Blog

Optimal sport performance is the successful expression of ability, which consists of physical and psychological capacities. Each of these factors can be teachable (such as tactics), trainable (such as physiology), or uncontrolled (such as genetics). We all know that, to become successful, an athlete requires many ingredients (including luck), but there isn’t always a consensus as to what those characteristics are. Even if we have two athletes with an identical characteristic, such as the same training program, one may become a World Champion, while the other may fade into obscurity.

The ability to correctly identify talent at a young age is an attractive proposition, as it allows for the correct funneling of resources towards those athletes most likely to benefit, which in a sports performance world represents the biggest chance for a worthwhile return on investment. Similarly, the concept of talent identification allows for the “weeding out” of athletes who are unlikely to be successful, so that money, time, and resources are not wasted on them. In this article, I’ll discuss whether we can test for talent, and what lessons we can take from the research that has attempted to answer this question.

What Is Talent?

Talent is “a special ability that allows someone to reach excellence in some activity in a given domain.” Within the constraints of sport, a talented athlete is one with the ability to become elite, where the definition of elite depends on many factors. For a PE teacher at school, elite likely refers to being successful at a local level. At an athletics club, elite perhaps refers to success at a national level. And for a small group of athletes, elite means competing at the World Championships or Olympic Games.

Because the definition of elite can change from situation to situation, so too does the level of “special ability” required—It takes a different amount of talent to be successful at the Olympics than it does to be successful at a local athletics competition. In this article, I’ll typically be referring to elite athletes as those with the ability to compete at international championships.

It has been proposed that talent has five properties:

1. It is genetically based in origin, and so is at least partially innate.
2. There will be early indications of its effect, but these will improve with training.
3. Early indication of talent allows for a prediction of who will excel.
4. Only a small number of people have talent.
5. Talents are relatively domain-specific—i.e., someone isn’t globally talented.

The Factors That Impact Talent

The importance of talent within the pursuit of excellence has been the subject of several popular science books. Some authors believe that talent is irrelevant, or at least overrated, and that undertaking purposeful training for an arbitrary amount of time (say, 10,000 hours) can lead to elite status in whatever domain you wish. Let’s call this the “Bounce” rule, after Matthew Syed’s book on this subject, Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice. (The book has more nuances than this. It’s an oversimplification on my part, and I could have chosen a number of other books that have taken this standpoint).

On the other hand, we have far fewer books that detail the innate aspect of talent; the standout for this is The Sports Gene by David Epstein. There are often debates about which is more important, which we can sum up as “The Sports Gene” vs. “Bounce.” It’s easy to take one side or the other, but as we will see, talent is complex and subject to influences from both spheres.

Age

Many different factors impact sporting talent. Some of these are well outside of the athlete’s control, while the athlete and coach directly influence others. One of these uncontrollable factors is birthdate. This refers to something called the relative age effect (RAE), which underlies the fact that there is an over-representation of individuals born at the start of the academic year within groups of elite athletes. In the UK, this would mean that elite sports people are more likely born in September than in August.

This effect is more prevalent at younger ages, and more so in some sports than others. If we look at athletics, it is perhaps obvious how this can take effect. In the UK, athletics age groups at all levels up to and including under-17 correspond to school years. For example, u-17 athletes for the athletics season in 2017 have birthdates between September 2000 and August 2002. Because each age group spans two years, you get “top-year” u-17s (born September 2000 to August 2001), and “bottom-year” u-17s (born September 2001 to August 2002). For a competition at the end of July, those top year u-17s born in September will be almost 17, while those born in August won’t yet be 16.

Given that maturation plays a big role in athletic achievement in junior athletes, it’s hardly surprising that those who are older than their peers will be successful. The RAE is likely a bigger factor at youth level than at senior level, where the developmental advantages are lost as the younger athletes catch up. What this illustrates, however, is the importance of maturation-matched competitions, to ensure that the older athletes don’t dominate, and that younger athletes don’t drop from the sport due to loss of enjoyment and motivation.

Genetics

Another factor the athlete has no control over is genetics. We know that genes play a role in the development of elite athletes. At the last count, over 155 genes were linked to being an elite athlete. However, what is interesting is that elite athletes appear not to have all of them, even when just looking at an unrealistically low number of them. It’s clear that individual genes tend not to discriminate between elite athletes and non-elites.

For example, one gene that gets a lot of attention is ACTN3, known as the “speed gene.” Almost all Olympic sprinters have at least one R version of this gene, which makes it seem as if having this version is crucial if you want to be a sprinter. However, there are reports of elite power athletes being successful despite not having an R version of this gene. Add to this the fact that over 80% of the world’s population has at least one R version of this gene, and fewer than 0.0001% are elite sprinters, and it’s clear that it has no predictive ability.

I’ve written about this previously, and at the end of 2015 a number of leading researchers in this field published a consensus statement regarding their belief that genetic testing had no predictive ability for talent. However, the future of this field could possibly head in this direction. It’s likely that there are perhaps 1,000 gene variants strongly associated with being an elite athlete. What we might find is that, on average, elite athletes have around 700 of them—but not always the same 700. As such, there becomes a threshold above which your chances of being an elite athlete are higher; still, there will be no guarantees that if you have these 700 variants you will be an elite athlete, and if you don’t have them you could still be elite.

Of potential interest is the ability to screen for genetic variants linked to injury, which could help keep talented youngsters injury-free. In addition, gene variants can increase susceptibility to serious conditions such as repeated concussion, as well as alter the recovery from such trauma. At present, this is an ethical minefield, but over time evidence-based guidelines should be produced. Finally, epigenetic modifications can alter gene expression, and almost certainly play a role in exercise adaptation. The only problem is that they’re currently hard to test for, and it’s not entirely clear how they affect training response.

A very common and low-cost test for talent is anthropometrics. For example, if you know that almost all basketball centers are well over 2 meters in height, you’re unlikely to focus on someone who is much shorter than that. Soccer clubs in the UK often use various anthropometrics in order to predict a child’s adult height—e.g., the Khamis-Roche method— which they sometimes use to discard youth players. For example, if you want a goalkeeper who is over 1.9m in height, and your u-13 keeper is only predicted to be 1.6m, then you might release him.

In open sports such as soccer, this is potentially dangerous: Iker Casillas, the former Spain goalie, is “only” 1.85m in height. Leo Messi, possibly the best footballer ever, is a “short” 1.7m tall. I wonder how many clubs would have released these players due to the shortsightedness of relying heavily on height prediction? So, while anthropometric data might be useful, changes that happen during puberty and through maturation can alter the results. Because these processes happen at different times with different individuals, there is no optimal time to collect data.

Some psychological factors and personality traits also correspond to elite performance. The ability to perform well under pressure is crucial for elite athletes, and so discovering whether an individual has this trait is no doubt useful. However, the ability to perform under pressure is trainable, and so identifying athletes who are naturally able to do this might not be all that useful. Alongside this, how the athlete motivates themselves can also be an important difference between elite and non-elite athletes, so in theory being able to measure and test this may be of use.

Birthplace

Another factor the athlete can’t control when it comes to talent is that of birthplace. Research from the UK suggests that slightly smaller settlements are more advantageous than large cities. Athletes in the World Class Program were twice as likely to have been born in a medium-sized town (50,000–100,000 residents), over 10 times more likely to have attended a primary school, and three times more likely to have attended a secondary school in very small villages (fewer than 2,000 residents). This is perhaps unexpected.

It’s important to note that birthplace is likely a proxy measure for development place; most people grow up in the area they are born in. This may suggest that it’s better to be a big fish in a small pond when it comes to development, although there are many exceptions. Added to this is that smaller towns and villages are perhaps less likely to have the requisite facilities for developing sports people, and we have the potential that this finding is a statistical anomaly.

Indeed, the city I mostly grew up in (but wasn’t born in) has had at least one track and field Olympian for Great Britain at the last five Olympics, including one who won. This city has a population of well over 200,000, and the schools that all of these Olympians went to were either in the city itself, or in surrounding towns with larger populations (in my case, a town with a population of 12,000). In our cases, the birthplace effect didn’t hold true.

Testing Flaws: Specificity and Sensitivity

I’ve introduced a few factors thought to impact the development of talent, and in many cases, used to identify talented individuals for targeted training aimed at developing champions. In all cases, I’ve also shown how the tests themselves, while potentially useful, don’t necessarily predict talent, as there are many cases of a successful athlete not meeting the criteria.

This brings us nicely to the issue of specificity vs. sensitivity. Sensitivity refers to the ability of a test to correctly identify the variable of interest. For talent identification purposes, this would mean that a sensitive test would identify all future elite athletes. Specificity refers to the ability of a test to correctly identify negative findings. In talent ID, a specific test wouldn’t falsely identify someone without elite potential as a future athlete.

And herein lies the problem; none of the tests of talent have the required specificity and sensitivity to allow us to be certain. Every time a test is used, a potential elite athlete won’t make the grade (false negative), and many people who won’t go on to be elite athletes will pass the test (false positive). On a population level, this arguably doesn’t matter. In athletics, you only need one athlete per event to be successful, so if you lose 99 others through incorrect identification perhaps it doesn’t matter. But how do you know that one of those 99 discarded individuals couldn’t have been better than the individual you took forward?

Talent Identification: An Alluring Idea That’s Impossible to Execute

So, what is the answer? First, if you want to test for talent, you probably want to utilize several tests, and view the results as a whole. Some of these tests should be specific to the sport, and perhaps hold more weight than others. I once went to talent testing day for athletics when I was 15, where I was in the lowest 50% in terms of score on just about every test (e.g., standing long jump, vertical jump, flexibility), but the fastest in the sprint tests. It just so happened that three months prior, I had won the national under-15 title in the second fastest time ever for a 14-year-old in the UK, so arguably such a test wasn’t necessary in my case.

However, there are many athletes who develop much later. Great Britain hasn’t had many sub-10-second 100m sprinters, and James Dasaolu and Joel Fearon didn’t break 10.2 until they were 22 and 25 respectively; relying solely on junior performance in these cases would have been misleading. If you do test for talent, repeat the tests at different time periods to correct for differences in maturation and development.

Instead, perhaps we can use the information gleaned from tests to nurture natural talent. If an athlete is born later in the age group, allow them to compete in developmentally matched competitions. This doesn’t happen so much in athletics, but is big in the UK for soccer, where athletes are bio-banded in order to compete against similarly developed peers. The same is true for genetics; while there is so much more to learn, early research suggests that we might be able to tailor training programs to a person’s DNA, although genetic testing under-18s is an ethically grey area.

Genetic variation means some people need less practice to reach the elite level than others, and some lack the genetic ability to ever be elite, regardless of the amount of training they do.

There are many other aspects that seem related to the development of talent in athletes. This includes taking part in a wide range of sports and late specialization, thought to develop essential movement skills and robustness. Deliberate practice is another one; while the evidence is now clear that deliberate practice training time doesn’t really differentiate between elite and non-elite athletes in terms of predicting success, it is still true that to be elite, you must do the right training. The modern twist on this is that genetic variation means some people need less practice to reach the elite level than others, and some lack the genetic ability to ever be elite, regardless of the amount of training they do. It is also important not to neglect the psychological development of athletes, and you should take care to ensure they develop the mental traits associated with elite performance.

Summing up, while the idea of talent identification is an alluring one, there are many practical stumbling blocks to its execution. Alongside this, the use of a variety of tests traditionally thought of as a talent screen may be better utilized to personalize training and individualize the development process for athletes in their journey from promising youngster to elite athlete. Inherent within this journey are a number of intangibles—factors that increase the chance of being an elite athlete, but either aren’t known or can’t be measured—along with a huge helping of luck. The worst thing a coach could do is incorrectly discard an athlete because they score poorly on a single test of “talent.”

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

Unilateral lower limb exercises are currently a staple of just about every strength and conditioning program in some form or another. I have found, however, that bilateral hand-supported movements allow athletes to express intent and force development not attainable with heavy standard unilateral work. And this leads to enhanced adaptations and ultimately maximized performance. In this article, I explain why I’m a fan of the hand-supported split squat (HSSS) and will share how to coach and program this exercise correctly.

The Limitations of the Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat

The rear foot elevated split squat (RFESS), or Bulgarian split squat, is often prescribed to improve lower limb strength. Looking at the RFESS, any coach or athlete who has tried to load it significantly becomes immediately aware of its shortcomings. When the RFESS gets near loads similar to those we find in front or back squats, it’s an ordeal just to find a position.

It’s also difficult to stay stable in the position due to a mixture of instability from axial loading, a narrow support base, dumbbell movement, or even the athlete’s choice of footwear that day. Not to mention heart stopping moments when athletes readjust their rear foot position.

I’ve seen some coaches attempt to remedy these weaknesses by performing trap bar variants off the floor in a split or rear foot elevated position. This also can be problematic as lumbar overextension, grip strength, and unwieldiness become issues at high loads. Athlete safety is paramount as is their confidence under load. A moment of doubt can ruin a set as an athlete struggles to retain stability. Coaches still find they get more from bilateral work from the perspective of loading, safety, and intensity.

Fans of unilateral lower limb movements cite stability training as a reason for implementation. I find, however, most athletes learn to stabilize against light load pretty quickly. Stability is fine if the aim of training is to enhance that quality. We are strength and conditioning coaches, however, not stability and conditioning coaches.

To quote Carl Valle:

“Asymmetrical forces recruit areas that help stabilize the joints instead of helping create propulsive forces. Increasing the stability of joints is a great thing, but if the joint needs to have propulsive forces at specific time frames, stability is not what is needed. Stability is reducing unwanted motion, not providing the motion the athlete needs.”

Single leg exercises often suffer as a result of the sheer energetic cost of getting set and staying stable. The emphasis often moves away from quality movement to a gassy lactic grind. So we wind up stuck in an intensity vs. stability trap. We need to intensify movement to yield improvement yet are limited by the ability to stabilize movement under intensive loads. So we move back to the bilateral safety blanket we know and love.

Unilateral lower body work does present an opportunity to train a gross movement quality that applies well to sports with gross physical qualities. These limitations on loading exercises mean we aren’t extracting the potential of any movement. Put simply, the RFESS just can’t be loaded heavily enough to get the most out of unilateral potential.

I’ve had athletes who can perform split squats and RFESS with loads comparable to their front squat, but even they understand the rigorous stabilization effort steals from the movement’s intent and intensity. The question becomes: How we can load unilateral work to allow for greater loading, safety, and intensity? The well of unilateral work is potentially very deep, and we aren’t going far enough.

How Fred Hatfield and Cal Dietz Fathered the Hand-Supported Split Squat

The HSSS is a remedy to a number of the issues addressed above. Its origin, however, is from hand-supported squatting. The hand-supported safety bar squat from which it’s derived is not a new movement by any means. Fred Hatfield originally popularised it, and the eponymous Hatfield squat has appeared in a few circles, including body building. Hatfield justified the use of the movement in his classic article “I May Not Know Diddley…But I know Squat”:

“This problem is solved by use of the hands in the safety squat bar. When the ‘sticking point’ is reached, the hands can be used to help you through it. This unique feature allows you to work with heavier weights in the ranges of movement where you are strongest and gives you help when you are weakest. You are exerting closer to your maximum effort through the entire range of motion.”

His last point, the crucial closer to maximum effort, is what we strive for to derive training effect. Hatfield liked to use the movement to add volume at intensities higher than that attainable with conventional barbell squats. Hatfield also preferred the weight distribution the safety bar offered.

“Conventional squatting places the weight behind you, fully four inches behind your body’s midline. That caused you to lean or bend forward for balance. With the safety squat bar, the weight is distributed directly in line with your body’s midline, and eliminates the need to lean forward.”

In some far flung corners of Instagram, you can find powerlifters and strongmen still using the safety squat bar to overload the squat pattern.

It’s my understanding that it was Cal Dietz who took the Hatfield squat and started applying it to a split squat and has done so for a number of years, particularly with hockey players. Thus the HSSS was born. Cal is well known for his triphasic method which places special emphasis on eccentric and isometric components of movement. The HSSS lends itself well to supramaximal methods that present the greatest opportunity for overload.

The movement is certainly eyebrow raising as it is not conventional in a powerlifting or Olympic lifting sense. But the point here is “stress” not strength.

How to Perform the Hand-Supported Split Squat

The movement requires the use of a safety squat bar, which is a padded bar with handles and camber. If you don’t have one, they’re pretty inexpensive and have several applications other than the HSSS. Popularised by injured powerlifters and football players, this bar is often used by athletes with shoulder injuries. More often than not, however, it gathers dust in the corner of a weight room.

The bar’s shape effectively drapes over the shoulder, leaving the hands free to clasp the handles on the bar. The bar position is stable enough to perform the movement hands-free. By freeing the hands, we can use them for support. Traditionally, Hatfield suggested holding the rack but rapidly moved to handles.

I suggest one of two set-ups. When using a second bar below the safety bar for the athlete to hold onto, it’s important for the athlete to push the bar back into the rack or down into the J-hooks to ensure the bar doesn’t shift. Preferable to this is the use of custom hand holds, or in the case of my set-up, repurposing detachable weight storage pins as handles.

The athlete holds the bar and the handles for the entire execution of the movement. Preferably, the athlete places the foot to achieve a roughly 90-90 position with both knees at the bottom of the movement. The athlete then drives off their lead leg as hard as possible. A stance that is too narrow takes away the base of support. If it’s too wide, often the athlete has excessive lumbar extension.

I suggest using warm-up sets to find the preferable foot placement (“finding your feet”) because doing so under high loads is potentially risky. When using the handles, the athlete wants to focus on staying tall to reduce axial stress. The athlete also wants to avoid touching the floor with the knee because this can deload the movement slightly and then displaces the hip position when attempting to drive back up.

Video 1. This video shows a hand-supported split squat with 180kg while using a safety squat bar and mounted handles.

The athlete uses the arms to assist during the concentric portion of the movement, especially if the intent is to overload the eccentric or isometric components. Increased support and the use of the arms allows for more weight than a barbell split squat would allow, applying more stress to the entire body.

The hands-assisted aspect also better supports, and takes pressure off, the back. The back is usually the weak link in squatting exercises and is one of the main rationales behind using RFESS. How much hand assistance an athlete uses will be determined by the coach and athlete depending on the training goal.

The use of the arms, along with the increased load, stresses the core to an even greater extent than a barbell split squat. This effectively turns the movement into a full body unilateral exercise. After the first workout, I’ve had a few athletes complain of sore lats the next day. However, their main complaint is sore quads and glutes since the heavy unilateral loading induces so much greater stress than conventional unilateral work.

One could also argue that we could elevate the rear leg much like RFESS, but with very heavy loading it becomes important to make sure the back leg does not extend too much. If the leg becomes too extended, the athlete’s hips will begin pulling out of position, causing potential unnecessary stress. Cal suggests that to protect the hips, we should use the split position rather than elevating the rear foot on a bench. I’ve occasionally used RFESS position with lighter loads and high-velocity movements, especially when implementing timed sets or local lactate work.

When loads exceed the athlete’s squat 1RM, I suggest using spotters at the end of the bar. Spotters are a must during supramaximal work to assist the athlete on the way up. Even with spotters, the athlete must focus on pushing as hard as possible on the way up. This set-up also allows athletes to perform tempo based lifting alone rather than depending on a spotter–I suggest this for only those who are competent with the movement.

Practical Application and Programming the Hand-Supported Split Squat

It makes sense that high-stress movements like HSSS take early precedence in any training session. We will often contrast this movement with single leg jumps, plyometrics, and bounds or apply French contrast. I suggest a low-volume high-intensity approach in its application.
My implementation of the movement borrows heavily from Cal’s triphasic method. We follow an eccentric, isometric, and concentric sequence over several blocks. This means using 80%+ or even supramaximal loading. I have, however, made extensive use of the movement with standard concentric sequencing and the addition of accommodating resistance. We apply 80%+ loading to HSSS on the first day then integrate bilateral exercises on alternate days into a weekly training routine.
Programs I’ve used with athletes are listed below.

I avoid programming multiple days in a row with HSSS to due to the movement’s stressful nature. Repeated heavy unilateral days, especially with the greater loading HSSS offers, seems to be very demanding on trunk musculature. To get around this, I integrate a bilateral day using conventional loading between split squat days to help cover the unilateral and bilateral bases. I like to think of HSSS as offering tissue adaptations and bilateral work as covering neurological ones.

During off-season training, I prefer a 3-day sequence if possible to get most out of the movement. Soreness for the unwary can be profound, so I suggest minimizing applying this type of work with tactical and technical work. This is why I often apply a two-day model to Mixed Martial Arts fighters who have high tactical and technical loads year round but who can still derive benefit from the intensity this training brings. Using supramaximal loading does lead to a compressed training effect, so such blocks are typically short, usually four weeks. Athletes with longer off-season stints can run longer cycles of this movement.

Before You Start Using the Exercise in Training

Like many others, I initially grabbed onto the rationale of unilateral work, particularly the RFESS, which seems very appealing. But I found myself going back to bilateral exercises because unilateral benefits didn’t manifest, primarily due to loading and stability issues.

I find this movement allows athletes to express intent and force development not attainable with heavy standard unilateral work. Conventional single leg work comes with inhibitory deceleration due to the expectation of potential instability with high loads that could be potentially disastrous. Athletes are smart, and they will develop compensations in movements to mitigate risk. HSSS allows maximum intent due to mitigation of instability.

The strength coach’s main job is to apply stress at the right moments using the right movements. Some movements are derived from happy accidents, agreed contested exercises, necessity, and some come from the process through which we try and solve problems in the gym. HSSS does turn heads due to its unconventional set-up. Some of my athletes jokingly refer to it as “cheat squat”–understandable given the assist from the upper body.

The key point is that the hand-assisted safety bar split squat leads to maximized stress placed on the body during training, which leads to enhanced adaptations, and ultimately maximized 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

If you’re in this industry and you haven’t been living under a rock, you’re aware of the emerging popularity of velocity-based training (VBT). Velocity-based training is not new, and some of the best texts I’ve read on the subject are Fundamentals of Special Strength Training by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Training of a Weightlifter by R.A. Roman. Louie Simmons brought the Tendo to America’s attention, and more recently, Dr. Bryan Mann helped to further attention and knowledge on VBT with his excellent work. (There are many other pioneers, including Carmelo Bosco. The point is that VBT is not new).

With the influx of VBT tools and educational material available, many coaches are realizing the many benefits of training in submax special strength zones to increase high velocity strength and further aid athletic development. Gone are the days when absolute strength was the end-all be-all of training in most coach’s minds, which is a good thing.

Universal Principles of Strength Development

Before we start, there are two points I would like to make regarding VBT:

1. Strength is not overrated. I’ve heard a few coaches say that it is, and I don’t like it. I think it’s great that a lot more coaches understand the need for training more specific to the velocities attained in sports, but let’s not get carried away. Strength, or more specifically peak force, is still an extremely valuable quality for many athletes to train. The key is to figure out who needs more force, or who is better off working at higher velocities.However, if we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we will do a disservice to our athletes. Younger or weaker athletes still need to improve their force capabilities, while athletes who have strength trained for years might not need to improve their force capabilities and might be better off training at higher velocities. Like all else, we need to consider the context and provide the right stimulus for each individual athlete, which is beyond the scope of this article.
2. Velocity-based training is not a method of improving dynamic strength at higher velocities. Sure, the use of VBT devices correlates with an increase in coaches implementing higher velocity strength work, but not all VBT is high velocity. Instead, velocity-based training is simply an objective method of evaluating intensity of a given movement. That’s all it is.

Due to the linear nature of the force-velocity relationship, we can objectively quantify the intensity of any given exercise using velocity rather than % of 1RM. Just as percentages are a method of quantifying exercise intensity and you can program strength, hypertrophy, and dynamic effort work using percentages, you can do the same with velocity. The belief that VBT is only useful for dynamic effort work shows a misunderstanding of what VBT really is.

I make this point because there are some coaches out there who believe you should only use VBT for higher velocity training. I’ve even surprised some coaches when I used VBT for my athlete’s strength work or for my own higher rep training. VBT is very much an objective method of quantifying intensity, just like percentage- based training, but with the benefits of autoregulation.

There is research by Mladen Jovanovic and Eamon Flannagan that suggests that 1RM strength can vary by 18% in either direction on any given day.¹ This means that the prescribed percentages can be wildly inappropriate in either direction. Let’s say an athlete’s 1RM is 300 lbs. On a great day, it could be as much as 354 lbs. and on a bad day it could be as low as 246 lbs. If the program called for 5 x 5 @ 80%, let’s see how it could fluctuate:

Scenario A (Normal Day, 300 lbs., 1RM)
5 x 5 @ 80%, which is 240 lbs.

This is an ideal scenario. The athlete is prepared to train today, and the prescription is an appropriate challenge.

Scenario B (Excellent Readiness, 354 lbs., 1RM)
5 x 5 @ 240
80% of 354 = 283
240 = 67%

This is not an ideal scenario, but is not the worst scenario either. The 80% is actually more like 67% 1RM for the day. If we stick to the prescribed program, this will be a very easy workout and may not result in the adaptation we want. This is also an example of what can happen if an athlete gets stronger over a longer program and the coach continues to use the original 1RM for percentage-based prescription.

Scenario C (Poor Readiness, 246 lbs.)
5 x 5 @ 240
80% of 240 = 192
240 = 98%

This is probably the worst-case scenario. The prescribed 80% is actually closer to 98%, which will make this workout impossible. If the athlete can somehow complete it, it may result in injury or overtraining.

This is where VBT comes in.

There are numerous options and methods for implementing VBT for strength. I will list a few here, but this barely scratches the surface. These are just some of the options I have used.

Option A: Switch Traditional Percentage to Velocity Equivalent

This option is the most basic method of using VBT for strength prescriptions, so it is where I tell coaches to start when they ask about using VBT for strength work. Instead of prescribing a percentage, prescribe a velocity that corresponds to that percentage. For example, 80% of 1RM will equate to .48 M/S in the bench press, on average. (Individuals will have slightly different corresponding velocities to percentages due to their unique force-velocity characteristics, so you should test and plot individual profiles to ensure accuracy. A little Excel knowledge goes a long way here.)

5 x 5 @ 80% turns into 5 x 5 @ .48 M/S

That’s it for VBT Option A. The only change that you need to make to start implementing VBT for strength work is turning the percentage into a corresponding velocity. This is a great place to start because it will account for the daily fluctuations in 1RM on any given day, while still being really easy to implement. If using the example above, that .48 M/S should automatically equate to 283 on the good day and 196 on the bad day.

Just work up as you normally would until you hit around .48 M/S and start your sets there. The .48 M/S is for the first rep in the set, not the average velocity of the set.

Option B: Implementing Velocity Stops

Now we start to get into it a little bit more. With this option, we start to add a range of velocities that we must stay between. By adding the second number, we now have a cutoff velocity, or a velocity stop. The goal is to stay above this cutoff velocity for the entirety of the set, and cut the set short when we go below it.

For example, it might look like this:

5 x 4 @ .48 M/S-.35 M/S

The second number should correlate to an RPE, or reps in reserve (RIR) number.

Now you might ask how you determine what velocity stops to use or, more specifically, how do you know which numbers correlate to RPE numbers. The easiest way to determine this for an athlete is to have them perform a reps-to-failure protocol in the specific exercise that you plan to program. You can use anything from 60-75% of 1RM. Simply have them perform a set to failure with the given load and monitor velocity for each rep. Figure 1 shows mine from bench:

You can see that my MVT was 0.18 M/S. I was alone, so I kept half a rep in the tank without a spotter. I’m usually around .12 for bench, but we’ll go from 0.18 here. Now we can use the corresponding velocities to RPEs for training prescriptions. If we want to have an 8RPE, the velocity stop will be 0.23 M/S, 0.27 M/S for a 7RPE, and so on.

To program this method, I first determine the set and rep scheme I want to perform. Then I determine at what intensity I want the athlete performing the work. Instead of writing an intensity in percentages, I find the corresponding velocity and list the velocity as the first number. Finally, I determine how many reps I would like in the tank and then find the corresponding cutoff velocity according to the chart listed above.

Note that the number of reps performed and the cutoff velocity will not always match up perfectly based on the readiness for the day. That’s fine. I don’t worry about going slightly under the cutoff velocity as it is a guide, but getting below cutoff velocity can be indicative of very poor readiness for the day. In this case, the coach should make some changes on the fly. If this happens often, consider the next option.

Option C: Undetermined Number of Reps

This option is very similar to Option B. The only difference here is that we don’t list a set number of reps to be performed. Instead, we use the initial velocity and cutoff velocity, and predetermined number of sets.

Example:

5 x ? @ .48 M/S-.35 M/S

The goal is to try to get as many reps in as possible before you hit the cutoff velocity. This can be a great way to control fatigue. There is research that anything above a 30% velocity loss begins to increase ammonia levels and correlated fatigue, so at certain times of the year, (peaking, tapering, in season) it may be wise to use this method with a velocity cutoff correlation of less that 30%.²

I’ll say that I have enjoyed using this method more with accumulation emphasis than in true strength phases. If we attempt to perform more reps in the range and/or progress by lowering the cutoff velocity, we can accumulate greater volumes each week through an accumulation cycle.

Option D: Velocity Stops as a Percentage of Initial Velocity

Everything about this method is the same, except for one factor. We use a set number of sets, an undetermined number of reps, and an initial set velocity, but we will not correlate the cutoff velocity with a RPE. Instead, we can use a percentage as our cutoff velocity. Here is an example of how to program it in a three-week block:

5 x ? @ .48, cutoff at 10% velocity loss
5 x ? @ .48, cutoff at 15% velocity loss
5 x ? at .48, cutoff at 20% velocity loss

We still use a number in M/S as a cutoff velocity number, we just use a percentage of the first rep to get there. I can set the Gymaware for a certain percent drop-off, and it will automatically spit out a number. Coaches can use this when they prefer adjusting by velocity loss, or when they do not have experience with correlating cutoff velocity to RPE. Option D is better when you have an exact RPE in mind, but if coaches want to go off velocity loss, then I would recommend this method.

Option E: Cutoff Velocity Percentage, Undetermined Number of Sets and Reps

Now we really start to use VBT to its fullest extent. All we know going into the session here is the initial velocity and cutoff velocity. Adjust the sets and reps based on performance. You can use RPE or percentage stops here. I will use % for this example.

Say we want to perform strength work in season. We stay below 20% drop-offs in velocity. We hit our initial rep at, let’s say, .5 M/S and then perform as many as possible until we drop below 20% of that, or .4 M/S. When we hit .4 M/S or below, we terminate the set. When the initial rep velocity of any given set falls below .4 M/S, we terminate the workout.

Wrapping Up the VBT Training Options

As mentioned, this is not an exhaustive list of VBT methods for monitoring strength work. These are just some of the methods I have used. It would be outside of the scope of this article to list all of the available methods. Some other options are: using a very low percentage drop for cluster sets, using an undetermined number of sets with various combination of the other factors, etc. As with anything, the possibilities can be endless if we have a grasp on the principles of velocity-based training.

There are pros and cons for each method of prescribing intensity for strength training. The decision of whether a coach uses velocity, intensity, or subjective RPE comes down to preference and logistics. However, VBT can be an excellent method to use when logistics allow for it. In my opinion, you get the auto-regulatory benefits of RPE without the flaws of subjective monitoring, and you get the objective prescription of percentages without feeling bound to what’s on the paper for the day.

As always, a coach should experiment by implementing these methods on themselves before programming for their athletes. Once a coach is familiar with some of these methods, they can be an excellent way of prescribing training load in an objective auto-regulatory fashion.

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. Jovanovic, M., & Flanagan, E. (2014). Researched Applications of Velocity Based Strength Training. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning.
2. Sanchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J.J. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 43: 1725–1734. 2011.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.