports science position and his own lab/gym. This isn’t to say there isn’t a high level of value in each of these individual positions, but it’s more speaking to the fact that the roles within sport itself have been increasingly specialized, and the container of sports performance doesn’t outright reward creative integration in exercise selection.

The roles within sport itself have been increasingly specialized, and the container of sports performance doesn’t outright reward creative integration in exercise selection, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

Within the silos, much of creativity now focuses more on singular strength training iterations or perhaps plyometric methods in their own capacity. This brings us dozens of iterations of squat, bench, and deadlift variations, unilateral lifts, “functional” training adaptations, and various re-hashes of plyometric movements. Novelty now works more for the individual container than for how movement can be integrated back into sport. The exact emphasis tends to go in waves, with varying strength methods waxing and waning in popularity over the years and decades.

Keeping with the nature of the job, sport coaches are relied on for the motor learning, tactical, and technical processes, which thrive on more “messiness,” non-linearity, and complexity (and those coaches are rarely educated in the subject). Strength coaches, meanwhile, are primarily in charge of “prescriptive tissue enhancement and stress management,” to put it a particular way. Keeping tissues healthy is an incredibly important job, but keeping one’s job tends not to require a creative quest to maximize specific KPIs or athlete movement patterning.

New technology and data collection also give coaches other ways to explore the realm of basic strength training, such as with bar velocity or readiness indicators. Some coaches certainly explore the breadth of complex training in a quest to maximize the athlete’s performance and engagement, but the way success in physical preparation is framed doesn’t facilitate maximizing KPIs as a requirement.

Complex Training in the Modern Era

So, how has complex training moved forward, and who has picked up the baton? What can we learn from the current iterations of complex work, combining strength, plyometrics, and speed for an optimal result? Where is complex training most applicable across the breadth of specific skill training and in general physical preparation?

For this article, I am listing modern iterations of complex training with five coaches who highlight creativity and practicality in building on the giants of the past. Each example points to global principles and strategies that can be taken into a coach’s own unique situation and an understanding of how the nature of sport (individual versus team) has influenced how complex methods have moved forward over time. These break down between the weight room (general preparation) and more skill-specific means (track and pitching/fast-bowling).

Weight Room-Oriented

1. Cal Dietz: French Contrast + Multi-Stage Complexes
2. Christian Thibaudeau: “Insider Complexes”

Speed and Sport Specialty-Oriented

1. Chris Korfist and Dan Fichter: DB Hammer-Inspired Speed Complexes
2. Steffan Jones: Fast-Bowling Specific Complexes

Weight Room-Oriented Complexes

When it comes to the gym, whether it is a strength or speed adaptation, strength coaches throughout history have seen the value of wave loading. Whether it is a Poliquin style “6,1,6,1,6,1” rep scheme, going 3,1,3,1,3,1 on Olympic lifts, or even a basic drop-set of 15–20 reps after a 3×3 heavy set, the value of a wave in the gym is written into general training philosophy.

In “general” preparation, there are more options as to the exact purpose of the wave or complex, but largely, locomotion, sprinting, and jumping are the most transferable KPIs coaches are looking to build. I’ll share here some ideas from Cal Dietz and Christian Thibaudeau, both of whom are inspired by Cometti.

1. Cal Dietz

Many coaches are familiar with Cal Dietz’s “French Contrast” ideation, inspired by the works of Cometti. Cal’s classic version goes as follows:


The above is done for 1–5 sets, with three being most common, and is highly effective. Vertical jump increases of 10% in a short time using this method, and similar increases in acceleration and throwing ability are not uncommon. I’ve written articles about this format in the past, and adapting various exercises to this sequence invites coaches to leverage their own physiological and biomechanical expertise creatively. Not only is this type of contrast effective after several sessions to substantially improve explosive athletic qualities, but it can also provide significant potentiation within the session itself. For example, it is easy to accomplish vertical jump increases of 3+ inches (8 centimeters) from the first set of contrast to the last (after 3–4 sets).

In the time since the original French Contrast, I had a wonderful podcast with Cal where he described moving into contrast work with even more stages—which he called “performance cycling”—with the distinctive purpose of using strength work as a technical amplifier. One low-hanging fruit for creative integration in modern complex work is the connection between exercise selection and movement quality. As Cal stated in the podcast:

“I would start my first set with my quad-dominant athletes at the rear posterior chain exercise and then cycle through everything, which is actually better, Joel, for my weight room functioning.”

This series may look something like the following:

The purpose of more movements in a set is related to washing out the discoordination caused by doing multiple sets of a movement, like a back squat, consecutively while simultaneously using other movements to help bring up weak points (such as a glute-ham raise for a posterior-chain-need individual). The ultimate goal is improved coordination, as evident in the dynamic movements in the series (in the case of the above, the sprint and bound activities). Where the French Contrast is more pure power, this adaptation is more technical, emphasizing the functional movement patterning of the athlete.

2. Christian Thibaudeau: Strength and Power Complexes

I’m not sure there is a modern coach with more complexes in his training toolkit than Christian Thibaudeau. His book Theory and Application of Modern Strength and Power Methods is an absolute classic. Christian speaks of complexes from ascending (light to heavy) to descending (heavy to light), pre-fatigue, post-fatigue, and more. If you are looking for complexes to maximize that strength and power portion found exclusively in the weight room, then understanding Christian’s work is required.

One of the more unique complexes Christian prescribes is “insider contrast,” which he notes is inspired by Cometti’s work. There are many iterations of this, but an example is as follows, all done on short rest in each superset:

This type of “insider” contrast trains many windows of strength on the same training day and in the same set. In a way, it can uncomplicate the process of working out longitudinal periodization as multiple qualities are trained on the day in an interesting and engaging way, and the exact method can be cycled over time.

Speed- and Sport Skill-Oriented Complexes

I believe that in sports where speed is not only desirable but is the sport itself (track) or a massive and direct contributor to success (pitching and fast-bowling), complex training is perhaps the most applicable. There is a reason that Jean-Pierre Egger was a track coach. When it comes to whatever is needed to work out the last few percentage points of performance, it’s nearly a given to look to complex training means.

When it comes to whatever is needed to work out the last few percentage points of performance, it’s nearly a given to look to complex training means, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

1. Chris Korfist and Dan Fichter: Sprint Complexes

In one of the greatest training DVDs (you could call it “old school” at this point), Wannagetfast V.1, Dan and Chris go through many of their sprint-specific complexes, many of which are inspired by a coach with the pen name “DB Hammer.” These combine flying sprints with plyometrics, with more “metabolic” calf and lower leg work. One of their prime complexes, which sticks with me in many of my own programming iterations, is as follows:

In the spirit of the DB Hammer literature, this type of complex would be programmed for rounds until a “drop-off” in the time or quality of key performance markers.

Performing a speed complex in this way trains the body in an incredibly robust manner, with each explosive movement having the capacity to improve the flying 10 and a specific strength adaptation of the body positive to sprinting.

2. Steffan Jones: “Second-Generation” Contrast and Fast-Bowling

The specificity and specific power development of complex training have been used brilliantly toward the outcome of fast-bowling speed by Coach Steffan Jones. Whereas Christian Thibaudeau is a master of creativity in strength complexes, I don’t know of any sports skill performance coach with more extensive complex training in their toolkit than Jones. Jones has included advanced complexes in his fast-bowling regimes, not only through strength overload but also by manipulating the weight of the ball, integrating special developmental work, and working both heavy and light loads in the same complex. The spirit of the “second generation” is plugging deeper into the specificity of a single movement.

Here is a sample of one of Jones’s multi-weight complexes.

Video 2. Steffan Jones has taken complex training in sport skill to a new level in the modern sports world.

Within the skill of a single movement, Jones also puts together complexes that train the coordination of each “node” in the network of the overall throw. While some complexes are more raw power-oriented, there can be complexes meant for coordination and skill as well. (Similar to Cal’s performance cycling, but Cal’s cycling was more driven toward locomotion, a more “general” ability than fast-bowling.)

When athletes experience multiple “shades” of their sport skill, their bandwidth for improvement is greater. When athletes long jump a variety of distances, instead of all maximal efforts (such as in the classic “Rewzon” study), they end up jumping farther at the end of a training phase. By working contrast heavily into a singular sports skill, there is a density of opportunity for both athlete learning and specific power production. This is not dissimilar to experiencing different “shades” of barbell lifting style, as shown in Christian’s version of Cometti’s strength work. Humans are meant to experience different shades and versions of training. 

Integrating Creativity in Complex Training

Although the core of training is simple, complexes are perennial “plateau” busters and chances to integrate multiple “nodes” of the training network in a creative manner. Whether a simple descending power series or a more elaborate adaptation, complex training yields a multifaceted stage for athlete improvement. It also helps satisfy an inherent human need for creativity and novelty in coaching.

Although the core of training is simple, complexes are perennial ‘plateau’ busters and chances to integrate multiple ‘nodes’ of the training network in a creative manner, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

As I have gone through many variations of complex training, I’ve found that the following “ingredients” in a complex can make sense for the corresponding situations:

Strength and Power Priority

• Overcoming or yielding isometrics.
• Heavy strength work.
• Unique strength machines, such as Keiser, kBox, or Supercat.
• Depth and assisted jump variations.
• Resisted and assisted sprinting.
• Medicine ball throws for distance or velocity.

Movement Quality Complexes and Elasticity

• Rhythmic and tempo-oriented movements.
• Proprioceptive challenges (i.e., hard balance discs or physio balls).
• Isometric holds to fatigue or sub-fatigue.
• Locomotive plyometrics (i.e., flexed leg bound).
• Short or long sprinting and locomotive constraints.

Sport-Specific Adaptation

• Relevant isometric positional holds.
• Specific strength drills (“SDE” in the Bondarchuk classification).
• Exploration of basic sports skills such as swinging, kicking, throwing, jumping, sprinting, and changing direction.
• Varying intensities and loads of one’s primary sport skill.
• Tracking and single-object manipulation.

The question is, does this build on what we’ve seen from the giants of the ’80s? Can we really “improve” on Led Zeppelin, Pat Benatar, or Prince? Do we push restart and time warp? Although so much has been done already, we are in a position where we can grab from a variety of methods and apply them to the athlete or group in front of us.

Does the athlete need strength, general power, and confidence? A basic French Contrast circuit can do wonders. Does the athlete desire to connect the gym to a specific skill? Cometti sequences with an actual sport skill iteration on the tail end of the circuit are a great option. Does the athlete seek better movement quality and injury resilience? More of a performance patterning using longer isometrics and proprioceptive challenges can be effective, as I believe the complexity of sport demands more out of preparation than simply: “lift more weight” or “move lighter weights faster.” Simple demands yield simple adaptations, but complex demands need more complex and thoughtful adaptation processes.

The groundwork has been laid, so there has never been a better time to work from the existing sea of knowledge and creatively weave training into your own situation, says @JustFlySports. Share on X

The groundwork has been laid, so there has never been a better time to work from the existing sea of knowledge and creatively weave training into your own situation. If you are interested in learning more about complex training and artistry in performance coaching, then you’ll want to check out the “Escaping the Training Simulation” seminar with Austin Jochum on June 8 in Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

Strength and conditioning and sports performance coaches earn a living by training their athletes generally with progressive overload, but some already-overloaded athletes need the recovery bucket filled more than they need more training stresses added. I have seen this problem occurring firsthand, training overworked athletes at the middle and high school levels, as well as in the private sector, and consulting with various high school teams that have overworked players and are looking for ways to improve their current strength and conditioning programs.

Some already-overloaded athletes need the recovery bucket filled more than they need more training stresses added, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

Stress and Adaptation

Most strength and conditioning coaches have read either The Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning by the National Strength and Conditioning Association or another strength and conditioning book that discusses the general adaption syndrome (GAS) model developed by Hans Selye in 1956. The explanation of general adaption syndrome says that any time the body experiences a novel or more intense stress than previously applied (e.g., lifting a heavier training load or a greater volume load), the initial response—or alarm phase—is an accumulation of fatigue, soreness, stiffness, or reduction in energetic stores that results in a reduction in performance capacity.¹

There are two additional extensions to the general adaptation syndrome, and these are:

1. The Stimulus Fatigue Recovery Adaptation theory states that the greater the overall magnitude of the workload encountered, the more fatigue accumulates and the longer the delay before complete recovery can occur.¹
2. The Fitness Fatigue Paradigm states that fatigue dissipates at a faster rate than fitness, thus allowing preparedness to become elevated if appropriate training strategies are used to retain fitness while reducing fatigue.¹

If followed, the general adaption model is a simple prescription for developing strength and conditioning programs that can prevent overtraining, leading to decreased athletic performance and increased risk of injury.

Several years ago, Coach Michael Boyle, a leading expert and sought-after speaker in strength and conditioning, wrote an excellent article called “Abide by the Bucket Hierarchy.” Coach Brendon Rearick, one of the coaches at MBSC, discusses the idea of bucket filling in rules #44 and #45 in his book Coaching Rules. Coach Rearick states that he programs for what he considers to be the four buckets of strength and conditioning:

• Mobility
• Strength
• Power
• Conditioning

As a coach, Rearick aims to ensure each bucket is filled so his clients can reach their goals, and he doesn’t waste time filling already-filled buckets.² The general adaptation syndrome and the bucket hierarchy both feature ways to prevent overtraining. As strength and conditioning coaches, are we applying what we have learned, or are we letting our egos get in the way of good training?

When Buckets Spill Over

The following scenario exemplifies what often occurs in the strength and conditioning profession. Let’s say we are currently training a multi-sport athlete at the high school level: their primary sport is football, and their secondary sport is basketball.

If this athlete is going to play football in the upcoming season, he will have to go through a mandatory off-season football strength and conditioning program during his athletic period at school that could last 75 minutes (depending on the school’s bell schedule), or he could be placed in an athletic period focusing on basketball that will go right into after-school basketball practice. Here in Texas, there is a strong emphasis on playing football, and to ensure multi-sport athletes participate in a football off-season conditioning program, some schools have early morning workouts before school.

Once school is out, the athlete rushes home for a quick bite and then goes to a sports performance center for additional weekly training. The parents believe hard work is the only way to achieve your goals and that more is better. However, reviewing the GAS model by Hans Selye, if the stressors are too high, performance can be further suppressed, and overtraining syndrome can result.¹

Overtraining can be defined as excessive training frequency, volume, or intensity (or some combination of these) without sufficient rest, recovery, and nutrient intake, leading to conditions of extreme fatigue and/or illness.¹ Accumulating this type of training over time will only reduce performance and potentially cause career-ending injuries. 

In the article by Boyle (and his newly released book, Designing Strength Programs and Facilities 2nd edition), he explains the “filling bucket” philosophy to prevent overtraining. His advice is simple:

“I tell coaches to fill the empty buckets. Don’t fill a bucket that’s full. If a bucket is already full, don’t fill it. We want them to get stronger, but when we get greedy, we overflow their recovery capacity and create a mess.”³

In our hypothetical scenario, the athlete goes to a football off-season program, basketball practice, and a personal trainer and plays in two basketball games a week and maybe a weekend tournament. Based on the scenario, the athlete has already filled the buckets of strength, power, mobility, and conditioning during the football off-season program.

If the basketball program performs some basic bodyweight strength exercises, the strength bucket will be filled again; if they are working on plyometrics to improve vertical jumping or even the number of jumps performed during basketball practice, the power bucket will be filled. The football off-season program, basketball practice, and even the personal trainer could require the athlete to do some conditioning to get in shape, and now the conditioning bucket is filled. Several of these buckets could already be full and overflowing.

I want to add another bucket to the bucket hierarchy, the bucket of recovery, which appears empty in the above scenario. Designing a good strength and conditioning program is simple: coaches provide the right stimulus so athletes can respond and adapt. My recommendation for this athlete would be to focus only on basketball. There is no need to attend a football off-season program or even a personal trainer—if the athlete insists, then communication between all of the coaches needs to take place to provide the right stimulus to this athlete so he can properly adapt.

Stacking stressors in a ‘more is better’ mindset will only lead to performance decrement and injury, says @DrRaymondTucker. Share on X

The above example can be reflective of what occurs with any middle or high school athlete, regardless of whether they participate in many sports or a single sport. Stacking stressors in a “more is better” mindset will only lead to performance decrement and injury. I pose this question again: Are we improving athletic performance, or are we part of the overtraining problem in this profession? Are we helping these athletes, or are we so worried about keeping the lights on and building our business that we have forgotten why we are in the profession?

If you think about it, you will see that some coaches are contributing to the problem of overtraining our athletes because their egos are in the way. I do not think we will ever stop this from happening for various reasons, but we can at least make a conscious effort. It starts with communication to build trust between the parents, athletes, and coaches in different environments.

Coaches should take the time to educate the parents on what they are currently doing in their strength and conditioning programs. Coaches in the private sector, high schools, and the collegiate level should build a positive relationship with each other and discuss what they are doing with their athletes in their respective programs. Coaches could also exchange workouts with other coaches to ensure that they are not working on the same buckets during their training sessions—it should also be the responsibility of the athlete to take the time to communicate with the coach prior to the start of each session.

For example, if you are a high school strength and conditioning coach and know one of your athletes is going to a sports performance center for additional training, reach out to the coach at the facility to discuss what you are doing and have done in today’s workout. If you are a coach in the private sector and a high school or collegiate athlete comes to you for additional training, reach out to the coach to see what they are doing. Every strength and conditioning coach should ask three essential questions before developing their training program.

1. Can you explain the reasoning behind what you are doing in your strength and conditioning program? If one of your athletes wants to know why they are performing a specific exercise or drill, can you explain it so they can understand its benefits?
2. Will this program reduce the chance of injury and improve athletic performance or contribute to injuries and overtraining?
3. Am I truly doing what is best for my athlete or what I like to do?

Performance Training for Performance Gains

In conclusion, strength and condition coaches need to understand that there will be some overlap that can be counterproductive, and you do not have total control of the athlete’s strength and conditioning program at the high school level. Coaches need to communicate, be flexible, and recognize how to adjust/adapt to the fact that their athletes will be exposed to stressors that are out of their control but which they have to account for nonetheless.

Coaches need to recognize how to adjust/adapt to the fact that their athletes will be exposed to stressors that are out of their control but which they have to account for nonetheless. Share on X

The strength and conditioning profession is filled with egos, and everyone thinks their program or the way of doing things is better than the next coach. In some cases, this is true, but let’s put our egos aside and learn to work together to ensure the athlete’s success. Isn’t this why we chose this profession in the first place? Our job as strength and conditioning professionals is to develop a program that reduces the chance of injury and enhances athletic performance.

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

References

1. Haff G. and Triplett T. (2000). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.

2. Brendon R. (2020). Coaching Rules. Target Publications.

3. Michael B. (2023). Designing Strength Training Programs and Facilities (2nd ed). Target Publications.

The field of sports performance is relatively young, and because of this, I believe it has plenty of room to grow in multiple areas. One such area is the acknowledgment that each athlete is different from a physical and psychological perspective—recognizing those differences and tailoring your program to them at certain times of the year is often overlooked. An individual’s structure will determine what I consider Superpowers versus Kryptonites.

By structure, I am specifically referring to the infrasternal angle (ISA), the angle made just below your sternum that creates a “wide” or “narrow” rib cage. I find that Narrow individuals typically tend to be more elastic or reliant on their connective tissue for movement than on muscle. Wide individuals are the opposite; they generally have more of a muscular reliance.

Referring to the infrasternal angle, ‘narrow’ individuals typically tend to be more elastic or reliant on their connective tissue for movement than on muscle. ‘Wide’ individuals are the opposite. Share on X

In my opinion, strength coaches as a whole typically only cater to one structure—at least in a majority of their programming. Consequently, the Superpower bucket is typically overflowing for some in the program, while the other type of athlete is dosed with far too much Kryptonite.

There’s a reason you’ve heard countless times that an individual in track, football, etc., ran their fastest and jumped their highest in high school. Then they got to college and trained like a powerlifter and actually got slower and less explosive in the things that are most important. And that importance is not found in back squatting and bench pressing but in running fast and jumping high.

This is not to generalize about the entire field, as there are many high-level practitioners who effectively create programming for both types of athletes; however, I still see certain athletes slowed down by an overemphasis on traditional means. I have encountered plenty of athletes in my career who would rather sprint, jump, and play tag—and who’s to say that’s any less potent of a stimulus than back squats and chin-ups?

Throughout this article, I hope to present the differences among athletes that may lend them to being more drawn to certain training modalities than others and how you can recognize these differences to create a program that benefits every athlete to the highest degree.

Avoiding Kryptonite

Early in my career, I often heard the phrase: “We got the skill position guys in this group; they’re so soft.” What did this mean? To some strength coaches, it meant that these individuals didn’t like to back squat or deadlift heavy—these athletes would roll their eyes and be reluctant to add more and more weight to the bar. The perspective of the strength coach (again, not all, but some) comes from their experience, right? Well, what is their experience?

Most S&C coaches enjoy lifting heavy weights and grinding through reps that produce tremendous amounts of internal rotation and compression. This is because their physical structure is built for this type of training. Because they themselves were born with a structure that complements this task of high-intensity powerlifting, they believe that everybody should enjoy that same thing, and those who don’t are “soft.”

What if, however, that wide receiver who avoids loading up the barbell to near-maximal intensities has a different perspective and structure? A structure that lends itself to being springy and elastic, running fast and jumping high, and spending less time on the ground; a structure that excels in quick displays of external rotation. What if their Kryptonite is actually long-duration moments of internal rotation and compression?

No wonder these athletes want to avoid powerlifting! Doesn’t Superman avoid his Kryptonite as well? Because I’ve mentioned this idea of “structures,” let’s dig into this concept in more detail to see how it relates to the differences among athletes.

Infrasternal Angles

As I mentioned earlier, when referring to “structures,” I mean the infrasternal angle (ISA) found at the base of your sternum, which determines the width of your rib cage. This angle spans a spectrum from narrow to wide. Conor Harris describes individuals with an ISA greater than ~110 degrees as “Wides” and less than ~100 degrees as “Narrows.”

Again, referring back to the introduction of the article, from what I’ve seen, the majority of strength coaches are Wides, and the minority are Narrows. I believe this is why most strength coaches hold the bias toward heavy traditional lifting being the most beneficial—because it is the most beneficial to THEIR structure. They enjoy heavy, deep, bilateral squats and typically don’t enjoy short ground contact plyometrics.

Meanwhile, your typical basketball player usually wants to avoid powerlifting but thrives with plyometrics and lighter, more explosive movements in the weight room. Why does the structure create this bias? A wide ISA has just that: a wider structure. This structure is biased toward internal rotation and compression, as stated previously. The compression within their body occurs from front to back.

Imagine the athletes are lying on their backs and being crushed like a pancake. Notice an individual who pursues powerlifting for a prolonged time, and they will begin to compress anteriorly to posteriorly and widen laterally. This leads to these individuals having more space to move in the frontal plane and also contributes to them preferring a bilateral stance, as they lack “space” to move their limbs forward and behind them (i.e., split stance exercises).

That internal rotation is present throughout the lower body, allowing the femurs to “screw into the ground” and create a large duration of force production. This transfers down to the feet as well, while the rest of the chain is biased toward internal rotation, leading the feet to be more biased toward pronation. Pronation is a position that helps drive force down into the ground for prolonged periods, contributing more to powerlifting-type movements.

Wide ISA athletes are typically more “muscular-driven” movers. To elaborate, these people will rely more on their musculature in a traditional eccentric to concentric nature to produce movement. The benefits? They have the potential to create a lot of force. The downside? They take longer to do it, making it less energy efficient.

Wide ISA athletes are more muscle-driven movers. They have the potential to create a lot of force. The downside? They take longer to do it, making it less energy efficient. Share on X

Imagine a standstill countermovement jump performed by a very muscular and wide linebacker at the NFL Combine. This test has no rate-dependent metrics; the instruction is “jump as high as you can.” This equates to a deep countermovement jump where the individual can access the big, powerful musculature of their lower body to achieve a record-breaking jump.

Put a time constraint on the jump, however—“You have to get off the ground in x amount of time”—and they will struggle to achieve that same height. Likewise, accessing all that musculature results in a metabolic cost. Contracting musculature is taxing compared to stretching connective tissue. There is no “free energy” found in relying on musculature for movement like there is with tendons. This idea of “free energy” will make more sense when we look at a Narrow ISA’s movement preferences.

To provide an objective criterion for muscular-driven movers, I begin by utilizing force plates. For a hands-on-hips countermovement jump, a more muscular-driven mover will have a more bimodal force-time curve (figure 1 below), and their rate-dependent metrics (i.e., time to takeoff) will typically be slower. They also will use a deeper countermovement depth.

It is hard to distinguish a muscular-driven athlete from an elastic-driven athlete just by looking at outputs such as jump height, as these metrics may be very similar. However, how they achieve these outputs is much more telling.

It’s hard to distinguish muscular-driven athletes from elastic-driven athletes just by looking at outputs such as jump height. However, how they achieve these outputs is much more telling. Share on X

Another test I use is a multi-rebound, four-jump test. I believe this assessment shows a strategy preference in terms of an elastic- or muscular-driven mover and also the degree to which somebody is able to rely on their connective tissue to produce movement. The Reactive Strength Index (RSI) may be very similar between a Wide and a Narrow; however, Wides typically spend more time on the ground but achieve a greater jump height to execute their RSI score.

Video 1. A four-jump test is easily performed on force plates or a contact mat. I prefer this test to a drop jump because it shows the repeated and coordinated rhythm of elastic-type jumps instead of one singular jump. Coordination and rhythm are essential qualities to consider when determining the level of someone’s elastic system. I want to measure the efficiency, not just the effectiveness, and the repeated nature of a multi-rebound test, like the four-jump, allows me to do just that.

As you can imagine, a Narrow’s structure contributes to the exact opposite; there is an external rotation bias in the lower body found at the femurs, and their feet will be more biased toward supination. All of these things contribute to this type of athlete preferring less grinding through traditional movements in favor of instead getting off the ground quickly and moving lighter weights fast, typically in a staggered or split stance. The bias toward this stance is opposite to the Wide’s preference for bilateral movements, as Narrows usually have more room anterior to posterior but are more compressed laterally.

A bilateral stance is less ideal, as it moves into that frontal plane where their structure affords them less space; a split stance, by contrast, puts limbs in front and back of the center of mass where they have more space. This split position also avoids high amounts of internal rotation. There are many more biomechanical aspects of infrasternal angles that much smarter individuals than me could explain, but this begins to paint the picture of why taking an athlete’s structure into account when determining the best training prescription is important.

From a movement strategy standpoint, Narrow ISAs are usually more elastically driven. This means they are more reliant on their connective tissue (i.e., tendons) to produce movement than their musculature. This is achieved through the musculature acting isometrically, creating a rigid base from which the tendons can stretch and recoil. The benefits? Much more reactive movement, which is actually more energy efficient.

The body is able to use the “free energy” alluded to earlier. This is because there is no metabolic cost to tendons stretching and recoiling. The downside? This movement strategy is typically limited in the long durations of force application some tasks call for (i.e., American football lineman) but great for sports like basketball, especially at the guard position.

From the same objective standpoint as above, a Narrow and elastically driven athlete may actually have lower jump heights in a CMJ test than their Wide and muscularly driven counterparts because a standstill vertical jump is much more biased toward the Wide’s strengths—especially if we don’t take into account the rate-dependent metrics and only focus on jump height.

The elastic nature of their movement strategy is typically reflected in the form of a unimodal peak in the force-time curve of their CMJ test. From a “how” perspective, a Narrow often had a shorter time to takeoff and a shallower countermovement depth.

Considering all of this, how do you create the best training plan possible? This is where my Kryptonite and Superpower program comes in.

Kryptonite Program

As we dig into this section of the article, you may begin to think, “This contradicts everything said in the first portion,” because I believe it would be incorrect to suggest that Narrow ISA athletes should never train with traditional movements at high intensity in bilateral stances. The key is that it is all about the timing and dosage. It would be ignorant to argue that these traditional movements have no benefit to athletic performance—there are qualities that these traditional movements develop that every individual needs regardless of structure.

Just as a Wide ISA individual will be called upon in their sport to elicit short ground contacts and sprint at max velocity, Narrow individuals will be called upon to produce prolonged and high amounts of force. Just ask Ja Morant when he gets switched onto Zion Williamson and must guard him in the post for a possession!

However, it is important to understand the timing and dosage of Kryptonite you give these athletes. That is really the basis for the Superpower and Kryptonite program: dose the athlete with the right amount at the right time to increase robustness and maximize strengths. Instead, though, strength coaches often dose Narrow and elastically driven individuals with these traditional high-intensity means throughout the entire year, thinking they are “peaking” them with one rep max testing right before the in-season begins.

That is really the basis for the Superpower and Kryptonite program: dose the athlete with the right amount at the right time to increase robustness and maximize strengths. Share on X

I typically use the Kryptonite program in earlier portions of the off-season, as there is still a lot of time before competition. This timing is important because training to improve weaknesses may actually decrease your key performance indicators for a short time. This is fine if you know you don’t need your athletes to be at their best for a few months.

I also adjust the dosage of this portion of the program depending on the training age of the individual. A young Narrow may train with traditional means for longer than a Narrow who has trained with me for years. This is because I want to build a large foundation and “raise the floor” with the younger athlete before transitioning to trying to “raise the ceiling.”

I am, however, trying to heighten and “raise the ceiling” of the older individual’s “Superpowers” as much as possible. For example, that younger athlete may train within the Kryptonite program for six weeks of an eight-week off-season, whereas the older individual may only train two weeks out of an eight-week off-season.

So, what does the Kryptonite program entail?

After reading the initial section of this article, I’m sure you can piece it together yourself, but let’s discuss some details. For my Narrow and elastically driven athletes, the Kryptonite program more resembles a traditional training program, and I take time to load them in bilateral stances with increasing intensities. As stated earlier, this may decrease specific KPIs (but in some cases, improve KPIs, especially with younger athletes), and they may be reluctant to dive into this style of training—but after discussing the benefits and the act of improving weaknesses, there is typically much more buy-in.

It’s important to state that these aren’t the only weeks throughout the entire year that you expose these athletes to this traditional style of training; however, this is the highest dosage you should give them. You may dose these methods in small amounts throughout the rest of the year to maintain the “floor” you built during this portion of the annual plan. During this time, you also dive into more traditional powerlifting-type movements, such as deadlifts and bilateral pressing and pulling. Allow your Narrows to develop the foundational strength and hypertrophy that will help them when they aren’t able to rely on their Superpowers.

Throughout this phase, I want to see a couple of things occur with our force plate jumps. First, for the CMJ, I’d like to see jump height go up, but as a product of a greater countermovement depth and even a slightly slower time to takeoff. It is important to remember that jump heights typically decrease during this period because of the intense training; however, the how continues to be important.

You may also begin to see these athletes start to shift their unimodal force-time curve to slightly more bimodal. This is okay! It’s the time of year that we want these things to occur before we begin applying stressors that increase these metrics in an opposite fashion. I’d like to see ground contact time and jump height increase during the four-jump test. The overall RSI may not change, but the strategy is now transitioning to more of a muscular strategy.

Video 2. Remember, the “how” of the CMJ is more important than the absolute outputs. I am less concerned with the jump height than with how that individual achieves that jump height.

The Kryptonite program for Wide ISA and muscular-driven athletes will include the opposite of what the Narrows are doing. I take out all bilateral movements and typically don’t load them with higher intensities. I challenge them to produce as much force as possible in a short time frame, in a shorter range of motion with light loads. I expose these individuals to progressing volume in extensive plyometrics, put them in unilateral positions for both lower and upper body training, and also expose them to movements that involve rotation, such as crawling, rolling, and gymnastic activities.

Objectively, when I go through the Kryptonite phase, I like to see a few things happen that are opposite to what a narrow and elastically driven athlete strives for on the force plates. I am less concerned with jump height scores, and a more rapid decrease in jump height is fine in my view, as long as these athletes are using a shorter time to takeoff and a shallower countermovement depth.

My overall goal with the Kryptonite program is to transition Narrows to behave more like Wides and vice versa. The Superpower program resembles the Kryptonite program, but the groups flip. Share on X

During the four-jump test, I like to see these individuals begin to transition to a shorter ground contact, even if their jump height doesn’t change. My overall goal with the Kryptonite program is to transition Narrows to behave more like Wides and vice versa. Develop the qualities the other excels in before transitioning to the Superpower program in a few weeks.

Superpower Program

The Superpower program resembles the Kryptonite program, but the groups flip. The Narrow and elastically driven athletes now train the way the Wides and muscularly driven athletes did in the Kryptonite phase, and vice versa. While this may be slightly redundant, this looks like:

Narrows and Elastically Driven Superpower Program

• Avoid high-intensity, bilaterally loaded exercises that will force excessive and prolonged exposures to internal rotation.
• Avoid loading in a way that will create increased levels of compression (bilateral, both upper and lower body).
• Rely on staggered and split stances for lower-body movements.
• Focus on the speed of movement rather than the intensity of movement.
• Allow movements to include rotation and freedom, especially with upper-body training.
• Include variation to plyometric training with more elastic-based movements (i.e., fewer “stand still” vertical jumps and more single-leg approach jumps).

Video 3. My time at UC Davis with Men’s Basketball was the first time I unveiled this Superpower program, and it has been under constant refinement since. I considered these athletes to be elastically driven OR so far on the muscularly driven spectrum that I wanted to expose them to more elastic training. It’s important to note that I still include elements of muscular-driven movements, but the overwhelming majority of the program is elastic training.

For objective measurements on the force plates:

CMJ

• Jump height goes up.
• Time to takeoff goes down.
• Countermovement depth becomes shallower.
• Sharp unimodal peak.

Four-Jump

• RSI improves primarily through decreased ground contact time.
• RSI improves secondarily through increased jump height.

Wides and Muscular-Driven Superpower Program

• Allow these athletes to get back under some higher intensity load in bilateral stances and grips from a lower and upper body training perspective.
• Allow for more time to generate force with our faster movements and load them slightly heavier than the Narrow and Elastic Superpower program.
• “Peak” by hitting high-intensity movements (1–3 rep max) close to the season. I believe this not only creates physiological benefits but also psychological benefits, so they “feel” their strongest heading into a season.

Video 4. These individuals were either muscular-driven or young athletes who needed exposure to more traditional training to lay a proper foundation.

For objective measurements on the force plates:

CMJ

• Jump height goes up.
• Time to takeoff goes down.
• Countermovement depth becomes deeper.
  • Ideally, by this point in the year, these individuals have developed enough of the elastic qualities required and heightened their Superpowers so that they are able to achieve a faster time to takeoff with increased countermovement depth. This involves them moving through the loading phase of the CMJ faster and slamming on the brakes rapidly.
• Bimodal peak that transitions from secondary to primary or primary to unimodal.

Four-Jump

• RSI improves primarily through increased jump height while ground contact time holds steady or slightly improves.

It is important to note for this phase of training that we will be getting closer to the preseason period when coaches are given more time for the actual sport, and it is essential to prepare the athletes to withstand that increase in volume as well as try to maximize Superpowers. For example, while Wides may not thrive with excessive amounts of plyometrics, increasing volume in that area is essential to build resiliency in both archetypes for what sports typically entail.

Speed development is also progressed concurrently with this program, and I typically look to touch my highest outputs (velocity) and develop a robust repeat sprint ability through protocols like 10 x 10 (made popular by Derek Hansen), regardless of what program the individual falls within. The next development within the Superpowers program is to begin individualizing the speed development portion of training, tailored to archetypes, strengths and weaknesses, movement strategy preference, and training age.

Incorporating the Concepts with Your Athletes

As I stated in the introduction, alluding to experiences from my past, I don’t believe those strength coaches were trying to be ignorant by saying that certain athletes they were training were inherently “soft” because they didn’t like squatting heavy. It just takes an introspective approach to realize that not every person has the same frame of reference as you.

I’ve heard from multiple individuals within this program, specifically the Elastic Superpower group, that they feel so much better going into a season. They feel light and springy, not stripped of what makes them special by grinding them through heavy bilateral movements.

The idea of ‘peaking’ an athlete by having them ‘PR’ their squat and bench before the season is a completely outdated way of thinking. Share on X

The idea of “peaking” an athlete by having them “PR” their squat and bench before the season is a completely outdated way of thinking. Continue to do this, and these elastically driven athletes will step onto the court for game one, missing their most powerful weapons. This might sound dramatic, and I agree that athletes are highly resilient; however, the goal is to optimize training for every individual.

Everybody is different. Everybody falls somewhere on the Narrow to Wide and elastic-to-muscular-driven spectrum, and it’s important—and, dare I say, imperative—to take that into consideration to create the best possible program for our athletes and get the absolute most out of them. Give structures, Superpowers, and Kryptonites a chance.

As always, with anything I write, please feel free to reach out with feedback, either bad or good, and/or any questions you have! Let’s continue to try moving the needle.

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

Did you know that your diet can impact the way you move?

When academics talk about sports nutrition, it’s typically with regard to recovery, muscle growth, and a vague bigger-picture concept of general health. But what if there are more nuanced layers to the discussion?

I’ve previously covered the role of nutrition spanning performance, health, rehabilitation, and more; however, one notable branch of the conversation that tends to be universally skipped is the potential impact of nutrition on biomechanics.

I should first acknowledge that this concept—like many others in health and performance—remains under-explored in a formal research setting. That said, I believe that nutrition—specifically inflammatory foods—can negatively alter our movement mechanics.

I believe that nutrition—specifically inflammatory foods—can negatively alter our movement mechanics, says @RewireHP. Share on X

The significance of this is clear, as the goal of all athletes is to chase higher levels of movement expression. Any type of mechanical degradation or breakdown may potentially result in injury or poor performance. Obviously, this is something to avoid, whether you’re an athlete or a professional who works with athletes, such as a trainer or coach.

Although nutrition can impact motor output in a variety of ways, this article will mostly explore its impact on core (thorax and pelvic) function.

What Foods Are Defined as Inflammatory?

Defining foods as good or bad can be a polarizing experience, but I’ve proposed a reframed definition before based on a given food’s ratio of energy provided: energetic cost of assimilation.

This model is something I modified from retired nutrition consultant Ronnie Smith and his company Energy Concepts. Ronnie was a direct student of Dr. Ray Peat and also served as an advisor to well-known sports technology inventor Mike Mattox (inventor of the accelerating isokinetic machine, among many others). Mike wound up connecting Ronnie and some of these ideas around bioenergetic nutrition to Marv Marinovich and Gavin MacMillan of Sports Lab in what was, in all likelihood, one of the original examples of applied bioenergetics in the sports nutrition space.

Since this isn’t meant to be an anthropological article, I’ll keep this short, but the basic idea Smith presented was a digestion-absorption-utilization model of food.

What the hell is this, you might ask?

The simple answer is the foods we should base the bulk of our diet around are the ones that have the highest nutrient yield relative to minimal energetic expense from the cost of digestive obligations and dealing with potentially inflammatory components.

We should base the bulk of our diet around foods that have the highest nutrient yield relative to minimal energetic expense, says @RewireHP. Share on X

For instance, foods like fruit and gelatin represent a couple of examples on the highly favorable side of this spectrum. This is because of their high nutrient yield relative to minimal energetic expenditure from the digestion and assimilation process, as well as their relatively minimal energy-stealing inflammatory ingredients. In the view of both Ronnie and me, this means they have a high energy potential.

This is no different than a currency. Ideally, you want to keep as much of your dollar or currency for yourself and be taxed minimally. As promised, this wasn’t a long tangent but rather a helpful context for how the following list was constructed.

With that said, some foods that you likely want to mitigate are:

• Artificial sweeteners, food dyes, gums, stabilizers, fillers, and ingredients not originally intended for human consumption.
• Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).
• American wheat and gluten-containing products.
• Fake meat and plant-based food-like products.
• Soy.
• Legumes and lentils.
• Junk food in the form of high-calorie malnutrition (high caloric yield relative to low nutrient density—e.g., pastries, although in today’s Frankenfood world, this is general and can be applied elsewhere).
• Certain vegetables that are highly challenging to digest while providing minimal nutritional yield.

It should also be said that poor-quality versions of otherwise favorable food should be avoided. Gas station sushi and fast food meat come to mind as easy examples.

Keep in mind that these concepts that help identify a food as being less optimal are more of a framework and guidepost rather than (for the most part) hard no’s.

Also, keep in mind this list is not exhaustive but is meant to serve as a brief primer. My guide, Adaptive Nutrition, gives a much more thorough list of favorable/less favorable food choices evaluated on this scale.

What Impact Do These Foods Generally Have on the Human Body?

There are a lot of different ways to answer this question, as anyone who’s seen the current best guess map of our physiology can attest to. Again, in this case, we’re selectively focusing on their impact on the core.

Keep in mind the significance of the core—this being the tissues that make up the thorax and pelvis—as well. As proposed by Professor Gracovetsky, the spine (encased by said trunk tissues) is the origin of all movement. It functions as the primary strength and movement platform of the body. Dysfunction here leads to dysfunction in both static and dynamic actions.

Now that we’ve identified some chief offenders when it comes to inflammatory food and the significance of the core, let’s talk about what these foods specifically do to negatively alter its function.

Bloating

One of the chief issues with these foods is that they are difficult to digest and tend to create bloating. However, before we go on, consider this train of thought:

• Is it possible to have a stable spine with optimal thorax and pelvis integration if the core is not sufficiently engaged?
• Might chronic bloating result in an inability to engage the musculature of the core?

Ultimately, this concept of bloating interfering with fundamental core function isn’t hard to grasp, even for those less scientifically inclined.

Bloating is part and parcel of inflammation and digestive issues. If you’re even decently in tune with your body and have ever eaten foods that present digestive challenges (such as indigestible fibers found in some plants, artificial and natural sweeteners, certain grains, gums and stabilizers, etc.), you’ve no doubt experienced some type of bloating or distended stomach.

This could be from less ideal food sources, leading to longer digestive transit times, including food and eventual fecal matter lingering in the body. It could also be from grains’ propensity toward absorbing water and expanding in your stomach.

Bloating can put outward pressure against your abdominal wall, which can make adequately recruiting these tissues—including the deep core musculature—potentially more challenging, says @RewireHP. Share on X

In any case, the downstream effect on core function doesn’t seem to grade out favorably.

This swelling can put outward pressure against your abdominal wall, which can make adequately recruiting these tissues—including the deep core musculature—potentially more challenging.

One of the foundational functions of these tissues is to naturally engage and support the stabilization of the body while in motion as well as in standing neutral positions. This includes retracting to stabilize the spine, ribcage, and pelvis. Conceptually, the idea of trying to retract your stomach during such bouts of bloating surely seems difficult, no?

Also, keep in mind that this distended stomach leads to an athlete displacing their center of mass and potentially losing their ability to control it statically and dynamically. Maintaining control over one’s center of mass in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes is the critical piece in movement. More specifically, a chronically distended stomach stemming from an inability to fully recruit the tissues of the core can lead to compensations with the lower back, including excessive lumbar arching.

These are a few reasons why nutrition has played such a significant role in our rehabilitation process.

Inflammation

Inflammation isn’t all bad. It’s highly necessary to recover from training or other stresses (good and bad) to the body. For example, if you injure your ankle, the subsequent inflammatory response is protective and actually part of the healing process.

However, these are examples of acute inflammation. The type of inflammation we’re trying to avoid through proper diet patterns is known as chronic inflammation.

Although inflammation is a tool the immune system uses to facilitate healing, perpetual tissue inflammation can lead to further injury or potentiate injuries in a downstream capacity. Chronic inflammation promotes tissue degradation by making recovery and regeneration more challenging, eventually opening athletes up to structural and functional issues.

Keep in mind that the brain and gut are interlinked, and thus, disturbances to one can affect the other: it’s a two-way street. As a matter of fact, the term “neuroimmune” is often used as a precedent to describe certain disorders relating to motor skills, pain, and more.

Perpetually consuming insulting foods can disturb gut function, inflame the gut lining, and potentially cause leaky gut—a form of intestinal permeability that can provoke a neurological response, leading to chronic inflammation throughout the body.

This chronic inflammation is a result of a prolonged, unchecked overreaction by the immune system, which tends to cause joint pain and potentially even greater systemic issues. These issues lie in the aforementioned neuroimmune overlap and can manifest as issues with motor output in the brain, with mismatches in sensory processing experiences, including one’s interoception and proprioception (ability to sense your own body), rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Guillain-Barré syndrome, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or motor neuron disease), and more.

Faulty movement patterns and compressed joints can already cause inflammation on their own, but when you combine them with these systemic issues, it’s easy to see how this could be problematic. When you combine biomechanical issues with a chronically overactivated immune system, you can get further compensations and/or accelerated tissue degeneration. This is multifactorial, but it also circles back to the aforementioned piece on energy expenditure. If your body has to waste energy putting out fires in dealing with these states, it’ll have less left over for performance and health.

If your body has to waste energy putting out fires in dealing with these inflammatory states, it’ll have less left over for performance and health, says @RewireHP. Share on X

Furthermore, anything that has the potential to affect your frontal cortex—including both motor cortex and sensory cortex divisions—has the potential to negatively impact your performance.

Collectively, this is why restoring gut function and tissue quality is so critical when it comes to silencing unwanted inflammatory responses in the body.

Tissue Quality

An inflamed tissue is less likely to receive adequate circulation, which means fewer nutrients are delivered to working tissues. Not only is this blockage a potential issue, but dehydration may also be a factor.

A calcified, dehydrated tissue can occur because of compression and/or lack of recruitment. But it can also occur because of altered cell water allocation resulting from such inflammatory states, as well as the nature of some of these foods to retain water that would otherwise be put to use elsewhere in the body.

Identifying and Troubleshooting Your Gut Inflammation

Sometimes, there may be obvious signs of gut inflammation visible to the naked eye. Other times, these can be more subtle. It’s worth first identifying whether you’ve been regularly consuming some of the foods on the list above. Whether or not these foods are causing issues that present in a way that’s obvious yet, it’s worth doing a multi-point inspection and seeing if some of the following signs and symptoms ring true for you. Some are more obvious, others less so.

• Visual abdominal bloating.
• Poor gut motility (infrequent bowel movements once/day or less).
• Full-on constipation, diarrhea, or other issues with bowel evacuation.
• Poor stool quality in general (solidity, color).
• Stomach pain.
• Joint pain.
• Gas.
• Heartburn.
• Skin issues.
• Food intolerances or non-native allergies.
• Brain fog.

Helpful Tests

Exhalation Test: Get into a simple position you have easy access to so as not to throw off the test—let’s say standing, laying supine, or in a side-lying position while reasonably stacked and aligned. Take a natural inhale before forcefully exhaling your breath through your mouth and holding that position. You should feel your ribcage come downward and feel tension in your abdominals. If it’s tough to maintain this position for more than 10 seconds (taking away the potential of breathing patterns and infrasternal angle to be confounding variables here), you could be dealing with a gut issue.

Pressure Test: If you don’t present with any of these issues, consider further testing by applying pressure to your stomach near the navel with your fingers or some type of MFR (myofascial release) tool such as a Theracane, thin PVC pipe, or lacrosse ball. If you experience a high degree of sensitivity or pain, you may be dealing with some type of bloating or inflammation.

Recruitment Test: Try drawing in your abs from your navel toward your spine. If you cannot hold this for at least a couple of minutes or so, you may be dealing with some type of bloating.

Before & After Test: If you cut out or greatly mitigate any suboptimal foods from the above list in your diet for an extended period, consider re-examining the signs above and redoing the above tests to see signs of improvement.

Suboptimal Foods Could Be Holding You Back

The reality is that the ways in which the food we eat impacts our health and performance are layered and nuanced and not just confined to the typical associations. Our nutrition truly can impact our movement for better or worse. Unfortunately, many athletes have poor diet patterns, which can impact movement dysfunction.

Not only can poor nutritional habits influence a myriad of health and performance issues, but they can also interfere with the stability of our spine and our ability to hold both resting and active tension in the core. Once static and dynamic stability of the thorax and pelvis are compromised, all aspects of our biomechanics can be negatively altered—opening us up to further injury and pain susceptibility.

When viewed through this lens, suboptimal foods may not just impact our health but may also have a compounding effect on exacerbating biomechanical issues already present in the body.

Thus, you can add movement to the list of reasons to minimize inflammatory foods. Often, it’s the act of removing the things holding us back that truly enables us to make the greatest leaps forward.

If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, check out my Adaptive Nutrition guide. It covers sports nutrition fundamentals such as food choices, macros, recovery, and how to set up your own diet while also exploring previously unaddressed topics such as nutrition for rehabilitation and more.

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

Giuffrè M, Gazzin S, Zoratti C, et al. “Celiac Disease and Neurological Manifestations: From Gluten to Neuroinflammation.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022 Dec 8;23(24):15564. doi: 10.3390/ijms232415564. PMID: 36555205; PMCID: PMC9779232.

“Chronic inflammation in skeletal muscle impairs satellite cells function during regeneration: can physical exercise restore the satellite cell niche?” (The FEBS Journal, 2013)

“Inflammation and its role in neuromuscular function” (The International Journal of Neuroscience, 2011)

“Muscle wasting and the role of NF-κB signaling in sepsis-induced muscle catabolism” (The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2006)

Sturgeon C and Fasano A. “Zonulin, a regulator of epithelial and endothelial barrier functions, and its involvement in chronic inflammatory diseases.” Tissue Barriers. 2016 Oct 21;4(4):e1251384. doi: 10.1080/21688370.2016.1251384. PMID: 28123927; PMCID: PMC5214347.

Hansen LBS, Roager HM, Søndertoft NB, et al. “A low-gluten diet induces changes in the intestinal microbiome of healthy Danish adults.” Nature Communications. 2018 Nov 13;9(1):4630. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07019-x. PMID: 30425247; PMCID: PMC6234216.

Nikpour S. “Neurological manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of celiac disease: A comprehensive review.” Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2012;11(2):59–64. PMID: 24250863; PMCID: PMC3829244.

Mifflin KA and Kerr BJ. “Pain in autoimmune disorders.” Journal of Neuroscience Research. 2017 Jun;95(6):1282–1294. doi: 10.1002/jnr.23844. Epub 2016 Jul 22. PMID: 27448322.

Tang Y, Liu W, Kong W, Zhang S, and Zhu T. “Multisite chronic pain and the risk of autoimmune diseases: A Mendelian randomization study.” Frontiers in Immunology. 2023 Feb 9;14:1077088. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1077088. PMID: 36845101; PMCID: PMC9947645.

Boles JS, Krueger ME, Jernigan JE, et al. “A leaky gut dysregulates gene networks in the brain associated with immune activation, oxidative stress, and myelination in a mouse model of colitis. bioRxiv” [Preprint]. 2023 Aug 13:2023.08.10.552488. doi: 10.1101/2023.08.10.552488. Update in: Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2024 Feb 8;117:473–492. PMID: 37609290; PMCID: PMC10441416.

Page AJ, Brierley SM, Martin CM, et al. “Different contributions of ASIC channels 1a, 2, and 3 in gastrointestinal mechanosensory function.” Gut. 2005 Oct;54(10):1408–1415. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.071084. Epub 2005 Jun 29. PMID: 15987792; PMCID: PMC1774697.

Loh JS, Mak WQ, Tan LKS, et al. “Microbiota-gut-brain axis and its therapeutic applications in neurodegenerative diseases.” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2024 Feb 16;9(1):37. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01743-1. PMID: 38360862; PMCID: PMC10869798.

New developments in technology have resulted in more testing tools that enable strength and conditioning coaches to gather large amounts of data. Along with the emerging field of sports science, the data management market has developed a specific need: digesting and interpreting these newfound metrics to convert them into actionable information. This has produced the need for AMS systems.

The hardware involved in testing technology improved by leaps over the past decade, but the software portion lagged. However, with the current emergence of software upgrades, it is getting easier to process data in real time.

Automated testing stands out as a potent tool for enhancing player performance, tactical understanding, and overall team efficiency, as it consolidates data into easy and understandable reports much more quickly than the countless hours it would take a coach to create by hand. What would have taken days now takes minutes through AMS systems and API keys.

Automated testing stands out as a potent tool for enhancing player performance, tactical understanding, and overall team efficiency, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

This article delves into the benefits of automated testing within the context of football teams, highlighting its transformative potential in elevating training regimens, injury prevention strategies, data gathering, and our return-to-play program.

Standard player testing and monitoring generally consists of a handwritten outline of jumps, sprint times, weight lifted, mobility deficiencies, etc., for 100+ athletes. This is then followed by manually inputting these data points into a spreadsheet. Once all these data points have been inputted, the interpretation process begins.

Our goal was to expedite this process with companies that automatically collect performance data, such as Skyhook, Enode Pro, Speed Signature, Fusionetics, and Catapult. We then use DataViz, which centralizes these data points on its platform and gives us the ability to take care of the interpretation process automatically.

Enhanced Training Regimens

Automated testing with football teams offers a systematic approach to assessing players’ physical capabilities, technical skills, and cognitive abilities. Through the utilization of specialized sensors, motion-tracking devices, and data analytics platforms, coaches can obtain comprehensive insights into players’ performance metrics during training sessions. These insights enable coaches to tailor training regimens to address individual strengths and weaknesses effectively.

For instance, wearable Catapult GPS devices equipped with accelerometers and gyroscopes can precisely measure players’ movement patterns, including sprint speed, acceleration, deceleration, and changes in direction. By analyzing this data, coaches can identify areas for improvement in agility, speed, and explosiveness, thus optimizing training drills to enhance specific physical attributes required for football. Not only can coaches see what physical attributes need improvement, but they can also craft interventions for upcoming workouts or practices with the information provided by the automated reports.

GPS DataViz is a data management company that we utilize to provide detailed reports summarizing a workout or practice. We get bullet points that explain where players are compared to previous sessions, and they get flagged if they are off their averages. These alerts are provided to coaches five minutes after downloading, making the information transfer quick and allowing more time to make adjustments for the following sessions.

In previous years, the digestion of data and interpretation of GPS data was not only time-consuming but also labor-intensive for a strength and conditioning coach. With systems like DataViz, we can now press one button and receive a much more detailed account of a workout or practice in five minutes, freeing up the coach to actually coach instead of guard their desk.

Speed Signature is another system that has enabled us to fully automate our testing. Its technology further breaks down our Catapult GPS and accelerometer data and gives us an in-depth look at power output, sprint times, deceleration times, and even asymmetries while running.

Through Speed Signature, we can get a number of acceleration metrics from our static start and linear sprints. The main metrics that we look at are 10-, 20-, and 40-yard sprint times, force, peak power, time to peak power, and peak GPS speed. We also utilize deceleration metrics, such as change in speed, decel time, early decel time and percentage, late decel time and percentage, and peak speed into decel.

These are just the handful of metrics that we look at from their platform; there are others to choose from. Speed Sig’s technology has the capability to get a multitude of metrics from upright running sessions as well. Through the use of a special Catapult waist harness that Speed Signature provides, we can look at metrics such as ground contact time (GCT), horizontal power, vertical power, hip lock, stride frequency, and stride length, to name just a few. These metrics can then be compared at different speeds, against norms, and between limbs.

The data gathered by these different devices also provides coaches with instantaneous feedback. This feedback helps drive intent from athletes, which will, in turn, create better scores (yelling “mph” in practice, for example).

All athletes have a common drive, and none wants to lose a competition. For instance, if we test countermovement jumps on our Skyhook jump mat, we get instant scores that pop up on the screen. Other athletes see their teammates’ scores and immediately want to beat them. With this live feedback, we can relay scores and times back to athletes to help create that competitive environment. It is a way to make training fun and get the most out of each drill.

Velocity-based training (VBT) has been a large part of how we gauge our training stimuli in the weight room. How fast your athletes move the bar can give you a lot of insight into how they feel on a particular training day, as well as give you an idea of how your entire team is trending over time.

Enode Pro has enabled us to view all of our athletes’ power outputs, weights lifted, and velocity for every set and rep we have them perform. This is an overwhelmingly large amount of data, as you can imagine, and it would take considerable time to decipher and find trends. As with the previous platforms we have discussed, coupling Enode Pro with DataViz simplifies this process.

Writing out an eight-week training program and hoping it works is a thing of the past with automated data systems like GPS DataViz and technology such as VBT, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Within minutes of a session’s conclusion, we are able to generate a report that shows us averages for our Enode Pro metrics and compares them against previous sessions. The ability to view this data takes the guesswork out of programming. Sets, reps, and percentages look pretty on a sheet, but is your training goal being executed correctly?

Was your Week 8 power output the highest of the training cycle, as you had planned? Was the bar velocity goal met that day? If not, maybe the percentages were too low, and adjustments can be made. These reports give you another set of checks and balances to help guide your training.

Injury Prevention Strategies

Injuries pose a significant challenge for football teams, often sidelining key players and disrupting team dynamics. Automated testing plays a pivotal role in injury prevention by monitoring players’ biomechanics, workload distribution, and physiological parameters. By leveraging wearable sensors and advanced biomechanical models, we can identify potential injury risks and implement targeted interventions to mitigate them.

Fusionetics plays a pivotal role in how we assess and attack mobility in our athletes. This is a company that helps us test, organize, and program what type of mobility exercises we use for our athletes. In the new age of college football, roster turnover is larger than ever, and there has to be an easy and efficient way to test athletes as soon as they step foot in the facility.

Fusionetics allows us to do that with its 3-D picture technology. Assessments take five minutes and give us an instantaneous report with asymmetries, deficiencies, and a score that we can compare to the rest of the team. This allows us to quickly address an athlete’s needs and keep an eye on areas that need further development to reduce the risk of injury.

Programming and tracking your team’s progress is easy as well, and everything is organized for you. Being able to see where certain athletes lack a range of motion and grouping them together so their program can attack and focus on that deficiency is important for us. This gives us room to grow with our mobility program, and guys always know what goals they want to hit.

Programs are tailored to that athlete’s needs, and we can see how many times they have completed their scheduled programs. Whether they are categorized as a “high needs hip player” or “high needs ankle player,” we can schedule them to perform at least one of those needs a week. This allows us, as coaches, to focus more on that athlete and their progress rather than playing the guessing game on what they actually need. Fusionetics takes the guesswork out of mobility, and we see instant progress in our athletes’ movement efficiencies.

GPS monitoring of players’ running gait and biomechanical alignment can also detect asymmetries or compensatory movements that expose them to injuries such as muscle strains or ligament tears. By analyzing these data patterns, we can prescribe corrective exercises, adjust training loads, or modify playing techniques to prevent injury occurrence. Getting this information from so many different testing devices in such an efficient, consolidated, and accessible manner gives us the information we need as a staff to make sure we train smart and get the most out of our athletes every day.

Moreover, automated testing facilitates the monitoring of players’ physiological responses to training loads and game demands. By tracking parameters such as heart rate variability, lactate threshold, and recovery kinetics, we can optimize training periodization and ensure adequate recovery periods between intense sessions. This proactive approach to injury prevention not only reduces the likelihood of player injuries but also enhances team performance by maintaining optimal player availability throughout the season.

Laser timing systems and GPS play a crucial role for us on our max velocity days. The lasers do two important things for us:

1. Give instantaneous feedback that helps drive intent and competition between our athletes.
2. Provide an effective compass for how our athletes feel that day.

If we see times slowly start to drop off, or if numbers are not as good as we expect, this gives a good indication to start cutting athletes off and not running them anymore. The players might be in a very fatigued state, especially late in the training block, which can then lead to soft tissue injuries. Feedback from the lasers and GPS tracking systems will allow us to autoregulate our athletes and make smart decisions about how we are training them.

The Skyhook jump mat also gives us a very important KPI with our countermovement jumps. Each athlete has their own profile, which makes it simple and easy to keep track of their PRs and trends to how they are jumping. If we start to see a 5% decrease from their personal best to where they are jumping currently, it lets us know they are fatigued, and performance can begin to decline. On the flip side, if we are getting a lot of PRs—which will pop up automatically right after an athlete jumps—we know our guys are fresh and ready to go for the practice/competition that is coming up.

This feedback and profiling make it easy to keep track of our team’s trends and whether we are heading in the right direction with our training. On the other hand, we can see outliers with our athletes, and if we have an athlete whose jumps might be down, we know to monitor him and watch his progress in training and practice.

Keeping Track of Data

One remarkable benefit of automated testing in football teams is its ability to streamline the process of data collection, management, and analysis. Traditional methods for tracking player performance and match statistics often rely on manual data entry, which can be time-consuming and prone to errors. Automated testing solutions, however, offer a more efficient and accurate approach to data management.

Automated testing solutions, however, offer a more efficient and accurate approach to data management, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

By leveraging integrated data collection platforms and cloud-based storage systems, we can easily capture and organize a wealth of performance metrics, injury records, and tactical insights. Whether tracking players’ training loads, monitoring injury rehabilitation progress, or analyzing match statistics, automated testing simplifies the data management process, allowing us to focus on what is important to our athletes and enabling us to coach them all the time and not just sit at a computer all day.

Skyhook enables real-time data synchronization across its platform and an easy transfer to its cloud, so everything is stored and saved if we need it later. We also have an API key set up, which is sent to our data management company; they filter all the data, show how we are trending, and produce a breakdown for each individual athlete. This process allows us to send out detailed reports within minutes of completing that training session, and athletes can see their progress day by day. Coaches can also access up-to-date performance metrics during training sessions, while medical staff can remotely monitor players’ injury statuses. This seamless flow of information enhances team coordination and transparency, fostering a data-driven culture that results in performance excellence.

Skyhook enables real-time data synchronization across its platform and an easy transfer to its cloud, so everything is stored and saved if we need it later, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Automated data has drastically improved the time and effort it takes to upload everything and send it to sport coaches. One of the cardinal sins of data collection is to just throw a bunch of meaningless numbers at sport coaches and charts that they do not understand. Automated data cuts our work time in half; all the data is cleaned, and all spikes have been taken out by the time we look at it. “Spikes” are any outliers or numbers that do not fit the data or something that is just generally not possible. An example would be seeing a 50-inch countermovement jump on one of our player’s profiles.

Data cleaning helps us save time and put effort into ensuring what we send to coaches makes sense and only gives them what is needed and essential. Our goal is to make data as simple and digestible for all coaches, and automated data by Skyhook and all our GPS tracking systems allow us to do that.

Return to Play

One of the biggest issues we have had in the past is being limited to the data we collect and what we can get out of it. Like our athletes, coaches are competitive, and we always try to find an edge to put our training above other people around the country. The Skyhook jump mat allows us to take our data collection to a new level because we are not limited to countermovement jumps. We have the choice of a wide range of features, including RSI, depth jump height, ground contact times, and flight times. This allows us to explore different KPIs and get more specific with our training.

The Skyhook jump mat allows us to take our data collection to a new level because we are not limited to countermovement jumps, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

RSI is an important KPI for us, especially with our return-to-play group. The metric allows us to track their reactivity to the ground and their muscle-tendon stress, which is very important for guys who have had an ankle injury and are rehabbing. We can tell by their RSI score if they are being reactive and “springy” off the ground or if they are more strength-dominant (which we see when their GCTs are longer). The higher their RSI score, the springier and more elastic their tendons are—which is a good indicator that we are building strength back up. This is one of the many options that Skyhook gives us that helps separate our training from other programs.

Moving Forward with a New Paradigm

Automated testing integration represents a paradigm shift in training methodologies, injury prevention strategies, data collection and sorting, and return to play for athletes. By harnessing the power of technology to collect, analyze, and interpret vast amounts of data, we can gain a competitive edge in an increasingly demanding and dynamic sport landscape.

From enhancing training regimens and reducing injury risks to refining training strategies and optimizing our return-to-play program, automated testing serves as a masterful tool for unlocking the full potential of players and teams alike.

Skyhook and our various data collection tools enable us to gain this edge with our data collection, and we can tailor our training to each athlete and position group. The ability to get instantaneous feedback allows us to deliver information to coaches and athletes quickly. It eliminates time for us as a strength staff just sitting on a computer, trying to implement and clean data. As football continues to evolve, embracing automation will be instrumental in shaping the future of the sport and driving performance excellence at all levels of competition.

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

Zackary Ceci started his career as an intern at FAU in 2022. He also spent time at the University of Tennessee as an intern and even in the private sector at “Triple F” in Knoxville, Tennessee. Ceci was hired back on staff to FAU in the summer of 2023, and over time at these various stops, he gained knowledge in advanced technologies such as: Elite Form, Catapult, Kinovea, Vitruve, and Dartfish. Ceci has worked with a wide range of athletes, from K–5 all the way up to NFL athletes, and he currently oversees the mobility program and assists in implementing the intern curriculum at FAU.

Robert Marco played four years of football at Washburn University, followed by a brief stint playing professionally from 2018–2019. Marco began his coaching career as a volunteer strength and conditioning assistant at the University of Kansas in 2020 and had his first paid opportunity at FAU with Coach Joey Guarascio in 2021. He then took another assistant job opportunity at Liberty University and Coach Dominic Studzinski in 2022. Following the 2022 season, Marco was brought back to FAU as Associate Head Strength Coach by Coach Guarascio.

What do faster stride frequency and more powerful foot strikes in sprinting have to do with relaxation? It turns out, a lot.

Excess muscle tension is a barrier to optimal performance. In Relax and Win (1981), Bud Winter describes his involvement in a Navy research project to determine why aviators froze under stress. Besides helping our military preserve “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” Winter would later apply his relaxation techniques to 27 Olympians, three of whom won Olympic gold.

(lead photo courtesy of Washington State Athletics)

Winter believed that athletes should not expend more than 90% effort when they sprinted. He said the additional 10% effort caused unnecessary muscles to fire, slowing them down. An analogy would be trying to drive a car by stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time.

Winter said that coaches should give their athletes cues to relax their jaw, forehead, and hands to avoid excess tension during sprinting. Among his commands were “Run fast, stay loose,” “Get the wrinkles out of your forehead,” and “Drop those shoulders.”

One example of the power of relaxation was Usain Bolt’s splits in the finals of the 2008 Olympics and 2009 World Championships, as follows:

At 70 meters in Beijing, Bolt opened his arms and started pounding his chest in celebration. However, by keeping his upper body relaxed, he maintained splits of .82 and .83 during the next 20 meters and broke the world record with 9.69 seconds. In 2009, he skipped the in-race celebration but ran identical 70m and 80m splits to run 9.58, a world record that still stands.

Gabriel Mvumvure embraced this concept of managing tension during sprinting. Mvumvure competed in the 2016 Olympics in the 100m, representing Zimbabwe. He coached at LSU, Brown, and now at Washington State. Expanding on Winter’s ideas, Mvumvure said sprinters can overstride or become unstable if they expend 100% effort, factors that not only slow them down but increase their risk of injury. These are common faults with high school sprinters trying to achieve the fastest times to impress college scouts.

Mvumvure says he must spend considerable time teaching incoming freshmen how to avoid “tightening up” during a race. He works with them on meditation techniques to help them deal with stress, emphasizes the importance of getting a good night’s sleep, and teaches them how to avoid the “adrenaline dump” that causes so many young sprinters to freeze just before a race. (By the way, in his first year at Washington State, Mvumvure’s sprinters and hurdlers broke 108 personal bests. This year, his athletes broke six school records in the indoor season.)

Relaxation is essential to minimize deceleration during a race and transition from maximum acceleration into maximum velocity. Although Winter’s clues are valuable, many track drills can help an athlete learn how to achieve a balance between maximum force production and a high level of relaxation. Let’s look at three of these drills taught by Coach Mvumvure.

Relaxation is essential to minimize deceleration during a race and transition from maximum acceleration into maximum velocity. Share on X

The Right Track to Relax

Mvumvure’s on-track approach to maximum velocity contains three progressive drills (see video 1 below). His athletes perform multiple reps in each drill, mastering the first and then the second before finishing with the third. Each drill involves a drive phase, a transition phase, and a maximum velocity phase.

Relaxation Drill #1

The first sequence has the athlete starting with a longer-than-normal stride length. For every segment after that, they must increase their frequency but shorten their stride. “The more frequency they add, the less I want them to strain,” says Mvumvure.

Relaxation Drill #2

The second sequence is the opposite of the first in terms of stride length. “The athlete starts with a shorter-than-normal stride, which calls for even more frequency because the stride is short,” says Mvumvure. “However, with every rep, they have to open their stride more without changing the frequency they started with.”

Relaxation Drill #3

The final sequence combines the skills practiced in the first two drills: The drive phase stride is long but not too long, and the stride frequency is high. “This sequence provides continuity in acceleration but not to the point where we are just spinning our wheels,” says Mvumvure. “As they enter the transition and maximum velocity phases, the stride length increases while frequency decreases.”

Mvumvure says he often likes to perform these sequences under load, having them wear 7–10-pound vests called speed builders. “Using equipment like the 1080 Motion is also good, but we don’t have the budget. Sleds would be a good improvisational tool if their weight is less than 10% of the athlete’s body weight.”

Video 1. A workout performed by Washington State athletes that includes three drills to teach them to avoid excess tension as they sprint.

Now, let’s look at what to do—and what not to do—in the weight room.

Understanding the Iron Game

The first step to developing an optimal weight training program for sprinting and other high-velocity sports is avoiding methods that create unnatural movement patterns. The Russians were pioneers in this field, conducting extensive research on the role of relaxation in sports techniques over a half-century ago. One of the key researchers in this field was Leonid P. Matveyev, a sports scientist often referenced in strength coaching papers and textbooks for his work on periodization.

The first step to developing an optimal weight training program for sprinting and other high-velocity sports is avoiding methods that create unnatural movement patterns. Share on X

Matveyev said the ability to relax muscles quickly, particularly after a maximal contraction, is a crucial indicator of movement efficiency. It follows that athletes in high-velocity sports should avoid focusing solely on exercises performed relatively slowly and that do not require the muscles to relax quickly, such as deadlifts or bench presses. Here are the three iron game sports that have minimal value to sprinters:

• Strongman
• Powerlifting
• Bodybuilding

These sports produce a high degree of mechanical tension over a prolonged period. Strongman and powerlifting use the heaviest weights for relatively low reps (often 3–5 reps). Further, they create considerable internal tension to provide stability for performing the three competition power lifts and the strongman events, such as lifting heavy Atlas stones.

The issue here is that lifting the heaviest weights and objects in strongman requires relatively slow movements, as there is an inverse relationship between mechanical tension and velocity. Such training also changes how tendons function.

According to a 2013 study in the European Journal of Applied Physiology on the squat, the tendons “act as a power amplifier at light loads and a more rigid force transducer at heavy loads.” As this relates to sprinting, a rigid tendon would not perform like a powerful spring to assist with force production in increasing stride length. Further, Russian sports scientist A. I. Falameyev said that workouts using this type of muscle contraction can negatively influence joint mobility and the elasticity of the muscles and tendons. This has implications from an injury perspective.

If the majority of your training is devoted to slow movements that make the tendons rigid, it follows that this would be the dominant response in other athletic movements. If an athlete makes a sharp cut on the basketball court or gridiron, and the tendons of the lower extremities don’t flex, something will probably tear. As evidence, consider that approximately 70% of knee and ankle injuries are non-contact.

The Bodybuilding Problem

While the training methods of powerlifters and strongmen apparently may have little transfer to sprinting, bodybuilding methods are worse.

Let’s start by distinguishing the two types of hypertrophy: myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. Myofibrillar hypertrophy primarily increases the size of muscle fibers. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy also involves the development of components that add size to the muscle but do not contribute to force production (see image 5 below).

In a 2002 paper, Russian sports scientist Igor Abramovsky warned that weightlifters must be careful about increasing their body weight because it “…creates additional loading on the sportsman’s muscles because the weightlifter has to lift this excess weight during the execution of the weightlifting exercises; second, the sportsman’s speed deteriorates.” Sprinters must consider the stress the extra body weight puts on the cardiovascular system, which becomes a significant issue in distances over 100 meters. There’s more.

Training methods that develop myofibrillar hypertrophy usually develop the powerful fast-twitch muscle fibers, whereas sarcoplasmic hypertrophy primarily works the weaker slow-twitch muscle fibers. Power production is further inhibited because such training affects the ability of the muscles to contract rapidly.

A study published in Experimental Physiology in 2015 concluded that bodybuilding methods affected the ability of the athlete to create maximal muscle tension. The researchers said that compared to power athletes (such as weightlifters and sprinters), bodybuilding training may be “detrimental to increasing muscle fiber quality.”

Finally, hypertrophy affects the pennation angle of the muscles, which refers to how the contractile components of muscle fibers are organized. Hypertrophy changes the pennation angle of the fibers in relation to the tendons they are attached to, making them less efficient at producing force.

The takeaway is that bodybuilding protocols focusing on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be avoided if sprinting speed is a priority. But that doesn’t mean using ultralight weights on bodybuilding exercises or partial-range movements.

Not to single out anyone, but I’ve seen many published workouts by sprint coaches who attempt to avoid bulking up their athletes by using light weights for high reps. In one published workout designed for high school sprinters, the highest percentage for cleans was 50%–60% of the one-repetition maximum, so about half of the athlete’s maximum result. He increased the percentages to 70%–80% for squats. For college sprinters, he increased the clean percentage to 70% and the squat to 85%, although the reps stayed the same.

Although using light weights may avoid developing significant levels of muscle bulk, they do not create enough mechanical tension to increase an athlete’s ability to produce force significantly. Share on X

Although using light weights may avoid developing significant levels of muscle bulk, they do not create enough mechanical tension to increase an athlete’s ability to produce force significantly. For example, in looking at weightlifting workouts published in their journals, the Russians often did not list sets of under 70% of an athlete’s maximum. Why? Because these percentages did not generate enough muscle tension to stimulate increases in strength or power—they were considered warm-ups.

This is not to say that weight training protocols designed to develop absolute strength or hypertrophy should never be performed but that they should not comprise the majority of time spent in strength and conditioning programs. With that warning, what are the alternatives? Let’s take a look.

The Pulsating Athlete

Stuart McGill described sprinters and competitive weightlifters as “pulse” athletes, meaning their muscles contract quickly and then relax completely in a pulsating fashion. Weightlifting sports scientist Bud Charniga would agree.

“The weightlifter’s muscles rapidly alternate muscle tension (agonists) with muscle relaxation (antagonists),” says Charniga. “A state of constant tension/relaxation during the classic exercises is punctuated by very fast switching between extensor muscles such as quadriceps, and flexors (hamstrings, anterior tibialis) from maximum tension to maximum relaxation.”

Note that Charniga said the “classic exercises,” which are the snatch and the clean and jerk, work the muscles through a large range of motion, in contrast to the powerlifts. He did not say hang power cleans, and he has been an outspoken critic of these and other so-called “weightlifting derivatives.” Charniga says these exercises do not match the tension/relaxation patterns of the full lifts.

Of course, many college strength coaches do not know how to teach the full lifts. If they are serious about learning them, they should consider getting together with a weightlifting coach who can at least teach them to perform a full clean. In the meantime, or as an alternative, they could have their athletes perform many relatively simple dynamic jump exercises in the weight room that follow the contraction/relaxation patterns in sprinting. Video 2 shows two examples of such exercises.

Video 2. The assisted squat jump and the barbell squat jump follow the contraction/relaxation patterns used in high-velocity activities such as sprinting.

Many strength coaches use bands that prolong the concentric contraction of lifts, such as the squat, deadlift, or bench press. This is not a good idea. This contraction/relaxation pattern is different from what occurs in sprinting. “An analogy would be running only uphill, where the force remains constant,” says strength coach and posturologist Paul Gagné.

Along with the classical weightlifting exercises and squat jumps, a better alternative would be isoinertial training using flywheel devices. “Iso-inertial training more closely matches human movement patterns in dynamic sports,” says Gagné. “It also provides fast eccentric overload. An analogy would be running on a level surface and transitioning into running downhill, then repeating the sequence to create a cyclic effect.”

Not having the strength to control eccentric movements in sports is believed to increase an athlete’s risk of injury, as evidenced by the statistic I mentioned earlier that an estimated 70% of knee and ankle injuries are non-contact. Because women are at a much greater risk of developing knee injuries than men, it follows they should make fast eccentric training a priority. Flywheel training is ideal for eccentric overload because the harder you push or pull, the more eccentric overload is produced.

A word about kettlebells. Kettlebell swings involve dynamic movements that improve the timing between rapid eccentric and concentric muscular contractions, so that’s good. However, providing overload with stronger athletes is challenging (and few gyms have heavier pods), so they should be reserved for warm-ups in most cases.

Sprinters and other athletes in high-velocity dynamic sports should use training methods that focus on providing powerful muscular bursts followed by prolonged relaxation. Share on X

The bottom line is that sprinters and other athletes in high-velocity dynamic sports should rarely use methods that primarily develop maximum strength or muscle bulk, like those used by bodybuilders or powerlifters. Instead, they should use training methods that focus on providing powerful muscular bursts followed by prolonged relaxation. As Bud Winter would say, “Relax and win!”

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

Winter, Bud. Relax and Win. Oak Tree Publications, 1981.

Lee, Jimson. “Usain Bolt 10 Meter Splits, Fastest Top Speed, 2008 vs. 2009.” SpeedEndurance.com. August 19, 2009.

Charniga, Andrew, Jr. “The Secret to the Weightlifter’s Strength: Speed of Muscle Relaxation.” Sportivnypress.com. January 30, 2023.

Earp JE, Newton RU, Cormie P, and Blazevich AJ. “The influence of loading intensity on muscle-tendon unit behavior during maximal knee extensor stretch shortening cycle exercise.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. October 2013.

Earp JE, Newton RU, Cormie P, and Blazevich AJ. “Faster Movement Speed Results in Greater Tendon Strain during the Loaded Squat Exercise.” Frontiers in Physiology. August 20, 2016.

Charniga, Andrew, Jr. “Achilles Tendon Ruptures and the NFL.” Sportivnypress.com. February 9, 2017.

Gagné P and Goss, K. Get Stronger, Not Bigger. 2021:113–117.

Abramovsky, Igor. “A Weightlifter’s Excess Bodyweight and Sport Results.” Sportivnypress.com, Bud Charniga Translation: May 2, 2014 (Originally published in 2002).

Meijer JP, Jaspers RT, Rittweger J, Seynnes OR, Kamandulis S, Brazaitis M, et al. “Single muscle fibre contractile properties differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects.” Experimental Physiology. November 2015;100(11):1331–41.

McGill, Stuart. “An Approach to Pain-Free Training for Track Athletes with Stuart McGill.” SimpliFaster. December 2023.

Lyons, Todd. Personal communication, March 13, 2024.

Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA Jr, and Garrett WE Jr. “Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury.” Orthopedics. June 2000;23(6):573–578.