Blog

 

If we really want to know how fast our football players are, it’s time for us to think bigger than the 40-yard dash.

In American football, the 40-yard dash has always been the traditional test of speed. Anyone who has worked with NFL draft prospects knows how important this test is. It can literally determine whether an athlete has a career as a professional football player. Scouts representing all 32 teams sit in rooms with coaches and front office personnel, sharing the results of their stopwatches and labeling players based on their 40 time. The players are described as the “4.3 guy” or something similar.

The time that appears on the stopwatch seems to be the most important number for these scouts, despite several other tests that are also performed at the Combine. However, the 40-yard dash is king, and seems to be the only test that matters.

You will never hear a scout say, “Well, he’s a wide receiver and ran a 5.02 on his 40. He’s definitely slow, but his shuttle was impressive!” It just doesn’t happen this way. In fact, you’re more likely to hear a scout say, “He only jumped 28 inches in his vertical but that 4.45 he posted for his 40 shows that he’s got some nice burst. I think he’s worth considering!”

There’s no question that the fastest players on the field are typically (but not always) the best performers in the 40-yard dash. It makes sense that coaches and scouts have put the 40-yard dash on such a pedestal. Reason and logic can indicate that if you draft players with raw speed ability, there’s a great chance that they will play fast for you on game day.

Is the 40-yard dash the best test to use to determine raw speed ability for your football players? Share on X

Again, we know this isn’t always the case, as some players struggle to show great game speed despite having very impressive raw speed ability. But no one can argue that most of the players in the NFL that play with great speed are the same players that posted impressive 40 times at the NFL Combine. But is the 40-yard dash the best test for coaches to use to determine raw speed ability for their football players?

Velocity: A True Indicator of Speed

Even though sprint times can give us a reflection of an athlete’s speed ability, the truth is that these times won’t always tell us how fast an athlete can move. In physics, the kinematic quality of velocity, specifically when observed as a scalar quantity, is the truest measure of speed as it relates to a body in motion.

The magnitude of velocity is a scalar quantity and is expressed as distance over time. Technically speaking, any unit of distance over any unit of time can be used (e.g., miles per hour, feet per second, kilometers per minute, etc.), but the unit that is used in the metric system (and most commonly found in sport science) is meters per second (m/s).

Magnitude of Velocity = Distance/Time

In most sports, the distances measured on the track or playing field are recorded in meters, so we easily understand the unit of m/s. American football, however, measures the game in yards. Football sport performance coaches will almost always prescribe sprint training distances by measuring yards, not meters. Thus, if we calculate velocity for these efforts using distance over time, the units are in yards per second (yd/s) rather than in m/s.

It is important that we convert the velocity into m/s so that we may gain a better perspective of how fast these players are relative to the fastest human beings in the world: elite-level 100-meter sprinters. It can certainly be argued that nobody expects football players to run as fast as 100-meter sprinters (and they very likely never will), but it’s still important to gain an understanding of what “fast” really means.

The conversion from yd/s to m/s is: 1.00 yd/s = 0.9144 m/s

You might logically assume that you figure out velocity by simply dividing the distance (40 yards) by the time taken to achieve it (4.40 seconds) to yield a velocity of 9.09 yd/s, which can then convert to 8.31 m/s. However, the problem with this approach is that the velocity of 8.31 m/s is reflective of the average velocity over a very broad distance.

A conversation with James “The Thinker” Smith allowed me to better understand the misguided effort of measuring average velocity over very broad distances. James provided me with the example of Usain Bolt’s world-record 9.58-second 100-meter sprint. If we remove Bolt’s reaction time of 0.146 seconds, then he covered 100 meters in 9.43 seconds. If we divide the distance (100) over time (9.43) then we would yield an average velocity of 10.60 m/s.

But, Bolt’s fastest 10-meter split occurred between 60 and 70 meters, when he covered 10 meters in 0.81 seconds. If we calculate velocity here by dividing the distance (10) over time (0.81), then we would now yield an average velocity of 12.35 m/s!

Clearly, it is more advantageous for us to know that he can sprint 12.35 m/s rather than assume he can only attain 10.60 m/s.

Velocity A: 100 meters / 9.43 seconds = 10.60 m/s
Velocity B: 10 meters / 0.81 seconds = 12.35 m/s

Both values are from the exact same sprint. So, which value is a better indication of Bolt’s highest attainable velocity?

 

I know what you may be thinking: “Great, so 100 meters is obviously a very broad distance. But 40 yards is just a fraction of 100 meters… so wouldn’t it be accurate to calculate average velocity using the 40-yard dash time?” Well, my conversation with James investigated this issue as well.

Considering that 40 yards is equivalent to 36.6 meters, we can use the Usain Bolt data above and go ahead and round up to 40 meters for the sake of example. Bolt crossed the 40-meter line at 4.64 seconds, but if we remove reaction time again (0.146 seconds) then he really reached 40 meters in 4.49 seconds. So, if we calculate velocity by dividing distance (40) over time (4.49), we yield an average velocity of 8.91 m/s.

A 40-yard dash time is not enough information to understand how fast a football player truly is. Share on X

Now, if we take the fastest 10-meter split from 0-40 meters, we can see that the fastest split time occurred at 30-40 meters with a time of 0.86 seconds. Again, dividing the distance (10) by the time of the segment (0.86) now yields an average velocity of 11.63 m/s! There is an obvious difference in favor of calculating velocity based on the smaller segment since it will be a better depiction of instantaneous velocity.

Thus, it’s safe to say that the 40-yard dash time by itself is NOT enough information to truly understand how fast a football player is.

The Flying 10-Yard Sprint: A Better Speed Test Than the 40-Yard Dash

Track and field coaches have used flying sprints for quite some time. Flying sprints have served as a potent stimulating exercise for the development of maximum velocity. The premise is like a build-up sprint, where top speed is reached in a relaxed fashion rather than maximal acceleration from a static start. The idea is to hit a full speed sprint “on the fly,” where a 30-50-meter run-up is performed and acceleration is gradually increased leading into a full-speed burst for a subsequent distance of 10-30 meters.

One of the most popular methods is the flying 10-meter sprint. Rather than sprinting at maximal intensity for 40 meters, which can be a very taxing endeavor, a sprinter can perform a 30-meter run-up and apply maximal intensity only to the final 10 meters. The final 10 meters would be the only timed segment, thus only requiring timing gates for this section. It’s imperative that flying sprints use fully automatic timing gates to get an accurate depiction of the split time.

The Freelap system is a perfect example of a fully automatic timing system. Using a hand timer may be very difficult due to the speed of motion, and it would likely display a split time that is largely invalid. If you do not have access to a fully automatic timing system, you can use smart phone apps like the My Sprint App to time this segment using slow-motion video.

You can adopt flying sprints and utilize them with football players simply by changing meters into yards. Use the flying 10-yard sprint to accurately calculate a football player’s maximum velocity by dividing 10 yards over the time of the flying sprint and then converting it into meters per second. For example, an athlete who performs a flying 10-yard sprint in 1.01 seconds would yield a velocity of 9.90 yd/s, which converts to 9.05 m/s. We now have a more accurate representation of how fast this athlete is.

Flying sprints are both workouts and tests. Simply timing the 10-meter or 10-yard sprint allows you to see where your training is and how your athletes compare to the normative data.

How Does Velocity Affect Acceleration?

Many coaches (including myself, in the past) find themselves assuming that, since American football is a game based primarily on acceleration ability, its training should focus solely on acceleration. It is commonly believed that maximum velocity sprinting is a risky quality to train and isn’t very reflective of how the athletes operate when on the field. As a result, coaches put a huge emphasis on shorter sprints (e.g., less than 30 yards per repetition), with most of the volume performed around 10 yards per sprint.

Small advances in max velocity can lead to large changes across the entire acceleration profile. Share on X

However, Ken Clark’s research expressed the importance of maximum velocity for field athletes. Small improvements in maximum velocity can result in large changes across the entire acceleration profile. Figure 2 provides an example from Ken Clark:

 

In the paper by Clark et al. (2017) 1, there is a similar example where the Combine participants with the fastest velocities showed the fastest times at every split. The images below compare velocity profiles across a range of athletes at the 2016 NFL Combine, including participants representing the 1st, 33rd, 66th, and 99th percentiles.

 

In the image above, Graph A compares the acceleration profile of the various participants at the 2016 NFL Combine as a measure of velocity attained at each segment. The fastest athlete achieved higher velocities at every 10-yard segment after the sprint start, while the slowest athlete achieved the lowest velocities. So, we can see that having very high raw speed will improve an athlete’s ability to hit better times at any given distance.

However, Graph B contains the most eye-opening piece of information, depicting the acceleration profile of the participants in relation to percentage of maximum velocity achieved at each segment. The lines are almost fully overlapping each other! This indicates that these participants portrayed a similar acceleration pattern in the 40-yard dash. Furthermore, the paper by Clark et al. classified all 260 athletes into “Fast” and “Slow” groups based on maximum velocity, and found that both groups achieved similar percentages of their relative maximum velocity at the same segments over 40 yards.

A receiver and an offensive lineman might both reach around 93-96% of their maximum velocity at 20 yards, but the receiver has higher velocity overall, thus hitting a much better split time at 20 yards and onward thereafter. Think of it similarly to having a higher one-repetition maximum (1RM) in lifting weights. If you bench 400 lbs., your 90% will look much different than that of a 200-lb. bencher. The same goes for speed. If you are faster than the other guy, your velocity will be higher at every submaximal percentage of your maximum velocity even if the relative percentages are the same.

So, wait. Let me get this straight. Should I just ditch my acceleration work and focus only on top speed now?

NO.

As with most things in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It all comes down to CONTEXT, or WHY we perform a certain training exercise. Athletes must explore the skill component of starting a sprint, accelerating in the early and late stages of the sprint, and finding comfort at very high speeds when they reach maximum velocity. So, don’t ditch the acceleration work—just don’t forget to include the maximum velocity work!

Don’t ditch the acceleration work—just don’t forget to include the maximum velocity work too! Share on X

Training to Increase Maximum Velocity for Football

Ultimately—as we all tend to understand—speed kills. But how many of us are really doing what’s necessary to improve our football players’ speed?

When I used to bury myself in all the writings and videos of the late sprint coach, Charlie Francis, he always seemed to mention a common theme when it came to maximizing speed performance: Aim for 95% intensity or higher. The intensity in this case was not reflective of effort, but rather based upon an objective speed measure like the split time over a given distance. If you can at least achieve 95% of your best time, then you are on the right track to getting faster.

We may also use this “95% rule” when trying to push the maximum velocity ceiling higher. To achieve at least 95% of maximum velocity, the sprint distance must be long enough to allow for the display of high velocities. Running as fast as possible over 10 yards will never allow the athlete to achieve high percentages of relative maximum velocity. The distance is just not long enough for the necessary acceleration.

Ken Clark makes a helpful point. Due to the acceleration pattern of football players, 20 yards seems to constitute around 93-96% of maximum velocity, regardless of position. It may be safe to say that sprinting over distances equal to or greater than 20 yards, performed with maximal intensity, are reflective of “top speed training” for football players. Even at 15 yards, Clark et al. reveal that all players operated near or above 90% of their maximum velocity.

Consider how many programs only focus on sprint starts that may be 10 yards or less. I am guilty of this myself. My athletes used to live around 10 yards per sprint. But now we see with the analysis by Clark et al. that if we can just push the distance to 15-20 yards, there may be tremendous implications for improving maximum velocity in our football players.

The way I view it, there are three ways to go about developing maximum velocity with football players:

1. Develop Technique for High-Speed Sprinting
2. Train at, Around, or Above Maximum Velocity
3. Test and Record Changes to Maximum Velocity

Develop Technique for High-Speed Sprinting

Technique can be crucial to not only enhancing speed, but also keeping the players safe when conducting maximum velocity training. This is where a lot of coaches get it wrong. While the techniques of acceleration and max velocity sprinting are similar, the displays should be different simply because of the direction of force application. Where acceleration is more dependent upon horizontal force application, max velocity sprinting requires high levels of vertical force at ground contact: upwards of four to five times body weight for elite level sprinters! You should therefore understand the efficient technique of sprinting at maximum velocity if you expect outputs to be high and risk to be low.

Common mistakes for a team sport athlete performing maximum velocity sprints include2:

• Pelvis is collapsed and rotated too much anteriorly: A common way to look for this is if you notice a “duck butt” or the athletes over-arching and/or leaning forward when sprinting.
• Too much backside swing: Kicking out towards the backside of the body or excessive butt-kicking behind the body.
• Not enough frontside lift: Knee does not approach parallel with the hip as the leg swings through on the front side of the body.
• Over-striding by casting the foot out in front of the hips: Does not drive the foot down and back, and often strikes with the heel first rather than the ball of the foot.
• Ankle collapses on ground contact: The ankle deforms once it makes contact and force dissipates as a result. This is often due to the above-mentioned factors and/or insufficient ankle strength and power.

The sequence below is an example of an NFL linebacker showing inefficient mechanics when running around maximum velocity (segment of 30-40 yards). Notice the above-mentioned factors that are present, such as too much backside swing and not enough front side lift.

 

What we want to see when athletes are sprinting at maximum velocity2:

• Posture is upright and neutral: Pelvis is in a position to allow for efficient backside swing and knee lift during frontside mechanics.
• Less backside swing: Leg should extend backwards just enough to allow for force application and then should begin forward movement again.
• More frontside lift: Knee should approach the area where it is level with the hip and the thigh is near parallel to the ground.
• Attacking the ground from above: Foot should drive down and back into the ground under the hips rather than cast out too far in front of the hips. Contact should be on the ball of foot.
• Stiff ankle contact: Ankle should not deform excessively, ensuring that the force developed at the hip can transmit into the ground and be used for higher force application in each step.

The sequence below is the same exact NFL linebacker as before, now showing efficient mechanics at maximum velocity (during a flying 10-yard sprint) after we took the time to develop technique. You will notice improvements, including more neutral posture, less backside swing, and more frontside lift.

 

Some drills you can use to help improve technique in high-velocity running include:

• A-Skips for Distance (e.g., 30-40 yards)
• A-Run or High Knees for Distance (e.g., 30-40 yards)
• Intensive Tempo Runs – Aiming to achieve around 80-85% maximum speed.
• Build-Up Runs – Gradually increasing speed every 10 yards for up to 50-60 yards total.
• Vertical Plyometrics – Ankle-dominant plyometrics can serve an important role in helping enhance force transmission from the hip through the ankle into the ground. Pogo hops, tuck jumps, hurdle hops, low box jumps up and down, etc., are all good options.
• Med Ball Knee Punch Runs (see Video 2 below) – This is a drill I started using based on the need to figure out how to get the athletes to maintain an upright posture and improve the frontside lift while minimizing backside swing. Have the athlete hold a light medicine ball (≤6 lbs) at their belly button and tell them to run while attempting to drive their thigh up towards the med ball. Even if they don’t make contact with the med ball, it’s OK—the goal is to encourage more frontside lift.

Video 2. This is the knee punch drill that athletes can use to improve frontside mechanics. Track athletes can also use this drill for improvement in technique, especially reducing butt-kicking recovery errors.

Train Around Maximum Velocity

You can logically assume that to BE fast, you must TRAIN fast. Plenty of coaches and scientists have stressed this concept for years. We know from experience that training with heavy weights close to 100% 1RM will usually result in improvements in strength. In other words, to be very strong, you must use high resistance in the training of strength.

We have seen the acceptance of this in the field, as strength and conditioning has made its way into almost every high school, university, and professional athletic realm. But true speed training appears to remain mostly absent; an ironic observation, nonetheless, considering how many coaches seem to recruit players for their speed, not their strength.

Acceleration Sprints

Even if athletes perform sprints at maximal intensity, if the sprints are not long enough to put the athletes at speeds that are conducive to their highest relative velocities, we can’t expect that their maximum velocity will improve. Figure 6 displays findings modified from the Clark et al. (2017) paper of percentages of relative maximum velocity for every position at the 2016 NFL Combine. If we accept the notion that training drills to enhance velocity should be 95% or higher of maximum velocity, then we can use this table to see that football players should try and sprint for at least 15 yards, and ideally at least 20 yards, to push the velocity ceiling higher. Of course, space can become an issue in some facilities, but this is the reality of training for velocity improvement.

 

Flying 10-Yard Sprints

We can, of course, also use flying 10-yard sprints as a training modality. Here an athlete can operate very close to or above 100% maximum velocity.

A primary concern for the flying 10-yard sprint is determining how much of a run-up to use. Track and field sprinters typically reach maximum velocity between 50 and 60 meters1 and, as previously shown, Usain Bolt didn’t reach his highest velocity until 60-70 meters in his world-record sprint. However, as shown above, it is likely that all the participants at the 2016 NFL Combine were around their maximum velocity by the time they crossed the 40-yard line.

Of course, it’s possible that players with slower maximum velocities (offensive and defensive linemen, for example) may hit their maximum velocity before the finish line, whereas faster players may be able to continue accelerating beyond 40 yards. But given the acceleration profile presented in the paper by Ken Clark, it is likely best to use a 20-30-yard run-up leading into a flying 10-yard sprint—perhaps a 20-yard run-up for players with larger body mass (i.e., over 275 lbs.), and a 30-yard run-up for all other players may be acceptable.

It’s important to keep the volume of flying sprints very minimal; likely only one to three total repetitions in a workout. This is because it’s an intelligent risk management strategy to consider ALL the yards covered in one flying sprint. For example, we can count a flying 10-yard sprint with a 30-yard run-up as 40 yards of volume for that repetition. If we perform three repetitions, we consider the total volume from flying sprints as 120 yards.

Overspeed and Assisted Sprinting

Admittedly, this is not my area of expertise and something that I still need to research and practice before I can speak comfortably about it. However, the information is out there and overspeed training may have a strong place in the training process for pushing the ceiling of maximum velocity. Overspeed training allows for supramaximal speed outputs. In other words, it allows the athlete to consistently achieve higher than 100% maximum velocity. Though many forms of overspeed training are certainly very risky, technology devices like the 1080 Sprint have now made it possible to train overspeed in a very controlled setting.

Sprint Volume

In my experience, if you keep quality high, linear sprint workouts for football players usually don’t need to exceed 300 yards in one workout. My upper volume range for wide receivers, defensive backs, and speed running backs might be 250-300 yards in a workout. Linebackers, tight ends, power running backs, speed defensive ends, and dual-threat quarterbacks might have an upper volume range of 200-250 yards. Linemen and pro-style quarterbacks might have an upper volume range of 100-200 yards.

Less is often more, and a sample workout for a speed running back might be as follows:

SAMPLE SPRINT WORKOUT WITH NFL RUNNING BACK

1. 2-Point Stance Sprints
   • Submaximal Starts – Around 90% Effort
     • 2×10 yards
     • 20 yards total
   • Full Speed
     • 1×10 yards
     • 1×20 yards
     • 2×30 yards
     • 90 yards total
2. Flying 10-Yard Sprint w/30-Yard Run-Up
   • Submaximal Sprint Around 90% to find rhythm
     • 1×40 yards
     • 40 yards total
   • Full Speed
     • 2×40 yards
     • 80 yards total

TOTAL SESSION VOLUME = 230 YARDS

Based on the distances used, this sample workout would feature a total sprint volume of 230 yards, with 200 of them around 93% of maximum velocity or higher.

Test and Record Changes to Maximum Velocity

As discussed throughout the entirety of this article, the best way to test speed is to test maximum velocity. Although split times correlate well with velocity, they do not always give an accurate representation of speed. I can use calculations from the Clark et al. paper to model the velocity of the 2016 NFL Combine participants and compare the two fastest participants from that year: running back, Keith Marshall, and wide receiver, Will Fuller.

Ken Clark provided me with the results of these calculations and I have put them side by side below:

 

Basically, the math shows that even though Will Fuller ran a slower 40-yard dash time by 0.01 seconds, due to the linear regression relationship of his modeled velocities attained over the 40-yard distance, it’s likely that with more distance (e.g., 50-yard dash) he would have eventually surpassed Keith Marshall if they were sprinting side by side. It is also possible that if Will Fuller had performed a better start in comparison to Keith Marshall, he would have achieved a faster 40-yard time, as Fuller was measured at 1.51 seconds at the 10-yard mark and Marshall was measured at 1.49 seconds. If we base our speed assessment on velocity rather than 40-yard dash time, we can conclude that Will Fuller is the faster athlete of the two, minimal though the margin may be.

This is an example of why tracking maximum velocity is a better indication of an athlete’s raw speed ability when compared to split times over long distances like 40 yards. Tests like the flying 10-yard sprint and technology for calculating maximum velocity are both very useful here and can involve a more relaxed environment for testing speed more often than relying on periodically testing 40-yard dash times.

Are Your Football Players Fast Enough?

I asked Ken Clark if he would be able to use the equations from his paper to design flying 10-yard sprint and maximum velocity goals based on specific positions played in American football. Luckily for all of us, he provided me with exactly that.

He sent me modeled data for the fastest, middle, and slowest players at each position from the 2016 NFL Combine and I used it to construct goals based on position groups. Since the NFL Combine is considered an invite-only event of the top players in college football, you can use these goals to determine if your football player has enough velocity to keep up with the top players in their position group.

 

If they can achieve (or surpass) these velocities, congratulations! You can consider them among the faster players at their position and they should continue to maintain or improve upon their maximum velocity as their career unfolds. Of course, we should also account for the fact that just because a player has raw speed ability, it does not necessarily mean that they will play fast within the technical and tactical demands of football. But that is a topic for another article.

As far as physical limitations go, if a college or pro football player can’t achieve the velocities listed above, then it may be safe to say that they will have to compensate greatly and hope that they can have outstanding perception, technique, and understanding of the game principles to make up for their lack of raw speed. While our goal as coaches is to help remove limiting factors to a player’s performance, if we are responsible for their physical development and see that they are not fast enough (based on velocity) then we owe it to them to help them get faster.

“But what if I coach high school athletes?”

While some highly recruited prospects can achieve similar sprinting speeds as college and NFL football players, they are very rare and certainly do not show a physical limitation as it relates to speed. For the greater percentage of high school football players, it is necessary to list some more attainable goals. Again, since the NFL Combine is an event that invites most of the highest-performing players in college football, it may be fair to use the slowest calculated velocities at each position group as a baseline for high school athletes. While they may not become fast enough to play in the NFL, we can at least hold them to a standard for being fast enough to play in college.

Based on Ken Clark’s data, I determined the following velocity goals for high school athletes:

 

A Balanced Perspective

John Ross, a wide receiver out of the University of Washington, recently broke the NFL Combine record for the 40-yard dash and, subsequently, the Cincinnati Bengals drafted him. Ross broke Chris Johnson’s long-standing record of 4.24 seconds when he crossed the finish line with a time of 4.22 seconds.

Interested in trying to beat the new record? Look at the table below based on more data from Ken Clark that compares correlations of 4.20-4.40-second 40-yard dash times to maximum velocity and flying 10-yard sprint times:

 

Running a 4.20-second 40-yard dash would break the current record set by John Ross. According to the correlations above, an athlete would likely need a maximum velocity of around 10.40 m/s, which would correspond to a 0.88-second flying 10-yard sprint!

For additional perspective, here are the top five fastest velocities achieved during 2016 NFL regular season games, according to NFL Next Gen Stats3:

• Tyreek Hill 105-yard kickoff return for touchdown (penalized for holding) – 10.39 m/s
• Tyreek Hill 86-yard kickoff return for touchdown – 10.18 m/s
• Desean Jackson 59-yard pass reception for touchdown – 10.10 m/s
• Xavier Rhodes 100-yard interception return for touchdown – 10.01 m/s
• Brandin Cooks 45-yard pass reception for touchdown – 10.01 m/s

Keeping in mind that these numbers were achieved during live game action, while wearing full equipment, we instantly notice how dominant and unique the speed of Tyreek Hill is in comparison to his peers.

Moving on from Conventional Testing

The 40-yard dash is a test that requires the athletes to set up in a three-point stance, hold for a moment, and then take off into a sprint while timing starts on first motion. In football, only the linemen start in low positions and three-point stances. Most positions start from a more upright position.

Psychologically, the 40-yard dash can be a very stressful test and often results in athletes trying too hard and displaying inefficient technique, often becoming a huge detriment to their recorded times. If we choose to use the 40-yard dash as our primary test of speed, we must ensure that athletes can learn to deal with the pressure of performing the test so that they stay relaxed while running at maximum intensity.

In contrast, the flying 10-yard sprint is an option for a more relaxed test, performed more frequently, in a position from which ALL players will find themselves (upright running). From this test, we can easily calculate maximum velocity, which is the true indicator of a player’s speed.

Do we care more about the 40-yard dash time itself, or the fact that our players are getting faster? Share on X

Let’s be clear: I am NOT saying that we should ditch split times. Absolutely not. If you can beat your recorded split times, then chances are that you are getting faster. I am simply advocating that the flying 10-yard sprint provides a direct measure to calculate maximum velocity. We can use flying 10-yard sprints to calculate maximum velocity and use split times as feedback to fuel intensity while training for acceleration and top speed.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves what we want to measure. Do we care more about the 40-yard dash time itself, or the fact that our players are getting faster? Most coaches would agree that they just want fast players. While the 40-yard dash is certainly one way to decipher the fast from the slow, there are other potential options like the flying 10-yard sprint that can paint a clearer picture.

Special thanks to Dr. Kenneth Clark for helping contribute the data, graphs, and accuracy of the information provided in this article. If you are interested in learning more about total speed performance, be sure to read his research and follow him on Twitter: @KenClarkSpeed.

References

1. Clark, K. P., Rieger, R. H., Bruno, R. F., & Stearne, D. J. (2017). “The NFL Combine 40-Yard Dash: How Important is Maximum Velocity?” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2. Clark K.P. Speed Science: “The Mechanics Underlying Linear Sprinting Performance.” PowerPoint Presentation.
3. NFL Next Gen Stats Web site [Internet]. NFL Next Gen Stats; [cited 2017 Sep 9]. Available from: Fastest Ball Carriers

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

 

In a previous article, I discussed the hand supported split squat (HSSS) and the back squat to train lower body pushing patterns neurologically and structurally. To create a training trifecta and round out our program, I also use the Romanian deadlift (RDL). Our training model emphasizes intensive stimuli and movements to challenge multiple contractile properties, and the RDL is an essential component.

The True Value of Pulling for Athletes

Pulling from the floor is a fundamental activity that most athletes should master early in their career, but it’s not without its limitations. When technical maturity is low, the sole aim of pulling off the floor can become getting the weight up by any means, which obviously is risky.

During athlete development, we often reach a point where continued improvement with absolute load lessens improvements and enhances risk. Another concern is that these movements are largely concentric only. We also see a lack of deadlifting in seemingly high-level athletic programs. Nordics and hip thrusts have been at the center of posterior chain training for some time, as has unilateral vertical pulling.

Bilateral vertical pulling is often the domain of Olympic lifting coaches. These movements have high output, but the wellspring of development in eccentric and isometric qualities are not particularly challenged with these lifts. Standing single leg posterior chain variants aim to bring a sports-specific facet to posterior chain movements. While these are challenging, they often lack substantive loading and are limited by instability; the opportunity is missed to load the system with an intensive vertical pulling exercise.

Teaching the Hinge Movement by Training the RDL

Posterior chain strength is essential, however, and its potential for load tolerance is enormous. We’ve searched for variations that allow us to achieve enough stimulus to produce adaptation but allow athletes to do what is most important, their sports training. The neurological blowback is too great when athletes take inordinate amounts of time to recover compared to the potential benefits. This is probably why we don’t see much 80%+ conventional deadlift work in many high-level athletic preparation programs.

Top-down #hingepatterns load the posterior with less neurological hangover, says @WSWayland. Share on X

Top-down hinge patterns present an opportunity to load the posterior with less neurological hangover. The RDL and the hinge family of good mornings, Zercher good mornings, snatch grip RDLs, trap bar RDLs, and sumo RDLs, to name a few, are a separate class of exercises where the weight isn’t deloaded on the floor. These are novel because they’re as much a lowering exercise as they are a pulling exercise.

The powerful stretch reflex in a heavily loaded hinge is part of the movement’s benefit. It has the same thinking behind it as the very heavy kettlebell swing, but with more careful emphasis on the lowering of the weight. This lowering allows the athlete to organize the hinge motor pattern and brace effectively.

In one movement we can improve posture, hammer the posterior chain, and challenge both the hamstring with eccentric loading and grip strength. More systemic than Nordics or glute bridge variations, RDLs allow intensive posterior chain loading. Carl Valle covered the RDL’s history and current research in a great post here. One thing that the research is lacking is closely studied interventions using heavy RDLs.

Video 1. Every athlete will have a unique pattern based on how much stretch they receive in the hamstrings, but the RDL also has some gluteal recruitment. Coaches should manipulate the lift’s range, load, and tempo using a pattern that hinges at the hip.

The RDL is a pet lift of mine, and I’ve spent a lot of time exploring the exercise personally and with my athletes. I like that I can apply effective intensive isometric, eccentric, and oscillatory means to the RDL–it’s difficult and risky to do this to the conventional deadlift. Mark Rippetoe, who still has one of the best videos on the web about the RDL, argues, “It offers a completely different way of strengthening the posterior chain than you would find with any other pulling exercise. It’s its own exercise, not DL variation.”

Much like the front squat, I find the RDL can be restorative when applied well because it’s a truer hip hinge than the conventional deadlift. Because it is a top-down lift, once athletes are practiced, they can set themselves better which leads to better execution.

The RDL requires entire posterior chain organization. As a lowering exercise that offers no respite between reps, the entire system must stay organized to avoid failing the lift or breaking spinal position. The movement involves posterior delt, trap, and rhomboids to a greater degree than you would expect.

Famed powerlifting coach Boris Sheiko often uses rack and RDL variants exclusively as back exercises, excluding direct back work entirely. The snatch grip variant emphasizes the need for upper back tension and further bracing. I often use this movement with rank beginners because it forces extension while hinging which beginners can find troublesome.

The depth of the movement is subject to debate. I’ve seen suggestions ranging from mid-shin to just off the floor to just below the knee. The athlete’s flexibility and ability to maintain lumbar-pelvic positions are the largest determinant of depth. I’ve seen coaches like Robert Palka use RDL’s to just below the knee, similar to Fred Hatfield’s keystone deadlift employed famously with Evander Holyfield. Conversely, I’ve seen coaches employ RDL’s from a deficit–almost taking the bar to the feet.

Specific Strength Applications with the RDL

The RDL is first and foremost an accessory strength exercise that works best when loaded generously. The posterior chain is highly stress-tolerant and, as we’ve seen with hip thrust hype, can really be pushed. With consistency, athletes can move impressive numbers compared to bodyweight.

As a lowering exercise, the RDL shines with aggressive eccentric loading. I’m always impressed by most athletes’ capacity for work in this particular realm. Eccentric tempo RDL’s, however, induce much soreness and neurological stress. This is probably why coaches apply such anemic loading to this exercise. Eccentric loading will contribute to hamstring length, stretch reflex, and injury prevention that’s worth the price of some initial soreness.

Eccentric #RDL loading contributes to hamstring length, stretch reflex, and injury prevention, says @WSWayland. Share on X

The energetic cost of eccentric RDL’s is enormous, so we often perform clustered reps of doubles or triples to allow for some alactic recovery. We usually place this as far away as possible from any upcoming competitive event. The key in the eccentric movement is not chasing depth as much as chasing position; athletes often have different limitations on where their sweet spot for depth lies.

Loading strategies vary with the RDL. We don’t measure maximums in any meaningful sense because we see corruption in form. I’ve seen suggestions that loading should be a percentage of your back squat, but I don’t find that useful. I have several athletes who can RDL their back squat for reps.

Isometric variations generally challenge thoracic spine, shoulder stability, and crucially lumbar spine stability and brace as athletes must counter bar drift. Isometric hold position sits best at the top portion of the shin so as not to allow the low back to move out of position. I try to cue athletes to descend and ascend into the RDL as quickly as possible–no mean feat with high loads.

Video 2. This video shows a female MMA fighter integrating the isometric RDL into an entire session of isometric-focused work.

Straps are a necessity with heavy loads since most athletes cannot hang on to such absolute loads at high intensities. The movement also lets you add accommodating resistance which leads to more glute involvement, according to athlete self-reports.

RDL Variants for Speed and Power Applications

While the RDL isn’t useful at very high velocities–so it’s not great for power and speed– I have seen it used as a high-force, high-velocity bridging movement. I’ve toyed with the keystone deadlift used by Fred Hatfield, doing a partial RDL to just below the knee with a more exaggerated arch. This places an enormous stretch on the hamstrings without the need for the depth we see with a conventional RDL. It allows for greater loading and impressive velocities since the hip is positioned advantageously. And we still get a stretch reflex we wouldn’t find in a rack pull from a similar position.

Essential Oscillatory RDL Options

We can also use the RDL to train tension and range of motion to improve contraction and relaxation rates in less favorable (disadvantaged) and favorable (advantaged) positions, depending on training focus. A disadvantaged position is at a stretch–for instance, the bottom of the RDL just below the knee; an advantaged position with the RDL is at or above the knee. Oscillatory, or the Dimel, deadlifts are ideal for this. I classify these as RDL variants. In the video below, the athlete performs an oscillatory RDL for a timed set.

Video 3. Working extensively with combat athletes, I often employ disadvantaged oscillatory movements because these athletes often work from disadvantaged positions. Athletes who occupy more advantaged positions can choose accordingly.

Paraphrasing Matt Van Dyke: “Oscillatory (RDL) can be completed in training to create high forces, intensities, and volume in the weakest position of the exercise to improve strength. Even with light loads, we create an amplification of intensity either in a disadvantaged or advantaged position by using oscillatory exercises.”

Oscillatory training methods involve a rapid push-pull motion to maximize an athlete’s ability to reverse the muscle action phases effectively at high velocities. Bands can be used to accelerate the eccentric portion of the movement to challenge the athlete further. Bands also work well to cue end-range hip extension. To the uninitiated, Oscillatory exercises can appear unusual, frenetic, and gimmicky.

Staggered RDL with Barbells and Kettlebells

Heavy staggered RDL’s are a quasi-unilateral option that reduces some of the problems of the often-challenging single leg RDL. Much like single leg squatting, the single leg RDL is limited by the athlete’s ability to maintain stability, which is tricky with the contralateral brace required and bar’s movement. To overcome this problem, I started using the staggered RDL. Take a small step into a staggered stance, with both knees unlocked, and use the rear leg to stabilize–either on the ball of the foot or with the foot flat on the floor.

Video 4. With the heavy staggered RDL, the target of the movement will be the lead leg which has the greatest stretch. This movement can be loaded substantially. It’s not an HSSS for the posterior chain, but it comes close.

Staggered and split stance variations are also options for speed and power variations. By staggering the stance, we can train sports-specific actions while getting a somewhat contralateral training effect–all at high velocities. Using accommodating resistance bands or chains allows us to challenge advantaged portions of the hinge movement.

Video 5. Traditional RDL movement with a kettlebell is a great option for nearly any athlete looking to learn the pattern. Loading will become necessary as the athlete progresses.

I select these depending on athlete needs. For example, with a grappling athlete, I’ll implement Zercher and other arm-braced anterior-loaded variations, often for timed sets or potentiation clusters. We’ll use heel elevated and flat variations also.

Video 6. Staggering the RDL with kettlebells and employing an isometric stimulus is a very safe exercise that reinforces both the hinge movement and the bracing skills of the lifter.

Trap Bar and RDL Rows

Using the trap bar for RDL’s is a particularly useful, novel variation for athletes who are tall or who insist on forward knee movement; holding a neutral position allows the athlete to punch toward the floor with a neutral grip. In fact, I encourage straight arm punching toward the floor as a cue. Since the bar is not anterior to or against the legs, the knees don’t get in the way of the bar’s path, and the athlete can focus on migrating the hips backward. While athletes can perform this action with kettlebells or preferably dumbbells, these can crash against the legs and don’t allow for the type of loading we can get from a trap bar.

Video 7. The trap bar, or hex bar, is often misused with athletes when they bounce out of the deadlift, but RDLs are a different story. RDL training with the trap bar is a great option for athletes.

RDLs are also commonly used in a combined exercise with a row. This makes sense because the RDL set-up position is very similar to the bent over row set up. Combining both challenges the position of the posterior chain and spine. Obviously the RDL loading is limited by the amount of load one can row.

Sequencing RDL to Peak When it Counts

When sequencing in traditional block fashion, we move from a high-force, low-velocity phase. We start the sequence with eccentrics and increase movement velocity as the competition period closes. The more mature the athlete, the less time we spend in intensively-loaded blocks and the more time we spend time using sub-80% loading.

For athletes who run regular competition schedules, we place neurologically demanding variants as soon as we can after the competition. Assessing readiness, we’ll get the athlete under the bar as soon as possible. For some athletes, primarily golfers, I have them lift the evening after an event if possible.

Upgrade the Posterior Chain with the Right RDL

Heavy RDL and its variations are not a single exercise panacea, and it pays when we put a lot of thought and justification into the exercises we choose. Effective posterior chain training is often vaunted as the key to athletic development. This is understandable given the capacity for the posterior chain to produce force far greater than any amount of force we can produce with the anterior chain or a squat pattern.

The mid-thigh pull is a prominent test of athleticism for a reason. So let’s give the posterior chain the stimulus it needs. RDL is one option among many. I use heavy RDL’s in combination with the HSSS to apply intensive systemic stress plus eccentric and isometric stimulus to athletes that few other movements can.

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

Growing up in the ’70s and ’80s, a big part of my week was getting up early on Saturday morning to watch cartoons. One of my favorites was “Super Friends” (my second favorite was “Land of the Lost”), especially the episodes with Bizarro, who was like Superman’s alter ego. In Bizarro’s world, everything was the opposite of the Super Friends’ Earth, which meant that Superman was actually a bad guy. People referred to him as Bizarro Superman, and he went around stealing everything and doing all the very worst things he could possibly do.

I always found this “Bizarro” concept intriguing. So, I came up with the idea of applying it to speed training and program design. This means that we would do everything in our power to make our athletes run as slow as possible.

The Bizzaro World of Sprint Training: How Many Coaches Are Doing the Opposite?

First, I wondered what I could possibly do to ensure that we could not run fast. Enter “Bizarro Coach.” I started to prioritize things that I would do in my Bizarro World of Speed Training, where my business would be called “Fast Guy, Slow School.”

1. We don’t run. The best way to make sure we don’t get faster is that we don’t run. In fact, we try to move as little as possible. I am pretty certain that if we don’t run at all or even walk or march, we aren’t going to get faster. All of our exercises will be on both legs or we won’t put legs on the ground at all. If we can do that, we will field the slowest team possible.

2. When we have enough of not moving at all and we actually need to do something else, we will move slowly. By that, I mean we will spend most of our time moving at a speed that’s not close to our max velocity. In order to achieve that, we will get really tired first and then try to move at max velocity.

   I’m sure in Bizarro World, when our nervous system is completely fried, we will not be able to move quickly at all and our brains will think that moving slowly when tired is the right thing to do. This will be especially effective when our bodies get in poor anatomical positions and we train the wrong muscles to do the work that the more powerful muscles should be doing.

3. When we finish moving around slowly, fatigued, we will push really big and heavy things very slowly. By doing this, we will ensure our brain knows that our body should move very slowly and our nervous system gets used to being weighted down. This way, our systems cannot get used to being explosive and fast in an environment where there is no weight.

   So that we do not get better at this short movement, we will move our joints as little as possible through these ranges of motion and use the fewest effective muscles as possible to move that really heavy weight. We will contort our bodies into strange positions that are not at all like what they would be on the playing field.

4. For the last part of our Bizarro training program, we will do the same patterns over and over again, and our bodies will never learn to deal with change or any other unknown environmental barrier that may come our way. Therefore, when we hit that environmental difficulty, our bodies will surely slow down and maybe even collapse or break.

This is my Bizarro training program. As we go back to Superman’s real world where he is a good guy, the scary thing is that the Bizarro training program is not too different from some programs out there.

I’m not saying that all these methods don’t have a place in good training. For instance, I know max strength plays a large role in force development and should not be left out, just as a good conditioning program can be important and sometimes athletes will fatigue. But when conditioning or strength results are the foundation of a workout program, sometimes the results aren’t what you hoped they would be. This is where coaches wonder why their athletes aren’t as fast as the team they are playing or why they aren’t getting faster. They went to Bizarro World.

Training Speed the Right Way: How to Go from Bizarro to Superman

So, what can we do to make sure that we don’t build a Bizarro program? The first thing that comes to mind is you need to sprint as much as possible. I’m not saying to do it every day, but a well-thought-out program where short sprints are the basis of your workout will go a long way in making sure that it doesn’t become a Bizarro program.

I make sure that I have one to three days of sprinting in my workouts for most of the year. I have one day of max velocity and one day of acceleration work. For part of the year, I have a force day as well, where we push or pull heavy things. If it is late in the track season, I add some speed endurance work.

If you don’t have track athletes, a day of agility work is great as well. Even if you have a minimal amount of space, you can still find a way to do some form of sprint work, even if it’s just a short five- to 10-meter burst. That is better than standing around and waiting for your turn on a squat rack.

Make sure to do max velocity when athletes are fresh, and endurance work is well-planned for the right time of the year. I see too many coaches who wonder why athletes get slower and exhaust themselves by the end of the year, even though they think that they are well-conditioned. Some coaches think that they just need to condition more throughout the year. The countless gassers, suicides, and other forms of punishment/endurance work are way overdone.

Coaches often misunderstand that athletes get tired from other things besides being out of shape, says @korfist. Share on X

I find it interesting that when coaches start a season, they immediately assume that athletes are out of shape. In fact, most of the athletes have played that sport year-round in their club or have been doing something most of the year. I think they misunderstand that athletes get tired in games from other things besides just being out of shape, such as being nervous with the butterflies that sometimes start a whole day before the game exhausts their body.

How many times have you walked out of a movie like “Dunkirk” and felt exhausted? Or you had a stressful day and experienced the same feeling? Stress costs the body. There is nothing you can do to counter stress other than teach your athletes to relax and breathe. Give them targets to focus on during the day, rather than the game itself. More gassers at the end of practice will not solve this problem.

Here is something to think about regarding the “warm-up” before games. To simplify things, imagine that an athlete has 100 units of energy when they show up for a football game. The athlete uses some energy just by being nervous. Once everyone is taped, there is a pre-warm-up in the fieldhouse or somewhere. Let’s say that cost 20 units because the warm-up is moderate tempo. After the drums and running through the banner, there is the chest bumping and pre-game warm-up. With the added emotion and looking good to the opposing team with deep fade routes and big blocks and hits, subtract 30 units.

Going into the game, athletes may expend a lot of energy that takes time to replenish. Time that doesn’t exist. So, at the end of the second and fourth quarters, players are out of gas. Likewise, when you continually pound your players down at the end of a practice, they learn to get slow and move with really poor form and it will take time to rebuild from that pounding. Most players don’t go home and replenish after their practice. They are too tired to eat and would rather just do homework and go to bed. This starts the downward spiral of fatigue.

What can you do to deal with this? First, identify why athletes are tiring and by what point in the game. Once you determine this, you can pick an appropriate type of conditioning. Gassers are not a cure-all. Try adding conditioning to the beginning of practice in the form of controlled breathing during warm-ups. Have athletes try keeping their mouths closed for the entire time they exercise. This is proven to result in a chemical change in the body and will teach them how to condition better.

Video 1. This is the Buteyko method of breathing. The book, “The Oxygen Advantage,” is a great place to start. If you can plan it out in advance, check out Cal Dietz’s aerobic training block videos on YouTube. Once you establish that foundation, shift the focus to anaerobic reserve.

The Kryptonite Remedy (Bizarro Superman Likes It)

There’s a time and place for everything. I’m not saying that we should get rid of strength training, weight lifting, or anything like that, but we need to make sure it happens at the right place and the right time. For my athletes, the off-season is a great time to get stronger. However, I need to make sure that there is ample transfer of that lift to their movement or skill.

Therefore, if I stay with the squat, I want to make sure that it is an athletic squat. But if I want to be more specific to running, I make sure that athletes are on one leg and challenging their lateral stability. Very rarely, in a sport that requires movement, are they on both legs at one time. If you want to lift heavy to improve your force, make sure it’s a proper angle and body position so you ensure there is maximum amount of transfer to that push or projection of your center of mass.

Be sure to change the workouts. Do not do the same thing for the entire year. In fact, change it every couple of weeks, or maybe even every workout. Always challenge the body to learn more. We want to make sure that our strength gains are actual strength gains and not simply getting really efficient with a single movement.

Be sure that strength gains are actual gains, not simply getting efficient at a single movement, says @korfist. Share on X

If we get really efficient at that movement, and we go to play a game, the movement may not be the same and we may not have the strength that we thought we had. We’ve all seen the player that looks like a tiger but plays like a kitten, and we wonder why there is no transfer from the training. Always challenge the body to learn in the debt. That way you can create a robust and resilient athlete.

This is just a start for ideas to implement. If this topic is of interest, be sure to attend the Track Football Consortium on December 8-9 in Lisle, Illinois, where our topics revolve around the developing multi-sport athletes in the most “non-Bizarro” methods. Top track and football coaches come and share the ways they achieved their success. This year’s keynote is Carl Lewis. Yes, that Carl Lewis. Check us out at Tracking Football Consortium.

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

In this second installment of a case study I am performing on a collegiate men’s basketball player along with Mark McLaughin (“A Case Study on Readiness, Recovery, and Skill Performance in College Basketball”), I share new findings and unexpected discoveries with our primary athlete. During the summer months, some of the initial findings on perceived recovery, objective readiness, and actual skill performance surprised me. It is by no means a final verdict for all athletes, but it points to a growing issue: Are we asking the right questions when we look at performance?

When an Athlete Becomes Advanced and What to Do

Various periods of the year demand a different balance of physical training and sport-specific skill work. As an athlete matures and progresses to higher levels of sport, skill work takes a more prominent role year-round and you can use it as a means of specific training itself. The temporal-spatial awareness needed at high levels of sport is not a switch that you can magically turn on when the season starts.

At the same time, the tissue, movement, and physiological qualities needed to perform that skill cannot be ignored for large periods of time. This is especially true as high physical demands of a specific sport require these elements to function at high levels in specific ways. Part of our long-term focus is better understanding of the balance of training and skill work, and how one may positively—or negatively—affect the other.

Key Point No. 1: We’re asking a specific question about the relationship between readiness, perceived recovery, and actual sport performance.

If the analysis and line of questioning do not directly connect to the performance of the sport, then aren’t we just spinning our data-collection wheels? Listen, there is absolutely a need to better understand improvements in physical performance and recovery, as well as incidence and mechanism of injury. At some point, we must actually ask questions about how these affect the actual game performance of the player and the team. As Fergus Connolly of the University of Michigan tactfully illustrated recently, the most pressing question when using technology or asking questions in an investigation is: “How is this going to help us actually win games?” 

Key Point No. 2: The strength and conditioning program wasn’t the primary focus.

We know that Mark has done a tremendous job with our athlete’s physical preparedness in strength and conditioning for basketball. This athlete has elite performance parameters (42” vertical jump, 10’6” broad jump, 1.43 10-yard sprint electric, RHR 45 bpm), and experienced precious few injuries throughout his entire athletic career (none of which happened during the period Mark has trained him).

Key Point No. 3: There is a long-term plan with eyes on in-season competition. 

Data hoarding just isn’t polite. If you ask people for their time and participation, you must offer something tangible to reward their efforts. In the initial weeks and months of the project, I began to see ways that we could start to ask less of the athlete and still gather valuable information as we progressed closer to the season.

In season, we will minimize what the athlete will have to input. This is still the goal: maximize the efficiency of our process by minimizing excessive fluff. We don’t need seven or eight data sources for recovery, another five for training, and several more for the sport. We need to be elite with one first, and add more only if needed.

Gather data from sources that are athlete-specific, without being athlete-draining, says @MdHCSCS. Share on X

We use the Omegawave and my Voyager athlete management system, and periodically use heart rate monitors. In-season, we will gather objective information from other sources. It is still athletic-specific, but not athlete-draining.

The Key Factors That Drive Success and Failure

I was determined to start off the project with no expectations about relationships we may, or may not, find with the metrics we elected to track. I absolutely had hunches about particular elements like sleep quality and central nervous system assessments, but I put them aside for the sake of objectivity. While we had a theoretical construct on which to base our line of investigation, we decided it was in the best interest of the athlete and the project to dive in unbiased. We would test this element early and continuously based on our findings.

Consistency is the name of the game. Our athlete was quite steady in his perceived recovery wellness scores. Averaging a score of 20.1 (out of 25) with a standard deviation of less than one for each metric meant that he was, on average, scoring at least a four on all of his wellness and recovery indicators.

This is a double-edged sword: On one hand, working with a diligent and brutally honest athlete is easy. He does what we tell him to, and the results account for this. On the other hand, he sets a high standard that not every athlete I have worked with over the past 13+ years can meet. We have all worked with difficult clients and athletes and guess what? Their progress is more in our hands than we would like to admit. As it turned out, our athlete’s consistency would influence our findings in unexpected ways. 

The data-jury was still out, but an interesting picture began to form. We began to see a strong association between “Energy” from our perceived recovery questionnaire and “Fatigue” from the Omegawave reading (r=0.73). Additionally, we saw a perfect one-to-one relationship between the variance of “Fatigue” from Omegawave and the “Focus” metric from our recovery survey. Surprisingly, sleep quality and quantity only had a small association with those two factors. This did not mean sleep was not important, but rather, it showed the importance of practicing caution and not running away with early data findings.

The path to comparing readiness and recovery to sport-specific skill has formed. We needed to compile a more robust database before looking at sport-specific skill outcomes. There were only a handful of skill sessions available, so attempting any type of analysis would be shortsighted. Our athlete kept track of free throw and three-point attempts and makes. I compiled session shooting percentages during the analysis. Additionally, we compiled a simple, subjective training load from the sessions.

Summer Is Not Time Off—It’s the Period of Growth

Summer is a period of more intensive training for collegiate basketball players, with a combination of organized team strength and conditioning sessions and informal, reoccurring open-gym games. Our athlete did a tremendous job of balancing basketball, strength and conditioning sessions, and summer school, as well as a part-time summer internship.

The preseason camp for basketball that occurs in the fall months is an intensive period of basketball-specific activities. Mark’s approach to managing the cumulative impact of all stressors on the athlete was critical during the demanding summer. We will take the same approach during the preseason camp, as the athlete will combine several hours of basketball activities with a full academic schedule.

As we progressed further into the summer months, we started to see shifts in the picture that the data presented on our athlete’s recovery, readiness, and skill performance. The correlation between “Energy” from our perceived recovery questionnaire and “Fatigue” from our Omegawave scan shifted from a large strength of association (r=0.73) to a medium strength of association (r=0.45). We have roughly doubled the sample size over the course of the month, so I believe we are simply seeing a more accurate snapshot of the way these metrics relate.

The correlations between “Soreness” and “Focus” (r=0.68) and between “Soreness” and “Energy” (r=0.79) were two more strong-association relationships. Additionally, “Soreness” and “Energy” (r=0.49) shared a relationship at the very upper limits of a medium strength of association. This begs the question as to how we can positively impact levels of perceived soreness:

• What is the athlete’s nutrition plan, and is he following it?
• Is the athlete’s existing nutrition plan meeting his basic needs?
• Moreover, does the athlete know how to make informed decisions on basic nutritional needs?
• If nutritional needs are being met, what are the limiting factors that impact muscle recovery and soreness?

It should not be a surprise that many of the Omegawave metrics shared medium to strong levels of association with each other. “Sympathetic Activity” and “Level of Tension” showed the greatest positive strength of association (r=0.84) of all the Omegawave metrics. Also unsurprisingly, “Level of Tension” and “Parasympathetic Activity” showed the greatest negative and overall strength of association as well (r=-0.85). The following two images show other highlights of Omegawave metric associations.

In regard to the relationship between Omegawave readiness metrics and skill performance and work outcomes, a handful of useful insights began to appear.

“Aerobic Status Index” showed the strongest association of all metrics with “session RPE” (r=0.77). As an Omegawave user, the mindset I take regarding this association is to look at the way the aerobic system of the athlete has been developed and managed. The development of specific-oxidative capacities of both slow twitch (type 1-A) and fast twitch fibers (type 2-A) is a critical factor for an aerobic, alactic sport such as basketball. While the current strength of these two associations is not written in stone, I would not be surprised to see their relationship continue.

From a basketball skill standpoint, the “Metabolic Reaction Index” (r=0.65) and “Omegawave Resting Potential” (r=0.58) showed the strongest association with three-point shooting percentage. I find it interesting that there is both a physiological-metabolic metric and a brain-nervous system metric showing a strong association with shooting percentage. “Omegawave Resting Potential” also showed a medium-strength level of association with “Free Throw Percentage” (r=0.37).

Decoding the Strain and Recovery of the Central Nervous System

We continued to employ the F-Test procedure during the summer months to look at how the variances of the metrics compared to each other. Remember, this simply allows us to see if metrics bounce around in similar ways, given a certain threshold we set. This does not infer that the variables are related, nor does it define an applied significance between variables.

We initially look to see if the ratio of variances of two metrics is close to a one-to-one ratio. From there, we either reject the idea that there is no “statistically significant” difference between the two variances (i.e., we define that the variances are not equal), or we fail to reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between the variances (i.e., we can’t prove that there is no difference).

The semantics of null-hypothesis testing are a bit tricky, because when we use this process we cannot outright say that we accept or have proven that the hypothesis of the variances being equal is true. If specific criteria are met, all we can say is that we fail to reject the idea that the variances are different. Transparent, yet lacking definitive clarity at the same time!

As summer progressed and our database continued to expand, we saw more circumstances where we couldn’t statistically prove that there was no difference between the variances of two metrics. In fact, we failed to reject the notion that there was no statistically significant difference between the two variables in nearly half of the metrics we compared the variances for. This by itself is not very impressive, because of the wide range of criteria allowing us to come to this conclusion.

However, it becomes more interesting when we look at the critical values established by this process, and see a ratio of the variances. When seeing ratios close to one, it signifies that the variances of the two metrics being compared bounce around in nearly identical ways. While this does not prove a definitive relationship between two metrics, it does allow the formation of more specific questions surrounding the impact of one metric on another. In regard to our investigation, we are specifically interested in the readiness and recovery metrics that affect actual skill performance.

Once again, objective Omegawave metrics provided some interesting findings when we compared their variances to those of subjective wellness and skill performance. Subjective markers from the daily athlete recovery surveys also provided some interesting insights when compared to skill performance outcomes.

The “total wellness score,” which is a composite of all five recovery scores combined, showed a strong ratio with three-point percentage (1.03), Omegawave Resting Potential (1.09), and Metabolic Reaction Index (1.21). The “Soreness” variance also showed a strong relationship to three-point percentage (1.03), and Omegawave Resting Potential (1.09). Variability in subjective “Focus” scores shared a strong ratio with the variability in the total number of free throws made (1.09), but this alone is clearly dependent upon the total number of free throw attempts and the subsequent shooting percentage.

When writing up assessments and drawing conclusions, don’t forget to look for confounding factors, says @MdHCSCS. Share on X

Based on this information, it is interesting to see the relationship of the variances between the total number of free throws attempted and the subjective assessment of perceived “Energy” (1.14). Is it conceivable that the more energetic our athlete felt, the more shots he was willing to attempt and thus increase the total number of free throws made? Perhaps, but this is a great example of not forgetting to look for confounding factors: Maybe our athlete simply had more time to attempt free throws, was less distracted by others in the gym, etc.

There was a very strong ratio between “total sleep time” and “session RPE” (0.97). I felt that we would see more robust findings with sleep metrics, given our theoretical construct for the case study. This raises a great question, as we must confront the idea that there may be factors affecting sleep quality and quantity that govern this process. While our attention goes to sleep quality and quantity, perhaps we should focus attention on the factors that affect these metrics, or the metrics that the sleep parameters affect.

I think it is still possible that sleep metrics, along with other recovery and readiness factors, are indeed a driving force affecting skill performance. However, I think we must decide if sleep is a primary, direct factor or a secondary, indirect factor affecting performance. In all likelihood, there is probably a spectrum along the time continuum where both these instances are true at different times.

During the first stage of our investigation, there was a perfect one-to-one ratio of the variances of “Focus” from the recovery survey and “Fatigue” from the Omegawave. After two months of data collection, this ratio still passes the significance threshold, but has fallen to 0.30. Since we now have a bit more robust and still expanding data-set, I have more confidence that we are now seeing more realistic outcomes. As noted in Part 1, the initial findings are interesting, but there is little point in waving a flag for significance after a month of findings. The pronounced change in the ratio between variances of “Focus” and “Fatigue” exemplifies that well.

Identification of the metrics with variances that stood out when compared to actual skill performance highlighted few relationships. Our skill performance indicators were free throw and three-point shooting percentages. Overall, individual subjective measures by themselves were not quite as robust as the total wellness score when compared to a shooting percentage variance.

“There is no silver bullet predictor in the subjective, self-reported areas when it comes to skill performance.”

My takeaway is that this highlights the importance of an athlete mastering his or her life and activities during the other 22 hours of their day. Sleep, nutrition, stress management, psycho-social factors, or cultural/athletic ecosystems alone will not predict or relate to skill outcomes. There is no silver bullet predictor in the subjective, self-reported areas when it comes to skill performance. The information that the total wellness score has as strong of a relationship with the variability of skill performance and physical work output as any subjective indicator alone leads me to think that the sum of all actions is greater than the whole of their individual parts.

How Coordination Breaks Down and Rebounds

It was particularly interesting to us to see how objective metrics from our Omegawave assessment would compare to skill outcomes. Omegawave Resting Potential (r=0.58) and Metabolic Reaction Index (r=0.65) both possessed strong levels of association with three-point percentage. Omegawave views resting potential as the level of cumulative activity of all functional systems within the body.

It sounds like a hefty statement to process, but think of it this way: The functional systems within our body must coordinate efforts to get things done in an efficient way for survival. Our brain and nervous system need to be able to send information to muscles to move in certain ways, to our heart to beat faster or slower, to our endocrine system to repair muscles or activate fuels, and to our cellular environment to select optimal energy systems for activity.

The many anatomical and physiological systems in our body must work in concert. Omegawave views the resting potential as a window into understanding how in-tune our internal orchestra is for varying parameters of performance. Resting potential is a governing factor of human functionality.

Metabolic Reaction Index (MRI) is a reflection of the energy supply system within our body—one of the systems within our body’s orchestra under the umbrella of the functional system as assessed by the Omegawave Resting Potential. When evaluating the MRI, we get insight into how well our bioenergetics systems are functioning to produce energy. The QRS wave that occurs during the Omegawave ECG assessment evaluates both the aerobic and anaerobic systems and their cooperative capabilities; the MRI defines their overall ability to support physical activity.

Resting potential is a governing factor of human functionality, says @MdHCSCS. Share on X

Regarding the three-point shooting percentage, what interests me is that a large governing factor such as Omegawave Resting Potential, and an important bioenergetic marker such as the MRI, have so far shown strong associations to the execution of a sport-specific skill. Conceptually, it’s not difficult to imagine that a fine motor skill such as shooting a basketball from over 20 feet away from the hoop might depend on multiple systems within the body to perform well and coordinate tasks with one another. Given the aerobic-alactic nature of basketball, it’s not surprising that a factor such as MRI may play a role in executing fine motor skills over a duration of time rather than a single instance.

This brings up an important topic regarding this case study, future investigations, and the research process itself. Standardized testing and data collection procedures are a staple of data reliability. During the exploratory phase of this investigation, we elected to cast a generalized net to see if the questions we asked were capable of being answered given our methods.

This required a long-term vision where we defined our outcome and worked backwards and, in this case, we would assess actual game performance as the long-term outcome. Shouldn’t we standardize our shooting percentage assessment for both three-point and free throws? How can we have any confidence in our analysis if there is no set procedure for sport-specific skill performance?

The most important part about this case study is that we have standardized procedures for assessing our independent variables. The athlete performs the subjective recovery and wellness survey, and follows it with the Omegawave assessment. Within 15 to 30 minutes after each skill session, we collect information on shooting performance, session time, and session RPE. This is a standardized process, with the dependent variables assessed accordingly.

The actual procedure for performing sport-specific skills is conceptually designed in a similar fashion to the way that skills are displayed during competition: at random. We have no way to tell a player within a game they must shoot 20 free throws, attempt no less than 25 wide-open three-pointers from the same location on the court, and achieve at least a nine out of 10 effort for a fixed number of minutes.

During the summer months, we kept in mind that the dependent variables we assess in-season from each game will differ from the variables we have available during the early portions of this investigation. For the time being, we established a minimum standard for the number of free throw attempts our athlete makes. Before warming up and at the very end of the session, our athlete performs 20 free throws, making his minimum free throw tally 40.

He will shoot additional free throws between drills within the session—we elected to do this to increase the sample size of free throws taken. As a side note, his free throw percentage has improved slightly over the summer to just shy of 87%. However, his goal is more than 92%.

Mood and Skill Performance: Omega Potential to the Rescue?

While our investigation shifts gears to accommodate preseason preparation with his team, we are focused on understanding what the primary readiness and recovery factors are for this athlete. This athlete’s sleep quality and quantity were not driving factors behind his skill performance, but that does not mean we will allow him to stray from those behaviors. I believe we did not see a more robust data connection between sleep and performance because this athlete got a high quality and quantity of sleep on a consistent basis. In other words, there was no opportunity for big variances in sleep behaviors to negatively impact the athlete’s performance.

This specific athlete will benefit from a more diligent, consistent effort to keep his body fueled with high-quality foods and hydration. In addition, because of a few signs that his skill performance moderately affects his mood and energy, we will most likely implement elements from sport psychology. This includes gearing some efforts towards helping him utilize imagery of positive performance and self-compassion; he is a full-time upperclassman at a private college with more rigorous academic loads and a strong social life, as well as a full-time athlete. He needs to know not everything is always optimal with life demands like that!

I have a strong interest in a deeper dive to look at the Omegawave Resting Potential, mostly because of my own curiosity and passion for understanding how the body performs and responds. I don’t believe it’s a silver bullet to predict human performance, but given the nearly 20 years Mark has used this information when training thousands of athletes, special forces, corporate executives, and fitness enthusiasts alike, we cannot simply ignore the results.

This flies in the face of our data-crazed industry, where data and technology promise so much. To be fair, there is a lack of proof in application. We hear about preventing injuries and predicting performance, yet there have been a consistent number of ligament injuries in the NFL preseason since 2013.

Additionally, there are college and professional teams loaded with data and tech that struggle to do the most important thing: win games. Simultaneously, we have top programs in professional and collegiate sports that win games and titles, but have little to no data and technology. Does this mean sport and performance science is a wash?

#Data and technology aren’t the issue; refining the questions we ask as sports practitioners is, says @MdHCSCS. Share on X

This reminds me of the exposure of the Great and Powerful Oz behind the curtain; pay no attention here! Clearly, I am not against technology and data, and the promise that both might offer. While continuing this case study, it’s explicitly apparent that the technology and data is next to useless without a staff that is wholeheartedly invested in finding a better way to prepare athletes. I don’t think data and technology are the issue: I think we need to refine the questions that we ask as coaches, scientists, and practitioners.

• How do we define success as a team?
• What does it take for us to win?
• What offensive or defensive traits affect our chances of winning?
• What technical or tactical abilities do our athletes need to thrive in our offensive and defensive systems?
• What are the physical, psychological, morphological, physiological, social, or anthropometric traits needed to achieve these techniques and tactics?
• How ready and prepared is the athlete to exhibit these traits?

In all honesty, when we ask these questions about the actual sport-specific performance of an athlete, there is no way that our eye test or just the basics can answer them all. However, sports practitioners often overlook and neglect the basics, leading to poorly planned training, insufficient nutrition and hydration, poor wellness habits, and a lack of program tradition, leadership, enforcement, and communication.

The list goes on, and yet we must master the “basics” first. As I travel, speak, consult, and talk shop with countless members of our field, I think the basics are being mastered better and better at willing institutions. When you have an embarrassment of riches with talent, facilities, resources, and tradition, you had better be winning games!

I cannot say the same for organizations or schools that lack a winning tradition or culture, have average facilities and resources, and cannot attract top recruits or athletes. This is where maximizing every ounce of talent and effort from each player becomes mandatory for mere survival, and failing to ask tough questions and identify indicators of success beyond a superficial level means you are leaning on luck to try and advance your team.

The next steps in our process are both exciting and intriguing, as we enter the start of the athlete’s pre-competition season. Collectively, we are also working to take our assessment model and apply it to athletes within the NBA’s D-League. We have the same means and model, but the added benefit of targeting another high-level athlete going up against top competition. Since our model centers around assessing the actual performance of the sport and working outward, I see a great opportunity to expand to football, soccer, and beyond.

As always, I’d like to extend a special thanks to Christopher Glaeser and his SimpliFaster team, Mark McLaughlin of Omegawave North America, Erik Jernstrom of EForce Sport, and our group of athletes.

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

Hidden away in some strength and conditioning corners is massive hype about the close grip snatch, an option that is so inflated, it’s frightening. There are certain times a narrow grip is a good alternative to the traditional width, but the promise is overblown. In this article, we intend to debunk this problem before it continues to grow.

Bad logic and poor reasoning don’t stop with the snatch exercise, they extend to other exercises, making this a perfect learning experience.

Even if you don’t use the exercise or don’t plan to incorporate it into your program, narrow grip snatches are a perfect cautionary tale of bad sport science meeting bro science. If you don’t think it’s worth talking about or investing a few minutes, the problem, pardon the pun, is wider than you think.

The Close Grip Hype is Still Alive

We’d assumed the narrow grip would eventually fade away–there’s been just enough hype around it to be annoying. Instead, the trend is growing and needs to be squashed. The option to use a close grip is just that, an option, not a necessity. Using a traditional grip, in fact, has more value. The hype comes from three popular arguments: Going narrow will reduce injuries (unfounded), improve impulse (foolish idea), and better teach the lift (a stretch).

For every 100 strength coaches, we’ll see about a dozen using a close grip snatch believing that it helps training. And we see some veteran coaches going narrow for reasons that make no sense at all. It seems no one cares about this issue because the strength and conditioning profession has bigger fish to fry with all of the injuries and drama it’s experiencing at elite and youth levels.

• A close grip is not safer to the shoulder joint
• A close grip does not provide athletes with any power benefits
• A close grip will not fix technique errors magically

If you have a good reason to use a narrow grip, we’re not going to ask you to change. If you’re using it due to outside influence, it’s time to ask why. A grip change of just one hand span can improve or ruin an athlete, and promoting the wrong grip is negligent.

Does The Snatch Grip Width Matter in Sports Performance?

Any time we discuss Olympic lifting, there’s a debate between what is good for the sport of weightlifting and what is good for sports. This subject has been beaten to death, and the arguments do not encourage changes that make a difference in training. This article is not meant to convince those who don’t use the lift to convert to weightlifting movements; it will help those who coach lifts in the weight room who have similar needs. When we make an exercise selection, the details sometimes matter. If a coach decides to snatch, does the choice of grip choice make a difference in the end?

A simple way to envision grip for a barbell snatch is to picture a continuum starting with the hands as wide as possible, so they’re flush with the plate, and becoming less wide, so they’re shoulder-width straight up. A clean or close grip is not narrow; it’s just narrower than a conventional grip. The grip used isn’t related to competition rules, it’s about finding the best mechanics to do the lift safely and effectively. Grip terminology will be different and sometimes contradictory, so it’s better to look at the actual spacing rather than the name of the grip.

Technique matters regardless of what you do to prepare for sport. Whenever a coach chirps that it’s not worth time to learn, always remember that they’re missing the point of Olympic exercises. A good teacher and a good athlete can get started in sessions, and some wise coaches teach the lift without even touching a barbell. The snatch is easier to teach because the catch requires less flexibility and feels more natural to many athletes. Grip choice is important for five reasons:

• Hand Strength–Although hook grips and hand strength development are not easily connected, the grip width will influence the demand on the hands. Rarely does an athlete have an issue gripping the bar unless they simply avoid the weight room.
• Shoulder Mobility and Wrist Health–A wider grip adds lateral strain to the wrist but decreases mobility demands on the shoulder. The bar also factors into width–even a large athlete is usually constrained to the standard length.
• Athlete Body Structure–The body’s anthropometrics govern the adjustments made to many lifting movements. In the snatch, some athletes need to go wider than usual but rarely do athletes need to go narrow.
• Exercise Mode–Pulling from the floor, the blocks, and the hang position are all unique. Snatching at different heights may encourage changes to grips for some lifters and relates to the structure of the athlete and rate of force generation.
• Leg Drive and Hip Contact–Traditional (wide) grip sets the bar exactly in the crease of the hip. The placement makes the “bump/scoop” most effective when elevating the bar because effective snatching uses a lot of leg drive. When using the narrow grip, the arms extend longer and the bar contacts the legs too early, shortening the leg drive. Note: If you hold the bar in the correct position, you should be able to lift the leg into hip flexion without moving the bar to help you do so.

As you can see from these five points, the grip matters regardless of whether you’re doing recreational lifting, training for a weightlifting competition, or training for sport. All athletes doing the snatch must pay attention to the details and not fall into the trap of looking at everything outside their sport as secondary. In fact, athletes get injured or fail to improve because they look at general training as second-class and, therefore, the lifts don’t develop.

Can a Shoulder-Width Grip Protect the Shoulder?

Now we’re going to get controversial. Going narrow will not improve safety. It makes the load lighter which leads to the belief that the movement will be better on the joint. Sounds fine on paper, but the problem is that load and mechanical strain juggle between physics and anatomy, and the theory doesn’t hold water. Anatomical safety when things go right is one thing. But if the grip encourages compensations and increases risk, it creates a bigger problem. If overhead snatching is so dangerous, why play with fire at all and instead do clean pulls?

Although the snatch is received overhead, it’s not the same exercise as an overhead press. It’s like a handstand on your feet, with the reception of the load going through the upper body and down to the ground. The difference is that walking on your hands has a different set of risks than lifting, including starting and finishing.

A more narrow grip adds more compromise if the weight moves backward, which happens with neophytes and beginners. A simple example is this: When we were in youth sports warming up, we stood up and held our arms out wide and made circles; try doing this with your arms straight above. Can’t do it.

Instead of trying to impress you with anatomy lessons, we’ll give you points that are logical and evidence-based. There are a few times when the research and experience don’t jive well because much of the research on shoulder health is population specific. This doesn’t help a very small group of athletes who chose different grips with one exercise.

One example is posture. Specifically, overhead lifting and kyphosis and how an athlete moves their upper limbs and lifts loads. If someone is severely restricted and their hands can’t go above their head (so they can’t keep them perpendicular to the ground), posture becomes a real problem in this position.

Some elite Olympic lifters can’t perform an overhead squat well and still compete at a high level when a loaded barbell is above them. Going narrow has no known health advantage, and going wider has no risk. Extreme positions are not true arguments; going wider than shoulder width, say two hand spans, isn’t extreme by any means.

Because some athletes are not good candidates for overhead training, going narrow become wishful thinking even if it were advantageous. If an athlete has an orthopedic restriction, going narrower is usually harder–not easier. Perhaps an extreme minority of athletes will benefit from a narrow grip, but most will feel more comfortable with the wide grip’s less demanding range of motion.

Some coaches have gone outside their scope of practice and focused on corrective exercises as a means to prepare for overhead pressing after performing assessments looted from the physical therapy profession. It’s not a faulty idea, and we believe in orthopedic evaluation, but it’s better to refer out to someone more qualified than to put on the therapy hat and move out of your lane.

Will a Close Grip Create More Impulse?

The next time someone claims a narrow grip improves the impulse of the lift, ask them to write the formula out. Nothing shuts up a coach more than asking them to prove their bogus high school physics with a request to see the numbers. And since every performance gym has whiteboard or chalkboard, “impulse” coaches can’t escape. Coaches don’t need to write out a formula like in Good Will Hunting or A Beautiful Mind, but they need to defend their claim with science.

Look at squatting and jumping. Anyone can squat slowly, but nobody can jump slowly unless they’re in an environment that’s close to zero gravity. Squatting the resistance during the lift stays the same as one goes up, and the mechanical leverage demand becomes easier at the top. Jumping and propulsive forces need to be high and early to get the body to project and overcome gravity.

Applying force longer rarely helps sport unless the result is faster or farther; narrow snatches mostly lengthen the force application. Strength coaches want more force or power, not longer barbell displacement. Squat depth, for example, has very specific benefits at different joint angles which is why accommodating resistance is popular in some circles. Jumping with the bar is a convenient cue, but the intent and what actually occurs must relate to what the athlete has the ability to do rather than what they want to do.

Propulsive forces overcome inertia and outside forces to transmit energy toward the right direction. Thrust is about force. It’s about having force applied fast and early. Many tall athletes can cheat a light load to achieve better bar speeds. But they also betray their development because leg power is about speed at the right time with the right motion. Having speed past the chest line is only interesting if it comes up from the legs, not from upper body motions that seldom transfer outside of narrow grip snatch contests.

Longer barbell stroke might increase the total work performed, but that’s just a mirage of a metric. It’s hardly valuable outside of burning more calories in a group exercise program. Wider grips force the athlete to get the job done faster and earlier, a fashion that transfers better and creates a safe position if they decide to catch it above their head.

Wider grips force the athlete to get the job done faster & earlier, transfers better & more safely, says @ShaneDavs. Share on X

Without getting into unnecessary math calculations, the idea that a longer barbell stroke leads to more impulse is a misguided fallacy. Generating force for sports performance, specifically propulsive force, requires fast work rates, not adding distance to a movement. It’s not about the total distance the bar travels; it’s about how force is transmitted during a high enough time period to matter when the unloaded body is on the field.

When training the snatch, coaches must note the saying, “when the legs are done extending, the upper body is just pretending.” They should focus on what the legs are doing with the bar instead of a longer displacement with the finish. In weight training, it’s easy to fix on the iron bar. Look at the body first–it’s too easy to look at the barbell path instead of the relationship between both.

Impulse is a great buzzword, but it’s important to focus on more accessible concepts. While VBT has had a lot of innovation and advancement, there are times when a bad idea is made more seductive with technology and sport science.

Problems with Going Too Narrow

Going too wide risks straining the wrist over time and makes the exercise more demanding when pulling from the floor. What can go wrong with a narrow grip? Most of the users, nearly all in sports training, go narrow and finish high in a power position. As the bar gets further away from the ground, the load prescription usually decreases, and rightfully so. If you want to finish high, your upper body must contribute to complete the lift.

The “elbow bends, power ends” mantra is correct; when the athlete transitions from extension to receiving the bar, the propulsive forces stop. Going longer could cause you to lose tension early and cut the pull early when snatching from the floor.

Some people also miss the point about the proximity of the bar near the top of the second pull/start of the third pull. Narrow grip almost always pushes the bar too far forward when turning it over. An experienced lifter may get away with this, but most people will try to muscle it up because of the lack of leverage. Usually in the area from the chest to the head, you will see the bar much farther away from the body for those with long arms.

If you have long arms or if you go too narrow, snatching from blocks or a hang position also compromises the movement because the catch now has to manage a load that might not have the height necessary to catch safely. We see this with athletes who are taller who don’t have the hip and ankle mobility to catch low; they usually chase the bar forward to catch safely.

Adding more height demand for a tall athlete makes the process worse. Tall athletes may have reactive and RFD qualities that create a great pop from the starting point, especially from above the knee, but sometimes they need time to gather speed and have better peak velocities on their lifts. Catching high and slow is not smart if you want effective VBT training or if you just want to perform the exercise correctly.

If you’re going to use a clean grip, then just clean pull and forget the catch entirely. We’re not against catching the bar; we care about pulling properly and avoiding problems. If someone is so worried about catching that they think hand spacing will create a major difference when going narrow, they should just avoid the problem altogether. Some coaches like the snatch and don’t find the catch as a point for discussion. Going wider from a hang, blocks, or the floor changes the lift dramatically, and we reduce the load to accommodate the mechanical changes.

Going lighter on the clean to reach higher bar speeds that are similar to the snatch may sound fine. But the load on the body is different–even if the velocities are the same for the peak and average. Also, pulling styles and starting points can dramatically change the purpose of the lift from generating explosive strength.

From a pulling perspective, narrow grip has little value–the snatch becomes too close to a clean, says @ShaneDavs. Share on X

From a pulling perspective, a narrow grip has very little value because the exercise is too close to a clean. Likewise, going lighter has little value because the catch creates a constraint. Going narrow to avoid shoulder injuries can backfire. Before taking the leap of faith that narrow is safer or more effective, decide what your goal is for the snatch as opposed to a clean.

How Wide Should You Go?

It’s important to have a tight process that quickly connects the transfer of the load from the feet through the body explosively. Most coaches who instruct the snatch understand that the hip crease marks where the bar should be in a standing position during the snatch. While coaches quickly gravitate to arm length, it’s the relationship with the entire body that’s important. It’s frustrating when random formulas are used that connect arm span and grip width to determine where to hold the bar without any consideration of the rest of the body.

Sometimes athletes go “super wide” during warm-ups to drive the pelvis to finish and to snap quickly with drills. Before adding this to a program, consider whether your athlete has a tight bicep or is unfamiliar with the exercise. Some coaches also space the grip incrementally to keep a busy mind focused when training becomes monotonous. If the grip is not perfect, don’t emphasize that all hope is lost. Keep the grip wide enough to allow for freedom of movement and completion of the exercise. Just as a triple extension in sprinting is a generalization and not a true event, so is peak output with Olympic lifts and maximal bar displacement.

The deeper the catch, the more important the technique used to receive the bar. Most athletes don’t perform the full lift and choose to use a shallow catch, also known as a power version. It’s not clear why a decrease in depth equates to the use of the term power–the power snatch and power clean assume the reception of the bar is closer to standing than squatting.

A taller reception of the bar creates a higher demand on an already compromised catching scenario for athletes. Going wider speeds up the process, leaving the rest of the time available to prepare for the catch. While having a longer time for pulling seems like an easier task, narrow grips make the catch slower and often incomplete. This forces an athlete to adjust to catch the bar instead of placing the bar in a more favorable location. Wider does the trick provided there’s full leg extension. Some changes in width may help unique circumstances, but as long as the lift is comfortable and balanced, athletes will be fine.

Use the Grip that Makes Sense for You

We are not bashing the use of a narrow bar grip. We’re saying the choice to use a fairly typical grip that is wider than the shoulders is not wrong. A good execution of the snatch lift will be seamless and extremely effective, and coaches have used the wider grip for years without problems. Unfortunately the mind can get lost in ego for coaches wanting to be too cute or creative to settle for the tried and true, and this experiment becomes a bad road.

Make choices based on real benefits, and do you your homework on why you went down your chosen path. We’ve gone wider and narrower for specific needs, but only when we had enough ammunition to fight for those changes.

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

This is the first time an historical progression of the highest speed ever recorded is published. Using bibliographical sources, including some unreleased data, it gives an account of the scientific challenge to record the human locomotion. Top speed is the parameter of the sprint races that is the most correlated with the final result, yet it has been the least investigated one. Indeed, for decades, science researchers have focused either on the start through biomechanical analysis or speed endurance with physiological studies, mainly for two reasons: top speed was thought to be not much trainable, and it is technically difficult to measure. Nowadays, it has become a centre of attention for coaches, media and fans.

“The top speed is seldom obtained until 40 yards,” wrote Ed James about sprinting in his Practical Training in 1877. But it took about 50 years before this top speed received enough attention to get quantified in flying runs or race breakdowns using either manual or electric timing. However, during the XXth century, it was hard enough to have an undisputable official timing of the races, let alone accurate measurements of the top speeds attained by the sprinters.

The first estimation of human’s top speed dates back to 1886 in Étienne-Jules Marey’s work as reported in the Weekly Reports of the Science Academy’s sessions: “The speed of progression increases indefinitely with the rapidity of cadence, and tends towards limits that seem to be around 10 meters per second.” The following recorded speeds mix biomechanical reports and more casual results, which sometimes lack precision and accuracy, especially the hand time splits which can be ‘too good to be true’, but I still chose to present them in respect to their historical significance.

Charles Paddock (USA) Berkeley 31.03.1923

Hand timed in 8.9 for 100 yards from flying start (25 yards run-up). The 1920 Olympic champion at 100m ran the 100 yards in 9 4/5, just missing the then-World Record (9 3/5), and then decided to be timed in 100 yards from flying start, and also won the 220 yards by 10 yards in 21 1/5. Source: Berkeley Daily Gazette, 02.04.1923.

Paddock may have run faster for a shorter segment of races: he was officially hand-timed in 8 4/5 at 90 yards and 9 3/5 at 100 yards during an 110 yards race in 10 1/5 in Pasadena on 18 June 1926, beating or equalling World Bests. The 0.6 second time for the fastest 10 yards segment is an impossible 15,24 m/s and the 20 yards segment in 1.4 translates to a 13,06 m/s speed that is not reliable either. But given that the accuracy of hand timing back then was only 1/5 of a second, no credit can be given to such measurements. A time of 1.7 for 20 yards, hence 10.76 m/s would be closer to Paddock’s actual sprinting abilities.

Henry Russel (USA) Ithaca, NY Spring 1927

Electronically timed in 1.745 for 20 yards interval during a 200 yards race (straight lane) in 19.455. Coils of wire were arranged parallel to the track connected to a galvanometer and were placed at distances from the start of 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200 yards. The passage of a thin steel magnet on the runner’s jersey induced a current in the coil recorded by the galvanometer and printed on a moving photographic paper. The experiments were made with local sprinters at the Schoellkopf Field straight track at Ithaca’s campus, as part of Dr. Archibald Vivian Hill’s series of a lectureship in chemistry at Cornell University from February to June 1927. Hill received the Nobel Price in Physiology or Medicine in 1922 for “his discovery relating to the production of heat in the muscle”. Source: Furusawa et al. The dynamics of sprint running, 1928. “Hank” Russell’s personal bests stood as 9.7 at 100 y (1926), 10.7e at 100 m (1928), 21.5 at 220 y and 21.4 for the straight course (1926) and he became Olympic champion at 4×100 m and reached the 100m semi-final at 1928 Games. Coincidentally, the 100m winner Percy WILLIAMS (CAN) was the subject of a similar experiment by Dr. Charles Best in an indoor track in Toronto, and the sprinter, wearing short spikes, reached 10.44 m/s as he was timed in 0.438 for a 5 yards section during a 65 yards race in 7.00.

Cyrus Leland (USA) Forth Worth 20.05.1930

Timed in 8.4 for 100 yards from a flying start, according to an electrical device. No details were given about how this apparatus was operating, but stopwatches caught him at 8.7, which improved the World Best set by Paddock anyway. The 8.7 figure translates to a 10.51 m/s. Source: Pampa Daily News, 21.05.1930. Texas Christian University’s Leland set the fastest 100 y time of the year in 9.4w and ran 9.6 for 101 y on 29 March in Dallas as he was set back one y for a false start! That cost him about a tenth when the World Record was 9.5. Leland already matched this time in 1929 at the TCU – Baylor match, but the record was not ratified as dual meets were not eligible for permanent listing.

Ralph Metcalfe (USA) 1932-33

During a 100 m race after 70 m. Fastest speed found in the literature by Prof. Otto Misangyi, former national coach for Hungary and Switzerland, head of the jury of time-keeps at 1932 and 1936 Olympic games. But no further detail or reference is given. Source: Misangyi O. Reaction time and speed measurement in sprint and hurdle races, Magglingen, 1956.

Metcalfe placed 2nd at 1932 Olympics, 5 cm behind the winner Eddie Tolan. Tolan was timed in 10.3 by two official hand timers and 10.4 by the third one, but oddly enough, Metcalfe got 10.3 on all three. The Official Report of the games also gives other times for the race: 10.21 by the “hand electrical” method (started by an attachment on the starter’s gun and stopped by hand at the time the runners hit the tape), and 10.38 by a camera device called Kirby Two-Eyed Camera, operating at 128 frames/sec while filming runners and an electric clock started by the gun.

In his book Champion in the Making (1968), coach Payton Jordan stated that Eddie Tolan “took six strides (six feet per stride – 1.83 m) in covering the ground at the rate of 36 feet per second”, which is 10.97 m/s. This comes from an estimation by Goeffrey Dyson (Chief National Coach at the Amateur Athletic Association from 1947 to 1961) in his book The Mechanics of Athletics, London, 1962) : “Clearly, an athlete striding only 6 ft at top speed (as E. Tolan, winner of the 1932 Olympic 100 meters is reported to have done) must take as many as six strides in covering 36 ft in one second.” Tolan’s 6 feet stride length had been reported by Jesse Owens’ coach Larry Snyder in Specifications or Requirements of the new 100 meter champion, Olympic Review no. 8, 1940.

Jesse Owens (USA) Colombus 23.04.1935

Hand timed in 8.4 by three watches for 100 yards from flying start (20 yards run-up). The event took part 1 month before the intercollegiate meet in Ann Arbor where Owens broke 5 World Records in 45 minutes and also matched the 100 yards World Record in 9.4 as recorded by three watches. But the time could have been better: three other timers in reserve had him 9.3. Also, during that meet, times were taken as the runner’s center of gravity crossed the line, adding 0.1 to the traditional timing to the torso. Owen’s 9.4 stood 13 years as a World Record, but 9.3 would have last 26 years and 9.2, 28 years!

Vladimir Volikov (URS) Kharkiv 27.07.1936

Electronically timed in 0.36 for the 4m interval between 44 and 48 m during a 100 m race in 11.15. Times were recorded to the 1/200th of a second every time the runner cuts yarns attached to poles placed every 4 m along the track. The experiments were held during the summer with several sprinters and non-sprinters. Volikov’s 100 m was one of the few whose 4m interval speeds varied during the race, with ups and downs from 24 m: 9.2, 10.4, 9.3, 9.4, 10.6, 9.5, 11.1, 9.9 m/s. It was suggested by the Simonson, the German author of the study, that those peaks are the expression of powerful motor efforts that can’t be sustained because of fatigue in the motor cortex or peripheral areas. Simonson eliminated flaws in the measurement apparatus as those peaks, when they occurred, weren’t located in the same portion of the race. However, the interval times would be affected whether the arms or the legs cut the yarns instead of the torso or hips, depending on the height of the timing system. Another explanation would be the fact that the sprinter is decelerating during the breaking phase of each step and accelerating after the push phase, as it were later recorded using spidograms and nowadays using laser devices. Source: Simonson E. Laboratory of Physiology, National Institute of physical culture of Ukraine, 1937. Little is known about Volikov as he never took part to international competition – USSR made its debut at the Olympic Games in 1952.

Harold Davis (USA) Compton 06.06.1941

Hand timed in 4.5 for the last 50 m of a 100 m race in 10.2 by his coach ‘Bud’ Winter. The 100 m time as announced officially the night of the race was 10.3, but the officials disclosed the next day that Davis actually tied the world record of 10.2 set by Owens. The three timers on duty had 10.2, 10.2 and 10.3 and the alternate had 10.4, the latest should not have been taken into account. Sources: Quercetani R. A World History of Track and Field Athletics, 1864-1964, Oxford University Press, 1964; Associated Press, Decide Davis tied world dash record, 07.06.1941.

Vladimir Sukharev (URS) Minsk 26.08.1951

Speed between 45 and 50 m during a 100 m race in 10.4 recorded using a cinematographical device taking splits every 5m. Sukharev then maintained an 11.11 m/s speed until 65m. The accuracy of the times was 0.02 s. During the same summer, he was hand timed at training for various distance from flying start: 30m in 2.7 (11,11 m/s), 40 m in 3.7 (10,81 m/s), 50 m in 4.6 (10.87 m/s), 60 m in 5.8 (10.34 m/s) and 80 m in 7.7 (10.39 m/s). Source: Chomenkov L. 100 m and 200 m races, Moscow, 1955.

Dave Sime (USA) Rome 01.09.1960

Calculated from Sime’s step length of 2.48 m and frequency of 4.6 hz during the second half of the 100m Olympic final (wind 0.0 m/s). Source : Hoffman K. Conference on Sports Problem, Moscow, 1962. Sime, 1.89 m and 81kg, was last at 25m but managed to take the 2nd place of the race in 10.35 FAT (10.2 official time), just 0.03 behind German Armin Hary.

Later that week, USA broke the 4×100 m World Record in 39.4 (39.60 FAT) thanks to Sime’s anchor leg timed in 9.1 (10.99 m/s), the fastest split ever at that time, but the team was disqualified because its first baton exchange was beyond the zone.

Bob Hayes (USA) Atlanta 12.05.1962

Hand timed in 1.9 between 50 and 75 yards during a 100y race in 9.3 at SIAC Championships. Two years after the race, Sports Illustrated published 25y splits for that race: 3.0 at 25 yards, 2.2 between 25 and 50 yards (10.39 m/s), 1.9 between 50 and 75 yards (12.04 m/s), 2.1 in the last 25 yards (10.89 m/s). The sum of these 25 yards splits adds up to 9.2, as there was controversy regarding the final time of the race: “Among the judges, presumably atremble at the sight, there were watches stopped at 8.9 seconds and 9.0 seconds. This was impossible, of course. Nobody would ever believe such a thing. Hayes’s time rounded off to a sensational but uninflammatory 9.3 seconds.” Source: Underwood J. How fast is the fastest man alive? Sports Illustrated, 18.05.1964. The official World Record was then 9.2, held conjointly by Frank Budd (in 1961) and Harry Jerome (twice in 1962). This was one out of many World Records denied to Bob Hayes due to technical rules or dodgy timing.

In Modesto on 26.06.1962, Bob Hayes reached 11.72 m/s speed as he was hand timed in 7.8 for the last 100 yards of a 4×110 yards anchor leg. Source: Allen N. World Sports magazine, April 1963.

In Modesto on 25.05.1963, Hayes reached 11.43 m/s as we were hand timed in 8.8 for his 110 yards anchor leg. Source: Interview with Hayes in A.A.U. News, vol 34, 1963: “They tell me I ran 8.8 for 110 yards with a flying start in that Modesto race” – Report states that Hayes received the baton 10 yards behind the leader and won with a seven-yard margin. However, the accuracy of this hand timing is unknown.

In Saint-Louis on 21.05.1963 (1st semi-final of AAU Championships), Hayes was supposedly hand timed in 3.0 at 25 yards, 6.0 at 60 yards, 7.1 at 75 yards during the 100 yards in 9.1 (World Record, wind +0.85 m/s), also electronically timed in 9.40. From 25 to 60 yards, he moved at 10.67 m/s, from 60 to 75 yards 12.47 m/s (!) and from 75 to 100 yards 11.43 m/s. Source: Willoughby D. The Super-Athletes, Barnes & co., 1970. It is not clear whether these times were estimations or actual times, but as inaccurate as it can be, the speed in the 60-75 yards was used in The Guinness Book of Records for years as the fastest speed ever recorded by a human.

Various times were reported for his anchor leg during the 4x100m Olympic final Tokyo on 21 October 1964, from an 8.5 hand time to a 9.1 video estimation by Galina Turova (Legkaya Atletika 3/1965) on her technical analysis, which would be an average speed ranging from 10.99 to 11.76 m/s! From my video analysis of a Polish film and another footage with incrusted screen timing, Hayes ran 9.0e, he took the baton circa 0.15 after Dudziak/POL (10.52 in the individual event) and won by 0.30 over him. The last 40m were covered between 3.40 and 3.45 with 2.40 m step length, translating to a top speed over 11.7 m/s.

Bob Hayes became the first man to run under 10 seconds electronically with 9.91w in the semi-final of the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo. In the final, he ran a wind-legal 10.00 or 10.01 depending which of the 2 photo finishes you trust, a time that was corrected to 10.05 or 10.06 taking in account an estimated delay of 0.05 in the electric timing mechanisms used in the ‘60s and 10.06 became the accepted figure from the late ‘70s.

Tommie Smith (USA) San Jose 07.05.1966

Timed in 1.53 for the last 20 yards of his 220 yards world record (19.5, wind +1.84 m/s). Source: Patinaud JC. 200 mètres & 220 yards, Temps automatiques 1932-1983. No details are given regarding the timing procedure. It’s unlikely that there was an electric timing that day, since even the official hand times of the race lack accuracy : at 200 m, the three timers had 19.4, 19.5 and 19.6, and at 220 yards (201.17 m), times were 19.5, 19.5 and 19.6, thus the 19.5 figure was accepted as a World Record for both distances! The statistic difference between 200 m and 220 yards hand times used in world lists is 0.1 and 0.12 for electric times.

His coach Bud Winter gave a measurement of Smith’ stride during the last stage of that race from the footprints on the cinder track: “At 120 yards out, Tommie’s stride measured 8’5″ (2.57 m) up to 20 yards from the finish then it increased to 8’7″ (2.62 m). In his last three strides, it measured 8’9” (2.67 m).” Source: Amateur Athlete, AAU, vol. 37 p. 70, 1966.

Video 1. Tommie Smith runs 200 meter straight.

Quoted by Time magazine (Jetting into Gear, Vol 89 Issue 10 p. 88, March 1967), Bud Winter stated that Smith was able to run at 11,64 m/s: “Other sprinters reach their top speed at 75 yds, and then decelerate,” says his coach, Lloyd (“Bud”) Winter, “Tommie is still accelerating at the end of 100 or 220 yds. He can sustain a speed of 26 m.p.h.”

Valeriy Borzov (URS) München 01.09.1972

Timed in 1.56 for two consecutive 9,14 m (10 yards) intervals between 58,56 m and 76,84 m using the markers on the track for the 110 m hurdles, during the 100 m Olympic final won in 10.14 (win -0.3 m/s). Intermediate times were taken from video recordings by East German scientist Heinrich Gundlach. The report states that the error margin was +/- 0.02 s due to picture frequency; however, a second person examined the videotapes to limit the subjective factor in the allocation of times and distances. Source: Gundlach H. Olympische Leichtathletik-Wettkämpfe 1972: Dokumentation, Einschätzungen, Bildreihen, Leipzig, 1973.

Italian coach Carlo Vittori also analyzed a film of the race using the 110m hurdles markers as references, but no details are given about the frame frequency or error margin. He found that Borzov’ speed reached 11.484 m/s as he ran a 9,44 m interval between 48,83 m and 58,27 m in 0,822 s. However, these distance references don’t exist on the track and accuracy to the 0.01, let alone 0.001 s was unlikely to be obtained from a video. Source: Vittori C, Dotta GF. Analisi ritmica della finale dei 100 m. Alle olimpiadi di Monaco ’72 vinta da V. Borzov. Atleticastudi, Mar-Apr 1985.

Earlier in 1972 on 18 July, Borzov reached 11.68 m/s between 45 and 50m and 11.61 m/s between 70 and 75 m during the 100 m final of the USSR championships in 10.0 (10.28 from video timing, wind < 2.0 m/s). The method used by Pr. Dmitriy Ionov for the time analysis was very similar to the one described for Sukharev in 1951 but the precision of the time was higher. Source: Mehrikadze V. The purpose of competitive training model, Legkaya Atletika, no. 8, 1982.

Steve Williams (USA) Zürich 24.08.1977

Four strides were filmed at the 70m mark by a 16 mm Locam camera (100 fps) during a 100 m won by Williams in 10.16 (wind -1.5 m/s). Total distances and time of the four strides for the top three finishers were presented in a graph format in a scientific paper. Pr Hansruedi Kunz sent me the actual numbers and resulting speed for Williams: Stride length 2.65 m, time for four strides 0.83 (4.82 s/s). However, these figures don’t match with 11.97 m/s speed as they would result in 12.77 m/s. Unfortunately, the author has lost the original data and believes the speed is correct, and there must be a typo mistake either in the stride length or frequency. A four stride time of 0.90 (4.44 s/s) which appeared in the graph would be more accurate and would result in 11.78 m/s speed. Sources: Kunz H. Biomechanical analysis of sprinting: Decathletes versus champions, Brit. J. Sports Med. Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 177-181, 1981 and personal communication with the author.

In Minsk on 21 July 1973, Williams reached 11.63 m/s between 60 and 65 m during a 100 m in 10.1 (10.21 video time, wind < 2.0 m/s) according to Pr Ionov’s analysis. At this point of the race, his stride length was 2.54 m and frequency was 4.58 s/s. Source: Mehrikadze V. The purpose of competitive training model, Legkaya Atletika, no. 8, 1982.

“Lane 2” (USA) Colorado Springs Summer 1978

Two strides were filmed at 50 m from the start, using an LICAM 16 mm camera at 150 fps during a training camp sponsored by the USOC Development Committee. Twelve U.S. sprinters with lifetime bests that ranged from 9.9 to 10.4 participated to a study about physical and performance characteristics of male sprinters. The identity of the fastest one, “Lane 2”, can’t be revealed because of a ‘confidentiality agreement’ that prevents the public release of the names of athletes studied. The average length for the two strides filmed was 2.52 m, and stride frequency was 4.68 s/s. Taking into account the displacement of his center of gravity, his speed was 11.73 m/s. The author, Pr. Anne Atwater, noted that the group that attended the 1978 camp ran much faster than during the 1979 camp: “1978 Sprinters seemed more motivated as they each raced directly against two other sprinters and as they were not required to run the entire 100 m distance.” Altitude might have played a role since the 1978 camp was held at 1800 m, and no indication was given regarding the effect of the wind. Source: Atwater A. Kinematic Analysis of sprinting, Biomechanics Symposium, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, October 1980, and personal communication with the author.

Calvin Smith (USA) Karl-Marx-Stadt 09.07.1982

Fastest 10 m interval during the anchor leg of a 4×100 m relay in 38.22 during the USA v GDR match. His fastest 30 m section was 2.54, timed by several cameras with digital timers activated by the official timing system, placed along the track. This was faster than during the 100 m race he won earlier in the day in 9.91, faster than the 9.95 by Jim Hines in 1968) but the wind was measured at 2.1 m/s, just over limit for World Record application. During this race, he was timed in 2.56 in the 30-60 m section (11.72 m/s) and 1.72 in the 60-80 m section (11.76 m/s). However, during Smith’s relay leg, the wind was under 2.0 m/s according to the East German report. Source: Hess WD. Aspects of the development in sprint and hurdles events in the Olympic cycle 1981/84, Leipzig, 1985.

Ben Johnson (CAN) & Carl Lewis (USA) Seoul 24.08.1988

Timed in 0.83 for a 10 m section during a 100 m in 9.79 for Johnson (later disqualified for doping) and in 9.92 for Lewis at the Olympic final (wind +1.1m/s). Intermediate times were given to the media by Swiss Timing and were later published by Omega in the booklet Athletics Full Results Seoul 1988. Those splits differ from the times published by IAF in the Final Report of the Scientific Research Project made by Moravec & Susanka from Prague Charles University (also in charge of 1987 World Championships analysis). This analysis “was done on the basis of recordings from five video cameras (50 fps) and five high speed (200 fps) film cameras”, says the IAF report, while Omega gives no details as how they came up with 10 m splits. The Omega times make no sense regarding the evolution of the race, and analysis with today’s video software analysis possibilities match with the times reported by IAF.

In Rome on 30.08.1987, both Johnson (later disqualified) and Lewis reached 12.04 m/s for 10 m in the 100 m final (wind +1.0 m/s) according to the Fast results were available during the World Championships. The times were later corrected in the Scientific Report published by IAF, and their best 10 m turned out to be 0.85, hence 11.76 m/s.

In Tokyo on 25.08.1991, Carl Lewis reached the same 12.04 m/s for a 10 m split during the World Championships 100 m final (wind +1.2 m/s) he won in a new World Record. Ten video cameras (60 fps) were located at 10 m intervals along the home straight of the stadium and the error allowance was +/- 0.02 seconds, according to the preliminary report published in New Studies in Athletics. Thus the 0.83 interval figure could also be a 0.84 (11.90 m/s) taking in account the accuracy level:

During the quarter finals of these 1991 World Championships, Carl Lewis was timed in 0.80 for 10 m, 12.50 m/s speed, for a 100m time in 9.80 but the wind was blowing at 4.3 m/s.

Sources: Ae M & al. (1992) The men’s 100 meters, In: The Scientific Research Project at the III World Championships in Athletics: Preliminary reports. New Studies in Athletics, no. 1, March 1992; Ae M & al. (1994) Analysis of racing patterns in 100m sprint of the world’s best sprinters, In Japan Association of Athletics Federations (ed.), The Techniques of the World Top Athletics (Research Report of the 3rd World Championships, Tokyo) Tokyo: Baseball Magazine Co.

In Los Angeles on 04.08.1984, Carl Lewis was supposedly timed at 28 miles per hour (12.51 m/s) for his last 2 m of the 100 m Olympic final won in 9.99 (wind +0.2 m/s) according to Swiss Timing, as reported by Track & Field News magazine (October 1984 issue). No details were provided regarding the method, precision, and accuracy of this measurement.

Donovan Bailey (CAN) Atlanta 27.07.1996

Peak speed located at 50 m recorded by a laser device operating at 50 Hz during the 100 m Olympic final won in 9.84 (World Record, wind +0.7 m/s). For the first time, the system Laveg (Laser Velocity Guard) was used in an international competition. Like the spidograms released in USSR in the early 1950s, the laser records velocity oscillations that occur during each stride that allows counting the number of steps. Smoothing the curve is necessary to obtain an average speed over several steps. A raw graph format using a “factor 7” smoothing shows velocity curve shows a range between 11.2 m/s and 12.7 m/s within stride cycles in the 50-60 m section in Bailey’s 100 m race. A speed curve graph appeared on TV within seconds after the final, showing a 12.1 m/s at 59.8 m. A “factor 49” smoothing, used in the final report, gives 12.01 m/s at 50 m and two other peaks very close to 12 m/s at about 53 and 59m. Sources: Türk-Noack A. LAVEG-Analyse of the 100 m sprint; Laser speed measurement for analyzing translational movements. Symposium of the athletics, Bad Blankenburg, 2002.

Another interpretation of this Laveg measurement is found in Grosser M, Renner T. Schnelligkeitstraining, BLV Buchverlag, Munich, 2007. Bailey’s top speed is still 12.01 m/s but it is now located at 54.55 m after 5.95 s into the race!

The authors also give 10 m splits from the smooth curve which result in a speed of 11.90 m/s for Bailey’s fastest interval.

Note that the 10 m intervals times don’t add-up exactly with the intermediate times. The reason in that these times are calculated and rounded from the average speeds for each interval by the Laveg software.

The full accuracy times are questionable in that the times at 40 m published by Grosser and Renner don’t correspond to the distances shown in photographs taken from the stands by Pascal Rondeau for Allsport Agency (the yellow marks are located at 38.5 m from the start and the white marks at 40.28 m). Fredericks (lane 5) was timed in 4.69, Mitchell (lane 4) in 4.70 and Boldon (lane 3) in 4.71. It’s disputable that Bailey (lane 6) would also been given 4.71 from these pictures:

An analysis of Bailey’s run was also published in China by Feng Dengshou. Technical characteristics of Bailey’s World Record setting 100m running, Sport Science Research, Vol.17, no.4, Dec. 1996. But the intermediate times are quite different and no details are given regarding the methodology:

Sources: Türk-Noack A. LAVEG-Analyse of the 100 m sprint; Laser speed measurement for analyzing translational movements. Symposium of the athletics, Bad Blankenburg, 2002.

Tyson Gay (USA) Eugene 28.06.2008

Timed in 1.66 for 20m (two consecutive 0.83 intervals) between 50 and 70 m during the 100 m U.S. National championships quarter-final won in 9.77 (wind +1.6m/s), using four videos recorded by cameras showing the flame of the gun and placed in the upper stands at the 50, 55, 60 and 70 m marks. Source: time analysis through the video material by Pierre-Jean Vazel.

Usain Bolt (JAM) Beijing 16.08.2008

Timed in 0.82 for 10 m between 60 and 70 m during the Olympic 100 m final won in 9.69 (World Record, wind 0.0 m/s) using videos (50 or 60 fps) recorded by camera showing the flame of the gun and placed in the upper stands in either sides of the stadium at the 10, 30, 60 and 90 m marks, as well as with TV replays including a travelling view. Other intermediate times were calculated from the intervals of the men and women’s hurdles marks on the track. Several time analyses flourished on the internet but it’s unlikely that they were based on in situ video recordings of the race. Source: time analysis through the video material by Pierre-Jean Vazel.

Usain Bolt (JAM) Berlin 16.08.2009

Peak speed located at 67.90 m by the Laveg system during the World Championships 100 m final won in 9.58 (World Record, wind +0.9 m/s). The analysis was performed by Eberhard Nixdorf (Olympiastützpunkt Hessen at Frankfurt) and this result published in the final report in 2011 is slightly different compared to the preliminary report given via the IAAF to the media the day after the race which also included top speed and calculated 10 m intermediate times.

Maximum velocity: 12.27 m/s at 65.03 m

Maximum velocity: 12.35 m/s at 67.90 m (0.81 = 12.35 m/s)

The raw speed curve of the Laveg recording showed variations between 11.7 and 13.2 m/s during the stride cycles in the 50 and 60 m of the race.

The race was also filmed by 50 fps camera with digital timers activated by the official timing system, placed along the track at 20 m, 40 m, 60 m and 80 m. It provided frames every 0.02 seconds and the missing frame was extrapolated in order to get 0.01 second times. The analysis was led by Rolf Graubner (fgs Halle-Wittenberg) and given to the IAAF the day after the race:

2.89 – 4.64 – 6.31 – 7.92 – 9.58

(1.61 for 20 m = 12.42 m/s, fastest 10 m would be 0.80 = 12.50 m/s).

These intermediate times might be more accurate than the Laveg calculation since video frames are similar to photo finish pictures as the times “shall be taken to the moment at which any part of the body of an athlete (i.e. torso, as distinguished from the head, neck, arms, legs, hands or feet) reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line”, as per IAAF Rule 165.2. From 1913 until 1953, it was required that the entire body be across the line for a finish, which is practically the same as the Laveg system, since the back is usually the targeted part of the body.

The different figures for Usain Bolt’s top speed in the same race using video and laser timing measurement show how difficult it is to get a precise and accurate figure of sprinting maximum velocity, and this will remain a big challenge for the future.

I would like to thank Anne Atwater, Rolf Graubner and Hansruedi Kunz for their insights and explanations regarding their respective scientific research. Any corrections, amendments and proposals are welcome as this list is the first draft.

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

 

We use wickets with our sprinters, hurdlers, jumpers, and distance athletes. Here is how we implement them within our program. Regardless of the type of systematic approach your program follows, wickets should be a part of your coaching toolbox.

The speed hurdles used in these videos were built using the material and instructions described in the article “How To Build Speed Hurdles for the Wicket Drill.”

Spacing Requirements

The settings described here are only suggestions. It’s up to each coach to play around with spacing based on skill of the athletes, time of the season, and mastery of the drills.

Basic Wicket Drill

I stole this drill from Marc Mangiacotti, assistant men’s sprint and hurdles coach at Harvard. He also serves as horizontal jumps coach.

We use this drill with all of our sprinters who have not truly sprinted in the fall. It resembles the end of a 400. As athletes prepare for fly 10s, we use this drill as a precursor to the workout.

We set up nine wickets. The first 3 are spaced at 1.45 meters (4’9″), the next 3 at 1.52 meters (5′), and the last 3 at 1.59 meters (5’3″). The athletes have a 4–8 step lead-in with no marks and starts sprinting at sub-maximal speed. While sub-maximal sprinting sounds like a contradiction—I know Coach Tony Holler will frown at this description—it allows the athletes to understand and experience the drill for the first time. As athletes get faster, the more difficult it is to coordinate all the movements involved in sprinting during max velocity.

Video 1. Example of Basic Wicket Drill

Wickets with a 6-Step Lead In

Matt Gifford recently wrote, “The Acceleration Ladder” for Freelap. The article explained the purpose and usefulness of the “stick drill.” He discussed distance settings for proper acceleration mechanics, based on individual differences such as physical makeup, skill, power, and time of year. For the wicket drill, we provide similar settings for the first six steps based on the initial spacing between the 1st and 2nd wickets. These initial settings are also determined by skill level, training age, time of the season, surface, and other factors. Don’t be afraid to fail and start with different settings.

Vince Anderson, the assistant track coach at Texas A&M University, describes the spacing of the first six steps: “Logic would dictate that the stride length over the first hurdle is exactly the same as the space between the first two hurdles, with ground contact dead in the middle of hurdles 1 and 2. Each run-in step, working back toward the origin, is reduced by 3 inches. Athletes should hit every piece of tape on the run-in and over the first hurdle.” His last words must be understood so the drill isn’t ruined before it even begins. The tape or mark Coach Anderson refers to asks athletes to push their hip over and allows the shin to push back into that mark. If athletes are casting out over the tape, acceleration is done. Latif Thomas, president and CEO of Complete Track and Field, says, “Once the toe lands in front of the knee during acceleration, YOU’RE done.” Make sure athletes don’t make this error during the first six steps in the acceleration of the drill.

As mentioned earlier, each coach will have to play around with spacing and distance. For the purposes of this article, I will show the settings we normally use when we introduce wickets at practice after the basic wicket drill, specifically for freshman boys or newbie sprinters. We set out ten wickets. Eventually, we add five more with the distance spacing continuum and ultimately bring the total to 20 to 21 wickets.

Since the distance between the first set of wickets is 5′, use this setting to space out the first six steps using cones, discs, or tape. If the drill is performed ideally, the athlete will land in the middle between wickets 1 and 2. Using this mark, the coach counts back five feet toward the start to mark the 6th acceleration step. Following the advice of Coach Anderson, each remaining step to the beginning will be reduced by 3″.

Therefore, in the case of having a distance of 5′ for the first set of hurdles, the acceleration steps would have the following marks: 1=3’6″, 2=3’9″, 3=4′, 4=4’3″, 5=4’6″, and 6=4’9″, followed by the first wicket placed 2’6″ after the sixth acceleration step to begin the spacing for the remainder of the wickets. Adding all the acceleration marks (24’9″) and 2’6″ (half of 5′) for the first wicket the total distance from the start to the first hurdle is 27’3″.

The first distance setting between the 1st and 2nd wicket for freshmen boys is 5 feet. The next set of wickets, 2 and 3, will also be 5 feet apart. For the next set of wickets, 3/4, the distance will increase by 3 inches (to 5’3″). Just as the distance between 2/3 remains the same as 1/2, so too will the distance between 4/5. Hurdles 5/6 and 6/7 will again be increased by 3″ to 5’6″. After 6/7 the setting is increased by another 3″ to 5’9″ through the next three sets of wickets (7/8, 8/9, 9/10) as opposed to only two sets earlier. Moving forward with wickets 10/11, 11/12, and 12/13, the distance again increases by 3 inches, to 6′.

For the next three sets of wickets (13/14, 14/15, 15/16) you only increase each setting by 2″ as opposed to the previous 3″. So the distance between 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16 will be 6’2″. For wickets 16/17, 17/18, and 18/19 the increase drops to 1 inch, meaning the settings will be 6’3″. Finally, settings for 19/20 and 20/21 again increase by 1″, to 6’4″. Below are the settings in feet and inches for 21 wickets to serve as an example for the foundation of this drill.

 

Video 2. Example of wicket drill with 6-step acceleration

Here is another example. Tyrone Otte, a sophomore at Chapin, recently ran a 3.29 fly 30. While I don’t want to overwhelm you with more math, this shows he could run an 11.81 100, 23.5 200, and 400 between 51.7 and 52.5. Obviously, this doesn’t necessarily mean he will, but it does give the coaching staff an indication of his potential. Based on these times, I can determine a more appropriate wicket setting.

Acceleration steps into wickets for Tyrone: The distances in parenthesis show the overall distance. For example, during acceleration step 2 the distance in parenthesis is 8’3″ to demonstrate the total distance of acceleration marks two steps away from the starting line.

 

Wicket marks after acceleration steps: Again the number in parenthesis represents the total distance away from the starting line. For example, wicket 1 is only 2’9″ from the 6th acceleration step, but 30’6″ from the beginning point.

 

Over the course of 6 acceleration steps and 21 wickets (27 steps), a beginning freshman—having learned how to run through wickets with proper posture a minimum of three times—will have covered 143’11”, or 43.8 meters. Compare that to Tyrone, who by simply increasing the beginning 1st acceleration step by 6″, will have covered 157’2″ (47.9 meters) over the course of 27 strides. This difference of 4 meters is huge in the world of track.

Video 3. Tyrone Otte performing wickets with increased spacing

The measuring and math for all these settings can be tedious. Coach Anderson has a chart with the available settings already configured. It uses both English and metric systems. Furthermore, Ron Grigg, director of cross country/track and field at Jacksonville University, created a 400/600/800 training program for Complete Track and Field. Included in the program is an Excel chart with metric settings that makes the process easy. When you enter the desired setting in a cell, it computes the six acceleration steps and distances up to 21 wickets. Coach Grigg increases wicket settings by 3 cm (about 1 inch) following the same continuum as described earlier.

Both charts fall within a foot of each other at the end of 27 steps, so the difference is not dramatic. For example, if I used the initial spacing of 5’6″ or 1.67 meters as previously mentioned for Tyrone, the final wicket would be placed at 157’2″ (47.9 meters) using Coach Anderson’s settings. Coach Grigg’s settings would place the final wicket at 157’11” (48.13 meters)—a difference of less than a foot.

The biggest takeaway is that every coach will have to play around with numbers and settings. Both charts make the process of putting down marks much simpler.

Complexed Wickets

ALTIS, the elite coach and athlete training environment in Phoenix, frequently posts videos of athletes sprinting through wickets on their Twitter and Instagram accounts. They recently published a video demonstrating how they use wickets. Stuart McMillian, performance director and lead sprints coach at ALTIS, posted a tweet demonstrating complexed wickets. After sprinting through a predetermined amount of wickets, athletes continue to sprint for up to 30 meters or do a fly 30.

ALTIS Coach Andreas Behm on the benefits of the wicket drill.

In his 400/600/800 meter training program, Coach Grigg also stated, “I have found great value in setting up a cone 20 meters beyond the end of the wickets and asking the athlete to keep the same technique. This is a great evaluation tool to see if they have drastic changes when no wickets are present.” With complexed wickets, a coach can time and evaluate a fly 10, fly 20 or even fly 30.

For example, in the prior example of a high school freshman boy, he would have sprinted 44 meters. Adding a fly 10 gives him more than 50 meters of quality sprinting. Again, coaches can play around with distances. A coach may only want to do 40 meters of max velocity. He could set up 30 meters of acceleration and wickets and put the fly 10 at the end as another example of complexed wickets. This is the artistry of coaching.

Video 4. Example of Complexed Wickets

Conclusion

This article describes just some of the ways in which coaches can use wickets to improve sprinting form. This summer I observed coaches in Chicago using wickets to ensure that athletes maintained a tall posture and neutral pelvis. Athletes held PVC pipes over their heads. It worked. I honestly think wicket drills are a game-changer. If they are used appropriately, your sprinters will achieve personal bests because they will know how it feels to truly sprint. If you train fast, you will run fast. The wicket drill proves that. It’s another example of coaches being as creative as possible.

Video 5. Athlete Difference sprinting with Wickets

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

 

Agility might be the most misunderstood concept in the performance world as our profession lacks a thorough understanding of its meaning and its application. To be fair, agility has been misunderstood and wrongly defined for a long time. Even today, there isn’t a clear-cut definition for coaches. In this article, I describe common mistakes made when training agility and offer ways to transition toward training actual, true agility.

Over the past 40-years, agility has run through musical chairs of definitions. Since the 70s, we’ve used phrases such as:

• Ability to change direction rapidly
• Ability to change direction rapidly and accurately
• A whole-body change of direction and speed

The most accepted definition today is: “A rapid, whole-body change of direction and speed in response to a stimulus.”

The concept of agility gets a face-lift every decade, shifting toward a better definition for coaches and practitioners. These bouncing definitions, however, make it difficult for coaches to grasp the concept fully. Compound that with our biases and the lens through which we see our work, and we have a recipe for misunderstanding.

• Strength and conditioning specialists will typically look at agility through the lens of physical abilities–strength qualities, eccentric abilities, and reactive strength.
• Biomechanists will view agility from a mechanical and technical model of joint angles, change of direction (COD), body positioning, and foot placement.
• Someone with a background in motor learning and skill acquisition will view agility for its perceptual-cognitive aspects and emphasize decision-making and perception and action coupling.

Due to years of tradition and poor understanding, we still do research and athlete evaluation using the pro agility and Illinois agility tests–neither of which are actual agility tests and both continue to mislead coaches.

To put a stamp on our field’s misconception of agility, look no further than the term reactive agility. The phrase demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the current definition which involves a response to a stimulus. Reactive agility is redundant, and continuing to use this term will hold our profession back from understanding the concept of agility.

Agility and Change of Direction Are Different

The biggest mistake made is the continued misuse of the terms agility and change of direction. They’re often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. The belief that they’re interchangeable has resulted in a disservice to our athletes and how we evaluate them for a long time.

COD involves changing direction or speed without a stimulus. It is closed and pre-programmed. Agility, on the other hand, involves a stimulus; it is open, random, and chaotic.

#Agility involves a stimulus and is open, random, chaotic. Changes in direction & speed do not, says @BBAPerformance. Share on X

It’s surprising that many still don’t distinguish between the two because, for quite some time now, literature has shown these are different skills. Not only that but agility performance, not COD performance, separates the higher performing athletes from the lower performers and is superior for identifying talent.

For a nice analogy, consider successful quarterback play in football. Three of the best quarterbacks of the last decade are Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Payton Manning. What do all of these guys lack? They’re far from the most physically gifted athletes in their position.

What separates them is their vision, play recognition, perception-action coupling, reaction to ever-changing play, anticipation, creativity, cognition, ability to pull from past experiences, etc. Every single play offers a different, distinct, and unique problem. And these guys are best able to find optimal solutions to these problems.

There have been quarterbacks who were bigger, stronger, faster, with better arms, with more accurate arms but who were lacking in the most important areas. They couldn’t solve the vast variety of problems football presents and, thus, were not successful despite having many physical tools.

Agility is the same. As strength and conditioning coaches, we tend to think about physical and COD abilities only and ignore these other areas. It’s these other areas, however, that separate the best from the rest.

The best movers and players at any position, in any sport, are rarely, if ever, the strongest or fastest or best at COD tests. Instead, they have the most adept perceptual-cognitive skills.

Too Much Technique

Far too much time is spent on the kinematics of COD and teaching athletes the “techniques” of agility. First, what is good technique? Here’s the dirty secret of COD and agility–there’s no such thing as good technique. There is no universal position, step pattern, or body position that makes agility perfect.

Herein lies the problem with technical and COD drills–the idea that a specific technique exists. Coaches need to be cautious when applying a specific technique to the complexity of agility within sport. Look at force plate analysis, and you’ll see large variations in how athletes approach a cut or COD, demonstrating that even in closed drills, there is no perfect approach or technique, and technique varies from rep to rep.

Think about working technique for a 90-degree cut. You can break it down, you can stress a square foot angle, lower COD, set a specific shin angle, and think you’re doing a great job. But in sport, how often does a perfect 90-degree cut occur? How often does it occur in that perfect, safe training setting where the athlete knows exactly where to plant, with what foot, and in which direction?

It’s no wonder coaches complain about training technique for hours and then watch as technique disappears when athletes play in an open, chaotic, competitive environment. The athletes break down when exposed to an unexpected and chaotic environment.

Hammering away at COD drills keeps athletes comfortable, is predictable, and develops movement automation rather than continually stimulating perceptual-cognitive actions. Instead, we want to present athletes with movement problems and allow them to experiment to find solutions creatively.

COD drills make our athletes robotic, rehearsed, and uncreative–not creative, robust, reactive, says @BBAPerformance. Share on X

If we only do closed COD drills, we fail to challenge athletes in these areas. Instead of developing creative, robust, reactive athletes, COD drills make our athletes robotic, rehearsed, and uncreative.

Dr. Sophia Nimphius, a leading COD and agility researcher, has said that agility is about producing a motor response despite the position in which athletes find themselves. Agility within sport is rarely clean and pretty, but athletes still have to move. They need doses of venom to prepare for the realities of sport.

Now, there is certainly a time and place for technical and COD drills to help establish context and feel for athletes. But to spend the majority of your movement training working technique in closed COD drills is time poorly spent.

The Motor Response Depends Upon the Stimulus

Motor response and subsequent kinematics are dependent upon the athletes’ perception and response to a stimulus. This major concept is underappreciated when it comes to technique. The end motor response and displayed technique depend on when, where, what, and how an athlete responds to a particular stimulus. If coaches don’t appreciate this, no COD will ever stick or transfer.

There’s a common mindset that we should duplicate a certain pattern or position of an athlete in sport. While the intentions are good, it’s important to understand the specific context of the movements. If you try to perform these movements outside that specific context, a disconnect will occur, and there will be a lack of transfer.

As coaches, we have to respect how the athlete perceives a specific stimulus within environmental and task constraints, game setting, and their past experiences. These dictate the technique an athlete chooses in that instant. Every athlete is different in this sense, and we need to be a guide and a passenger in this process. Because we can’t see or feel what the athlete does during an agility movement, our job is to pull out relevant information and guide the athlete to think about what they perceived and what that means.

Using COD drills is analogous to skipping to the end of a book–the ending won’t make any sense because we missed what led to that ending. Everything leading up to the ending builds and develops the context which connects everything. And everything before a movement builds and develops into the subsequent motor response.

So while good in nature, most time spent on COD drills is wasted because there’s no connection between a stimulus and movement in sport.

Specific Stimuli for Sport

To make agility stick and transfer to sport, coaches must ensure the training stimulus is specific to the sport.

• The number one stimulus for team sport athletes is another athlete–the opponent.
• Next, depending on the sport, implements like bats, balls, and rackets are also major stimuli.
• Finally, the environment (game setting, situation, on-field location, score, game time, and the location of all players) will also play major stimuli role.

Not relevant to any of these stimuli are flashing lights, pointing fingers, colored cones, etc. It’s become a hot trend to use these stimuli to improve agility–they don’t. Research suggests a flashing light stimulus, specifically, is not useful and does not cause a transfer to actual sport performance. The intent of these tools makes sense, but the application is wrong.

Higher performing athletes are better able to shift, extract, and identify specific stimuli from their sport and then apply a fast and accurate motor response. Coaches need to remember this. I don’t remember watching a game where the athletes were reacting to flashing lights. Until that happens, these tools are a waste of money.

Athletes need exposure to identifying, deciphering, and sifting through the cues of an opposing player, environment, and situation to make the most optimal motor response. Research indicates this perceptual-cognitive ability is trainable. And with training, athletes can improve their ability to extract and interpret sport-specific information for faster and more accurate motor responses.

Respecting Speed

Again, the most accepted definition of agility currently is: “A rapid, whole-body change of direction and speed in response to a stimulus.”

People often miss the part about the change of speed in this definition. Some of the best movers, however, can manipulate, adjust, and control their speed better than their peers.

Also, many COD drills and tests like the pro agility and the L-Drill don’t respect the need to control speed. Watch these drills, and you’ll see athletes flailing, uncontrolled through the finish. When is exhibiting total lack of control beneficial in sport?

Athletes need the ability to make abrupt changes in speed and to control that speed. Being able to decelerate on a dime, under control, is vital for sporting success. If, for example, you’re defending a player who drives left on you, committing too much speed or moving uncontrollably to the left would be a poor response–the opponent would cut back and beat you.

Great agility does not mean you’re always the fastest to react but that you’re able to react to the right stimulus, at the right time, at the right speed. Remember, the best solution is not always the first or fastest response; it’s the appropriate response.

Duration of COD Tests

A big issue with much of the research on COD tests is that many of the studies use tests that last for 10-20 seconds; the test becomes a measure of anaerobic capacity and linear sprinting speed rather than specific COD abilities.

This misunderstanding also sprinkles down into the structure of many of popular agility drills implemented by coaches. It seems coaches are trying to fit every imaginable movement into a single drill, and the drill ends up lasting 15-20 seconds. The drill quickly becomes a test of anaerobic capacity instead of focusing on COD and agility demands. As coaches, we need to respect the bioenergetics of sport and stop trying to fit ten different movements into a single drill. Think of agility like sprinting–keep it short and sweet.

Embracing the Ugly

It’s important to understand that agility aims to enhance transfer and effectiveness of on-field movement. Training will be ugly, and mistakes will occur which is the exact opposite of how typical COD drills and tests operate. With COD drills, the end goal is to improve the drill’s execution and lessen mistakes. They don’t help the athlete with the actual demands of sport where the athlete does not move in pre-programmed ways. Rather, they move in response to an ever-changing environment.

The beauty of agility training is that we give athletes opportunities to assess their movements, as well as their opponent’s movements, within the context of the environment and see how it impacts the outcome.

Actual #agility environments provide opportunities for mistakes and, thus, opportunities to learn, says @BBAPerformance. Share on X

How? An actual agility environment provides ample opportunities for mistakes. With each mistake comes a great learning opportunity.

In actual agility environments or small-sided games, the athlete continually receives information from opposing players, the environment, and the task. They constantly take this information and apply a motor response. They receive immediate feedback on whether their response was successful. And they store these outcomes away, building a library of results to later pull from when similar problems arise.

And this process is not singular, it repeats and repeats. Think about how rich this learning environment is. Embrace the ugliness of agility and small-sided games, and help your athletes explore by asking open-ended questions and for feedback of what they saw, felt, and thought.

How to Train Agility

1. Continually change the context of agility drills. Challenge or change the environment or task as much as possible. You could have the athlete start in a different stance, have the opponent come from a different angle, at a different speed, from a different distance, and with different task objectives. The changes don’t have to be drastic, but continually adding little disruptions will keep learning high.
2. Masterful agility is about being resourceful and able to solve the problem presented by the environment quickly. Using drills with multiple athletes working together or against one another is a great opportunity to expose athletes to hundreds of scenarios and movement problems. Quality agility drills don’t always have to be one versus one or mirror drills.
3. Offense Defense. Agility should be context-specific as much as possible. Putting offensive players in offensive roles and vice versa for defensive players helps develop task-specific cue recognition. This is important because offensive players typically need to evade, avoid, and manipulate, while the defense needs to read, react, and defend.
4. Direct the eyes. Train the eyes and brain to detect specific cues from opposing athletes and the environment. Research on eye-tracking analysis demonstrates that better players fixate longer on key body regions compared to lesser athletes. So hint at body locations, ask what they saw and perceived, and place external cues at desired locations. Flags and towels are great because they direct the eyes to the desired
5. Add a cognitive component with a generic stimulus. When using colored cones, pointing fingers, or flashing lights, add a cognitive and mental processing component whenever possible. Ways to do this are:

• Start drills by using different stimuli–a whistle, clap, tennis ball dropping, coach’s movement, specific word, or “on 2.”
• Present a math problem to initiate a direction. When the equation equals an even number, the athlete runs left, and with an odd number, the athlete runs right.
• Add fakes, such as pointing left, yelling right; saying blue and pointing to red.
• Make athletes pick out relevant information. Have an athlete turn around, have another group of athletes huddle up and one of them grabs a ball. On the whistle, the athlete turns around while the others run around. The single athlete must look for the athlete with the ball and tag them.

All of these add a mental processing component just as, for example, a safety in football has a certain responsibility on a given play–though that responsibility depends on the offense’s alignment, motions, a certain player’s location, down and distance, etc. These challenge mental processing, albeit not in a specific manner, but better than other, more general modalities.

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

Nitrates are inorganic compounds found in a wide range of vegetables, most prominently in beet roots and leafy green vegetables. Their chemical structure consists of a nitrogen atom bound to three oxygen atoms.

For years, many health practitioners recommended that people avoid consuming cured meats, citing the nitrate content as one of the main reasons. This is because in many processed foods nitrates are often found as nitrosamines, which are linked to some adverse side effects. However, the nitrates found mainly in vegetables are naturally occurring and may have potential health benefits.

In recent years, nitrates have come to prominence in the sports nutrition world because of their popularity with elite endurance athletes. When nitrates are consumed, they get converted to nitric oxide, which is a potent vasodilator aiding in oxygen transport. Exercise scientists have linked nitrate consumption in studies to a variety of ergogenic benefits, ranging from an increased proportion of type 2 fiber to improved performance during repeat sprint intervals to increased power output.

Nitrates, Nitrites, and Nitric Oxide

Dietary nitrates get converted to nitrites by bacteria in our saliva, as well as by specific enzymes in specific tissues. Nitrites can then get further metabolized to nitric oxide through several different pathways. Nitric oxide is a signaling molecule that plays a role in the vasodilation (widening) of blood vessels, which results in increased blood flow. Increased blood flow during exercise and at rest has been linked to increased performance and recovery.

Some beneficial attributes of increased plasma nitric oxide levels are increased exercise-induced skeletal muscle glucose uptake and a reduced oxygen cost during exercise. For high intensities, increased glucose uptake is a beneficial attribute, as this is the primary (and fastest-acting) energy source during these types of activities. This makes it a beneficial attribute for most field sports where there’s a requirement, at various times, to kick into a higher intensity gear.

Similarly, a reduced oxygen cost during exercise is a major benefit for field sports, as a reduction in this factor results in a higher degree of efficiency. Some research indicates nitrates can positively influence the mitochondria’s phosphate/oxygen ratio by increasing it. In more practical terms, by increasing the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) ratio and producing more ATP, we can produce much more energy since all movement is ultimately fueled by ATP.

What the Research Shows

Fiber Type: Type I fibers are known as “slow twitch” fibers. They’re the slow oxidative fibers that are beneficial for endurance performance and they’re the fiber type we typically rely on the most throughout daily activities. Type II fibers, or “fast twitch” fibers, are associated with explosive contractions and are the fiber type typically sought for athletes that participate in speed-based sports.

Many speed/power training programs are built around maximizing the proportion of type II fibers. It’s typically thought that this fiber type proportion is a product of genetics and that training style can influence it to some degree. However, one study shows that nitrate administration might also be of benefit.¹

The effects of sprint interval training (SIT): SIT in normoxia vs. SIT in hypoxia alone or in conjunction with oral nitrate intake was investigated to view the buffering capacity of homogenized muscle and fiber type distribution, as well as its influence on sprint and endurance performance.

Twenty-seven participants were divided into three groups: 1) SIT in normoxia with a placebo; 2) SIT in hypoxia with a placebo; and 3) SIT in hypoxia with a nitrate supplement. All three groups participated in five weeks of SIT on a cycle ergometer (30-second sprints with 4.5 minutes of recovery between intervals for three weekly sessions of four to six sprints per session). Nitrate (6.45 mmol NaNO3) or placebo capsules were administered three hours before each session. Before and after SIT, participants performed an incremental VO2max test, a 30-minute simulated cycling time trial, and a 30-second cycling sprint test. Muscle biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis.

The relative number of type IIa fibers increased in the nitrate supplement group but not in any of the other groups. Compared with hypoxia, SIT tended to enhance 30-second sprint performance more in the nitrate supplemented group than in the hypoxia group.
SIT in hypoxia combined with nitrate supplementation increased the proportion of type IIa fibers in the muscle. When nitrate supplementation was provided during SIT in hypoxic conditions, relative type IIa fiber numbers increased from 45% to 56%.

Enhancing Work Rate

The ability to sustain a high work rate is an underrated aspect of sports performance, especially when discussing the topic of speed. While the energetic systems will vary within and across sports, there’s variance on a position-by-position level. For instance, field sports greatly reward athletes with higher work rates.

One of the most promising effects of nitrate supplementation is its ability to enhance work rate… Share on X

The ability to sustain explosive speed throughout the course of an event is crucial for many athletes, and this can be a deciding factor between playing time and riding the bench. One of the most promising effects of nitrate supplementation is its ability to enhance work rate in the form of reduced fatigue during higher intensities and better performances on repeat sprint interval measurements.

A study investigated the effects of dietary nitrate supplementation on exercise performance and cognitive function during a prolonged intermittent sprint test (IST) designed to reflect typical work patterns during team sports.² Sixteen male team sports players received 140ml of NO3-rich beetroot juice or NO3-depleted placebo beetroot juice for seven days. On day 7 of supplementation, the subjects completed a sprint test consisting of two 40-minute halves of repeated two-minute blocks consisting of six seconds of all-out sprints, 100 seconds of active recovery, and 20 seconds of rest on a cycle ergometer during which cognitive tasks were simultaneously performed.

Total work done during sprints on the IST was greater in the beetroot group compared to placebo and the reaction time of response to cognitive tasks in the second half improved in the beetroot group compared to placebo. The findings suggest dietary nitrate enhances repeated sprint performance and may attenuate the decline in cognitive function. Specifically, it affects the reaction time during prolonged intermittent exercise.

In a double-blind randomized crossover design, 14 recreational male team sports players were assigned to consume 490ml of concentrated nitrate-rich beetroot juice and nitrate-depleted placebo juice over 30 hours preceding the completion of a Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test.³ The resting plasma nitrite concentration was 400% greater in the beetroot group compared to the placebo. Performance in the Yo-Yo IR1 was 4.2% greater with beetroot juice compared to placebo (this equaled 1,704 m vs exercise-induced 1,636m). These findings suggested that NO3 nitrate supplementation may promote nitric oxide production and enhance Yo-Yo IR1 test performance.

Another study assessed whether a high-nitrate diet could increase nitric oxide bioavailability and evaluated its effect on exercise performance.⁴ This randomized crossover study tested seven male subjects before and after a six-day high-nitrate diet vs. a control nitrate diet (8.2 mmol per day vs. 2.9 mmol per day, respectively). Plasma nitrate and nitrite concentrations were significantly higher in the high-nitrate diet group compared to control.

The high-nitrate diet group showed a significant reduction in oxygen consumption during moderate-intensity constant work rate cycling. They also had significantly higher total muscle work during fatiguing, intermittent submaximal knee extension, and improved performance in repeated sprint ability tests. The finding suggested a high-nitrate diet could be a feasible and effective strategy to improve exercise performance.

How Power Output Is Modulated

In sports settings, a high level of power output is probably the most desirable physical attribute and, as a result, it is one of the talents for which athletes are most compensated. We see evidence of this with power hitters in baseball, deep threat wide receivers in football, and knockout artists in boxing.

In most sports, power production is a more-lauded skillset than strength or size. There are even performance measurements suggesting that higher levels of power output correlate with better sports performance, as evidenced by improved sprinting or jumping numbers. A traditional way to increase the potential for power output has been to increase dietary or supplemental creatine intake. Research shows that another potential strategy is to increase nitrate consumption.

Acute NO3 supplementation can enhance maximal muscle power in trained athletes. These findings may particularly benefit power-sport athletes who perform brief explosive actions.⁵

Acute nitrate supplementation can enhance maximal muscle power in trained athletes. Share on X

In the case of nitrate supplementation, its impact on increased power output is also relative to the VO2 max ratio, meaning that in studies subjects can increase their power output while maintaining the same energy cost. Examples of this are the aforementioned studies on nitrates and repeat sprint performance. Not only is the amount of power output increased, but it’s increased without having a costly effect on the energy systems. This allows athletes to perform higher quality work without compromising volume. This also contrasts with the typical way of increasing power output in training, where, as power output increases, energy costs tend to increase and total volume decreases.

About Responders and Non-Responders

While a lot of positive research and anecdotal evidence shows that nitrate consumption can have benefits for sports performance, the results aren’t unanimous. A study on club-level cyclists performing a 50-mile time trial after supplementing with beetroot juice did not result in a significant improvement in time trial performance.⁶ The authors of the study suggested it was possible that the training status of the cyclists (well-trained) limited the effect compared to what some studies have shown on moderately trained cyclist tests.

Another thing of note from the study was that participants who saw the greatest increases in plasma nitrate had improved performance whereas others in the study had little change in plasma nitrate and no improvements in their performance. Similarly, another study was done on the effects of dietary nitrates on repeated sprint performance in team athletes and the subjects saw no improvements in performance.⁷ The authors in this study acknowledged that they did not measure changes in plasma nitrate.

These studies open up the possibility that other variables, like training status and response to dietary nitrate load, can impact the efficacy of this protocol.

The Best Nitrate Sources

One major advantage of nitrates that makes them unlike many other lauded nutritional ingredients (e.g., turmeric) is that their dietary bioavailability is extremely high, at an average of 100%. The most well-known source of nitrates are beets but, fortunately, there are other sources high in dietary nitrates if beets aren’t your thing. A few things to take note of regarding dietary nitrate sources is that the nitrate content can vary over the course of the year because of factors like the season and soil quality.

Uncooked foods are some of the highest sources, which is the reason juices are a popular method to supplement nitrates. Another important note is that nitrates get converted to nitrites by beneficial bacteria found in our saliva, so you’re advised against brushing your teeth or using mouthwash immediately after consuming dietary nitrates.

Some high dietary nitrate sources include: celery, arugula, beetroot, spinach, Chinese cabbage, kohlrabi, leeks, parsley, dill, radish, bok choy, cabbage, fennel, cress, and savoy cabbage. It can be also found in smaller amounts in other foods like carrots, broccoli, cucumber, turnips, and pumpkin.

Nitrate Loading Guidelines

There are a variety of loading protocols for dietary nitrates, ranging from very acute (a few hours prior to competition) to a sustained daily amount over the course of several weeks. The ranges used in studies typically vary from 300-600mg of nitrate. Peak plasma nitrate levels are typically reached 1.5 to 1.8 hours after consumption.

Two things to consider when implementing any dietary/supplement strategy:

1. Dose at the lower end of the spectrum and slowly work your way up. Using this strategy allows you to maximize the minimal effective dosage of any nutrient. More isn’t always better and, in certain instances, a tolerance can be built up quickly or it can be detrimental. With certain nutrients that have dose-dependent responses, you can start out on the lower end of the dosage spectrum to maximize its effectiveness and see continual benefits as you increase the dosage. However, if you start at a high dosage the ceiling for improvement is limited.

2. Experiment with nitrate loading prior to competition. It’s never a good idea to attempt new things too close to competition. This is good general rule to keep in mind for any supplement/dietary protocol. For instance, with dietary nitrates, some individuals report GI distress as a side effect.

It’s better to fuel your body with familiar foods prior to important competitions, rather than experimenting with new things. This means that some strategies to experiment with nitrate loading could occur during the off-season. Or, for certain individuals that participate in multiple events throughout the year, experiment during a season when the events are less important.

Nitrate Loading Very Acute Protocol

Two common dosage protocols for acute nitrate dosing are: 1) one to two hours pre-competition as a single dosage, and 2) splitting the dosages at the two- and one-hour marks prior to competition. After you’ve experimented with nitrate loading, and if you find that your athlete is a positive responder, this very acute protocol can be an ideal method in situations where you’re working with that athlete late into their training camp with an event fast approaching. As a nutritionist, this situation is sometimes common with combat athletes, where some don’t make dietary changes until the last few weeks (or in some instances, week) before a fight.

Nitrate Loading Acute Protocol

A semi acute loading protocol can also involve increasing dietary nitrate intake during the week of competition. This can range from a single daily dose to more common splits of two or three doses of 300-600mg per day. With this protocol, plasma nitrate is temporarily peaked during competition week. This can be a very feasible compromise in instances where some athletes already have ritual game day meals that they don’t want to deviate from or where adherence to a more chronic dosing will likely not be followed.

Nitrate Loading Chronic Protocol

A chronic protocol is another commonly used loading method that’s done over the course of several weeks. Often the dosage range during this protocol will be split up into two or three dosages per day of 300-600mg total. This loading protocol is an effective method to promote an overall dietary change, because in many instances it results in athletes consuming a large amount of leafy green vegetables.

Further Suggestions

Nitrates are available in a variety of dietary sources, with beetroot juice being the most popular dietary/supplemental form. In studies, it’s been used both acutely (a one-time dosage a few hours before an event) and chronically (over the course of several weeks). The exercise parameters by which it’s been measured include different types of aerobic and anaerobic protocols, ranging from measuring longer distance time trials to short distance sprint performances using modalities such as sprinting and cycling. The potential benefits for athletes interested in increased speed include increased type II fiber proportion, improved performance during repeat sprint intervals, reduced fatigue at higher intensities, and an increased power output.

While there are promising results with dietary nitrate administration, some studies have showed no improvements from supplementation. Given that some of the richest dietary sources include highly nutritious vegetables like beet root, arugula, Chinese cabbage, and spinach, it could be worthwhile for athletes to experiment with increasing their dietary nitrate intake. Dosage ranges in studies have varied from 300mg to 600mg, which is an attainable number through diet alone.

References

1. Smet, S. D., Thienen, R. V., Deldicque, L., James, R., Sale, C., Bishop, D. J., & Hespel, P. (2016). Nitrate Intake Promotes Shift in Muscle Fiber Type Composition during Sprint Interval Training in Hypoxia. Frontiers in Physiology,7. doi:10.3389/fphys.2016.00233

2. Thompson, C., Wylie, L. J., Fulford, J., Kelly, J., Black, M. I., Mcdonagh, S. T., et al. (2015). Dietary nitrate improves sprint performance and cognitive function during prolonged intermittent exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(9), 1825-1834. doi:10.1007/s00421-015-3166-0

3. Wylie, L. J., Mohr, M., Krustrup, P., Jackman, S. R., Ermιdis, G., Kelly, J., et al. (2013). Dietary nitrate supplementation improves team sport-specific intense intermittent exercise performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(7), 1673-1684. doi:10.1007/s00421-013-2589-8

4. Porcelli, S., Pugliese, L., Rejc, E., Pavei, G., Bonato, M., Montorsi, M., et al. (2016). Effects of a Short-Term High-Nitrate Diet on Exercise Performance. Nutrients, 8(9), 534. doi:10.3390/nu8090534

5. Rimer, E. G., Peterson, L. R., Coggan, A. R., & Martin, J. C. (2016). Increase in Maximal Cycling Power With Acute Dietary Nitrate Supplementation. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 11(6), 715-720. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0533

6. Wilkerson, D. P., Hayward, G. M., Bailey, S. J., Vanhatalo, A., Blackwell, J. R., & Jones, A. M. (2012). Influence of acute dietary nitrate supplementation on 50 mile time trial performance in well-trained cyclists. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(12), 4127-4134. doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2397-6

7. Martin, K., Smee, D., Thompson, K. G., & Rattray, B. (2014). No Improvement of Repeated-Sprint Performance with Dietary Nitrate. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(5), 845-850. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2013-0384