Blog

Applying for a position in strength and conditioning is a competitive undertaking. With more candidates than there are job postings, it’s imperative to make yourself stand out in the crowd.

In this article, Carmen Bott, Performance Coach with Wrestling Canada and Instructor of Kinesiology, teams up with Joe McCullum, Head Strength and Conditioning Coach at the University of British Columbia. Combined, the two have over 45 years of coaching experience and have reviewed hundreds of resumes. They take this opportunity to share with the younger generation some helpful pointers on landing a strength and conditioning position.

Note: The opinions reflected in this article are Carmen’s and Joe’s views and are not a reflection of their employers. They offer professional advice to those wanting to succeed in the field of strength and conditioning.

Coach Carmen: Coach Joe, in your opinion, what are the common mistakes you see as you scour over CVs.

Coach Joe: Many common mistakes I see in the cover letters and CVs are:

A one-page resume and cover letter. If you’re applying for a job in a fast-food restaurant, keep it short. If you’re applying for a professional position, highlight what you need to. Employers are looking for the best candidate possible and will likely take the time to read what you have done and will contact others in the industry to get feedback about you. (So over shooting your role when your job was to bring water to a team you interned with may be discovered.)

Adding your dissertation. Don’t add your dissertation unless it’s required. Keep to the job description.

Offering a Word document. Sending a Word document instead of a PDF.

Exaggerating experience. Saying that you have vast experience when your resume says otherwise. If your only experience is that of an intern or student coach, those who are hiring are fairly well aware of what these entail, especially if they are one-offs with session testing or movement screening.

Taking on numerous internships. These are great opportunities if you can afford to work for next to nothing, but holding a job for a period of time is attractive to most employers. If your resume shows that you have bounced around, it raises red flags for some people. I’m aware the average person doesn’t stay in the same position for more than 2-3 years until they settle into their career, but showing 3-month stints at multiple locations makes me question why they bounce so often. If an employer is looking to hire a full-time team member, they may see merit in someone showing the ability to hold a job vs. a scheduled time commitment associated with an internship.

Talking about what the company can do for you. Don’t explain how the company will foster your professional growth and how much this will better help you. Explain how you will contribute to the growth of the company by doing “X.” In my role, I collaborate and mentor upwards of 20 student coaches and 10 graduate assistants each term. In this scenario, I’m aware of what we’ll do for their professional growth, so there is little need to talk about it. If you’re applying for a full-time position, talking about how the job can benefit you may come off as if your growth is more important than the company’s.

Name dropping. Don’t name drop your mentors and employers throughout your cover letter and resume. If you list them as references, we will likely call them. Unless you’re applying out of the country, most people in the sport performance industry are 2-3 degrees of separation away from each other and will likely connect if needed.

Including irrelevant experience. This is your highlight tape. Don’t include your experience as a barista unless the job you’re applying for requires customer service or coffee making experience.

Informal writing style. Never address the hiring committee with “Hey” or use emojis in the body of any of your written communication.

Connecting through social media. This may seem harsh and is partly my own bias, but I strongly suggest that you do not connect to potential employers through social media unless they ask you to do so. I understand the role of social media, but email is my first point of contact. Most employers receive a high volume of emails and adding another mode of communication is often very time consuming for them. Quite often, other members of the team you are applying for may need to be looped into your correspondence. Or they may look to save quality resumes should opportunities arise in the future. Contacting them through social media may add extra steps for them.

Coach Carmen: Now that you have outlined what not to do on your CV, what tips do you have for future candidates?

Coach Joe: I have many tips for enhancing your CV and interviewing process:

Read the job description. Read as many times as you need to make sure that you highlight your relevance. Each employer is unique. Some may put a lot of merit into experience and education, others may look at your cognitive abilities. Either way, what they list in the job description is likely what they’re looking for, so tailor it as such.

Do your research. Know the employer beforehand. Having a brief understanding of their day to day operations can be very beneficial in your resume and interview process.

Provide multiple references. Have multiple references available who are appropriate for the different positions for which you’re applying. If you’re going into a one-on-one or small group training, include some notable clients. If you’re looking to work with teams, include a sport coach as a reference, and if you want to do return-to-play, use a therapist or team doc, etc. Include references who are not your current employer unless you’ve spoken to your employer about your potential departure. If a potential employer calls your current employer as a reference and you haven’t told them you’re leaving, things may get weird when they receive a call.

Ensure contact information is correct. I find this shocking to have to say, but I have attempted to contact people by phone only to find that their number is not in service.

Address letter correctly. If you’re using a generic resume or cover letter, make sure you address it to the correct person(s). I’ve received multiple resumes addressed to competing companies or other positions within the organization. If you are not willing to make this small change, it tells me your attention to detail is lacking.

Continually update your resume. Keep a working copy of your resume on file and add to it when appropriate. Quite often, job postings can be open for short periods of time as positions need to be filled quickly. If your information is not relevant or you’re flustered due to a time crunch, you will struggle to keep your best foot forward.

Highlight volunteer work, not hobbies. Personally, I’m more interested in seeing that someone has volunteered than learning about their hobbies and interests. Volunteer experience shows an employer a few different things:

• You are willing to give more of yourself for no financial reward. To me, this shows how much you care about what you’re doing and that you’re willing to do what others won’t. As a side note, if you don’t have a lot of references, most of the time people you volunteer for are over the moon excited to have your help and will likely give you a glowing review.
• It shows that, even though we work in a saturated market, you went out and found work that you made your own. Giving two hours a week to a high school or club team that is under-resourced is highly valuable for your growth.
• The community you’re volunteering in will be one of the best and meaningful networks you can make.
• You’re forcing yourself to learn in what will likely be a chaotic and under-resourced environment. If you can adapt to the chaos, you will learn to develop first-hand three traits of great coaches: creativity, observation, and intuition.

Coach Carmen: Coach Joe, do you have any advice on how to write a cover letter? Sure, there are lots of templates out there, but is there a formula?

Coach Joe: Yes, the formula is there is no formula. Just like in coaching, we adjust and adapt to the situation at hand. Those who are looking to be the best at what they do need to spend the appropriate time and effort to rise above the mediocre.

Cover letter.A cover letter should include to whom you are addressing and applying to in a professional manner, and the job posting number, if applicable.

You may also want to expand on information from your CV in the cover letter:

• It’s very difficult to capture what you’re about in a CV. Employers can’t see the soft skills, understand tone, and garner a look into your personality or mannerisms that may be a key fit (or not) with their company.
• “Unfortunate for so many job seekers, however, is the fact that their lack of ‘experience’ in the field in which they are pursuing employment will often subvert their chances of getting an interview–regardless of how truly qualified they be in areas of actual relevance such as cognitive ability, moral character, psychological preparation, and subject-matter knowledge.” (James Smith, The Governing Dynamics of Coaching: A Unified Field Theory of Sport Preparation.)
• Your objectives.
• Why you are the person for this job.
• Include details that fit the job description. If the job description lists core competencies or asks for specifics such as attaching your current work visa, a bio, certifications, etc., they’re there for a reason.
• Showcase your creativity and writing skills. Remember that you may be corresponding with doctors, lawyers, professors, athletes, coaches, therapists, etc.

Coach Carmen: Social media is a big part of our existence nowadays. Are there times when a candidate’s social media presence might hurt their chances of getting an interview?

Coach Joe:Professionalism is still a thing. If we Google your name, what’s the first thing that comes up? Depending on how accomplished you are, it will likely be your social media sites or personal blogs. I appreciate that this is your personal space, and you are free to do whatever you like.

Employers may not hire you if your social media content is offensive, unprofessional or derogatory. Share on X

But please understand that an employer can enjoy the freedom not to hire you if your content is offensive, unprofessional, or derogatory in any way. Some employers may not look or care while others may consider it a snapshot of you. The same can be said for putting up poor content. If your sites are full of you or your clients lifting with horrible technique or coaching direction, this reflects directly on you.

Also, if the majority of your content is about you (endless selfies, workout pics, and your #mealprep) one may be inclined to ask, “Is this what defines this potential employee?”

#HUMBLE #BLESSED

If you state that you’re humble, I have bad news for you. You aren’t. If you state that your opportunities are a blessing, it sounds like you fell into your position. In most cases, you found your position because you worked hard to get there. Don’t underplay your efforts and make it sound like divine intervention got you there.

Coach Joe: Coach Carmen, what stands out for you when you’re looking to bring on an apprentice or new coach?

Coach Carmen: Two things stand out–attention to detail and whether the person acts as a linchpin.

Attention to Detail

Great coaches all have one trait in common–astute observational skills. When people say, “That coach has a great eye,” it often pertains to their ability to recognize movement faults and skill limitations. It also hopefully means they can catch their errors. If a resume and cover letter have issues with alignment, font, spelling, or grammar, they stand as red flags for all employers. The best way to safeguard against such errors is to have a professional proofread your work. Be precise and thorough.

Be a Linchpin

I once read an article that talked about how Millennials “want to make an impact” and that their generation is all about making waves for the betterment of the organization. While this is a noble goal, it’s vague and meaningless without a plan of attack.

And it takes time (years) and consistent effort to make an impact.

It’s more important to understand one’s potential role in an organization, even if you’re the water boy or girl. In an interview, you must be able to clearly articulate where you can provide assistance. It is the consistency of a positive behavior that fosters contribution to an organization, not ideas and enthusiasm.

First, I will tell you what a linchpin is not. It is not a “yes” person. A yes person agrees to everything. They don’t know themselves. They don’t know their limitations and will bite off more than they can chew, letting a team down.

The first rule of being a linchpin is to know thyself. There are several places one can start, as evidenced in the book, Conscious Coaching. Once you have a better understanding of yourself, begin planning strategies to tackle your limitations and articulate your strengths well in an interview process.

Plan strategies to tackle your limitations and articulate your strengths in an interview. Share on X

Let me give you an example. You may not know how to operate a force plate, but in the learn-about-yourself-process, you have figured that you’re good at following written instructions. You like puzzles, and you have a knack for technology. With these traits as your backbone, learning how to operate a force plate would likely come easily to you. Be confident in that. Tackle it. On the other hand, if you are a creative type, who despises instruction manuals, then perhaps you’re better off doing research on coaching strategies or designing new programming templates.

To be a linchpin, you need to identify what you are good at, what you can learn quickly, what limits you, and what will take a long time to learn.

The other trait is attitude–an overwhelming desire to get the job done, no matter the circumstances. If you want to create a great reputation for yourself, show the world how you thrive in chaos in the non-ideal environment. No work environment is perfect and, with the advent of social media, rosy-pictures are painted everywhere. Things are not always rosy. If you want to inspire young athletes to achieve great things despite exams, parental pressures, lack of resources, etc., you better lead by example. Show them it can be done.

Be a can-do person. A can-do person is a linchpin.

Coach Joe: Coach Carmen, you are both a coach and a university-level instructor. How important is the academic mind? Can hands-on skills trump academic knowledge?

Coach Carmen: Yes. Students learn a lot of theory in school, and some professors are far better than others in translating this knowledge into the applied side of exercise prescription and coaching. No matter how great a university course is, however, you still will not have enough time to hone skills.

To hone is to sharpen. Sure, the classroom will expose you to skills like testing and program design, but that’s not the complete picture.

To hone your skills, you need to:

• Test many athletes.
• Write many programs and do your programs.
• Squat, clean, sprint, jump, and throw.
• Acquire above average motor skills and fundamental movement patterns to effectively teach them.
• Know how to break down a skill quickly and target the components the athlete is struggling with the most.

You’re not likely to learn these in university, so you’ll have to outsource coaches to help you. If you’re already an athlete and move well, then perhaps put your energy into other skills such as verbal communication, presentations, technology, and time management. As you can see, the list is endless and quite diverse. Show that you have a growth mindset.

Academia should have taught you how to be evidence-based in your thought process and how to analyze new information critically. It should have taught you how to navigate the bro-science. This is a fantastic base, but the buck does not stop there.

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

References

Smith, J. The Governing Dynamics of Coaching: A Unified Field Theory of Sport Preparation, p. 9. (Vervante, 2016).

Joe McCullum’s athletic background began as a high school wrestler, rugby and football player and ended with a full scholarship at the University of Utah for football. After his football career, Joe worked as a full-time assistant for the university as a strength and conditioning coach. He spent the next two years working with all sixteen teams ranging from football to gymnastics. After six years in Salt Lake City, Joe moved back to Canada where he began working as the Director of High Performance Training and Staff Development for Level Ten Fitness in North Vancouver. During his twelve years with Level Ten Fitness, he worked with countless national team athletes ranging from our under-20 rugby team to our national wrestling team and close to everything in between including managing a staff of 20 plus employees. He has coached multiple world and Olympic medalists in many different sports as well as many professional athletes ranging from the NHL to NFL. In September 2014, Joe took on the role of Head Strength and Conditioning Coach for the University of British Columbia where he is responsible for 25 teams and close to 650 athletes. He also runs a Graduate Assistant and Student Coach program with upwards of 25-30 students per term.

Player monitoring has become commonplace among professional and collegiate sports teams. While you can use many different types of systems to monitor an athlete’s movements on the field, this piece describes my experience with Catapult, widely considered the gold standard for athlete monitoring.

Specifications of the Catapult S5 System

Catapult’s OptimEye S5 system is their most widely used and researched system. Its ability to pick up the micromovements that other systems cannot sets it apart from those other player-monitoring systems. GPS is limited, as it can only record distances and velocities, and is unable to pick up changes in direction.

Catapult has a proprietary formula that uses the information from the accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometer within the device to measure the orientation of the athlete. The system converts the data into a number it calls “IMA” (Inertial Movement Analysis). IMA data gives the user information such as magnitude and direction of any accelerations and decelerations, changes of direction, and jumps. Catapult collects these values at 100Hz, which assures that virtually every movement is quantified.

The primary parameters that Catapult devices measure are Player Load and Player Load per Minute. Player Load is an athlete’s mechanical work in the three axes, where high accelerations are more valuable than low accelerations. This is a volume measure that shows how much work an athlete does over a given period of time. Player Load per Minute is the rate of accumulation of Player Load, and I treat it as a measure of intensity.

Objective Data That Aids in Periodization

The two primary goals of sports science are to mitigate injury risk and increase performance. As coaches, we understand the benefits of periodizing volumes and intensities in the weight room to elicit the best adaptation possible, while keeping the risk of injury low. I love the quote, “You cannot manage what you cannot measure,” because it is so true in sport.

Although the management of loads and intensities in weight training sessions is extremely important, it is a much more controlled environment than the field of play, and comprises a much smaller component of the overall stress an athlete will endure. More importantly, the field is where we look to increase performance and, at the same time, where most injuries occur. Catapult enables a coach to get objective data on practice and game sessions. This helps them periodize loads on a weekly, monthly, and yearly basis to put their team in the best position for success on game day.

Injury Mitigation and Fatigue Reduction

There has been a lot of talk about Tim Gabbett’s acute/chronic training load theories in the past couple of years. He often states that it is not the high training loads that cause problems—it is how we arrive at those training loads. High training volumes are essential because they allow the athlete to be more durable in times of high physical stress, such as games. It is vital to build up that volume over time to arrive at those high training loads safely.

The Catapult system tracks this through an extremely useful training wizard that automatically displays data in an acute to chronic graph. An athlete performing at a high level in a fatigued state is a cause for concern. By understanding when an athlete is fatigued, we can now monitor their time spent in the parameters that indicate high levels of stress, such as: high IMA movements, high velocities, and time spent in a high heart rate zone.

Understanding the parameters measured by Catapult allows you to protect your athletes from injury. Share on X

You can also protect your athletes by understanding the difference between parameters and using your knowledge of anatomy and biomechanics. For instance, if an athlete complains of knee pain, you can go back and look at the number of accelerations and decelerations the athlete has recently been exposed to and possibly reduce future exposure to those qualities so that the athlete can recover. The same goes for hamstring issues, and limiting high-velocity running. With IMA measuring three-dimensional vectors, a coach can now see if an athlete has asymmetrical force output. This is valuable for both injury prevention and return-to-play protocols.

Once you have developed a sizable database, you can dive into higher level means of injury mitigation, such as working to identify high training loads and injury thresholds for an individual athlete. This is an advanced use of the system that requires continued monitoring of the athletes, as well as statistical analysis.

Injuries are an unfortunate reality in all sports. An organization that wants to maximize their likelihood for success will look for ways to identify risk factors for injury. Catapult’s ability to measure the mechanical stress an athlete is exposed to allows sport scientists to dive into the data to identify if an injury occurred because of a certain stimulus.

Athlete Readiness on Game Day

A steep decline in an athlete’s performance can be a major risk factor for an athlete. We must understand that weight training, practice, games, and life are all different stressors, but they all have a cumulative effect on an athlete’s performance. It is advantageous for the coaching staff to have objective data to confirm the level of stress and gain subjective data to understand types of stress. This allows them to create an intervention plan moving forward.

No matter the type of stress, too much of it will lead to fatigue and a decrease in performance. This can be measured as a decrease in mechanical output through the Catapult system. I like to cross-reference the mechanical data from Catapult with other objective measures, such as heart rate variability, and subjective measures such as RPE, wellness questionnaires, and athlete conversations. This creates the clearest picture when looking at the state of readiness for a given athlete. The ability to understand the level and type of fatigue gives the coach insight as to when to push the athletes harder, or when to allow time for recovery.

Increase Performance in Practice and Competition

Increasing performance is the goal of all coaches. I chose to put this last because, if we can manage fatigue and mitigate injuries, the athlete can participate and train at their highest ability. If you plan the training session correctly, it will lead to an increase in performance.

Being present at practices allows you to “tag” different drills. Identifying which drills target different parameters is a great way to show a coach what is happening throughout practice, which they might not have known otherwise. I think that creating a “menu” for the coaching staff on the cost of each drill is a great way to educate them on the capabilities of the system.

Another great way to relay a suggestion to a coach is to relate the session or drill to game speed. If you can utilize this technology during games, you can quantify what “game speed” actually is during a practice or training session.

My Suggestion to Keeping Athlete Tracking Practical

My advice to anyone new to Catapult is to keep it simple. Catapult measures 1,000 data points a second, so it is easy to try to look at too many things at once, and try to draw conclusions from the beginning. This is a mistake, because the message to the coach will be unclear. You don’t have to have all the answers from the data; if you have no information to give them it is okay.

Using this system is a process. I do not believe in relying entirely on this system for all the answers. I think it is important to use our coaching intuition to drive our programs, and Catapult is a tool that can help confirm whether we should tweak the model. I think Catapult is the most user-friendly player-monitoring tool on the market. It can customize almost anything you want, and make your dashboards specific to your needs and your team’s needs.

The number of teams and clubs that use this system around the world also tells me that this product is effective. I strongly suggest reaching out to other users to discover new ways to use the system and different ways to help your team. Catapult is a system where the more work you put into it, the more actionable decisions you will be able to make.

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

 

A short while ago, I wrote an article overviewing a small case study I performed using heavy resisted sprinting for my American football players. I based the case study on a recent paper by Matt Cross titled, “Optimal Loading for Maximizing Power during Sled-Resisted Sprinting.”¹ Specifically, I wanted to monitor changes in the players’ 40-yard dash performances with the inclusion of heavy resisted sprints. I described my methods using the 1080 Sprint machine and provided the data to show what happened with each athlete.

I used four football players training for potential scouting combines and/or pro days: two running backs and two linebackers. One of the linebackers left our program before recording his post-test sprint times, but the other athletes saw improvements of 0.10-0.33 seconds in their 40-yard dash times after four weeks of training that included heavy resisted sprinting.

 

The Case Study Weekly Training Template

While the split times at the 10-, 20-, and 40-yard segments improved, the cause of these improved times is less clear. This is the template for the training week:

 

The NFL combine and NFL pro days contained a battery of tests, including the 40-yard dash, pro agility shuttle, L- or three-cone drill, vertical jump, broad jump, and 225lb bench press for maximum repetitions. The case study took part while my clients trained for these tests. Although I wanted to see the effect of heavy resisted sprinting on their 40-yard dash times, I ensured that it stayed “business as usual” and did not deviate from the overall training program. Thus, the training template was broad and focused on many different stimuli simultaneously. This is an obvious limitation that I will expound upon later.

The training on Day 2 did not feature any sprint work, but did include maximum intensity jump training. Between the total volume of horizontal and vertical jump training, the day featured 30-40 jumps performed as explosively as possible. I used a jump mat to measure vertical jump variations and a measuring wheel and markers to measure horizontal jump variations to ensure that intent was maximal on each repetition. The focus of the weight training was on using heavy resistance (slightly below maximum effort) in the primary lift, followed by auxiliary training.

Day 4 was the designated “case study day” where athletes performed unloaded short sprints of 10-20 yards before progressing into sprints against the individualized load of maximum power. Lighter resisted sprints followed this and then athletes headed back to the weight room for auxiliary training. We timed all sprints and kept records, ensuring that each sprint was high intensity with full recovery periods.

Video 1. A look at three athletes sprinting against individual loads of maximum power. Lighter resisted sprints followed this and then athletes headed back to the weight room for auxiliary training.

The variety of training stimuli may have affected each athlete differently even though they all ran faster times. They were all getting back into power and speed training after spending the past several months in-season. Therefore, their baseline 40-yard times may have reflected a diminished readiness state. It may have taken them the length of the case study (four weeks) to “get back” their pre-existing strength, power, and speed capabilities, and this may not have been a direct result of the heavy resisted sprinting. However, due to the broad array of training stimuli, it’s not easy to assume what helped each athlete the most.

Changes in Force and Velocity

In the previous article, I showed that both running backs saw improvements in their velocity output with virtually no change in their horizontal force outputs, while the linebackers saw the opposite effect. In Figure 3 (also featured in the previous article), we can see changes in theoretical maximum relative force (F0), theoretical maximum relative velocity (V0), and theoretical maximum relative power (P_max). “Relative” indicates the outputs as they relate to body mass.

 

While all players showed increases in relative horizontal power, they each did so differently—some by improvements in force and others by improvements in velocity. The training template featured a full spectrum of resisted sprint training: unloaded sprints, light resisted sprints, and heavy resisted sprints. It is likely that each athlete underwent an individualized adaptation due to their current state and the exposure to each sprint, jump, and resistance training variation.

Horizontal Force and American Football

In the absence of a fully controlled study isolating a single variable, it is tough to determine the full impact of the heavy resisted sprinting. However, the research by JB Morin and Matt Cross shows promise for heavy resisted sprints improving horizontal force production. I provide a detailed explanation of the scientific background of my case study in my previous article, but I will briefly review some of the important concepts.

Sprinting fast is based upon applying force onto the ground, in the right direction, at the right time, consistently over a designated distance (e.g., 40 yards). Force can be applied onto the ground with greater horizontal emphasis (like starting the sprint motion and propelling forward at a low angle) or with greater vertical emphasis, as seen during maximum velocity where flight time is increased. Horizontal and vertical force application are both always present.

The total force applied in each step is referred to as the resultant force, which is the combination of net vertical and horizontal force application.

 

The effective ratio between horizontal and vertical force will differ depending on the stage of the sprint: The ratio of horizontal force should be greater when starting a sprint and the ratio of vertical force will consistently rise during acceleration and achieve the highest ratio when running at maximum velocity. Since maximum velocity is attained once acceleration is no longer occurring, the ratio of horizontal force will inevitably drop in favor of a higher ratio of vertical force. This is referred to as the decrease in the horizontal ratio of force (DRF).

Once at maximum velocity, there is a limited window to hold top speed before deceleration starts to occur. For track and field sprinters, it is logically advantageous to spread out acceleration as much as possible, minimizing the risk of decelerating by achieving maximum velocity too early. Top-level sprinters can continue accelerating for over 60 meters: Usain Bolt has shown the ability to accelerate up to 80 meters.³ These distances are much longer than 40 yards, which is equivalent to 36.58 meters. Yet, we constantly see American football players at the NFL Combine start to decelerate before hitting the finish line.

As pointed out in the research by JB Morin and his colleagues, top-level sprinters display high ratios of force in the horizontal direction (RF = horizontal ratio of force) and show great ability to maintain this horizontal force as they continue to accelerate (DRF). The DRF is therefore viewed as a measure of sprinting efficiency, exhibiting the ability (or lack thereof) to prolong the acceleration period. However, American football players do not have the same acceleration strategy.

When a running back sees an open hole through the line of scrimmage, his only concern is being able to gain as many yards as possible RIGHT NOW. There isn’t much time to spread out his acceleration. It’s even more interesting when we consider that a 10-20 yard gain is a decent offensive play. In fact, football coaches often refer to plays over 20 yards as “big plays” and try to minimize them as much as possible from a defensive perspective.

 

So, while a 100-meter sprinter knows 100 meters will be covered during the sprint, the running back pats himself on the back any time he gets a 20-yard gain. Longer distances are substantially harder to come by, especially at the professional level. Acceleration requirements are very different between the two sports, which can help explain why football players may decelerate before reaching the finish line in a 40-yard dash.

Despite the differences in sport requirements between American football and the 100-meter sprint, the 40-yard dash is, without question, closer in task to a 100-meter sprint than it is to playing football. Understanding how to improve 40-yard dash performance can start by taking pages out of track and field training methodology.

Acceleration Strategies in the 40-Yard Dash

While the NFL Combine doesn’t require football players to sprint 100 meters, the 40-yard dash is a true “make or break” testing measure whereby the best performers have a much higher possibility of getting a contract and a career in the NFL. Football players should put themselves in the best position to accelerate steadily over the course of 40 yards. At the very least, they should develop the ability to not decelerate before the finish line.

The goal is to maximize the RF and minimize the DRF as much as possible. Share on X

They can accomplish this in one of two ways. The first way is to develop the ability to accelerate at each 10-yard split, where the split between 30 yards and 40 yards is the fastest. The second way, which is more common for bigger-bodied players, is to accelerate and achieve top speed before the 40-yard line and then maintain this speed until the finish.

Regardless, the goal is to maximize the RF and minimize the DRF as much as possible. Translation: maintain the acceleration phase for as long as possible. As exemplified in my case study, JB Morin and his colleagues proposed that improving RF can result from sprinting against the resistance that maximizes horizontal power production. When sprinting without resistance, maximum power is typically reached within one second, which is the point at which velocity starts becoming significantly higher than horizontal force.¹ Finding the load of maximum power indicates finding a load that optimizes the product of horizontal force and velocity.

 

Since unloaded maximum sprinting power is typically achieved within one second, we can assume that it occurs somewhere between 5 and 10 yards, as it takes closer to two seconds to reach the 10-yard mark (e.g., 1.55-second 10-yard split). When aiming to find the load of maximum power, we basically try to find the load that will allow the athlete(s) to remain in a similar environment to the first 5-10 yards and spread it out for longer distances. In my experience, and based on Matt Cross and JB Morin’s work, 20-25 yards seems like a nice distance range for sprinting against the load of maximum power.

Determining the Load of Maximum Power in Resisted Sprinting

How do you determine the load of maximum power? In my previous article, I went into the details of the paper by Matt Cross, JB Morin, and colleagues, where they determined that the load equivalent to the highest point on a power curve occurred between 69% and 91% of body mass (load on the sled, including the sled) for mixed sport athletes and between 70% and 96% of body mass for sprinters. So, they imply that a 205lb NFL safety would have to sprint with a sled load of 141-187lbs. These recommendations are significantly higher than traditional sled sprinting guidelines, which indicate sled loads should be less than 40% of body mass.

 

We must keep in mind that these recommendations are based upon a very specific approach to improving sprint performance. Namely, we may use maximum power sled sprinting to improve the potential to generate high levels of horizontal force from the sprint start and on through the rest of acceleration. I see it as a tool that helps athletes feel the sensation of propelling forward in the acceleration position. If they do not generate sufficient force in this exercise, they will go nowhere in space.

 

The sled load may be variable due to friction of the surface being trained on. For example, when using sleds, the sled may slide differently on a turf surface than on concrete or rubber surfaces. For this reason, it’s likely safer to use other measures to determine the load rather than just percentage of body mass. The Cross paper found that the load of maximum power occurs between 48% and 52% of maximum velocity, with 50% being a good aiming point. The paper focuses on average velocity achieved rather than peak velocity, as average velocity gives a better indication of what’s happening over the entire distance rather than at one point in the sprint. This is NOT the same as split time.

 

Velocity is typically measured in meters per second (m/s) and represents a kinematic quality of physics, not a time taken to complete a distance. For example, if a football player has a maximum sprinting velocity of 9.00 m/s, then it’s likely his load of maximum power will occur at a velocity of 4.50 m/s (50%). Therefore, we may determine that his range of maximum power is 4.32-4.68 m/s (48-52%). Once the football player can consistently sprint faster than 52% of his maximum velocity with a given load (e.g., 4.68 m/s), his sprinting power has improved and he will have to use heavier loads to continue to push his sprinting power higher.

 

You can calculate velocity with proper measurement devices such as radar, video analysis software like the My Sprint App, and machines like the 1080 Sprint. The 1080 Sprint instantly displays both peak and average velocity after each sprint. However, without these tools, many coaches may not know how to determine their athletes’ maximum sprinting velocity.

One very simple way of determining an athlete’s average sprint velocity is to divide a distance covered by the time taken to reach it. For example, if an athlete ran a 40-yard dash in 4.50 seconds, then you would do: 40/4.50 = 8.89 yards per second (yd/s). Since football is a game of yards, it is appropriate to keep the velocity in yd/s, but it may be worthwhile to also convert it into meters per second (m/s), which is more universally understood. Converting 8.89 yd/s into meters per second would yield 8.13 m/s.

 

The problem with using this approach is that the coach must ensure that the athlete has sprinted far enough to reach maximum velocity if the numbers are to be valid. In the case of football, the primary test of speed is, of course, the 40-yard dash. But it’s possible that smaller athletes like wide receivers and defensive backs can keep accelerating farther than 40 yards, while some bigger athletes like offensive linemen may reach their top speed before 40 yards.

If a coach plans to figure out average velocity by dividing distance over time, they may be well-served to test their athletes at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-yard distances to be certain they found the right distance that yielded the fastest average velocity. To that point, there is structural risk associated with bigger athletes (i.e., over 275lbs) testing at distances over 40 yards, so those distances may not be necessary for linemen or large big-skill players like tight ends or outside linebackers.

My Proposed Simple Field Measure

For sake of observation, I have started using the 40-yard dash time and finding the average velocity of that distance for each player as a proxy to determine a time range for individualized loading for heavy resisted sprint training in a very time-efficient manner. If we use the example above where the player runs 40 yards in 4.50 seconds and yields an average velocity of 8.89 yards per second, then taking 48-52% of 8.89 yd/s would yield a range of 4.27-4.62 yd/s, with 50% being 4.45 yd/s.

 

If we apply the 50% velocity over 20 yards (which is the distance I used in my case study), then we would have to load the athlete until he sprinted 20 yards in 4.49 seconds. The 48-52% range would indicate that the athlete has a goal range of 4.33-4.68 seconds. Notice any pattern? It appears that the 20-yard split time of 4.49 seconds at 50% velocity would be very close to the 40-yard unloaded time of 4.50 seconds. The 48-52% range is also very close to being within 0.20 seconds above or below the unloaded 40-yard time.

 

I am experimenting with having athletes run the 40-yard dash and using that split to determine the time range for heavy sled sprinting. In the hypothetical case of a 4.50-second 40-yard dash time, I would load the athlete until he ran 20 yards between 4.30 and 4.70 seconds. If the athlete showed the ability to run faster than 4.30 with a given load, I would then make the load slightly heavier.

 

I should immediately state that I do NOT have any research to back this up. My objective is simply to try and find a simple way for coaches to get the adaptive benefit of heavy sled sprinting with minimal equipment. Time will tell if research will support this idea.

Justifying a Simplistic Approach

I must express a couple of thoughts unequivocally. First, as stated previously, using a 40-yard dash time as a proxy to determine maximum average sprinting velocity has obvious flaws from a validity standpoint. If it is NOT a distance where maximum velocity is reached, then inevitably the loads used for heavy sled sprinting will be heavier than what you may have used if calculating the velocity with a more valid measure. However, I don’t believe it is as much of a worry with American football players. I say this because football requires the athletes to possess high levels of early acceleration ability to cover short distances as fast as possible. Not to mention, collisions occur on nearly every play. Therefore, sprinting against slightly heavier loads may prove beneficial for the most force-dominant scenarios in football, such as a running back breaking through tackles or a safety trying to take down a tight end.

Again, this simplistic approach has no scientific validation and is only my attempt to simplify the process for coaches who may lack the equipment to successfully measure maximum velocity. I certainly still encourage coaches to consider products like the 1080 Sprint, which instantly provides force, power, and velocity data after every sprint repetition.

 

Everything Has Its Place in Training, But Take Nothing Out of Context

In his book, The Science of Running, Steve Magness describes the concept of the hype cycle,⁴ which he explains as: “when an idea is new or gains popularity, it follows a cycle of initial overemphasis before eventually leveling off into its rightful place.” The work of JB Morin and Matt Cross explains that heavy resisted sprinting has a specific purpose: maximizing horizontal power to increase the magnitude of force and the efficiency of its application during acceleration. It is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all model of training.

It is simply not logical to assume that those training to be fast need only do heavy resisted sprint training. You must use unloaded sprint training if you truly expect anyone to get faster. JB Morin and Matt Cross consider heavy sled sprinting as strength training, not speed training. To only train with heavy resisted runs is like only squatting heavy and expecting to jump higher without ever jumping.

There appear to be two broad strategies to training for power: increase the magnitude of force and/or increase the rate at which it is applied. When examining long-term training structure, both variables should always be present in the mind of a coach. It may not matter how quickly force can be applied if there isn’t much force to begin with. It has also been accepted that increases in the magnitude of force may result in a shift of the force-velocity relationship such that force of muscle contraction will be greater at any given velocity of muscle shortening.⁵

However, we must keep in mind that increases in force without specific context cannot guarantee any improvement in performance.⁶ While a barbell squat may start to lose its positive adaptation effects on sprint performance, heavy resisted sprinting may still have a large window of opportunity to improve sprint acceleration through greater specificity and context to the sprinting motion. Diving in further, the context of resisted sprint training may determine which phase of sprinting we are ultimately developing.

Increases in force without specific context cannot guarantee any improvement in performance. Share on X

The use of heavy resisted loads in sprinting may specifically target the sprint start and early acceleration (force at low velocities), but may not be as potent for targeting the later phases of sprint acceleration (force at high velocities) or maximum velocity. In developing maximum velocity, you can logically assume that you should not use resistance and all exercises aimed at improving this phase should be unloaded or even assisted. The following table briefly lays out potential options for when to use resisted loads and when not to:

 

For help using the table above, I strongly suggest reading George Petrakos’ articles on sled sprinting guidelines: “Resisted Sled Sprint Training – Part 1 – Methods of Sled Load Prescription” and “Programming for Resisted Sled Sprint Training.” Also read the overspeed sprint training articles by Carl Valle: found “Hacking the Brain with Assisted Speed Training,” “The Science of Assisted Speed in Sport,” and “Overspeed—4 Ways to Overclock Your Nervous System.”

Video 2. Football players running unloaded and loaded sprints. The use of heavy resisted loads in sprinting may specifically target the sprint start and early acceleration (force at low velocities), but may not be as potent for targeting the later phases of sprint acceleration (force at high velocities) or maximum velocity.

Exploring the Entire Force-Velocity Spectrum

Ultimately, improving power output in sprinting comes down to improving force, velocity, or both. We may expect exercises like heavy resisted sprinting to improve the magnitude of force in the sprinting motion, but we certainly can’t expect it to improve the velocity of muscle contraction. While heavy resisted sprinting may improve the ability to apply greater force with each step, it is safe to assume it will not help an athlete contract his/her muscles faster.

The coach determines which part of the force-velocity relationship is essential for each athlete. Share on X

Training to improve velocity with drills much closer to maximum sprinting velocity (or, in the case of assisted training, surpassing maximum sprinting velocity) may be necessary if an athlete is unable to apply force in a rapid manner. It is the responsibility of the coach to determine which parts of the force-velocity relationship are important for a given athlete at variable times throughout the training year. I encourage you to look to the work of Carmelo Bosco, JB Morin, and Pierre Samozino, and their references, to learn more about force-velocity profiling to help guide the programming process in favor of enhanced power performance.

As it relates to training American football players, sprinting distances are significantly shorter than those found in track and field. If we exclude the over-reliance on the 40-yard dash combine test, many players literally make their money on how well they can burst within 10-30 yards. Big plays are relatively rare, especially at the professional level. Additionally, football is a collision sport requiring players to collide with opponents of all different sizes. Consequently, horizontal force and maximum power are vital attributes for all positions, and force becomes even more important the closer the player lines up to the ball (e.g., offensive and defensive linemen).

Training with the use of heavy resisted sprints may have a desired adaptive influence on motor performance for football players, but it is certainly not the be-all and end-all! While certain individuals need to develop specific areas depending on their current physical preparation or their positional requirements, athletes must do themselves a favor and explore the entire force-velocity spectrum if they want to truly maximize their power potential.

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

 

References

1. Cross, M. R., Brughelli, M., Samozino, P., Brown, S. R., & Morin, J. B. (2017). Optimal loading for maximising power during sled-resisted sprinting. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1-25.
2. Smith, J. (2014). Applied Sprint Training.
3. Berry, N. (2013). Usain Bolt: World’s Fastest Man. Datagenetics.
4. Magness, S. (2014). The Science of Running. Origin Press.
5. Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Influence of Strength on the Magnitude & Mechanisms of Adaptation to Power Training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(8), 1566-1581.
6. Harris, N., Cronin, J., & Keogh, J. (2007). Contraction force specificity and its relationship to functional performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(2), 201-212.

The clean and its variations are often used as a means of enhancing power in the athletic performance setting. As a ballistic ground-based movement, the clean is a more desirable mode of training for power than other common strength lifts (squatting, deadlifting) (Kawamori, et al., 2005).

Due to the high mechanical specificity accompanying the increased power-producing capabilities, the clean and other weightlifting movements are effective for training athletes that require explosive strength and power to be successful in competition (Garhammer, 1993). After analyzing performances in the weightlifting movements and their derivatives, Garhammer found a significantly lower decrease in power output when compared to the competitive power lifts (squat, bench, deadlift). This evidence supports the notion that weightlifting movements (clean, jerk, and snatch) are superior for developing power in athletes.

Background on the Nuts and Bolts of the Clean

The clean is the first half of the competition movement known as the clean and jerk. In the clean, the athlete begins by taking a grip slightly outside shoulder width on the bar, and setting a tight start position with feet approximately hip width apart and toes turned out slightly, and the weight balanced evenly across them. Knees pushed out to the sides inside the arms; back completely arched; arms straight with elbows turned out to the sides; head and eyes forward; and arms approximately vertical when viewed from the side. Push with the legs against the floor to begin standing, maintaining approximately the same back angle until the bar is at mid- to upper-thigh. At this point, continue aggressively pushing against the floor and extend the hips violently, keeping the bar close to the body and allowing it to contact the upper thighs as the hips reach extension.

Once you have extended your body completely, pick up and move your feet into your squat stance as you pull your elbows up and to the sides aggressively to begin moving yourself down into a squat under the bar. Bring the elbows around the bar quickly and into the clean rack position as you sit into the squat. Use the rebound in the bottom of the squat to help move back up to the standing position as quickly as possible. Once you stand completely with the bar in control, you can return it to the floor (or continue to a jerk).

The primary purpose of the clean is as part of one of the two competitive lifts in the sport of weightlifting. Athletes not competing in Olympic-style weightlifting can use it to develop power, speed, precision, and mobility (Everett, 2009).

Transition from Competition Lifting to Sports Performance Development

The question of whether it is appropriate for athletes not competing in the sport of Olympic-style weightlifting to execute the clean as defined above is a common one among athletic performance professionals. Many coaches note that the intent of the clean is to train aggressive hip extension and after this is accomplished in the second pull, there is no need to continue the lift into the catch phase of the classic lift. For this reason, many coaches only use the power variation, known simply as a power clean. Recently, legendary coach Bob Alejo made the case for dropping the catch altogether.

Many of the points he brings up in his writing are great points to consider when determining if an athlete should use the clean as a main lift within their training program. Current literature supports this argument, stating that during the pull phase, the peak ground reaction force increases linearly as load increases, but no significant difference was found in peak ground reaction force during the catch phase as load increased (Hayashi, et al., 2016).

At the end of the day, you as the coach have the final say whether to implement the clean as seen in competition or different variations of the lift. As athletic performance coaches, we are not primarily competitive weightlifting coaches. We prepare athletes for competition in co-acting and interacting team sport. In reality, very few of the athletes entering the weight room are able to safely and effectively execute a competition-style clean.

Always have the athlete’s best interest in mind when prescribing highly technical exercises. Share on X

This article presents various ways to progress and regress the clean through different variations of the movement. While progressing and regressing the movement, it is important to educate the athlete on the reason they are not performing a traditional clean. As the athletic performance coach, you must have the athlete’s best interest in mind at all times when prescribing highly technical exercises like the Olympic-style weightlifting movements. By explaining a progression or regression to an athlete, you educate them on the process of learning the movement properly. You also create buy-in and trust that you, as the coach, will not put the athlete in a position to harm themselves while training.

Drill Variation 1: Position 1 Hang Power Clean

The first variation is pulling or cleaning from the hip or position 1. This will be the least technical portion of the lift. In this position, we utilize both a start from the hang and a pull from blocks. Pulling and cleaning from this position is the greatest utilization of the athlete’s strength and power due to the decreased technical proficiency required for this exercise. The greater the amount of force the athlete puts into the ground, the greater resultant force the athlete can put into the barbell.

The sequence below shows the start position for the position 1 hang power clean. The athlete will initiate the movement by unlocking their knees and slightly flexing at the hips, allowing the barbell to lower to mid-thigh.

After the athlete finishes the pull, they will pull themselves under the bar and catch it in the receiving position.

The bar should rest across the shoulder and clavicles while keeping the chest and elbows elevated. This variation’s designation is a “power” or catching above a parallel squat. While the term “parallel” is up for debate when referencing a squat pattern, the intent is to catch the weight with as little flexion through the knees and hips as possible.

Drill Variation 2: Position 1 Power Clean from Blocks

Working from the same position, the second variation is a Position 1 Power Clean. For this exercise, the athlete uses blocks to raise the bar to the upper thigh (similar to where the athlete would load in the hang variation).

This allows for a static start position, which requires the athlete to exert a great amount of starting strength. Follow the same procedure for the setup, pull, and catch as in the hang variation.

Things to Consider Before You Start

While these exercises are not flashy or as glamorous as the full clean pulled from the floor, they are still great substitutes when an athlete has not yet reached the appropriate level of skill in the clean or lacks the required movement capabilities to safely and effectively pull from the floor and catch at full depth. Jump shrug and high pull variations are also great alternatives for a desired outcome of increased power production.

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

References

• Everett, G. (2009). Olympic Weightlifting: A Complete Guide for Athletes & Coaches. Catalyst Athletics.
• Garhammer, I. (1993). A Review of Power Output Studies of Olympic and Powerlifting: Methodology, Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7(2), 76-89.
• Hayashi, R., Kariyama, Y., Yoshida, T., Takahashi, K., Zushi, A., & Zushi, K. (2016, May). Comparison of Pull and Catch Phases During Clean Exercises. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 33, No. 1).
• Kawamori, N., Crum, A. J., Blumert, P. A., & Kulik, J. R. (2005). Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean: Identification of the optimal load. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(3), 698.

A cramp is a nightmare for athletes. The slow sensation of a muscle gradually getting tighter or the short sharp pain that comes with a powerful cramp are well known to many who exercise. During my sporting career, I often suffered from cramps and on more than one occasion had to pull out of a race while on the start line due to cramping. At every competition, I worried about suffering from cramps, and I always tried to take steps to prevent them.

Many people believe they know what know what causes cramps. The most common theory attributes cramping to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Sports drinks companies have made fortunes off the back of this theory; they can sell fluid and electrolytes in one nice package to athletes, preying on their fear of the dreaded cramp. But do dehydration and a lack of electrolytes actually cause cramps? Probably not.

Muscle Cramps: The Misconceptions About Dehydration

Several research studies have debunked the relationship between dehydration and cramps. One study published in 1986 followed 82 male marathon runners during a 42k race. Fifteen of these runners cramped. The researcher, Ron Maughan, compared these athletes against those who didn’t cramp and discovered no differences between the groups regarding electrolyte concentrations. There was also no difference in plasma volume–a marker of dehydration–between the two groups.

A more recent study, this time from 2011, looked at triathletes competing in an Ironman. Out of 210 triathletes recruited, 43 suffered from cramps. Again, there were no differences in electrolyte loss or body weight changes (another dehydration marker) between athletes who suffered from cramps and those who didn’t.

If you’ve ever cramped during exercise, you might see the logic to this. I always got cramps in my calves. If dehydration or an electrolyte imbalance caused the cramps, why did this affect only one muscle group? It would make far more sense for the cramp to occur in various muscle groups, each of which would likely be affected by dehydration. And consuming greater amounts of fluid would prevent cramping. But the research consistently shows that it doesn’t.

Muscle Cramps and Neuromuscular Fatigue

There were a few differences, however, between the triathletes and the marathon runners. In the Ironman study, faster race times and a previous history of cramping were associated with an increased risk of cramps. With the marathon runners, cramps tended to occur toward the end of the race, when fatigue was high. This indicates that something else is causing the increase in fatigue apart from dehydration and electrolyte imbalance.

With this information, we can start to understand the real cause cramping. If the calves are the muscle group most predisposed to cramps, why might this be? The lower leg has plenty of small intrinsic muscles that help support the foot. These muscles are often relatively weak, especially compared to the larger gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. This causes them to fatigue quicker than the large muscles, increasing the load on the gastrocnemius and soleus, which causes these two muscles to fatigue quickly.

Could fatigue-especially neuromuscular fatigue-be the cause of cramps (or at least one cause)? It seems likely. Returning to our Ironman runners, remember the faster runners were more likely to cramp than slower runners. It’s logical to suggest that faster runners push themselves to a greater extent and are more likely to operate in an area of fatigue. In the marathon study, the runners got cramps late in the race when fatigue levels would have been high.

The altered neuromuscular control/neuromuscular fatigue theory of cramping is now seen as the most likely cause of cramps rather than the dehydration and electrolyte imbalance/depletion hypothesis.

Additional risk factors for cramping include:

• Being taller and heavier which likely increases the load on the muscles, thus increasing fatigue.
• A history of tendon and ligament injuries, which can again predispose one to increased fatigue level.
• Having had a cramp previously increases your risk of suffering from cramps again. This suggests that certain athletes are predisposed to suffering from cramps.
• Some studies also suggest that exercise associated cramps can run in families; if your relatives suffer from cramps, then your risk is higher. This indicates a possible genetic component to developing cramps during exercise.
• So far variation in two genes, COL5A1 and AMPD1, has been linked to exercise associated cramps. Neither of these genes appears to alter dehydration or electrolyte balance. But they can modify running economy and fatigue, lending greater weight to the increased neuromuscular fatigue hypothesis.

Managing and Preventing Muscle Cramps

If neuromuscular fatigue causes cramping, then we need to try and avoid fatigue from occurring.

• Carbohydrates. Consuming carbohydrates during prolonged exercise bouts should help offset some of the fatigue. Examples of prolonged exercise include long running sessions and events as well as team sport matches.

• Targeted Strength Training. If there’s a particular muscle or muscle group which is predisposed to cramping, we can target this muscle with specific strength exercises. For example, if the calf muscles are predisposed to cramps, then we can make the larger muscles (gastrocnemius and soleus) more fatigue-resistant through straight- and bent-leg calf raises. We can work the intrinsic muscles through barefoot and sand-based running drills. We can try to improve fatigue resistance by increasing strength (i.e. lower reps, higher load) and endurance (i.e. higher reps, increased load).
• Compression Garments. It might be useful to wear compression garments. Again, if the calf is predisposed to cramping, wearing compression socks might help. The evidence here is mixed. Some papers indicate that compression garments might reduce fatigue, others say they have no effect. To date, however, no paper has suggested that compression garments increase fatigue.

While the evidence suggests that dehydration and loss of electrolytes likely don’t cause the cramps, there appears to be little harm in consuming sensible amounts of fluid and electrolytes during exercise. I don’t particularly believe this will prevent cramps, but dehydration might harm performance in other ways.

Emerging Science to Stop Cramps

Based on the research findings that fatigue causes cramps in either (or both) the nerve and the muscle, a team of scientists led by a Nobel Prize winner has created a product called HotShot. The research trials showed that consuming the supplement led to a decrease in exercise associated cramping by over 50%.

The supplement has a strong taste that stimulates neurons in the mouth and stomach, altering the transmission of nerve impulses from the spine to the muscle which potentially causes cramps. The supplement does not target dehydration or electrolyte replacement. If this supplementation is effective–there are no third-party studies examining this–it’s a further nail in the coffin for the dehydration causes cramp theory.

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 competitive sports, athletes rarely perform well when they’re sick, injured, or excessively tired. That’s why, to optimize performance, coaches must design programs that not only allow athletes to train at high training loads but also implement workload optimization strategies to reduce the negative effects of intensive training–illnesses and injuries. Finding and maintaining the delicate balance between training and competition loads, and recovery and rest (i.e., workload management) is both art and science.

It’s also a continuous process that usually requires four elements:

• Daily monitoring of at least a measure of the work done by the athlete (external load)–time, distance, etc.
• The athlete’s response to the work done (internal load)–rate of perceived exertion (RPE), enjoyment, etc.
• Tracking of subjective wellness measures–fatigue, quality of sleep, stress, and mood.
• Using these measures and related metrics to adjust the athlete’s training program, recovery, and rest.

While the data collection and workload management process is quite simple, interpreting the data and making coaching decisions based on this information can be tricky. This article presents the most common load management mistakes and provides solutions to fix them.

Athletes Are Not Adequately Prepared to Sustain the Imposed Load

Athletes often get injured in the last part of a game, see their performance drop during multi-day events, make technical or tactical errors at the end of a competitive event, or catch the flu at the end of an intensive training camp.

Most of the time, these issues are predictable. They occur because athletes are not adequately prepared for the physical and psychological demands imposed by the training or competitive task.^{3, 4} This lack of readiness produces excessive fatigue, which in turn, reduces motor control, impairs concentration, and makes the athlete more vulnerable to injuries and infections.^{2, 4, 5}

Solution

• Accurately assess the training or competition task and identify the key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs are both objective (how many sprints, how many throws, magnitude, and duration of power output, etc.) and subjective (what the athlete finds the hardest to do during the targeted event).
• Administer KPI-specific tests to compare the athlete’s current level of fitness and performance to the task requirements. Progressively increase the athlete’s performance capacity to the level required by both the overall competitive task and specific KPIs.
• Monitor the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio carefully for both internal and external load (1-2 key sport-specific metrics) and keep it in the 0.8-1.3 range.² A ratio higher than 1.3 indicates the athlete’s weekly load is more than what they’re prepared for and will significantly increase their risk of injury and illness.

Workload Is Increased Too Quickly

A fast increase in workload is a major risk factor for injury and often happens in two situations:

• Athletes return to the sport after an injury.
• Athletes return to full training after a long period of inactivity (off-season).

Injury spikes are consistently observed during periods of increased training volume following a break from organized training.²⁰ A recent Norwegian study demonstrated that all athletes who returned to sport less than five months after an ACL reconstruction suffered knee re-injury.¹

Another study from Gabbett² demonstrated that when workload increased by at least 15% from one week to the next, the risk of injury jumped by up to 50%. Increasing load too fast is a major risk factor.

Solution

• To reduce the risk of injury and re-injury, base your return to sport decisions on the latest sports medicine research and allow the injured athlete the recommended recovery time–even when external pressures are mounting for a faster return to competition. Once they return, increase workload very progressively (<10% per week) using the athlete’s feedback and perceived wellness scores to guide load progression.³

• One of the best preventive measures for athletes returning from the off-season is to have had them continuing to train and staying fit during the time off.

• Plan your off-season training program so the last week’s load will be about 15-20% lower than the first week of the pre-season. This load will fall in the moderate risk zone, making the return to pre-season training much less risky.
• Keep week-to-week load increases under 15% to contain risk to minimal levels.
• Some athletes are reluctant to train during the off-season, and scheduling a fitness testing session as the first pre-season session can act as a strong motivator.

Weekly Load Is Too High

When overall training or competition load exceeds the athlete’s capacity, burnout and overuse injuries are likely to occur. This often affects young athletes who compete in multiple teams and sports or who focus intensively on one sport.

For example, recent research⁶ indicates that when young athletes train and compete for more hours per week than their age, the risk of overuse injury can increase by up to 70%. For example, a 12-year-old should not train and compete for more than 12 hours per week.

A 12-year-old should not train and compete for more than 12 hours per week. Share on X

While the ability to sustain high loads and stay healthy is a prerequisite to reaching top performance, it takes time to build tolerance for high loads. It’s a multi-year process and trying to rush the process will likely lead to negative outcomes.

Solution

• Monitor training and competition weekly: volume in hours, rest days, and daily wellness.
• Ensure the weekly schedule includes at least one day of complete rest.
• Alternate hard, easy, rest, and moderate days. Intensive training combined with a high Monotony Index (>2) is an important risk factor for illness and overtraining.⁷

• Over the course of several months, increase weekly volume very gradually and only when wellness measures reflect a positive adaptation to load. Wellness measures include such things as fatigue that’s not excessive, good sleep quality, low stress, and stable mood.
• For young athletes, use their age to guide the weekly training and competition volume. This is a simple and effective approach to maximize performance while preserving the athlete’s health.
• Proactively reduce training load by 40-50% during exams, back to school, and other stressful periods you are aware of.
• Educate athletes, coaches, and parents about the risks associated with too much training and the need to keep the weekly load at age-appropriate levels. You can do this during meetings by explaining the impact of excessive load on injuries, fatigue, and underperformance using printed material, slide shows, and Internet sites.

Training Loads Are Not Adjusted Daily

If we don’t monitor the athlete’s response to load daily and make program adjustments, even the most carefully crafted training program has a strong chance to produce unexpected outcomes. The reason is simple: Each athlete’s optimal load fluctuates on a daily basis and is affected by multiple factors such as training level, fitness, health, nutrition, sleep, stress, and fatigue.

When load is not adjusted daily, large differences between planned and real training effects will likely occur. This often translates to athletes getting sick before or after a competition, getting injured, and being unable to achieve peak performance when planned.

Solution

As coaches, we often forget that non-sport activities and external stressors³ such as work, friends, school, financial, and family play a large role in determining an athlete’s pre-training fatigue, sleep quality, recovery, motivation, and ultimately performance.

• A simple, reliable, and scientifically validated solution to identify non-sport stressors^{8, 9, 10} is to ask athletes to complete a short daily wellness questionnaire and use the wellness scores to adjust daily load.³

• To maximize compliance, use a short questionnaire with 5-6 questions regarding symptoms of overreaching (mood changes, poor sleep quality, soreness, excessive fatigue, etc.).
• Once athletes have completed the questionnaire, analyze the answers to detect those who need recovery and rest as well as those who adapt well to the workload.

• When an athlete reports poor wellness measures, reduce the planned daily load. For example, replace a hard session with an easy one or reduce the number of intervals. When symptoms persist more than 2-3 days, reduce load by 40-50% for the next 7-10 days and talk with the athlete to identify potential lifestyle, training, or environmental stressors.
• When the athlete’s wellness scores are good and reflect a positive adaptation to workload, increase next week’s load slightly (4-5%).

Training Is Not Fun

Young athletes have identified lack of fun as the number one reason for quitting their sport.¹² As coaches, we often focus on the technical, tactical, and physiological aspects of training and physical preparation. We sometimes forget that enjoyment is a crucial factor of intrinsic motivation, which is a direct predictor of effort and persistence.¹³

Enjoyment is crucial for intrinsic motivation. Add some fun to your training sessions. Share on X

Peak performance requires athletes to be fit, motivated, and ready to compete both physically and mentally. Enjoyment plays a large part the performance equation. When athletes don’t like what they do, they won’t be motivated to train hard and won’t be able to train and compete to the best of their abilities.

Solution

• A simple way to maximize your athletes’ engagement, motivation, and performance is to ask them to self-report their level of enjoyment of training sessions. Tweak your programs and sessions to allow athletes to enjoy their experience.
• Work with the highest professional standards but don’t take yourself too seriously. Smile often, chat with athletes–but don’t fraternize, be open to last minute program changes.
• Add some fun to your sessions. Adding fun doesn’t have to be elaborate. It can simply take the form of warm-up games, a fun challenge, team relays, and athlete-directed cool-downs.
• Be very careful when using super hard workouts, circuits, and army-like workouts. They can be motivating once in a while, but they’re rarely fun for all, they’re mentally hard, and they significantly increase the risk of injury and illness, including rhabdomyolysis.¹⁹ These extreme workouts must be used very sparingly and carefully and only with fit athletes who are adequately prepared (see mistake number 1).
• The pressure to train hard and win from coaches and parents can remove all the fun from sport. As coaches, we should try to keep these aspects away from the training environment and keep our sessions focused on improving the athletes’ KPIs to achieve the performance goal and also have fun.

Not Actively Seeking Feedback from Athletes and Sport Coaches

The success of any monitoring program depends on the athletes’ and sport coaches’ collaboration and willingness to share feedback. Without the will to provide honest and regular feedback as well as your openness to adapt programs based on their suggestions, your monitoring program will not work.¹⁴

We have lots to learn from athletes and sport coaches. Top athletes often have much more training and direct competition experience than we do. We can have a Ph.D. in sports science, but experienced athletes and coaches have Ph.D.s in performance. They know what works best for them and what doesn’t. Their feedback and suggestions will make your program better and more effective. It should be actively sought.

Feedback from athletes and sport coaches will make your program better and more effective. Share on X

When athletes share personal feedback, and you don’t act upon it, or if you use the information against them with punishment, mockery, team selection, etc., they will stop sharing it. When sport coaches share feedback, recommendations, and suggestions and you don’t act upon the information, you may end up fired. And that will be the end of your monitoring program.

Solution

• Your monitoring program depends on honesty, trust, mutual respect, and open communication. Meaningful feedback from athletes and coaches is the only information from which you can derive useful insight. To receive meaningful feedback, you should trust them, and they should trust you. If they start cheating or stop cooperating, your monitoring efforts are doomed.
• Athletes must know why you’re collecting feedback and asking all these questions. A possible answer could be: to help them perform better and stay healthy as long as possible. Once trust is established, and they understand they can provide personal feedback and suggestions without fear of negative consequences, they’ll happily share it.
• When they report that they’re tired, didn’t like certain sessions, etc., make sure to tweak your program to include their remarks (after having discussed the planned tweaks with the sport coach). They’ll be grateful to you and even more committed to the team’s success.

Not Measuring the Right Things

In the age of sport technology, wireless sensors, and powerful marketing campaigns by device manufacturers, it’s easier to focus on the wrong metrics. This will lead to wrong load management decisions.

For example, measuring the volume of high speed running by a soccer player (external load) with an accurate GPS tracker will not provide any information on how the athlete tolerated the high speed running (internal load). Low-tech session-RPE is the best tool to monitor the athlete’s response to load.

Similarly, using heart rate to measure the internal load of volleyball players often leads to erroneous load estimations. The reason is simple: heart rate measures underestimate the internal load of short-duration high-intensity, anaerobic activities like volleyball.¹⁶ They can’t accurately measure the players’ internal load.

Solution

• Use technology tools for the activities for which they’re desinged: measuring distances, power, speed, and internal load but only for aerobic activities. Using them for things other than their purpose will likely generate useless data and lead to wrong decisions.

Conclusion

• To avoid the common load management errors, monitor daily wellness, quantify internal load using the session-RPE method, collect enjoyment ratings for all sessions, learn from athletes’ and coaches’ feedback, and adjust load daily.
• Administer performance tests that reflect the KPIs of your sport or competitive event.
• Don’t increase load more than 15% per week. If an athlete is not prepared for a load, don’t submit them to it.
• Keep it fun and keep it simple.

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

References

1. Simple decision rules can reduce re-injury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study, Br J Sports Med, 50(13): 804-808, 2016.
2. Gabbett TJ.: The training—injury prevention paradox: should players be training smarter and harder?, Br J Sports Med, 50(5): 273–280, 2016.
3. Soligard T, et al.: How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury, Br J Sports Med, 50(17): 1043-1052, 2016.
4. McLean SG, Samorezov JE: Fatigue-induced ACL injury risk stems from a degradation in central control. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 41(8): 1661-1672, 2009.
5. Stevens ST., et al.: In-game fatigue influences concussions in national hockey league players, Res Sports Med, 16(1): 68-74, 2008.
6. Jayanthi N, et al.: Sports specialized risks for reinjury in young athletes: a 2+ year clinical prospective evaluation, Br J Sports Med, 51(4): 334, 2017.
7. Foster C.: Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 30(7): 1164-1168, 1998.
8. Gallo, et al.: Pre-training perceived wellness impacts training output in Australian football players, J Sports Sci., 34(15): 1445-1451, 2015.
9. Mann JB, et al: Effect of Physical and Academic Stress on Illness and Injury in Division 1 College Football Players, J Strength Cond Res, 30(1): 20-25, 2016.
10. Saw AE, et al.: Monitoring the player training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review, Br J Sports Med, published online Sept. 30, 2015.
11. Di Fiori, et al.: Overuse Injuries and Burnout in Youth Sports: A Position Statement from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, Clin J Sport Med, 24(1): 3–20, 2014.
12. Kelley B, et al.: Hidden demographics of youth sports, ESPN, published online July 11, 2013.
13. Fraser-Thomas J., et al.: Examining Adolescent Sport Dropout and Prolonged Engagement from a Developmental Perspective, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(3): 318-333, 2008.
14. Saw A, et al.: Monitoring Athletes Through Self-Report: Factors Influencing Implementation, Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 14(1): 137-46, 2015.
15. Bosquet L, et al.: Is heart rate a convenient tool to monitor over-reaching? A systematic review of the literature, Br J Sports Med, 42: 709-714, 2008.
16. Little T, Williams AG: Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res, 21(2): 367-371, 2007.
17. Jayanthi N, et al.: Sports Specialization in Young Athletes: Evidence-Based Recommendations, Sports Health, 5(3): 251-257, 2012.
18. Mc Lean BD, et al.: Neuromuscular, Endocrine, and Perceptual Fatigue Responses During Different Length Between-Match Microcycles in Professional Rugby League Players, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5: 367-383, 2010.
19. Rawson ES, et al.: Perspectives on Exertional Rhabdomyolysis, Sports Med, 47(1): 33-49, 2017.
20. Sole CJ et al.: Injuries in Collegiate Women’s Volleyball: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis, Sports, 5(26), 2017.

The multi events in track & field—which consist of the decathlon, heptathlon, and pentathlon—provide coaches and athletes with a unique set of circumstances. The events require a multitude of physical and technical skill sets. The coach must balance the athlete’s training components to best enable the individual to develop across a broader physical and mental spectrum than that of single event athletes. Managing the physiological, psychological, technical, and tactical requirements is no easy task.

In this article, we aim to simplify some important aspects of multi event development. We will discuss how to plan long-term training, advice on meet selection, psychological preparation, and more. Our recommendations come from years of study and experience within track & field, sport performance, and strength & conditioning.

Recommendations for Event Groupings

The number of events required for a multi eventer necessitates careful consideration from the coach and support staff. The physical, mental, and logistical constraints of a session and training cycle require the coach to maximize the efficiency of each programmed workout. There are various ways to consider this issue, and for a more in-depth rationale, please refer to How to Program for Multiple Events.

Four recommended approaches to event groupings are:

Event Sequencing Based on Competition Scenarios

You can utilize meet modeling with great success when preparing athletes for competition. It can help ingrain the rhythmic change that a heptathlete experiences when moving from the hurdles to the high jump. Psychological shifts are also required throughout competition, for example when a decathlete races the 400m dash after the high jump competition. This becomes an easier shift if the athlete has performed equivalent sessions where speed endurance workouts followed high jump sessions. This philosophy extends beyond a single session, as multi-event athletes must also be able to compete at a high level on consecutive days. Thus, programming back-to-back high intensity days can prepare the athlete to handle such requirements.

Time Program-Based Grouping

If you’re a track coach, you can essentially reduce time programs to ground contact times (GCTs). The longer definition is that a time program is a movement-specific innervation pattern determined by both the neuromuscular impulse sequence of muscle activation and the behavior of electrical activity—the quantitative expression of a fundamental movement program, such as the GCT of a depth jump. By pairing similar time programs within the same training session, the athlete’s central nervous system (CNS) will receive robust yet concise messages to enable a transfer among structurally similar movements. Generally, a shorter GCT will result in a more-effective time program and one of the fundamental prerequisites to running fast or jumping far is applying great force within a minimal time frame.

For categorizing GCTs, ~200ms serves as a useful inflection point. Anything faster, such as a hurdle hop or sprint, is an elastic, high-speed movement that serves to train the athlete more on the velocity side of the force-velocity curve. Any power-based movements slower than 200ms, such as a box jump or Olympic lift, are better suited for training the force side of the force-velocity curve. Thus, it follows to pair track work by these time programs. For example, high jump take-offs and foot strikes during an athlete’s acceleration phase have similar time programs, so HJ-Accel sessions are effective. Likewise, max velocity work (such as overspeed running) matches up well with an exercise like depth jumps.

Pair by Rhythm and Technique

Construct practices to focus on certain rhythmic and technical similarities between events. Performing events in this manner can help reinforce commonalities among them. In terms of technical similarities, one approach is to link events by the nature of their firing patterns (horizontal vs. vertical). For rhythm matchings, working on high jump and javelin in the same session can enhance efficiency since those events share similar body postures and approach cadences. Grouping using this rationale is particularly effective when technical variances are high or the athlete is developing new technical patterns.

Grouping by Metabolic Demands

Organizing sessions by metabolic demand enables the coach to adhere to a sensibly balanced program. Under such a setup, an athlete can stress contrasting energy systems over the course of several days. The three areas that multi-event athletes must touch upon are the alactic, glycolytic, and aerobic energy systems.

The alactic anaerobic (i.e., phosphate) system is the first energy system we use. It is the muscles’ dominant energy source for roughly the first 10 seconds of high-intensity exertion. Next, the glycolytic (i.e., lactic) energy system takes over. This contributes most of the energy for as long as 90 seconds of activity. After a sustained bout of high-intensity exercise beyond 1.5-2 minutes, the aerobic system contributes the most energy. For example, a decathlete could stress the alactic energy system on Monday (e.g., 3x3x20m heavy sleds (3’/8’) followed by deep squats). While this athlete will be fatigued the following day(s), he or she is still able to stress the contrasting aerobic energy system (e.g., 8x200m at 65% (2’)) with minimal interference.

One caveat to this we have seen and used is the performance of a high-intensity neural session, such as the heavy sled sprints, immediately followed by a seemingly contradictory session, such as a quick bodyweight circuit. The theory behind this is that the latter will help expedite the athlete’s recovery process from the former by increasing blood flow and the athlete’s hormonal profile.

Recommendations for Competition and Event Selection

The nature of multi-event competitions necessitates that athletes rarely compete in the multi events, compared to their open event peers. A multi-event competition is far superior in terms of physical and mental demands than most other events, which limits the frequency to championship meets and regular season meets used for qualifying purposes. Thus, you can view all preceding meets as highly specific, glorified practices to use as meet preparation for the multi events. Approaching competitions from this perspective allows the coach and athlete to prepare for and gauge performances in the appropriate context.

Here are five recommendations to keep in mind when preparing an athlete’s competition schedule:

Within the meet, the athlete should hurdle, select one jump and one throw, and/or sprint. While the exact combination of events is constrained by the meet schedule, entry limits, and entry standards, this allows the athlete to perform high-quality repetitions in a variety of disciplines. Ideally, the athlete will rotate between the jumps (long jump, high jump, pole vault) and the throws (shot put, javelin, discus) from meet to meet. Balancing these event types will prepare the athlete to utilize different energy systems, techniques, and rhythms in the same competition.

The overall load of the meet will depend on the time of year and current training cycle, but it shouldn’t overload the athlete. The coach needs to note height progressions, whether the meet has finals for sprints/hurdles, and if there are three, four, or possibly six attempts in each throw and jump, and adjust accordingly with contingency plans.

(Almost) always hurdle. If possible, the athlete should hurdle at most meets. The hurdles is a unique event in that success is so heavily dependent on rhythm (not that rhythm doesn’t play a huge factor in other events!), and it is hard to replicate all of the sensory variables and physiological characteristics that accompany competition outside of this specific setting. Additionally, use hurdles as an event to touch on qualities that are useful in the other events. The race requires an acceleration phase; is plyometric in nature; incorporates coordination, steering, and timing in its movements; and can even broach some speed endurance work in the outdoor races.

(Almost) always pole vault. Similarly, it is advisable to compete in the pole vault when possible. Not only is pole vault a highly technical event, but it is often hard to achieve the necessary practice time. This is especially true in areas with less-than-ideal weather, no access to an indoor facility, or limited access to a pole vault coach. The heightened stress of practicing the event in meets should pay off during the later multi-event competitions, where every bar (10-centimeter increments) is worth just under 30 points.

So, while decathletes should be rotating between the jump events, the athlete and coach should capitalize on meets where pole vault heights are appropriate for the athlete. Heptathletes can apply this strategy to high jump. The high jump is another event with unique technical demands where a clearance at bar X has compounding importance—not only does it guarantee you roughly 35 additional points for each 3-centimeter improvement, but it enables further attempts at higher heights.

Be cognizant of the point values attached to each event. While a balance of event work is necessary for any successful multi-event athlete, the coach must realize where his or her athlete can make the largest point gains. The running events (sprints, hurdles, 800/1500) and jumping events present the greatest opportunity for overall point increases. Thus, since we have established that you can view these meets as glorified practices for the multi-event athlete, it only makes sense to place an emphasis on the more important events from a points perspective.

For example, if there’s a meet conflict between the long jump and javelin, the athlete should almost always prioritize the long jump. This is, of course, subject to change if the goal of the meet is to work on javelin, but this philosophy generally holds true. The tables in Image 1 illustrate the various difficulties of improving by 150 points in each event. While this is a slightly reductive approach to comparing events because it does not account for the potential of technical improvement and physiological limitations, it is helpful for assigning baseline importance to each event.

Decathletes should race a 400 before competing in a decathlon. It is important for a decathlete to race a 400, either open or in a relay, before his or her first decathlon. This also applies, although to a lesser extent, to heptathletes and the 200. There is usually a large improvement from the first 400m of the season to the second, so it would be reckless to concede that point differential. Moreover, the athlete will most likely recover better for Day 2 of the multi event than he or she would have without this first race. This is irrespective of the amount of special endurance or speed endurance work included in the training load.

Recommendations for Psychological Preparation

The multi events present a unique and particularly difficult challenge for competitors. The psychological demands are complex and are evident not only during competition but also the day-to-day requirements of training and recovery.

The physical and psychological energy of a multi-event athlete must be monitored frequently. Share on X

Multi-event training requires longer duration and more frequent training sessions across a broad range of physical and technical skill sets. These can differ in mental preparation due to the variance in technical complexity, arousal and focus requirements, and overall enjoyment relative to the athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. Both physical and psychological energy must be distributed carefully across these tasks and monitored frequently.

The competition setting requires even greater psychological strength. With five, seven, or 10 events, and multiple attempts during many of them, the possibility of adversity and disappointment is very high. The management of expectations and goals is an ongoing process strongly linked to psychological preparation.

Here are four recommendations for the psychological preparation of multi-event athletes:

Psychological adaptability—the ability to re-evaluate, re-focus, and re-energize almost instantaneously—is an essential attribute of a multi-event athlete. Planning open event competitions with this in mind can pay dividends later. While we already touched on the physical benefits these competitions can provide, you can also use them to your advantage from a psychological perspective. For example, competitions where the athlete is competing in two to three events with slightly overlapping or conflicting schedules help develop efficiency, focus, timing, and organization. Balancing these suboptimal competitions with more ideal scenarios (focusing on the athlete’s event strengths under ideal conditions) will simultaneously enhance confidence and adaptability.

Intentionally frustrating sessions can be useful. Although you should design the majority of training setups for optimal physical and technical development, it is advisable to include confusion- or frustration-style sessions into the program. Ideally, issue these sessions closer to the competition period, after the athlete has achieved a high standard of specific fitness and technical proficiency. Examples include sessions where technical event sequencing is suboptimal or using drill variations that are new or unpracticed.

Creating certain technical or outcome problems with minimal coaching feedback is also important. It could be a third and final long jump attempt with fouls on the first two attempts, or random hurdle heights and spacing. Other examples include making approach adjustments on the fly from random starting positions in the jumping events. These sessions require great focus and adaptability because the athlete cannot simply rely on physical abilities to achieve a desired result.

Athletes should be ready to implement proven, personal coping strategies. As the above examples suggest, acclimating to certain stressors inevitably helps you deal with them. However, along with having experience to fall back on, it is important to have personal tools and strategies to call upon when needed. It is beneficial to group relaxation and visualization strategies together, as they are also often part of an established routine.

Each athlete must develop “their safe space” during practice and competition settings. This is a time away from their coach and competitors during practice and competitions where they breathe, focus, visualize, and relax. Typically, this occurs after an attempt or race, and after the coach-athlete feedback is complete.

We can help establish a routine for each athlete, but it’s more important that athletes establish one for themselves. The most important aspect of this is buy-in and trust. Creating a culture of self-reflection and spiritual connection to the process early in the coach-athlete relationship helps manifest this.

Play to the athlete’s mental strengths, not just his or her physical strengths. Multi-event athletes will almost always have at least one standout event. This event is where the athlete’s confidence is highest and is often the one he or she enjoys the most. Success in this event promotes high self-worth and can enhance important psychological attributes needed for weaker events.

It is common to forget about these events during preparation competitions for the main multi-event competition of the year. Although competitions focused on highly technical or weaker event selections are important, plan certain meet and event schedules to enable confidence to peak alongside physical and technical shape. Adjusting the ratio of weaker and stronger event selections within individual competitions can be an excellent way of psychologically preparing the athlete for their peak.

Recommendations for Multi-Meet Management

After successful preparation in practice and the open meets leading up to the multi-event competition, it is paramount that the coach and athlete successfully manage this competition to capitalize on all of the hard work.

Here are five of our recommendations for managing a multi-event competition:

Set up pre-meet stimulation one or two days before competition. The two days preceding the start of competition should consist of a recovery day, as well as a stimulation (stim) day to freshen up the CNS. Either sequence (Recovery-Stim or Stim-Recovery) can work if you plan the overall setup appropriately. For example, the athlete could do a long, slow warmup followed by easy build-ups on grass two days out, and then a more dynamic warmup followed by light hurdle hops and block starts the day before competition. Reversing this schedule can also work, so it is important that the coach understand what works best for each of his or her athletes.

The mental aspect within competition is everything. Beyond the points already covered about psychological preparation, there are additional factors to consider that are unique to the competition setting of the actual multi event. The few multi events each year are usually extremely high pressure competitions, as they are either championship meets or knowingly used to qualify for such meets. After each event, allow the athlete a couple of minutes to feel happy, mad, sad, frustrated, or any other emotion about the result. It is unrealistic to expect the athlete to flip a switch, so allowing the athlete to vent will be beneficial. However, once this time is up, the athlete should completely focus on the upcoming event and let the coach worry about point totals. The athlete should be confident in his or her preparation going into the competition, so his or her only job is to compete in each event.

Staying relaxed between days is crucial. Between events, and especially between days, the athlete should stay loose and have fun. Engaging in other easy activities between days, such as watching a movie, will help keep the athlete’s mind from wandering to a stressful place. Ideally, the athlete will compete with at least one teammate, as a positive dynamic there can go a long way towards enhancing the overall experience. It is important for the athlete to try not to stress about point totals, particularly between competition days—having the multi-event calculators online certainly complicates this. Nonetheless, it is important for the coach and athlete to have a quick debrief after Day 1 and review what the mission is for Day 2.

The athlete and coach should have a physical protocol to follow for the meet. This includes an established pattern for morning stim, event warmups, and recovery in between days. It is advisable to perform some form of light stimulation on the morning of the meet to help the athlete wake up his or her CNS. This can include dumbbell snatches, med ball throws, or even light jumps in a hotel stairwell, and should occur at least two to three hours before competition.

This routine is perhaps even more important on Day 2, when the athlete is tired and sluggish but needs to be ready again after the first event. For each event, the athlete and coach should have a rough idea of the ideal number of starts/run-throughs/pop-ups/throws to perform, and obviously make adjustments depending upon how the athlete looks and feels. The goal of the event warmup is to maximize the outcome of each event, not to worry about overexerting the athlete—the athlete will be well-prepared through training to handle the load of a multi-event competition!

Meet nutrition should be regimented and worry-free. The athletes should eat their normal breakfast (which is, ideally, healthy). Following the second event of Day 1, athletes should make a point of eating “real food,” such as a turkey sandwich. This comes after high jump for the women and long jump for the men. For each of them, it will be before warming up for shot put, giving them plenty of time to digest before the fourth event of the day.

For Day 2, decathletes should plan on eating a sandwich after hurdles, discus, and/or pole vault (this is very much athlete-dependent) Heptathletes should eat after long jump on Day 1 and before javelin, so that they are energized going into the 800. Throughout the meet, athletes should have easily digestible snacks on hand (fruit, crackers, bars) and pump fluids throughout the day. You may have to remind the athletes to eat, as the stress of competition and adrenaline take over.

Recommendations for Training Organization

Training organization needs to be simultaneously approached from the perspective of multiple pieces. The coach must be cognizant of not just the event groupings within a training session, but also how the training cycles compound on each other throughout the year with the end goal in mind, as well as how the various facets of training (strength training, mental preparation, technique work, etc.) interact. You can approach programming from the perspective of broad to narrow, as understanding the larger principles at work provides the essential basis for successful daily sessions.

Here are three recommendations for addressing the organization of training for multi-event athletes:

Stress technical development all season long, albeit to varying degrees. Technical development should follow a general to specific progression, stressing fundamentals and skill acquisition. The coach and athlete should select the most important exercises and best training methods for the athlete’s talent level and position on the continuum of technical proficiency. For the multi-event athlete, losing contact with any event for a prolonged period will sink his or her overall score. Thus, even during the General Preparation Period (GPP) or earlier, we recommend incorporating elemental exercises that will later transfer for the athlete.

For example, performing rotational medicine ball throws can serve as a core training and general strength exercise, while also keeping the athlete in tune with the rhythms and patterns of the throwing events. This requires more nuanced scrutiny from the multi-event coach, particularly those who coach at the collegiate level and must focus on both the indoor and outdoor seasons. Following the throwing event example, the shot put is a component of both the indoor and outdoor multi events, whereas javelin and discus are only scored outdoors. Therefore, the coach could justify progressing the shot put at a faster rate than the other throws, since his or her athlete will already be throwing shot put for points at a conference championship meet in February or March, while discus and javelin won’t factor into point total until April or May.

Preparatory training phases should also follow this progression of increasing intensity. While the goal of most sessions is the highest-quality speed and power expression, the athlete must carefully progress in order to handle consistently high training loads. From an annual perspective, this starts with the athlete undergoing, in some fashion, a GPP to begin to acclimate the body for the increased demands of more event-specific work later in the year. Taking a further step back, the coach must also assess the athlete’s overall training age. Elite athletes who have a higher cumulative training base will require less work in the traditional GPP mold to progress. It is important to think in terms of emphasis shifts rather than rigidly focused training blocks. Done correctly, emphasis shifts provide seamless transitions throughout the year.

Strength training must be programmed in conjunction with the overall training plan to serve as a complementary component. As the season progresses, the goal of weight room work shifts from maximum strength work throughout deep ranges of motion to more event-specific joint angles and speed and power expression. The back squat, for instance, can progress from deep squats utilizing the full range of motion for maximum muscle fiber recruitment and basic strength development to explosive quarter squats that more accurately mimic the firing patterns utilized during jumping events. However, you should maintain max strength work throughout the competitive season—you can preserve, or even enhance, it with just a single session every 10-14 days.

Adjust strength training depending upon the athlete’s training experience, like annual training cycles are. Less-developed athletes will respond well to basic strength work touching along all points of the force-velocity curve. However, more-developed athletes may require the additional stimulus of potentiation complexes in the weight room to spur improvement. This can be performing back squats to potentiate vertical jumps or alternating weighted bounding with unweighted bounding.

Two Successful Sample SPP/Peaking Cycles

Here, we provide sample training programs that we successfully implemented at our respective schools, Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley. At Johns Hopkins, senior Andrew Bartnett finished as the Division III National Runner-Up in his first season competing in the heptathlon, with a NCAA D3 #6 All-Time score (5,238 points). At Cal, sophomore Tyler Brendel finished the outdoor season with a decathlon score of 7,413 points, an improvement of over 400 points from his freshman year and good for No. 8 All-Time in school history.

We feel these samples provide a helpful illustration for implementing the philosophies discussed above, while also accounting for the practical constraints of working with our student-athletes.

Although Bartnett was a senior, he spent the first 2.5 years of his collegiate career purely as a pole vaulter, so many of the technical drills were more remedial than you might expect for a senior multi-eventer. Additionally, Bartnett was a mechanical engineering major with a very intense “Senior Design” practical course for an external company run through JHU, which required careful monitoring of his sleep and recovery habits. Consequently, it was common for me and him to alter the intensity and density of his workout plans to accommodate his greater development as a person and student—the purpose of intercollegiate athletics.

The first Specific Preparation Period (SPP1) at Johns Hopkins during the Fall 2016 training period used the following microcycle. This was the second week of a three-week cycle that utilized an 80-90-50% training load pattern, so this was a very demanding week that built on the previous week and then led into an unload week for the athletes. As a whole, this SPP was a progression from the four-week General Preparation Period where we laid the groundwork for the more intense sessions you see here. The main goals of this cycle were to continue our technical progressions within each event, touch on max strength (MxS) and rate of force development (RFD) in the weight room, and begin to advance high-effort max velocity and short speed endurance capabilities.

The mesocycle shown in Image 3 was the final two weeks leading toward the 2017 indoor Mountain Pacific Sports Federation Championships (“MPSFs”). Brendel’s performance during the competition was superb, as he totaled seven personal bests across the two-day competition. It was particularly pleasing for me—and a reason for choosing to highlight these two weeks—to see his significant improvements during the two days compared with the previous month of competitions. Our training load remained relatively high until the final two-week taper began, and even then, you can see that the taper isn’t particularly aggressive. We maintained a reasonably normal workload until three to four days prior to the competition for a couple of reasons.

First, we have a very short indoor season at Cal, with only two meets before our indoor championships. As a result, we operated on a reduced training load for four weeks leading up to the MPSFs. A further reduction in load could have adversely affected performance during the championships.

The second reason is that it is important to always consider individual tapering strategies, and one of the most influential aspects of this taper was the athlete himself. Brendel had a considerably high work capacity and a meticulous approach toward training. He rarely missed a session of any kind and over the preceding five-month period had developed an outstanding level of general and specific fitness. It was important for him to maintain a consistent and frequent training regime to avoid physical and psychological detraining.

We will now discuss details of the two-week plan. Our typical setup during non-competition weeks is a High/ Med/ High/ Low/ High/ Med/ Low loading pattern across seven days. This final mesocycle included setup alterations that allowed training intensity to gradually increase for the first two days. This gave Brendel recovery from the previous two-week cycle and allowed for his sharpest work. Throughout the remainder of the taper, readiness and performance levels increased gradually. This was clearly evident during each subsequent session of the taper.

Specificity was, of course, very high at this stage and almost all the work performed was at 90% or greater of meet performance capabilities. The weight training session with seven days remaining was an important one: Seven to 10 days before a major competition, I implement the final RFD and MxS session. The remaining weight training sessions are used to sharpen up and focus on velocity (this can change with certain athletes).

The final week involved more event-specific touchups, with a considerable drop in load beginning four days from the start of the competition. All aspects of Brendel’s velocity were very high during this week and he was the sharpest I had seen him. With four days remaining until the Championship, it was all about confidence and intensity. Then, he was ready.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article and will consider some of the suggestions we propose. If you found this article informative, please share so that others may benefit as well.

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

Authors

Nick Newman, MS:
Nick is an Assistant Track & Field coach at the University of California, Berkeley, where he oversees the jumps and multi events. During his first year with the Golden Bears, his athletes achieved 32 personal records, and earned two podium finishes during the outdoor PAC12 Championships. Before joining UC Berkeley, Nick dedicated 10 years to the study and application of the development of athletes ranging from pre-adolescent youth to the professional ranks. He earned his bachelor’s degree in Exercise Science from Manhattan College and later earned a master’s in Human Performance and Sport Psychology from California State University, Fullerton. In 2012, Nick published his highly acclaimed book, The Horizontal Jumps: Planning for Long Term Development. Nick is a certified strength and conditioning coach, a certified track and field technical coach with the USTFCCCA, and a sports performance coach with USA Weightlifting.

 

Probiotic supplementation is a functional and practical nutritional strategy that powers an athlete’s health for optimal performance and protects an athlete’s future. The latest research suggests most health problems start in the gut. Therefore, gut microbiota is targeted as a potential therapeutic source for the treatment of certain diseases.

Diet has the greatest impact on gut microbiota composition. Yet, many athletes’ guts are currently a breeding ground for bad bacteria. Meal plans that enhance gut health look great on paper, but let’s be real—athletes are not following that meal plan daily and probiotic-rich foods may be neither effective nor practical to consume every day.

In this article, I’ll discuss why Olympians, recreational athletes, and those simply participating in physical activity need probiotics as an insurance policy for exercise, health, and longevity.

Poor Gut Health Is the Source of Many Athletes’ Health Problems

Imagine the pre-race anxiety (e.g., “butterflies in your stomach”) that hurts your push-off from the starting line or your mood that impacts your relationships with others during your hardest training week. Cue to your gut dictating your emotions. Your gut constantly communicates (via nerves and chemical signals) with your brain. Your brain listens to your gut microbiota.

Imagine training through a pounding headache, stuffy nose, sore throat, and fatigue that shows no sign of letting go during the two weeks leading to the peak of in-season. Imagine you haven’t been consistently showing up to your favorite group fitness class because of a recurring cold. Cue to the high training load, poor nutrition, and lack of sleep that increased your risk for infection and led to your limited ability or inability to train, and an ultimate decline in your performance.

 

Remember the worries about athletes’ exposure to filthy water supply and pollution during the Rio Summer Olympics? Does “super bacteria” ring a bell? Imagine all of the athletes’ hours of sacrifice and sweat during the last four years of training at the Olympic Training Center, only to get to the Games and have to compete for gold with gastrointestinal (GI) distress because of a weakened immunity that led to infection.

Everyone who exercises—from Olympians to recreational athletes to those simply doing physical activity for well-being and enjoyment—can relate to the frustration of these common situations, which originate from the state of a person’s gut health.

The gut is at the intersection of our risk for disease. Share on X

Furthermore, causes of mortality (e.g., obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer) and chronic conditions (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis) are all linked to gut microbiota dysbiosis (the imbalance of good and bad bacteria). The gut is closely linked to the proper functioning of our metabolism, immunity, and brain. Therefore, the gut is at the intersection of our risk for disease.

What Is a Healthy Human Microbiome?

The human body has communities of microbiota living on the surface and inside. These communities of microbiota are instrumental to our physiology, immunity, digestion and absorption, detoxification processes, brain health, and risk for disease. For example, some gut microbiota can create proteins that we need for our health (e.g., enzymes to break down certain foods, vitamin synthesis, etc.)

We have two genomes: we inherit one from our parents and the other is a microbiome that we acquire (i.e., the genome of each of our resident microbiota). The difference between the two genomes is:

• Inherited genome: stable throughout our life
• Microbiome: changes constantly and impacted by many factors, such as diet, age, travel, therapies, hormonal cycles, and illness.

The development of our gut microbiota composition starts at birth (e.g., delivery method) and continues to evolve throughout our life. The fluctuation in our microbiome (good and bad) happens easily and results from environmental factors and stressors that we face daily, especially people who exercise.

Gut research is in its infancy, but we know that the:

• Gut microbiota composition and microbiome impact our health because of their role in our physiology and development of organs;
• Gut is a complex ecological system impacted by host and environmental factors; and
• Regulation of gut microbiota to reach a healthy status is a challenge.

A healthy human microbiome needs gut microbiota that are diverse, balanced, and stable.¹ The problems arise when our gut experiences microbial dysbiosis (i.e., a disruption in the balance of microbiota). This results from fewer bacterial species that enhance health; less diversity of bacterial species; and higher disease-causing bacteria.²

These factors that cause dysbiosis are influenced by:

• General lifestyle (e.g., diet)
• Genetics
• Birth
• Health/disease
• Medication

Daily stressors (e.g., dietary factors, training load, pollution, travel, poor sleep, etc.) experienced by everyone, especially athletes, increase the risk for dysbiosis.

 

Of all the factors impacting the gut microbiome, diet may have the largest effect, and it is one of the only stressors within our control. Dietary changes can quickly change our gut microbiota composition; in fact, they cause up to 57% of gut microbiota changes.³ Therefore, a good strategy is to follow a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.

But that’s not always practical. How many people (especially athletes) know what dietary factors can help gut health, let alone follow through with it daily? (I discuss this more below.)

Also, athletes and fitness enthusiasts are not models for a healthy lifestyle—so these populations can really benefit from supplementing with probiotics—“live microorganisms which, when provided in adequate amounts have a health benefit on the host” because of their impact on the gut and their help in preventing or improving many different health conditions.

Additional factors to reverse or prevent dysbiosis include sound nutrition, specific probiotics, and prebiotics.

Dietary Factors That Affect Gut Health

It’s out of the scope of this article to describe every dietary factor that impacts our gut, so this is just a summary.

What you habitually consume will impact your gut the most. Share on X

The impact of diet breaks down into:

• Dietary patterns (e.g., Western Diet, vegetarian diet);
• Food components (e.g., fiber, carbohydrate, fat, protein, phytochemicals);
• Specific foods (e.g., whole grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes); and
• Food-associated microbes.

Of all the factors that can impact the gut microbiome, a long-term diet might contribute the greatest effect. This means what you habitually consume will impact your gut the most.

Western Diet

Geography, which corresponds with a particular diet in that location, can determine gut microbiota composition. The definition of a Western Diet (WD) is one that contains a high amount of fat (35-60% of total kilocalories) and added sugars, and is low in fiber. Some articles suggest that the WD fosters a pro-inflammatory gut environment.^4,5 All of this is consequential to the gut microbiota because it weakens the gut barrier, which leads to toxins entering the bloodstream and inflammation to ensue. This is the reason the WD is linked to cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which are both associated with high inflammation in the body.

 

The WD displaces the wholesome foods we should be consuming, which hurts the diversity of our gut microbiota.

A recent study found that diet is a critical factor in causing microbial dysbiosis. In it, a WD had a greater impact on gut microbiota diversity than BMI in 81 Alabama residents age 33 (+/- 13.3) years with a BMI of 28.3 (+/- 7.01).

Essentially, the WD is a major factor in dysbiosis—more than being overweight or obese.

Because gut health is tied to brain health, the WD is also known to hurt cognition. How a WD impacts the brain is not really clear, but it may be due to the gut-brain-axis. A WD can shift microbiota composition, which may result in cognitive problems.

Routes that connect the WD with gut microbiota dysbiosis and cognitive decline, include:

• Gut barrier strength
• Blood brain barrier strength
• Neuroinflammation
• Weakened insulin signaling

All of these factors work together to influence brain function. The WD hurts gut barrier strength, which then allows bad substances to get into our body and potentially cause metabolic complications and cognitive dysfunction. This is a possible reason to link the WD with neurocognitive dysfunction.

Cue to the aging athlete’s future brain health.

Food Components and Specific Foods

The diversity and types of food dictate which microbes will colonize, grow, live, and get eliminated.⁶

Food components, such as dietary fiber (i.e., carbohydrate that is neither digested nor absorbed by humans), can provide food for gut microbiota. But different bacteria specialize in the fermentation of different fibers. Therefore, complex diets can either be growth-promoting or growth-inhibiting.

The by-products of bacterial metabolism, such as vitamins and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), are critical for our health because they have health-promoting effects. A WD hurts the production of SCFAs,⁷ so systematic inflammation in the gut increases and neuroprotection of the brain decreases.

 

Low dietary fiber intake corresponds with lower microbiota diversity, more anti-pathogenic bacteria, and lower SCFA production.⁸ Low fiber and resistant starch intake may result in a loss of gut microbiota diversity and function.⁹ Diets high in simple and refined carbohydrates do not promote healthy gut microbiota nor do they allow gut microbes to generate the SCFAs.¹⁰

Whole grains typically contain lots of dietary fiber, but the average dietary fiber intake in the U.S. is 15 g/day (60% of what women need and 40% of what men need). Red berries, including red wine, that contain anthocyanins have increased Bifidobacterium in many studies.^{11,12</sup Pistachios have produced a greater impact on microbiota composition compared to almonds.}

But are athletes routinely consuming these foods, especially in the context of the prevalent Western Diet?

Evidence-Based Research on Probiotic Supplementation Helping Alleviate Daily Stressors

Probiotic supplementation has shown to be effective and necessary for enhancing health in trained individuals, especially related to lowering the risk for respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) complications during high-stress periods in training and competition.

Typically, studies determine the effects of probiotics by examining clinical measures of immune function and illness. The most commonly studied species in athletes and active people include:

• Lactobacillus casei
• L. fermentum
• L. acidophilus
• L. rhamnosus¹³

Here’s a summary of a few studies investigating the influence of probiotic supplementation on the typical stressor burdens on athletes and non-athletes.

GI Complication Severity

Lowering gut permeability helps with strengthening our immunity. Multi-strain probiotics consumed daily have shown to improve gut barrier strength in endurance athletes. Clinical trials using a multi-strain probiotic (L. acidophilus, B. lactis, and B. bifidum) helped significantly improve irritable bowel syndrome complications and stopped the increase in the antibiotic resistant strain, enterococci.

 

For those who think probiotics are only for athletes, a study using recreational athletes training for their first long-distance triathlon found that taking a multi-strain probiotic combined with prebiotics and antioxidants at 30 billion colony forming units (CFU, the unit of measurement for probiotics) per day for 12 weeks before their triathlon may have provided support in reducing GI symptoms because of the increase in gut barrier strength. The inclusion of antioxidants may have been an additive benefit because they lowered endotoxin (toxins from bad bacteria) levels.

Ultimately, this strategy showed promise in those athletes beginning endurance training, especially those who are prone to GI complications.

To learn more about how probiotic supplementation helps alleviate GI complications and are beneficial for the treatment and prevention for GI diseases, read this meta-analysis.

Upper Respiratory Tract Infections Associated with Training

Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are around 35-65% of the illnesses seen in sports medicine. However, athletes do not have more URTIs than non-athletes—both have the same incidence.¹⁴

Athletes with this persistent illness obviously experience a negative impact on health and performance (as evidenced in swimmers), especially during times of strenuous training. Distance runners experience URTIs more frequently following competition.¹⁵ This is when probiotic supplementation becomes a powerful nutritional strategy to lower an athlete’s susceptibility to illness.

The most consistent biomarker to identify and monitor athletes at risk for URTI is measuring salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA), which offers protection against infections at mucosal surfaces and maintenance of the gut barrier.

 

Using salivary IgA as a biomarker is not practical because of the lab testing required. Until then, we don’t necessarily have a systematic way of monitoring an athlete’s immune status. Yet, studies in elite athletes from different sports have found that an increased risk for URTIs corresponds with low levels of salivary IgA,^16,17 low pre-season salivary IgA levels,¹⁸ and declining levels over a training period.¹⁹

As for non-athletes, salivary IgA decreases during and after high-intensity exercise.²⁰

To lower the risk for and impact of URTIs, nutritional interventions need to focus on improving immunity and/or lowering inflammation.

Athletes have undergone supplementation with different strains of Lactobacillus. A study showed that eight weeks of supplementation with L. casei reduced the number of URTIs, including symptom severity and duration. Another study showed L. fermentum supplementation for one month also decreased the number of days of URTI and severity of symptoms in distance runners.

Maintaining immune health to prevent URTIs would require changing training regimes, better managing daily stressors, and regularly consuming a probiotic-rich diet. However, this is not necessarily practical. Hence, probiotic supplementation is warranted. Read more on how probiotics can strengthen our immunity.

Inflammation

Athletes experience chronically low levels of inflammation. But over time, this inflammation can grow and lead to poor health, less physical activity, and a propensity to diseases related to chronic inflammation, such as cardiovascular disease and mental disorders.

Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a biomarker for systemic inflammation—with high levels found in many chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, type II diabetes, high blood pressure, high fasting blood glucose, and low HDL.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that probiotic supplementation may lower CRP levels. The mechanisms may be due to probiotic effect on inflammation by preventing or repairing “leaky” gut linings and stopping pro-inflammatory responses.²¹ Probiotics also increase SCFAs that provide anti-inflammatory functions.

Of course, more clinical trials are needed, especially to determine the exact dose and strains of probiotic supplements needed for each disease. But for now, the potential protective effect that gut microbiota has in managing our inflammation balance is critical to the prevention of disease.

International Travel

There is an increased risk of GI problems during international travel. Typically, good hygiene helps to prevent bacterial contamination and spread, but much of the time that is not enough. Therefore, probiotic supplementation for athletes traveling abroad is a critical part of a sports immunonutrition prevention plan.

 

Recommendations Regarding Probiotic Supplementation

When the gut becomes weak, bad substances can enter the blood, ignite inflammation, lower immunity, hurt performance and overall health, and reduce longevity.

 

It has been suggested that studies investigating probiotic supplementation in athletes “provide modest evidence that probiotics can provide some clinical benefits in athletes and other highly active individuals.” Also, probiotic supplementation in combination with other dietary strategies could help athletes with a history of gut complications. The benefits in managing URTIs may be useful for those who continually experience symptoms of the common cold or flu.

A 2016 review, “Immunological aspects of sports nutrition,” suggests that daily consumption of probiotics is currently one of the dietary strategies offering the best chance of success at maintaining a strong immunity.

The latest systematic review regarding effectiveness of probiotics in healthy children and adults concluded that, in those supplementing with a probiotic, there were significantly fewer days of illness, shorter durations of illness, and fewer number of days absent from work.

A review on endurance exercise and gut microbiota states that probiotics is the main dietary strategy to modulate gut microbiota. Furthermore, providing different Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains to athletes may help maintain overall health, enhance immunity, improve gut barrier strength, and lower oxidative stress.

Athletes and coaches need to consider the extent to which there is a translational outcome or an important clinical benefit.

Of course, more research will help us better understand the bacterial strains, their mechanisms, and best practices for probiotic supplementation, especially in relation to the specific health benefit desired (e.g., lowering URTIs, preventing GI complications, etc.). But right now, incorporating a probiotic supplement with current evidence-backed strains and at an efficacious dose is the best guideline we have for using a nutritional strategy to potentially correct certain immune and GI problems, and potentially lower risk for certain diseases.

Bottom Line: Everyone can benefit from the right probiotic supplement to enhance gut health.

Should We Supplement with Probiotics?

Let’s discuss whether we should incorporate a probiotic supplement by using the Guru Performance Institute’s food-first approach in its Position Stand on Practical Considerations for Supplement Use in Sport.

Balanced Diet. A balanced diet should be the foundation of an athlete’s diet, but that’s not always the case. It’s difficult to achieve a balanced diet given the prevalence of the WD, and athletes’ diets are typically nutrient-poor and energy-dense. In some athletes, diets are nutrient-poor combined with energy-poor.

Sports Nutrition. Nutrition for sport performance or exercise needs to focus on more than just immediate performance. There are many touted “food is fuel” nutritional strategies. At the basic level, fueling for acute performance—which is typically the athlete’s main dietary pattern, as nutrition periodization tailored to training periodization is only gradually gaining traction—can potentially damage the gut.

Then, there’s fueling at the professional/elite/Olympic level. While we don’t know everything that happens behind closed doors, we’ve seen the prescribed meal plans of many professional athletes on paper. These meal plans are the “what” and “how.”

An athlete may not always follow that written prescribed diet from the sports nutritionist, and diet can change the gut environment within just a few days. The gut microbiota composition is shaky if an athlete only follows the prescribed meal plan a few days per week.

On top of that, how many of these meal plans (or buffet line management) are strategically designed to optimize the athlete’s gut health? In other words, look at the meal plans or buffet options and identify which dietary pattern is most obvious and which food components and probiotic-rich foods they include.

For sports nutritionists against probiotic supplementation, are you adding probiotic-rich foods/beverages to the athlete’s meal plan or incorporating them at the training tables or buffet options? The message and practice don’t always align.

 

I’ll admit, it’s a challenge to design a meal plan or diet that increases the number of microbiota, and have it followed daily. Even if the meal plan is part of a gut-enhancing diet, there are still a few barriers to gut health optimization.

1. Consumer (athlete) choice is a major factor:
   • Athletes don’t have to eat what they’re given or told to eat (e.g., “big boy” rules).
   • Athletes don’t have to follow nutritional guidelines.
2. In reality, these meal plans:
   • Do not necessarily reflect the athlete’s “why”—why should they follow this nutritional guidance.
   • May just look great on paper. We don’t know if words on paper translate to behavior, especially sustained behavior, which goes back to the “why.”

This is where the attitude of the athlete toward performance, overall health, and longevity dictates the effectiveness of nutrition. This is where we need to tackle their “why” and make sure it’s a shared fundamental belief with gut health.

Identification of the Need to Supplement. When implemented correctly, a supplement can help improve health, recovery, and performance.

Is there a genuine need to supplement? For gut health, the answer is “yes.” After a holistic review of the athlete’s diet, probiotic supplementation is usually warranted.

Probiotics are typically consumed from fermented milk products (e.g., yogurt), kefir, sauerkraut, etc. The main probiotic bacteria in dairy products include L. acidophilus, L. casei, and Bifidobacteria.

Eating probiotic-rich foods alone doesn’t hold a candle to supplementing with the right probiotic. In fact, probiotics from food are a perfect example of how a “balanced” diet may not work if you want to take full advantage of probiotics.

Practically speaking, some foods can be consumed every day (e.g., eggs, nuts, energy bars, etc.), but probiotic-rich foods (e.g., yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, etc.)—likely, not so much. And that’s okay. After all, you’d have to have 2-25 servings of yogurts per day to maintain good gut health, and that’s probably not practical.

Consuming a small dose of probiotics—which may not be a realistic daily habit—doesn’t even make a dent in your daily overall need AND the needs for the rest of your life. The dose of probiotics needed is not easily obtainable through diet. The therapeutic benefits of probiotics are strain-specific and the dose is critical for efficacy.

A recent study investigating the Canadian food supply found that the probiotic dosages in most food products are too low to provide the health benefits found in clinical trials. For example, Danone’s DanActive has the strain Lactobacillus casei DN 114-001—shown to decrease the risk and duration of certain conditions, such as URTIs, sore throats, and influenza in adults, children, and the elderly. However, the probiotic dosage used in the studies was three times higher than that in one serving of DanActive.

It was also reported that nine brands provided the species name but did not identify the strain, so it was difficult to tell their product’s specific probiotic health benefits. Most of the products had one or two strains.

 

Kefir (a fermented milk with probiotics added) products provided the most strain and species diversity and the highest dosage (45 billion CFUs per serving). Yet, there was still variability in dose and diversity among the kefir products.

Key points from the study:

• To get the health benefits found in the studies, you would need to eat between two and 25 servings of “probiotic” products per day.
• Most products provide one billion CFUs of probiotics because this is the minimum amount required in Canada to provide “core” benefits. This allows for a company to claim their product “promotes a healthy gut flora.”
• Most products provided one or two strains. Yet, the science shows that multi-strain formulas may be more effective than single strains because different probiotics can work synergistically with their health effects.²² For example, L. acidophilus combined with Bifidobacterium lactis has shown to lower the risk of fever, coughing, and rhinorrhea.
• Currently, there’s no consensus on what strain, dose, or product is the best.

Therefore, only following a food-first approach with probiotics will most likely lead to a suboptimal intake.

Given that many athletes do not adhere to a balanced diet or individualized sports nutritional advice, supplementation is warranted. Yet, is a probiotic supplement really a supplement? Probiotics can be considered a “food,” as they are a nutritious substance that we eat or drink to maintain life and growth. Probiotics can also be considered a “functional food” because they constitute a food with an additional function—to promote health and prevent disease. So, what’s the difference if probiotics are in a yogurt, a drink, or a pill?

Just following a food-first approach with probiotics will most likely lead to a suboptimal intake. Share on X

Granted, a single supplement isn’t a cure-all, but given that few probiotic-rich foods get consumed daily, probiotic supplementation is a safe health insurance policy.

Sound Probiotics: Engineered for the Competitive Athlete, but Beneficial for Everyone

The investment in making the athlete’s best interest our best interest led to us using sports nutrition to not just optimize performance, but to protect the athlete’s health in the future.

Unavoidable hard training and daily stressors, and a typically nutrient-poor, energy-dense dietary pattern predisposes athletes to a poor gut microbiota profile and many GI complications that lead to inflammation and potential long-term health consequences. How do we translate what we know about probiotics into a solution for athletes?

 

We focus on immunonutrition support to build a strong core of gut microbiota that strengthens the athlete’s gut wall lining and serves as a shield to protect against both the stressors the athletes face daily and aging. To accomplish this, the athlete’s diet needs to include probiotics. Sound Probiotics’ supplement is our nutritional weapon to optimize athletes’ power. It features eight probiotic strains, has 25 billion CFUs per capsule, and includes the prebiotic beta-glucan for synergistic effect.

There is no harm in choosing the right probiotic supplement even if mechanisms of various probiotic health benefits are not currently fully understood. Practically speaking, it makes sense to supplement with probiotics—whether it helps or simply has a neutral effect.

For athletes who need a “why”: Consider the value (investment) in adding a cost-effective, research-supported supplement created for you: to support your training demands, performance, overall health, and longevity.

Practical Advice

• Probiotic supplementation should begin at least two weeks before international travel, a major training cycle, or a competition so that there’s enough time for the bacterial species to colonize in the gut.
• Athletes and coaches should monitor tolerance and any side effects. Stomach rumbling and increased gas are typical experiences during the first few days because of the increased activity occurring in the gut.
• Athletes should take the probiotic supplement with food at the same time each day (e.g., breakfast).
• To measure gut health, start by looking at your diet, training load, prevalence of illness, mood, and fatigue.

Winning at Sport and Life Takes Guts

Gut microbiota is one of the fastest moving areas of research. Maybe one day we’ll even see personalized probiotics. The data is still being collected on all parts of health and respective mechanisms to determine how probiotics work, but there is enough data to support saying: Take a probiotic daily to get the extra edge in performance and health.

Of course, everyone should follow a gut-health friendly diet and eat probiotic-rich foods. But if you want to help athletes, use functional nutrition now by adding a probiotic supplement like Sound Probiotics to enhance health and performance so that athletes need less traditional medicine in the future.

The potential is so high you should start the habit today. In the end, you’ll win at both athletic and human performance.

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

 

References

1. Lozupone CA, Stombaugh JI, Gordon JI, Jansson JK, Knight R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature. 2012;489(7415):220-230.
2. Petersen C, Round JL. Defining dysbiosis and its influence on host immunity and disease. Cell Microbiol. 2014;16(7):1024-1033.
3. Zhang C, Zhang M, Wang S, et al. Interactions between gut microbiota, host genetics and diet relevant to development of metabolic syndromes in mice. ISME J. 2010;4:232–41.
4. Greer JB, O’Keefe, SJ. Microbial induction of immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Front. Physiol. 2011;1:168.
5. Wu SV, Hui H. Treat your bug right. Front. Physiol. 2011;2:9.
6. Shanahan F, van Sinderen D, O’Toole PW, Stanton C. Feeding the microbiota: transducer of nutrient signals for the host. Gut. 2017;June29 pii:313872.
7. Berger K, Falck P, Linninge C, Nilsson U, Axling U, Grey C, et al. Cereal byproducts have prebiotic potential in mice fed a high-fat diet. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014;62:8169–8178.
8. Konig D, Berg A, Weinstock C, et al. Essential fatty acids, immune function, and exercise. Exerc Immunol Rev. 1997;3:1–31.
9. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505:559–63.
10. De Filippo C, Cavalieri D, Di Paola M, et al. Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from europe and rural africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:14691–6.
11. Vendrame S, Guglielmetti S, Riso P, Arioli S, Klimis-Zacas D, Porrini M. Six-week consumption of a wild blueberry powder drink increases bifidobacteria in the human gut. J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59:12815-20.
12. Zumaquero JM, Clemente-Postigo M, Estruch R, et al. Influence of red wine polyphenols and ethanol on the gut microbiota ecology and biochemical biomarkers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95:1323-34.
13. Pyne DB, West NP, Cox AJ, Cripps AW. Probiotics supplementation for athletes – clinical and physiological effects. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(1):63-72.
14. Fricker PA, Gleeson M, Flanagan A, Pyne DB, McDonald WA, Clancy RL. A clinical snapshot: do elite swimmers experience more upper respiratory illness than nonathletes? Clin Exerc Physiol. 2000; 2: 155–158.
15. Nieman DC, Hanson DA, Dumke CL, Lind RH, Schooter LR, Gross SJ. Relationships between salivary IgA secretion and upper respiratory tract infection following a 160-km race. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2006; 46: 158–162.
16. Gleeson M, McDonald WA, Cripps AW, Pyne DB, Clancy RL, Fricker PA et al. The effect on immunity of long-term intensive training in elite swimmers. Clin Exp Immunol. 1995;102:210–216.
17. Nieman DC, Hanson DA, Dumke CL, Lind RH, Schooter LR, Gross SJ. Relationships between salivary IgA secretion and upper respiratory tract infection following a 160-km race. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2006;46:158–162.
18. Putlur P, Foster C, Miskowski JA, Kane MK, Burton SE, Scheett TP et al. Alteration of immune function in women collegiate soccer players and college students. J Sports Sci Med. 2004;3:234–244.
19. Gleeson M, McDonald WA, Cripps AW, Pyne DB, Clancy RL, Fricker PA et al. The effect on immunity of long-term intensive training in elite swimmers. Clin Exp Immunol. 1995;102:210–216.
20. Gleeson M, Pyne DB. Exercise effects on mucosal immunity. Immunol Cell Biol. 2000;78:536–544.
21. Mazidi M, Rezaie P, Kengne AP, Mobarhan MG, Ferns GA. Gut microbiome and metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Meta Syndr. 2016;10:S150–S157.
22. Sanders ME. Summary of conclusions from a consensus panel of experts on health attributes of lactic cultures: Significance to fluid milk products containing cultures. J Dairy Sci 1993;76:1819–1828.